diff --git a/.coveragerc b/.coveragerc new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2cd80cf --- /dev/null +++ b/.coveragerc @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ +[report] +omit = + */site-packages/* + bin/* + develop-eggs/* + eggs/* diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore index 6d5f0f9..dba8451 100644 --- a/.gitignore +++ b/.gitignore @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ +utils.py *.DS_Store tika-app-1.7.jar research files/ @@ -5,3 +6,6 @@ research files/ *_new.txt config.py __pycache__ +test_docs/ +*.pyc +.coverage diff --git a/.travis.yml b/.travis.yml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a286d6b --- /dev/null +++ b/.travis.yml @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ +language: python +python: + - "3.4" +before_install: + sudo apt-get install poppler-utils +install: + - pip install nose + - pip install coveralls +script: + - nosetests --with-coverage +after_success: + - coveralls diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 290fae5..d998d2a 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -1,15 +1,30 @@ ### Document Processing Toolkit +[![Coverage Status](https://coveralls.io/repos/18F/doc_processing_toolkit/badge.png)](https://coveralls.io/r/18F/doc_processing_toolkit) + ##### About Python library to extract text from PDF, and default to OCR when text extraction fails. ##### Dependencies - [Apache Tika](http://tika.apache.org/) +- [Ghostscript](http://www.ghostscript.com/) - [Tesseract](https://code.google.com/p/tesseract-ocr/) -##### Running the script (currently) -1. Download tika-app-1.7.jar from [Apache Tika](http://tika.apache.org/) in the main dir. -2. `brew install ghostscripts` -3. `brew install tesseract` -4. Run using doc_process_toolkit.py +##### Installation +1. Download tika-app-1.7.jar from [Apache Tika](http://tika.apache.org/) +2. Mac: `brew install ghostscripts` Ubuntu: `sudo apt-get install ghostscript` +3. `brew install tesseract` Ubuntu: `sudo apt-get install tesseract-ocr` + +##### Usage +These script assume that Apache Tika server is running in text mode. +Start Tika Server +`java -jar tika-app-1.7.jar --server --text --port 9998` +In Python script +```python +import doc_process_toolkit +# To convert all pdfs +doc_process_toolkit.process_documents("<>") +# To convert only pdfs that don't have a text file +doc_process_toolkit.process_documents("<>", skip_finished=True) +``` diff --git a/config.py.example b/config.py.example deleted file mode 100644 index 76ac799..0000000 --- a/config.py.example +++ /dev/null @@ -1,4 +0,0 @@ -S3_ACCESS_KEY = -S3_SECRET_KEY = -BUCKET = -TIKA_PATH = diff --git a/doc_process_toolkit.py b/doc_process_toolkit.py index 7a28a3e..e2454c7 100644 --- a/doc_process_toolkit.py +++ b/doc_process_toolkit.py @@ -1,86 +1,49 @@ import glob -import time +import logging +import os import re import subprocess -import tinys3 -import config -WORDS = re.compile('[A-Za-z]{3,}') +""" +The functions below are minimal Python wrappers Ghostscript, Tika, and +Tesseract. They are intended to simplify converting pdf files into usable text. +""" +WORDS = re.compile('[A-Za-z]{3,}') -def check_server(port=9998): - """ Callback type function to let user know server status """ - pid = get_pid(port=port) - if pid: - print("Server running on port {0} with pid of {1}".format(port, pid)) - else: - print("Server not running on port {}".format(port)) +def get_doc_length(doc_text): + """ Return the length of a document and doc text """ + return len(tuple(WORDS.finditer(doc_text))) -def get_pid(port=9998): - """ Checks Tika server's PID """ - server_pid = subprocess.Popen( - args=['lsof -i :%s -t' % port], +def check_for_text(doc_path): + """ + Using `pdffonts` returns True if document has fonts, which in essence + means it has text + """ + pdffonts_output = subprocess.Popen( + ['pdffonts %s' % doc_path], + shell=True, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, - stderr=subprocess.STDOUT, - shell=True ) - return server_pid.communicate()[0] - - -def server_setup_timer(port=9998): - """ Checks for server to start with a loop """ - - for i in range(10): - time.sleep(1) - if get_pid(port): - print("Server Started !") - break - else: - print("Waited %s second(s)" % i) + if pdffonts_output.communicate()[0].decode("utf-8").count("\n") > 2: + return True -def stat_tika_server(port=9998): - """ Starts Tika server """ - - pid = get_pid(port) - if pid: - print("Process already running on port %s" % port) - return - subprocess.Popen( - args=['java -jar {0} --server --text --port {1}'.format( - config.TIKA_PATH, port)], - shell=True) - server_setup_timer(port) - - -def stop_tika_server(port=9998): - """ Kills Tika server """ - - pid = get_pid(port) - if pid: - subprocess.Popen( - args=['kill -9 %s' % pid], - stderr=subprocess.STDOUT, - shell=True) - else: - print("Server not running on port %s" % port) - - -def save_document(document, export_path): - """ saves the document, maybe add a pip instead of reading with python """ +def save_text(document, export_path=None): + """ Reads document text and saves it to specified export path """ with open(export_path, 'w') as f: - f.write(document.stdout.read()) + f.write(document) -def convert_img_to_text(img_path, export_path=None): - """ Converts image file to ORCed txt file using tesseract """ +def img_to_text(img_path, export_path=None): + """ Uses Tesseract OCR to convert tiff image to text file """ if not export_path: - export_path = img_path.replace(".tiff", "_new") + export_path = img_path.replace(".tiff", '') document = subprocess.Popen( args=['tesseract', img_path, export_path], @@ -88,11 +51,12 @@ def convert_img_to_text(img_path, export_path=None): stderr=subprocess.STDOUT ) document.communicate() - print("Document Converted: %s" % img_path) + logging.info("%s converted to text from image", img_path) + return export_path -def convert_to_img(doc_path, export_path=None): - """ Saves pdf file to tiff image before OCR """ +def pdf_to_img(doc_path, export_path=None): + """ Converts and saves pdf file to tiff image using Ghostscript""" if not export_path: export_path = doc_path.replace(".pdf", ".tiff") @@ -106,66 +70,49 @@ def convert_to_img(doc_path, export_path=None): stdout=subprocess.PIPE ) process.communicate() + logging.info("%s converted to tiff image", doc_path) return export_path -def convert_to_text(doc_paths, port=9998): - """ Converts a document """ - - if type(doc_paths) == list: +def pdf_to_text(doc_path, port=9998): + """ Converts a document to text using the Tika server """ - for doc_path in doc_paths: - document = subprocess.Popen( - args=['nc localhost {0} < {1}'.format(port, doc_path)], - stdout=subprocess.PIPE, - stderr=subprocess.STDOUT, - shell=True) - yield document, doc_path - - -def get_doc_length(document): - """ Return the length of a document -- note piping to wc might be faster""" - - return len(tuple(WORDS.finditer(document))) - - -def upload_to_s3(doc_path, conn): - """ Upload a single document to AWS S3""" - - with open(doc_path, 'rb') as doc: - conn.upload(doc_path, doc, config.BUCKET) - print("uploaded %s" % doc_path) + document = subprocess.Popen( + args=['nc localhost {0} < {1}'.format(port, doc_path)], + stdout=subprocess.PIPE, + stderr=subprocess.STDOUT, + shell=True) + logging.info("%s converted to text from pdf", doc_path) + return document -def start_connection(): - """ Starts tinys3 object to connect to S3 """ +def process_documents(glob_path, port=9998, skip_finished=False): + """ + Converts pdfs to text and uses OCR if the initial attempt fails + """ - return tinys3.Connection(config.S3_ACCESS_KEY, config.S3_SECRET_KEY) + for doc_path in glob.iglob(glob_path): + if os.path.exists(doc_path.replace('.pdf', '.txt')) and skip_finished: + logging.info("%s: has already been converted", doc_path) + else: + extraction_succeeded = None + # Check if the document has text + if check_for_text(doc_path): + doc = pdf_to_text(doc_path=doc_path, port=port) + doc_text = doc.stdout.read().decode('utf-8') + # Check if text extraction succeeded + if get_doc_length(doc_text) > 10: + extraction_succeeded = True + + if extraction_succeeded: + save_text(doc_text, doc_path.replace(".pdf", ".txt")) + else: + img_path = pdf_to_img(doc_path) + img_to_text(img_path) if __name__ == '__main__': - """ - # Testing the script - stat_tika_server() - check_server() - document_paths = glob.glob("test_docs/*/*.pdf") - documents = convert_to_text(document_paths) - for document, doc_path in documents: - save_document(document, doc_path.replace(".pdf", ".txt")) - print("%s converted" % doc_path) - - stop_tika_server() - """ - """ - # Testing the script for pdf to image to txt - document_paths = glob.glob("test_docs/*/*.pdf")[0:1] - for doc_path in document_paths: - img_path = convert_to_img(doc_path) - convert_img_to_text(img_path) - """ - - conn = start_connection() - document_paths = glob.glob("test_docs/*/*.pdf")[3:4] - for doc_path in document_paths: - upload_to_s3(doc_path, conn=conn) + # testing script + logging.basicConfig(level=logging.INFO) + process_documents('test_docs/*/*.pdf', skip_finished=True) diff --git a/fixtures/record_no_text.pdf b/fixtures/record_no_text.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..65bb111 Binary files /dev/null and b/fixtures/record_no_text.pdf differ diff --git a/fixtures/record_text.pdf b/fixtures/record_text.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2e300dd Binary files /dev/null and b/fixtures/record_text.pdf differ diff --git a/requirements.txt b/requirements.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 18172f7..0000000 --- a/requirements.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,2 +0,0 @@ -requests==2.5.1 -tinys3==0.1.11 diff --git a/test_docs/090004d28024984b/record.json b/test_docs/090004d28024984b/record.json deleted file mode 100644 index 8cf8391..0000000 --- a/test_docs/090004d28024984b/record.json +++ /dev/null @@ -1,18 +0,0 @@ -{ - "agency": "DOC", - "author": null, - "download_url": "https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/getContent?objectId=mKLUlX8JQS7Mvk6iAcxL_f-hhacBzRpP", - "exemptions": null, - "file_size": "0.014219284057617188", - "file_type": "pdf", - "landing_id": "090004d28024984b", - "landing_url": "https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/view/record?objectId=090004d28024984b", - "released_on": "2014-04-24", - "released_original": "Thu Apr 24 12:29:17 EDT 2014", - "request_id": "DOC-NOAA-2012-000993", - "retention": "6 year", - "title": "2012 0215 Whiting email to Nachman NVOK alternative preference", - "type": "record", - "unreleased": false, - "year": "2012" -} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/test_docs/090004d28024984b/record.pdf b/test_docs/090004d28024984b/record.pdf deleted file mode 100644 index c41c757..0000000 Binary files a/test_docs/090004d28024984b/record.pdf and /dev/null differ diff --git a/test_docs/090004d28024984b/record.txt b/test_docs/090004d28024984b/record.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 27bbc5a..0000000 --- a/test_docs/090004d28024984b/record.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,44 +0,0 @@ - -Candace Nachman - NOAA Federal - -RE: NMFS Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean DEIS question -1 message - -Alex Whiting Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:13 PM -To: candace.nachman@noaa.gov - -Hi Candace, - -We appreciated the opportunity to meet with you and the team in -Kotzebue last week, I hope the rest of your trip went well. I have a -question on the alternatives that I failed to clarify last week. -Alternative 2 with the level 1 activity is the option that we like for -its smaller scale activity it allows, however we also like additional -required time/area closures element included in Alternative 4. -However Alternative 4 is tied to the Level 2 activity and not the -lesser Level 1 which we prefer. So my question is whether it is only -practically applicable to level 2 activity since level 1 activity -would make the additional measures unnecessary because the allowable -activity would not impact those areas by default? Or is it a quid -pro quo for allowing Level 2 activity by having more restrictions in -place on all exploration. If Level 1 activity is applicable to -impacting the areas set aside under the additional required time/area -closers then it would seem useful from our perspective to support -level 1 activity with these additional required time/area closures? A -mix and match approach. Please clarify if you can. - -Thank you, - -Alex Whiting -Environmental Specialist -Native Village of Kotzebue -P.O. Box 296 -Kotzebue, Alaska 99752 -907-442-5303 direct -alex.whiting@qira.org - -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Mail - RE: NMFS Eff... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=67a289d86b&view=pt&cat=... - -1 of 1 4/2/2014 4:33 PM - - diff --git a/test_docs/090004d28024984d/record.json b/test_docs/090004d28024984d/record.json deleted file mode 100644 index b23991f..0000000 --- a/test_docs/090004d28024984d/record.json +++ /dev/null @@ -1,18 +0,0 @@ -{ - "agency": "DOC", - "author": null, - "download_url": "https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/getContent?objectId=D5QVsYlHqnPMvk6iAcxL_eRleDHEC3c4", - "exemptions": null, - "file_size": "0.02024555206298828", - "file_type": "pdf", - "landing_id": "090004d28024984d", - "landing_url": "https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/view/record?objectId=090004d28024984d", - "released_on": "2014-04-24", - "released_original": "Thu Apr 24 12:29:17 EDT 2014", - "request_id": "DOC-NOAA-2012-000993", - "retention": "6 year", - "title": "2012 0216 Nachman email response to Whiting", - "type": "record", - "unreleased": false, - "year": "2012" -} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/test_docs/090004d28024984d/record.pdf b/test_docs/090004d28024984d/record.pdf deleted file mode 100644 index e5e0dc4..0000000 Binary files a/test_docs/090004d28024984d/record.pdf and /dev/null differ diff --git a/test_docs/090004d28024984d/record.txt b/test_docs/090004d28024984d/record.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 2f8d660..0000000 --- a/test_docs/090004d28024984d/record.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,127 +0,0 @@ - -Candace Nachman - NOAA Federal - -Re: NMFS Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean DEIS question -1 message - -Candace Nachman Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:26 PM -To: Alex Whiting -Cc: Michael Payne - -Alex, - -Please be sure to also include about Hope Basin in your comments. The areas that are consider for time/area -closures in the DEIS were based on public comments received during the scoping phase of this project. At that time, -Hope Basin was never mentioned, which is why it is not included in the DEIS. However, if you include it in your -comments, we would be happy to consider it in our evaluation as we move forward to the final product. - -It would be wonderful if you would be able to send us a couple of copies of the book. We would be happy to review -the materials in there and reference it as appropriate in the Final EIS. - -Thanks, -Candace - -On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Alex Whiting wrote: -Thanks for the quick response. We are going to support a level 1 with required closures from alternative 4. - -Surprisingly there is another area we did not discuss in enough detail and that is regarding the Hope Basin, while it -is included in the EIS area, the discussion (and exclusion/timing areas) mainly focuses on the general area of 193 -sales. However if it is likey that seismic activity will occur in the Hope basin (which is included in the EIS area -afterall) then our comments would be tailored to add exclusion areas in and adjacent to Kotzebue Sound. Northern -Kotzebue Sound is extremley important to our members for seal and beluga hunting, as such exploration activity -would have great potential to impact this if not done with proper timing and geographical restrictions. I forgot to give -you a copy of our recent book "Combining Iñupiaq and Scientific Knowledge: Ecology in Northern Kotzebue -Sound, Alaska", discussing this area, which by the way should be referenced in the final EIS bibly - it can be found -at: - - http://seagrant.uaf.edu/bookstore/pubs/SG-ED-72.html - -It would be nice if you could order a copy or two to support the effort, but I would be willing to send either on of you, -or the reviewers in NOAA a copy or two for developing the final EIS if needed, just let me know. - -I imagine Kivalina and Point Hope would want exclusion areas also. It is easy to forget or not notice the inclusion of -the Hope Basin including the nearshore areas, sincen again the majority of the discussion is focused up north and -of course that is where all the money is invested and Hope Basin has not proven the same level of potential as say -the burger prospect from previous exploration. Anyways this could all be suggested for inclusion in the final EIS so -some feedback would be appreciated. - -Thanks, - -Alex - - - -On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Michael Payne wrote: -> Alex, I got your voice mail this a.m. but it looks like Candace has already -> answered your question. It was great to see you again and look forward to - -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Mail - Re: NMFS Eff... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=67a289d86b&view=pt&cat=... - -1 of 3 4/2/2014 4:38 PM - - - -> the next time. -> -> mike -> -> -> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Candace Nachman -> wrote: ->> ->> Alex, ->> ->> We also appreciated the time you took to meet with us last week and that ->> you had already put so much time and effort into reading and reviewing the ->> DEIS. We realize it is a large document and not one that is easy to get ->> through. ->> ->> In response to your question, as currently written, the requirement for ->> those time/area closures are based on the Level 2 for activity. However, ->> under Alternative 2, which considers the Level 1 activity, those same ->> time/area closures are contemplated as mitigation measures but would not ->> necessarily be required in every case. So, as currently written, they would ->> not be required every time under the Level 1 activity level. However, your ->> exact question and thought is something that we would like to see in your ->> comment letter. There is the potential for some mixing and matching in the ->> Final EIS of what was contained in the DEIS, especially if public comments ->> reflect the fact that we should do so. ->> ->> Thanks, ->> Candace ->> ->> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Alex Whiting ->> wrote: ->>> ->>> Hi Candace, ->>> ->>> We appreciated the opportunity to meet with you and the team in ->>> Kotzebue last week, I hope the rest of your trip went well. I have a ->>> question on the alternatives that I failed to clarify last week. ->>> Alternative 2 with the level 1 activity is the option that we like for ->>> its smaller scale activity it allows, however we also like additional ->>> required time/area closures element included in Alternative 4. ->>> However Alternative 4 is tied to the Level 2 activity and not the ->>> lesser Level 1 which we prefer. So my question is whether it is only ->>> practically applicable to level 2 activity since level 1 activity ->>> would make the additional measures unnecessary because the allowable ->>> activity would not impact those areas by default? Or is it a quid ->>> pro quo for allowing Level 2 activity by having more restrictions in ->>> place on all exploration. If Level 1 activity is applicable to ->>> impacting the areas set aside under the additional required time/area ->>> closers then it would seem useful from our perspective to support ->>> level 1 activity with these additional required time/area closures? A ->>> mix and match approach. Please clarify if you can. ->>> ->>> Thank you, ->>> ->>> Alex Whiting ->>> Environmental Specialist ->>> Native Village of Kotzebue ->>> P.O. Box 296 - -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Mail - Re: NMFS Eff... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=67a289d86b&view=pt&cat=... - -2 of 3 4/2/2014 4:38 PM - - diff --git a/test_docs/090004d28024984f/record.json b/test_docs/090004d28024984f/record.json deleted file mode 100644 index 2bee77c..0000000 --- a/test_docs/090004d28024984f/record.json +++ /dev/null @@ -1,18 +0,0 @@ -{ - "agency": "DOC", - "author": null, - "download_url": "https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/getContent?objectId=xdhzOWo65rbMvk6iAcxL_SqIKN0CWyGK", - "exemptions": null, - "file_size": "0.016210556030273438", - "file_type": "pdf", - "landing_id": "090004d28024984f", - "landing_url": "https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/view/record?objectId=090004d28024984f", - "released_on": "2014-04-24", - "released_original": "Thu Apr 24 12:29:17 EDT 2014", - "request_id": "DOC-NOAA-2012-000993", - "retention": "6 year", - "title": "2012 0216 Nachman email to Whiting", - "type": "record", - "unreleased": false, - "year": "2012" -} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/test_docs/090004d28024984f/record.pdf b/test_docs/090004d28024984f/record.pdf deleted file mode 100644 index 13c9468..0000000 Binary files a/test_docs/090004d28024984f/record.pdf and /dev/null differ diff --git a/test_docs/090004d28024984f/record.txt b/test_docs/090004d28024984f/record.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 3c7dea9..0000000 --- a/test_docs/090004d28024984f/record.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,61 +0,0 @@ - -Candace Nachman - NOAA Federal - -Re: NMFS Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean DEIS question -1 message - -Candace Nachman Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:38 AM -To: Alex Whiting -Cc: Michael Payne - -Alex, - -We also appreciated the time you took to meet with us last week and that you had already put so much time and effort -into reading and reviewing the DEIS. We realize it is a large document and not one that is easy to get through. - -In response to your question, as currently written, the requirement for those time/area closures are based on the Level -2 for activity. However, under Alternative 2, which considers the Level 1 activity, those same time/area closures are -contemplated as mitigation measures but would not necessarily be required in every case. So, as currently written, -they would not be required every time under the Level 1 activity level. However, your exact question and thought is -something that we would like to see in your comment letter. There is the potential for some mixing and matching in -the Final EIS of what was contained in the DEIS, especially if public comments reflect the fact that we should do so. - -Thanks, -Candace - -On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Alex Whiting wrote: -Hi Candace, - -We appreciated the opportunity to meet with you and the team in -Kotzebue last week, I hope the rest of your trip went well. I have a -question on the alternatives that I failed to clarify last week. -Alternative 2 with the level 1 activity is the option that we like for -its smaller scale activity it allows, however we also like additional -required time/area closures element included in Alternative 4. -However Alternative 4 is tied to the Level 2 activity and not the -lesser Level 1 which we prefer. So my question is whether it is only -practically applicable to level 2 activity since level 1 activity -would make the additional measures unnecessary because the allowable -activity would not impact those areas by default? Or is it a quid -pro quo for allowing Level 2 activity by having more restrictions in -place on all exploration. If Level 1 activity is applicable to -impacting the areas set aside under the additional required time/area -closers then it would seem useful from our perspective to support -level 1 activity with these additional required time/area closures? A -mix and match approach. Please clarify if you can. - -Thank you, - -Alex Whiting -Environmental Specialist -Native Village of Kotzebue -P.O. Box 296 -Kotzebue, Alaska 99752 -907-442-5303 direct -alex.whiting@qira.org - -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Mail - Re: NMFS Eff... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=67a289d86b&view=pt&cat=... - -1 of 2 4/2/2014 4:35 PM - - diff --git a/test_docs/090004d280249850/record.json b/test_docs/090004d280249850/record.json deleted file mode 100644 index fe23f42..0000000 --- a/test_docs/090004d280249850/record.json +++ /dev/null @@ -1,18 +0,0 @@ -{ - "agency": "DOC", - "author": null, - "download_url": "https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/getContent?objectId=LCFtsg-2YV_Mvk6iAcxL_bi3tWA_GLZ1", - "exemptions": null, - "file_size": "0.019730567932128906", - "file_type": "pdf", - "landing_id": "090004d280249850", - "landing_url": "https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/view/record?objectId=090004d280249850", - "released_on": "2014-04-24", - "released_original": "Thu Apr 24 12:29:17 EDT 2014", - "request_id": "DOC-NOAA-2012-000993", - "retention": "6 year", - "title": "2012 0216 Whiting email response to Nachman", - "type": "record", - "unreleased": false, - "year": "2012" -} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/test_docs/090004d280249850/record.pdf b/test_docs/090004d280249850/record.pdf deleted file mode 100644 index b3d2136..0000000 Binary files a/test_docs/090004d280249850/record.pdf and /dev/null differ diff --git a/test_docs/090004d280249850/record.txt b/test_docs/090004d280249850/record.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 932d3b4..0000000 --- a/test_docs/090004d280249850/record.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,127 +0,0 @@ - -Candace Nachman - NOAA Federal - -Re: NMFS Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean DEIS question -1 message - -Alex Whiting Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:50 PM -To: Michael Payne -Cc: Candace Nachman - -Thanks for the quick response. We are going to support a level 1 with required closures from alternative 4. - -Surprisingly there is another area we did not discuss in enough detail and that is regarding the Hope Basin, while it is -included in the EIS area, the discussion (and exclusion/timing areas) mainly focuses on the general area of 193 sales. - However if it is likey that seismic activity will occur in the Hope basin (which is included in the EIS area afterall) then -our comments would be tailored to add exclusion areas in and adjacent to Kotzebue Sound. Northern Kotzebue -Sound is extremley important to our members for seal and beluga hunting, as such exploration activity would have -great potential to impact this if not done with proper timing and geographical restrictions. I forgot to give you a copy of -our recent book "Combining Iñupiaq and Scientific Knowledge: Ecology in Northern Kotzebue Sound, Alaska", -discussing this area, which by the way should be referenced in the final EIS bibly - it can be found at: - - http://seagrant.uaf.edu/bookstore/pubs/SG-ED-72.html - -It would be nice if you could order a copy or two to support the effort, but I would be willing to send either on of you, or -the reviewers in NOAA a copy or two for developing the final EIS if needed, just let me know. - -I imagine Kivalina and Point Hope would want exclusion areas also. It is easy to forget or not notice the inclusion of -the Hope Basin including the nearshore areas, sincen again the majority of the discussion is focused up north and of -course that is where all the money is invested and Hope Basin has not proven the same level of potential as say the -burger prospect from previous exploration. Anyways this could all be suggested for inclusion in the final EIS so some -feedback would be appreciated. - -Thanks, - -Alex - - - -On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Michael Payne wrote: -> Alex, I got your voice mail this a.m. but it looks like Candace has already -> answered your question. It was great to see you again and look forward to -> the next time. -> -> mike -> -> -> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Candace Nachman -> wrote: ->> ->> Alex, ->> ->> We also appreciated the time you took to meet with us last week and that ->> you had already put so much time and effort into reading and reviewing the ->> DEIS. We realize it is a large document and not one that is easy to get ->> through. ->> - -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Mail - Re: NMFS Eff... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=67a289d86b&view=pt&cat=... - -1 of 3 4/2/2014 4:36 PM - - - ->> In response to your question, as currently written, the requirement for ->> those time/area closures are based on the Level 2 for activity. However, ->> under Alternative 2, which considers the Level 1 activity, those same ->> time/area closures are contemplated as mitigation measures but would not ->> necessarily be required in every case. So, as currently written, they would ->> not be required every time under the Level 1 activity level. However, your ->> exact question and thought is something that we would like to see in your ->> comment letter. There is the potential for some mixing and matching in the ->> Final EIS of what was contained in the DEIS, especially if public comments ->> reflect the fact that we should do so. ->> ->> Thanks, ->> Candace ->> ->> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Alex Whiting ->> wrote: ->>> ->>> Hi Candace, ->>> ->>> We appreciated the opportunity to meet with you and the team in ->>> Kotzebue last week, I hope the rest of your trip went well. I have a ->>> question on the alternatives that I failed to clarify last week. ->>> Alternative 2 with the level 1 activity is the option that we like for ->>> its smaller scale activity it allows, however we also like additional ->>> required time/area closures element included in Alternative 4. ->>> However Alternative 4 is tied to the Level 2 activity and not the ->>> lesser Level 1 which we prefer. So my question is whether it is only ->>> practically applicable to level 2 activity since level 1 activity ->>> would make the additional measures unnecessary because the allowable ->>> activity would not impact those areas by default? Or is it a quid ->>> pro quo for allowing Level 2 activity by having more restrictions in ->>> place on all exploration. If Level 1 activity is applicable to ->>> impacting the areas set aside under the additional required time/area ->>> closers then it would seem useful from our perspective to support ->>> level 1 activity with these additional required time/area closures? A ->>> mix and match approach. Please clarify if you can. ->>> ->>> Thank you, ->>> ->>> Alex Whiting ->>> Environmental Specialist ->>> Native Village of Kotzebue ->>> P.O. Box 296 ->>> Kotzebue, Alaska 99752 ->>> 907-442-5303 direct ->>> alex.whiting@qira.org ->> ->> ->> ->> ->> -- ->> Candace Nachman ->> Fishery Biologist ->> ->> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ->> National Marine Fisheries Service ->> Office of Protected Resources ->> Permits and Conservation Division - -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Mail - Re: NMFS Eff... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=67a289d86b&view=pt&cat=... - -2 of 3 4/2/2014 4:36 PM - - diff --git a/test_docs/090004d280249851/record.json b/test_docs/090004d280249851/record.json deleted file mode 100644 index 5745c2d..0000000 --- a/test_docs/090004d280249851/record.json +++ /dev/null @@ -1,18 +0,0 @@ -{ - "agency": "DOC", - "author": null, - "download_url": "https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/getContent?objectId=F0BvhjJh0U_Mvk6iAcxL_RzG0N64Olh5", - "exemptions": null, - "file_size": "0.02287006378173828", - "file_type": "pdf", - "landing_id": "090004d280249851", - "landing_url": "https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/view/record?objectId=090004d280249851", - "released_on": "2014-04-24", - "released_original": "Thu Apr 24 12:29:17 EDT 2014", - "request_id": "DOC-NOAA-2012-000993", - "retention": "6 year", - "title": "2012 0216 Whiting email to Nachman", - "type": "record", - "unreleased": false, - "year": "2012" -} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/test_docs/090004d280249851/record.pdf b/test_docs/090004d280249851/record.pdf deleted file mode 100644 index 83cc623..0000000 Binary files a/test_docs/090004d280249851/record.pdf and /dev/null differ diff --git a/test_docs/090004d280249851/record.txt b/test_docs/090004d280249851/record.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 57ed44f..0000000 --- a/test_docs/090004d280249851/record.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,189 +0,0 @@ - -Candace Nachman - NOAA Federal - -Re: NMFS Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean DEIS question -1 message - -Alex Whiting Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:29 PM -To: Candace Nachman -Cc: Michael Payne - -Okay, the reason it does not come up and why I even continue to forget about it, is because we have spent most of -the last decade specifically focused on the 193 area in relation to all these comment opportunities. I have made a -note of it on my list and will provide comments on this. That would have been a dereliction on my part if that had -slipped past. - -I will send a couple of books, I also have a related poster of Common Marine Life of Kotzebue Sound, its about 2 feet -by 3.5 feet, but if you have some space I can send one or two of those also. I did all the illustrations for the book and -the poster. - -Thanks, - -Alex - - -On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Candace Nachman wrote: - -Alex, - -Please be sure to also include about Hope Basin in your comments. The areas that are consider for time/area -closures in the DEIS were based on public comments received during the scoping phase of this project. At that -time, Hope Basin was never mentioned, which is why it is not included in the DEIS. However, if you include it in -your comments, we would be happy to consider it in our evaluation as we move forward to the final product. - -It would be wonderful if you would be able to send us a couple of copies of the book. We would be happy to review -the materials in there and reference it as appropriate in the Final EIS. - -Thanks, -Candace - -On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Alex Whiting wrote: -Thanks for the quick response. We are going to support a level 1 with required closures from alternative 4. - -Surprisingly there is another area we did not discuss in enough detail and that is regarding the Hope Basin, while -it is included in the EIS area, the discussion (and exclusion/timing areas) mainly focuses on the general area of -193 sales. However if it is likey that seismic activity will occur in the Hope basin (which is included in the EIS area -afterall) then our comments would be tailored to add exclusion areas in and adjacent to Kotzebue Sound. - Northern Kotzebue Sound is extremley important to our members for seal and beluga hunting, as such -exploration activity would have great potential to impact this if not done with proper timing and geographical -restrictions. I forgot to give you a copy of our recent book "Combining Iñupiaq and Scientific Knowledge: -Ecology in Northern Kotzebue Sound, Alaska", discussing this area, which by the way should be referenced in -the final EIS bibly - it can be found at: - - http://seagrant.uaf.edu/bookstore/pubs/SG-ED-72.html - -It would be nice if you could order a copy or two to support the effort, but I would be willing to send either on of - -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Mail - Re: NMFS Eff... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=67a289d86b&view=pt&cat=... - -1 of 4 4/2/2014 4:40 PM - - - -you, or the reviewers in NOAA a copy or two for developing the final EIS if needed, just let me know. - -I imagine Kivalina and Point Hope would want exclusion areas also. It is easy to forget or not notice the inclusion -of the Hope Basin including the nearshore areas, sincen again the majority of the discussion is focused up north -and of course that is where all the money is invested and Hope Basin has not proven the same level of potential -as say the burger prospect from previous exploration. Anyways this could all be suggested for inclusion in the -final EIS so some feedback would be appreciated. - -Thanks, - -Alex - - - -On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Michael Payne wrote: -> Alex, I got your voice mail this a.m. but it looks like Candace has already -> answered your question. It was great to see you again and look forward to -> the next time. -> -> mike -> -> -> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Candace Nachman -> wrote: ->> ->> Alex, ->> ->> We also appreciated the time you took to meet with us last week and that ->> you had already put so much time and effort into reading and reviewing the ->> DEIS. We realize it is a large document and not one that is easy to get ->> through. ->> ->> In response to your question, as currently written, the requirement for ->> those time/area closures are based on the Level 2 for activity. However, ->> under Alternative 2, which considers the Level 1 activity, those same ->> time/area closures are contemplated as mitigation measures but would not ->> necessarily be required in every case. So, as currently written, they would ->> not be required every time under the Level 1 activity level. However, your ->> exact question and thought is something that we would like to see in your ->> comment letter. There is the potential for some mixing and matching in the ->> Final EIS of what was contained in the DEIS, especially if public comments ->> reflect the fact that we should do so. ->> ->> Thanks, ->> Candace ->> ->> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Alex Whiting ->> wrote: ->>> ->>> Hi Candace, ->>> ->>> We appreciated the opportunity to meet with you and the team in ->>> Kotzebue last week, I hope the rest of your trip went well. I have a ->>> question on the alternatives that I failed to clarify last week. ->>> Alternative 2 with the level 1 activity is the option that we like for ->>> its smaller scale activity it allows, however we also like additional ->>> required time/area closures element included in Alternative 4. ->>> However Alternative 4 is tied to the Level 2 activity and not the - -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Mail - Re: NMFS Eff... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=67a289d86b&view=pt&cat=... - -2 of 4 4/2/2014 4:40 PM - - - ->>> lesser Level 1 which we prefer. So my question is whether it is only ->>> practically applicable to level 2 activity since level 1 activity ->>> would make the additional measures unnecessary because the allowable ->>> activity would not impact those areas by default? Or is it a quid ->>> pro quo for allowing Level 2 activity by having more restrictions in ->>> place on all exploration. If Level 1 activity is applicable to ->>> impacting the areas set aside under the additional required time/area ->>> closers then it would seem useful from our perspective to support ->>> level 1 activity with these additional required time/area closures? A ->>> mix and match approach. Please clarify if you can. ->>> ->>> Thank you, ->>> ->>> Alex Whiting ->>> Environmental Specialist ->>> Native Village of Kotzebue ->>> P.O. Box 296 ->>> Kotzebue, Alaska 99752 ->>> 907-442-5303 direct ->>> alex.whiting@qira.org ->> ->> ->> ->> ->> -- ->> Candace Nachman ->> Fishery Biologist ->> ->> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ->> National Marine Fisheries Service ->> Office of Protected Resources ->> Permits and Conservation Division ->> 1315 East West Highway, Rm 3503 ->> Silver Spring, MD 20910 ->> ->> Ph: (301) 427-8429 ->> Fax: (301) 713-0376 ->> ->> Web: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ ->> -> - - - --- -Candace Nachman -Fishery Biologist - -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -National Marine Fisheries Service -Office of Protected Resources -Permits and Conservation Division -1315 East West Highway, Rm 3503 -Silver Spring, MD 20910 - -Ph: (301) 427-8429 - -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Mail - Re: NMFS Eff... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=67a289d86b&view=pt&cat=... - -3 of 4 4/2/2014 4:40 PM - - diff --git a/test_docs/090004d28024986e/record.json b/test_docs/090004d28024986e/record.json deleted file mode 100644 index 84ec2f5..0000000 --- a/test_docs/090004d28024986e/record.json +++ /dev/null @@ -1,18 +0,0 @@ -{ - "agency": "DOC", - "author": null, - "download_url": "https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/getContent?objectId=CoBkeVxx_MnMvk6iAcxL_bGr1TAG4iNC", - "exemptions": null, - "file_size": "0.9710550308227539", - "file_type": "pdf", - "landing_id": "090004d28024986e", - "landing_url": "https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/view/record?objectId=090004d28024986e", - "released_on": "2014-04-24", - "released_original": "Thu Apr 24 12:29:17 EDT 2014", - "request_id": "DOC-NOAA-2012-000993", - "retention": "6 year", - "title": "2012 0329 Rosenthal email to Nachman Submittal - Draft CAR", - "type": "record", - "unreleased": false, - "year": "2012" -} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/test_docs/090004d28024986e/record.pdf b/test_docs/090004d28024986e/record.pdf deleted file mode 100644 index 01a084c..0000000 Binary files a/test_docs/090004d28024986e/record.pdf and /dev/null differ diff --git a/test_docs/090004d28024986e/record.txt b/test_docs/090004d28024986e/record.txt deleted file mode 100644 index c6bdc73..0000000 --- a/test_docs/090004d28024986e/record.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,7938 +0,0 @@ - -"Bellion, Tara" - -04/02/2012 10:25 AM - -To ArcticAR - -cc - -bcc - -Subject FW: Submittal - Draft Comment Analysis Report for Review - -  -  -Tara Bellion ‐ Environmental Planner -URS Corporation -3504 Industrial Avenue, Suite 126 -Fairbanks, AK 99701 -  -Tel: 907.374.0303 ext 15 -Fax: 907.374‐0309 -tara.bellion@urs.com -www.urs.com  -  -From: Rosenthal, Amy -Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 8:27 AM -To: Candace Nachman (Candace.Nachman@noaa.gov); jolie.harrison@noaa.gov; -Michael.Payne@noaa.gov -Cc: Isaacs, Jon; Fuchs, Kim; Bellion, Tara; Kluwe, Joan -Subject: Submittal - Draft Comment Analysis Report for Review -Importance: High -  -Hi all – -  -Attached is the Draft Comment Analysis Report for your review (word and PDF versions).  We have a  -placeholder for the government‐to‐government CAR, which will be an Appendix to this report, until we  -are able to code any comments from the upcoming Point Lay meeting next week.   And for all of the  -“Editorial” comments we received (i.e. specific changes to the text), we will be giving you a separate  -table that tracks those by section of the document. -  -As always, comments back from you in track changes works best.   The schedule shows us receiving  -comments back from you on April 4th by end of the day.   -  -I will be out of the office the rest of this week, but back in on Monday.  If you have questions, feel free to  -call my cell (503‐804‐4292) or contact Kim Fuchs or Jon Isaacs. -  -Thanks, -Amy -  -**** Please note my new email address:   amy.rosenthal@urs.com  **** -  -Amy C. Rosenthal -Environmental Planner - - - -URS Corporation -  -503‐948‐7223 (direct phone) -503‐222‐4292 (fax) -  - -This e-mail and any attachments contain URS Corporation confidential information that may be proprietary or privileged. If you -receive this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this -information and you should destroy the e-mail and any attachments or copies. - - - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas -Activities in the Arctic Ocean - -Draft Comment Analysis Report - - - - - - -United States Department of Commerce -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -National Marine Fisheries Service -Office of Protected Resources - -March 29, 2012 - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS i -Comment Analysis Report - -TABLE OF CONTENTS - -TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................ i - -LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................... ii - -LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................... ii - -LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ ii - -ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... ii - - - -1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 1 - -2.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 1 - -3.0 THE ROLE OF PUBLIC COMMENT ....................................................................................... 1 - -4.0 ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS .................................................................................. 3 - -5.0 CATEGORYSTATEMENTS OF CONCERN ........................................................................... 7 - - - -APPENDICES - - - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS ii -Comment Analysis Report - -LIST OF TABLES - -Table 1 Public Meetings, Locations and Dates ....................................................................... Page 2 - -Table 2 Issue Categories for DEIS Comments ....................................................................... Page 4 - - - - - -LIST OF FIGURES - -Figure 1 Comments by Issue .................................................................................................... Page 6 - - - - - -LIST OF APPENDICES - -Appendix A Submission and Comment Index - -Appendix B Placeholder for Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - - - - - -ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS - -BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management - -CAR Comment Analysis Report - -CASy Comment Analysis System database - -EIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement - -ITAs incidental take authorizations - -MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act - -NEPA National Environmental Policy Act - -NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service - -SOC Statement of Concern - -USC United States Code - - - - - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 1 -Comment Analysis Report - -1.0 INTRODUCTION -The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and -the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) have prepared and -released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that analyzes the effects of offshore geophysical -seismic surveys and exploratory drilling in the federal and state waters of the U.S. Beaufort and Chukchi -seas. - -The proposed actions considered in the Draft EIS are: - -• NMFS’ issuance of incidental take authorizations (ITAs) under Section 101(a)(5) of the Marine -Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), for the taking of marine mammals incidental to conducting -seismic surveys, ancillary activities, and exploratory drilling; and - -• BOEM’s issuance of permits and authorizations under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act for -seismic surveys and ancillary activities. - -2.0 BACKGROUND -NMFS is serving as the lead agency for this EIS. BOEM (formerly called the U.S. Minerals Management -Service) and the North Slope Borough are cooperating agencies on this EIS. The U.S. Environmental -Protection Agency is serving as a consulting agency. NMFS is also coordinating with the Alaska Eskimo -Whaling Commission pursuant to our co-management agreement under the MMPA. - -The Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2010 (75 FR -6175). On December 30, 2011, Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register (76 FR -82275) that NMFS had released for public comment the ‘‘Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) -for the Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean.” The original deadline to submit comments -was February 13, 2012. Based on several written requests received by NMFS, the public comment period -for this DEIS was extended by 15 days. Notice of extension of the comment period and notice of public -meetings was published January 18, 2012 in the Federal register (77 FR 2513). The comment period -concluded on February 28, 2012 making the entire comment period 60 days in total. - -NMFS intends to use this EIS to: 1) evaluate the potential effects of different levels of offshore seismic -surveys and exploratory drilling activities occurring in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas; 2) take a -comprehensive look at potential cumulative impacts in the EIS project area; and 3) evaluate the -effectiveness of various mitigation measures. NMFS will use the findings of the EIS when reviewing -individual applications for ITAs associated with seismic surveys and exploratory drilling in the Beaufort -and Chukchi seas. - -3.0 THE ROLE OF PUBLIC COMMENT -During the public comment period, public meetings were held to inform and to solicit comments from the -public on the DEIS. The meetings consisted of an open house, a brief presentation, and then a public -comment opportunity. Transcripts of each public meeting are available on the project website -(http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/eis/arctic.htm). Meetings were cancelled in the communities of -Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Point Lay due to extreme weather conditions. The six public meetings that were -held are described in Table 1. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 2 -Comment Analysis Report - -Table 1. Public Meetings, Locations and Dates - -Meeting Date Location - -Wainwright January 30, 2012 Wainwright Community Center, -Wainwright, AK - -Barrow January 31, 2012 Inupiat Heritage Center, -Barrow, AK - -Kivalina February 6, 2012 McQueen School, -Kivalina - -Kotzebue February 7, 2012 Northwest Arctic Borough Assembly Chambers, -Kotzebue, AK - -Point Hope February 8, 2012 Point Hope Community Center, -Point Hope, AK - -Anchorage February 13, 2012 -12:00-2:00 p.m. - -Loussac Library – Wilda Marston Theatre -Anchorage, Anchorage, AK - - - -These meetings were attended by a variety of stakeholders, including Federal agencies, Tribal -governments, state agencies, local governments, businesses, special interest groups/non-governmental -organizations, and individuals. - -In a separate, but parallel process for government to government consultation, Tribal governments in each -community, with the exception of Anchorage, were notified of the availability of the DEIS and invited to -give comments. The first contact was via letter that was faxed, dated December 22, 2011; follow-up calls -and emails were made with the potentially affected Tribal governments, and in the communities listed -above, each government was visited during the comment period. Because NMFS was not able to make it -to the communities of Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Point Lay on the originally scheduled dates, a follow-up -letter was sent on February 29, 2012 requesting a teleconference meeting for government to government -consultation. Nuiqsut and Point Lay rescheduled with teleconferences. [NMFS: language here for -something about Nuiqsut “no show” on March 26, 2012?]. The comments received during government to -government consultation between NMFS, BOEM, and the Tribal governments are included in a separate -Comment Analysis Report (CAR) (Appendix B of this document). Comments submitted in writing by -Tribal governments are also included in Appendix B. - -NMFS and the cooperating agencies will review all comments, determine how the comments should be -addressed, and make appropriate revisions in preparing the Final EIS. The Final EIS will contain the -comments submitted and a summary of responses to those comments. - -The Final EIS will include public notice of document availability, the distribution of the document, and a -30-day comment/waiting period on the final document. Public statements of agency decisions are -expected in September 2012. NMFS and BOEM are expected to each issue a separate Record of Decision -(ROD) which will then conclude the EIS process in early 2013. The selected alternative will be identified -in each ROD, as well as the agency’s rationale for their conclusions regarding the environmental effects -and appropriate mitigation measures for the proposed project. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 3 -Comment Analysis Report - -4.0 ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS -The body of this report provides a brief summary of the comment analysis process, and the comments that -were received during the public comment period. Two appendices follow this narrative, including the -Submission and Comment Index, and the Government to Government CAR. - -Comments were received on the DEIS in several ways: - -• Oral discussion or testimony from the public meeting transcripts; - -• Written comments received by mail or by fax; and - -• Written comments submitted electronically by email or through the project website. - -NMFS received a total of 67 unique submissions on the DEIS. There were 49,436 form letters received -and reviewed. One submission as a form letter from the Natural Resources Defense Council contained -36,445 signatures and another submission as a form letter from the Sierra Club contained 12,991 -signatures. Group affiliations of those that submitted comments include: federal agencies, Tribal -governments, state agencies, local governments, businesses, special interest groups/non-governmental -organizations, and individuals. The complete text of public comments received will be included in the -Administrative Record for the EIS. - -This CAR provides an analytical summary of these submissions. It presents the methodology used by -NMFS in reviewing, sorting, and synthesizing substantive comments within each submission into -common themes. As described in the following sections of this report, a careful and deliberate approach -has been undertaken to ensure that all substantive public comments were captured. - -The coding phase was used to divide each submission into a series of substantive comments (herein -referred to as ‘comments’). All submissions on the DEIS were read, reviewed and logged into the -Comment Analysis System database (CASy) where they were assigned an automatic tracking number -(Submission ID). These comments were recorded into the CASy and given a unique Comment ID -number (with reference to the Submission ID) for tracking and synthesis. The goal of this process was to -ensure that each sentence and paragraph in a submission containing a substantive comment pertinent to -the DEIS was entered into the CASy. Substantive content constituted assertions, suggested actions, data, -background information or clarifications relating to the content of the DEIS. - -Comments were assigned subject issue categories to describe the content of the comment (see Table 2). -The issues were grouped by general topics, including effects, available information, regulatory -compliance, and Inupiat culture. The relative distribution of comments by issue is shown in Figure 1. - -A total of 25 issue categories were developed for coding during the first step of the analysis process as -shown in Table 2. These categories evolved from common themes found throughout the submissions -received by NMFS. Some categories correspond directly to sections of the DEIS, while others focus on -more procedural topics. Several submissions included attachments of scientific studies or reports, or -requested specific edits to the DEIS text. - -The public comment submissions generated 1,883 substantive comments, which were then grouped into -Statements of Concern (SOCs). SOCs are summary statements intended to capture the different themes -identified in the substantive comments. SOCs are frequently supported by additional text to further -explain the concern, or alternatively to capture the specific comment variations within that grouping. -SOCs are not intended to replace actual comments. Rather, they summarize for the reader the range of -comments on a specific topic. - -Every substantive comment was assigned to an SOC; a total of 540 SOCs were developed. Each SOC is -represented by an issue category code followed by a number. NMFS will use the SOCs to respond to -substantive comments on the DEIS, as appropriate. Each issue category may have more than one SOC. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 4 -Comment Analysis Report - -For example, there are 12 SOCs under the issue category “Cumulative Effects” (CEF 1, CEF 2, CEF 3, -etc.). Each comment was assigned to one SOC. The complete list of SOCs can be found in Section 5.0. - -Table 2. Issue Categories for DEIS Comments - -GROUP Issue Category Code Summary - -Effects Cumulative Effects CEF Comments related to cumulative impacts in general, -or for a specific resource - -Physical Environment -(General) - -GPE Comments related to impacts on resources within -the physical environment (Physical Oceanography, -Climate, Acoustics, Environmental Contaminants & -Ecosystem Functions) - -Social Environment (General) GSE Comments related to impacts on resources within -the social environment (Public Health, Cultural, -Land Ownership/Use/Mgt., Transportation, -Recreation & Tourism, Visual Resources, EJ) - -Habitat HAB Comments associated with habitat requirements, or -potential habitat impacts from seismic activities and -exploratory drilling. Comment focus is habitat, not -animals. - -Marine Mammal and other -Wildlife Impacts - -MMI General comments related to potential impacts to -marine mammals or wildlife, unrelated to -subsistence resource concepts. - -National Energy Demand and -Supply - -NED Comments related to meeting national energy -demands, supply of energy. - -Oil Spill Risks OSR Concerns about potential for oil spill, ability to -clean up spills in various conditions, potential -impacts to resources or environment from spills. - -Socioeconomic Impacts SEI Comments on economic impacts to local -communities, regional economy, and national -economy, can include changes in the social or -economic environments (MONEY, JOBS). - -Subsistence Resource -Protection - -SRP Comments on need to protect subsistence resources -and potential impacts to these resources. Can -include ocean resources as our garden, -contamination (SUBSISTENCE ANIMALS, -HABITAT). - -Vessel Operations and -Movements - -VOM Comments regarding vessel operations and -movements. - -Water and Air Quality WAQ Comments regarding water and air quality, -including potential to impact or degrade these -resources. - - -Info -Available - -Data DATA Comments referencing scientific studies that should -be considered. - -Research, Monitoring, -Evaluation Needs - -RME Comments on baseline research, monitoring, and -evaluation needs - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 5 -Comment Analysis Report - -GROUP Issue Category Code Summary - -Process: -NEPA, -Permits, -the DEIS - -Alternatives ALT Comments related to alternatives or alternative -development. - -Coordination and -Compatibility - -COR Coordinating with Federal, state, local agencies or -organizations; permitting requirements. - -Discharge DCH Comments regarding discharge levels, including -requests for zero discharge requirements, and deep -waste injection wells. Does not include -contamination of subsistence resources. - -Mitigation Measures MIT Comments related to suggestions for or -implementation of mitigation measures. - -NEPA NEP Comments on impact criteria (Chapter 4) that -require clarification of NEPA process and -methodologies for impact determination - -Peer Review PER Suggestions for peer review of permits, activities, -proposals. - -Regulatory Compliance REG Comments associated with compliance with -existing regulations, laws and statutes. - -General Editorial EDI Comments associated with specific text edits to the -document. - -Comment Acknowledged ACK Entire submission determined not to be substantive -and warranted only a “comment acknowledged” -response. - -Inupiat -Culture - -Inupiat Culture and Way of -Life - -ICL Comments related to potential cultural impacts or -desire to maintain traditional practices (PEOPLE). - -Use of Traditional Knowledge UTK Comments regarding how traditional knowledge -(TK) is used in the document or decision making -process, need to incorporate TK, or processes for -documenting TK. - - - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 6 -Comment Analysis Report - -Figure 1: Comments by Issue - - - - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 7 -Comment Analysis Report - -5.0 STATEMENTS OF CONCERN -This section presents the SOCs developed to help summarize comments received on the DEIS. To assist -in finding which SOCs were contained in each submission, a Submission and Comment Index -(Appendix A) was created. The index is a list of all submissions received, presented alphabetically by the -last name of the commenter, as well as the Submission ID associated with the submission, and which -SOCs responds to their specific comments. To identify the specific issues that are contained in an -individual submission, first search for the submission of interest in Appendix A, then note which SOC -codes are listed under the submissions, locate the SOC within Section 5.0 and then read the text next to -that SOC. Each substantive comment contained in a submission was assigned to one SOC. - - - - - - - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 8 -Comment Analysis Report - -Comment Acknowledged (ACK) -ACK Entire submission determined not to be substantive and warranted only a “comment - -acknowledged” response. - -ACK 1 Comment Acknowledged. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 9 -Comment Analysis Report - -Alternatives (ALT) -ALT Comments related to alternatives or alternative development. - -ALT 1 NMFS should not permit any more oil and gas exploration within the U.S. Beaufort and -Chukchi Seas unless and until there is a plan in place that shows those activities can be -conducted without harming the health of the ecosystem or opportunities for the subsistence -way of life. - -ALT 2 NMFS should adopt the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) as the preferred alternative, -which represents a precautionary, ecosystem-based approach. There is a considerable amount -of public support for this alternative. It is the only reliable way to prevent a potential -catastrophic oil spill from occurring in the Arctic Ocean, and provides the greatest protections -from negative impacts to marine mammals from noise and vessel strikes. Alternative 1 is the -only alternative that makes sense given the state of missing scientific baseline, as well as -long-term, data on impacts to marine mammals and subsistence activities resulting from oil -and gas exploration. - -ALT 3 NMFS should edit the No Action Alternative to describe the present agency decision-making -procedures. The No Action Alternative should be rewritten to include NMFS’ issuance of -Incidental Harassment Authorizations (IHA) and preparing project-specific EAs for -exploration activities as they do currently. If NMFS wishes to consider an alternative in -which they stop issuing authorizations, it should be considered as an additional alternative, -not the No Action alternative. - -ALT 4 Limiting the extent of activity to two exploration programs annually in the Beaufort and -Chukchi seas is unreasonable and will shut out leaseholders. The restrictions and mitigation -measures outlined in the five alternatives of the DEIS would likely make future development -improbably and uneconomic. Because the DEIS does not present any alternative that would -cover the anticipated level of industry activity, it would cap industry activity in a way that (a) -positions the DEIS as a decisional document in violation of NEPA standards, and (b) would -constitute an economic taking. NMFS should revise the levels of activity within the action -alternatives to address these concerns. - -ALT 5 The “range” of action alternatives only considers two levels of activity. The narrow range of -alternatives presented in the DEIS and the lack of specificity regarding the source levels, -timing, duration, and location of the activities being considered do not provide a sufficient -basis for determining whether other options might exist for oil and gas development with -significantly less environmental impact, including reduced effects on marine mammals. -NMFS and BOEM should expand the range of alternatives to ensure that oil and gas -exploration activities have no more than a negligible impact on marine mammal species and -stocks, and will not have adverse impacts on the Alaska Native communities that depend on -the availability of marine mammals for subsistence, as required under the Marine Mammal -Protection Act. - -ALT 6 The range of alternatives presented in the DEIS do not assist decision-makers in determining -what measures can be taken to reduce impacts and what choices may be preferential from an -environmental standpoint. There is no indication in the analysis as to which alternative -would be cause for greater concern, from either an activity level or location standpoint. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 10 -Comment Analysis Report - -NMFS needs to revise the alternatives and their assessment of effects to reflect these -concerns. - -ALT 7 An EIS must evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives in order to fully comply with NEPA. -The DEIS does not provide a reasonable range of alternatives. The No Action Alternative is -inaccurately stated (does not reflect current conditions), and Alternative 5 is infeasible -because those technologies are not available. Multiple alternatives with indistinguishable -outcomes do not represent a “range” and do not assist in determining preferential options. -NMFS needs to revise the EIS to present a reasonable range of alternatives for analysis. - -ALT 8 NMFS should consider additional alternatives (or components of alternatives) including: - -• A phased, adaptive approach for increasing oil and gas activities, -• Avoidance of redundant seismic surveys, -• Development of a soundscape approach and consideration of caps on noise or activity - -levels for managing sound sources during the open water period, and -• A clear basis for judging whether the impacts of industry activities are negligible as - -required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. - -ALT 9 The levels of oil and gas exploration activity identified in Alternatives 2 and 3 are not -accurate. In particular, the DEIS significantly over estimates the amount of seismic -exploration that is reasonably foreseeable in the next five years, while underestimating the -amount of exploration drilling that could occur. The alternatives are legally flawed because -none of the alternatives address scenarios that are currently being contemplated and which are -most likely to occur. For example: - -• Level 1 activity assumes as many as three site clearance and shallow hazard survey -programs in the Chukchi Sea, while Level 2 activity assumes as many as 5 such -programs. By comparison, the Incidental Take Reduction (ITR) petition recently -submitted by Alaska Oil and Gas Association to USFWS for polar bear and walrus -projects as many as seven (and as few as zero) shallow hazard surveys and as many as -two (and as few as one) other G&G surveys annually in the Chukchi Sea over the next -five years. - -• The assumption for the number of source vessels and concurrent activity is unlikely. -• By 2014, ConocoPhillips intends to conduct exploration drilling in the Chukchi Sea. It is - -also probable that Statoil will be conducting exploration drilling on their prospects in the -Chukchi Sea beginning in 2014. Accordingly, in 2014, and perhaps later years depending -upon results, there may be as many as three exploration drilling programs occurring in -the Chukchi Sea. - -The alternatives scenarios should be adjusted by NMFS to account for realistic levels of -seismic and exploratory drilling activities, and the subsequent impact analyses should be -substantially revised. The DEIS does not explain why alternatives that would more -accurately represent likely levels of activity were omitted from inclusion in the DEIS as -required under 40 C.F.R. Sections 1500.1 and Section 1502.14. - -ALT 10 NMFS should include, as part of the assumptions associated with the alternatives, an analysis -examining how many different lessees there are, where their respective leases are in each -planning area (Beaufort vs. Chukchi seas), when their leases expire, and when they anticipate -exploring (by activity) their leases for hydrocarbons. This will help frame the levels of -activity that are considered in the EIS. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 11 -Comment Analysis Report - -ALT 11 There is a 2016 lease sale in Chukchi Sea and a 2015 lease sale in Beaufort Sea within the -Proposed 5 Year Plan. Alternatives should include some seismic, shallow hazard and -possibly drilling to account for these lease sales. - -ALT 12 In every impact category but one, the draft impact findings for Alternative 4 are identical to -the draft impact findings for Alternative 3 (Level 2 activity with standard mitigation -measures). Given that the impacts with and without additional mitigation are the same, -Alternative 4 neither advances thoughtful decision-making nor provides a rational -justification under the MMPA for NMFS to impose any additional conditions beyond -standard mitigation measures. Alternative 4 provides no useful analysis because the context -is entirely abstract (i.e., independent from a specific proposal). The need and effectiveness of -any given mitigation measure, standard or otherwise, can only be assessed in the context of a -specific activity proposed for a given location and time, under then-existing circumstances. -Finally, the identified time/area closures, and the use of a 120 dB and 160 dB buffer zones, -have no sound scientific or other factual basis. Alternative 4 should be changed to allow for -specific mitigations and time constraints designed to match proposed projects as they occur. - -ALT 13 Camden Bay, Barrow Canyon, Hanna Shoal, and Kasegaluk Lagoon are not currently listed -as critical habitat and do not maintain special protective status. NMFS should remove -Alternative 4 from further consideration until such time that these areas are officially -designated by law to warrant special protective measures. In addition, these temporal/spatial -limitations should be removed from Section 2.4.10(b). - -ALT 14 Alternative 5 should be deleted. The alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the -exception that it includes "alternative technologies" as possible mitigation measures. -However, virtually none of the technologies discussed are currently commercially available -nor will they being during the time frame of this EIS, which makes the analysis useless for -NEPA purposes. Because the majority of these technologies have not yet been built and/or -tested, it is difficult to fully analyze the level of impacts from these devices. Therefore, -additional NEPA analyses (i.e., tiering) will likely be required if applications are received -requesting to use these technologies during seismic surveys. - -ALT 15 The alternative technologies identified in Alternative 5 should not be viewed as a replacement -for airgun-based seismic surveys in all cases. - -ALT 16 Positive environmental consequences of some industry activities and technologies are not -adequately considered, especially alternative technologies and consideration of what the -benefits of better imaging of the subsurface provides in terms of potentially reducing the -number of wells to maximize safe production. - -ALT 17 The DEIS fails to include any actionable alternatives to require, incentivize, or test the use of -new technologies in the Arctic. Such alternatives include: - -• Mandating the use of marine vibroseis or other technologies in pilot areas, with an -obligation to accrue data on environmental impacts; - -• Creating an adaptive process by which marine vibroseis or other technologies can be -required as they become available; - -• Deferring the permitting of surveys in particular areas or for particular applications where -effective mitigative technologies, such as marine vibroseis, could reasonably be expected -to become available within the life of the EIS; - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 12 -Comment Analysis Report - -• Providing incentives for use of these technologies as was done for passive acoustic -monitoring systems in NTL 2007-G02; and - -• Exacting funds from applicants to support accelerated mitigation research in this area. - -NMFS must include these alternatives in the FEIS analysis. - -ALT 18 The reasons to not evaluate specific program numbers in the 2007 DPEIS would apply to the -current DEIS. This is a fundamental shift in reasoning of how alternatives are evaluated. -NMFS should: - -• Address why a previously rejected alternative (limiting number of surveys) has become -the basis for all alternatives currently under consideration; and - -• Explain the reasoning behind the change in analysis method. - -If NMFS cannot adequately address this discrepancy, they should consider withdrawing the -current DEIS and initiating a new analysis that does not focus on limiting program numbers -as a means of reducing impacts. - -ALT 19 The DEIS improperly dismisses the alternative “Caps on Levels of Activities and/or Noise.” -As NMFS has recognized, oil and gas-related disturbances in the marine environment can -result in biologically significant impacts depending upon the timing, location, and number of -the activities. Yet the DEIS declines even to consider an alternative limiting the amount of -activity that can be conducted in the Arctic, or part of the Arctic, over a given period. The -“soundscape” of the Arctic should be relatively easy to describe and manage compared to the -soundscapes of other regions, and should be included in the EIS. - -The agencies base their rejection of this alternative not on the grounds that it exceeds their -legal authority, but that it does not meet the purpose and need of the EIS. Instead of -developing an activity cap alternative for the EIS, the agencies propose, in effect, to consider -overall limits on activities when evaluating individual applications under Outer Continental -Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) and the MMPA. It would, however, be much more difficult for -NMFS or BOEM to undertake that kind of analysis in an individual IHA application or -OCSLA exploration plan because the agencies often lack sufficient information before the -open water season to take an overarching view of the activities occurring that year. -Determining limits at the outset would also presumably reduce uncertainty for industry. In -short, excluding any consideration of activity caps from the alternatives analysis in this EIS -frustrates the purpose of programmatic review, contrary to NEPA. NMFS claims that there is -inadequate data to quantify impacts to support a cumulative noise cap should serve to limit -authorizations rather than preventing a limit on activity. - -ALT 20 The DEIS improperly dismisses the alternative “Permanent Closures of Areas.” BOEM’s -relegation of this alternative to the leasing process is not consistent with its obligation, at the -exploration and permit approval stage, to reject applications that would cause serious harm or -undue harm. It is reasonable here for BOEM to define areas whose exploration would exceed -these legal thresholds regardless of time of year, just as it defines areas for seasonal -avoidance pursuant to other OCSLA and MMPA standards. Regardless, the lease sale stage -is not a proper vehicle for considering permanent exclusions for strictly off-lease activities, -such as off-lease seismic surveys. At the very least, the DEIS should consider establishing -permanent exclusion areas, or deferring activity within certain areas, outside the boundaries -of existing lease areas. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 13 -Comment Analysis Report - -ALT 21 The DEIS improperly dismisses the alternative “Duplicative Surveys.” NMFS’ Open Water -Panel has twice called for the elimination of unnecessary, duplicative surveys, whether -through data sharing or some other means. Yet the DEIS pleads that BOEM cannot adopt -this measure, on the grounds that the agency cannot “require companies to share proprietary -data, combine seismic programs, change lease terms, or prevent companies from acquiring -data in the same geographic area.” This analysis overlooks BOEM’s statutory duty under -OCSLA to approve only those permits whose exploration activities are not unduly harmful to -marine life. While OCSLA does not define the standard, it is difficult to imagine an activity -more expressive of undue harm than a duplicative survey, which obtains data that the -government and industry already possess and therefore is not necessary to the expeditious and -orderly development, subject to environmental safeguards of the outer continental shelf. It is -thus within BOEM’s authority to decline to approve individual permit applications in whole -or part that it finds are unnecessarily duplicative of existing or proposed surveys or data. - -ALT 22 NMFS should include a community-based alternative that establishes direct reliance on the -Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA), and the collaborative process that has been used to -implement it. The alternative would include a fully developed suite of mitigation measures -similar to what is included in each annual CAA. This alternative would also include: - -• A communications scheme to manage industry and hunter vessel traffic during whale -hunting; - -• Time-area closures that provide a westward-moving buffer ahead of the bowhead -migration in areas important for fall hunting by our villages; - -• Vessel movement restrictions and speed limitations for industry vessels moving in the -vicinity of migrating whales; - -• Limitations on levels of specific activities; -• Limitations on discharges in near-shore areas where food is taken and eaten directly from - -the water; -• Other measures to facilitate stakeholder involvement; and -• An annual adaptive decision making process where the oil industry and Native groups - -come together to discuss new information and potential amendments to the mitigation -measures and/or levels of activity. - -NMFS should also include a more thorough discussion of the 20-year history of the CAA to -provide better context for assessing the potential benefits of this community-based -alternative. - -ALT 23 NMFS should include an alternative in the Final EIS that blends the following components of -the existing DEIS alternatives, which are designed to benefit subsistence hunting: - -• Alternative 2 activity levels; -• Mandatory time/area closures of Alternative 4; -• Alternative technologies from Alternative 5; -• Zero discharge in the Beaufort Sea; -• Limitation on vessel transit into the Chukchi Sea; -• Protections for the subsistence hunt in Wainwright, Point Hope, and Point Lay; -• Sound source verification; -• Expanded exclusion zones for seismic activities; and -• Limitations on limited visibility operation of seismic equipment. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 14 -Comment Analysis Report - -ALT 24 NMFS should include an alternative in the Final EIS that is based on the amount of -anthropogenic sounds that marine mammals might be exposed to, rather than using numbers -of activities as a proxy for sound. This alternative, based on accumulation of sound exposure -level, could evaluate: - -• Different types and numbers of industrial activities; -• Different frequencies produced by each activity; -• Location of activities; -• Timing of activities; -• Overlap in time and space with marine mammals; and -• Knowledge about how marine mammals respond to anthropogenic activities. - -Threshold levels could be based on simulation modeling using the above information. This -approach would use a valid scientific approach, one that is at least as robust, and probably -more, than the current approach of simply assessing numbers of activities. - -ALT 25 NMFS has defined a seismic "program" as limited to no more than two source vessels -working in tandem. This would expand the duration required to complete a program, which -could increase the potential for environmental impacts, without decreasing the amount of -sound in the water at any one time. NMFS should not limit the number of source vessels -used in a program in this manner as it could limit exploration efficiencies inherent in existing -industry practice. - -ALT 26 NMFS should not limit the number of on ice surveys that can be acquired in any year, in -either the Beaufort or Chukchi seas, as it could limit exploration efficiencies inherent in -existing industry practice. - -ALT 27 The DEIS alternatives also limit the number of drilling operations each year regardless of the -type of drilling. Given that there are many different approaches to drilling, each with its own -unique acoustic footprint and clear difference in its potential to generate other environmental -effects, a pre-established limit on the number of drilling operations each year is not based on -a scientific assessment and therefore is unreasonable. NMFS should not limit the number of -drilling operations. - -ALT 28 By grouping 2D/3D seismic surveys and Controlled Source Electro-Magnetic (CSEM) -surveys together, the DEIS suggests that these two survey types are interchangeable, produce -similar types of data and/or have similar environmental impact characteristics. This is -incorrect and the DEIS should be corrected to separate them and, if the alternatives propose -limits, then each survey type should be dealt with separately. - -ALT 29 NMFS should consider a phased, adaptive approach to increasing the number of surveys in -the region because the cumulative effects of seismic surveys are not clear. Such an approach -would provide an opportunity to monitor and manage effects before they become significant -and also would help prevent situations where the industry has over-committed its resources to -activities that may cause unacceptable harm. - -ALT 30 In the Final EIS, NMFS should identify its preferred alternative, including the rationale for its -selection. - -ALT 31 NMFS must consider alternatives that do not contain the Additional Mitigation Measures -currently associated with every action alternative in the DEIS. These measures are not - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 15 -Comment Analysis Report - -warranted, are not scientifically supported, and are onerous prohibiting exploration activities -over extensive areas for significant portions of the open water season. - -ALT 32 Alternatives 2 and 3 identify different assumed levels of annual oil and gas activity. Varying -ranges of oil and gas activity are not alternatives to proposal for incidental take -authorizations. NMFS should revise the alternatives to more accurately reflect the Purpose -and Need of the EIS. - -ALT 33 The levels of activity identified in Alternatives 2 and 3 go far above and beyond anything that -has been seen in the Arctic to date. The DEIS as written preemptively approves specific -levels of industrial activity. This action is beyond NMFS’ jurisdiction, and the alternatives -should be revised to reflect these concerns. - -ALT 34 There is nothing in OCSLA that bars BOEM from incentivizing the use of common surveyors -or data sharing, as already occurs in the Gulf of Mexico, to reduce total survey effort. NMFS -should include this as part of an alternative in the EIS. - -ALT 35 The analysis in the DEIS avoids proposing a beneficial conservation alternative and -consistently dilutes the advantages of mitigation measures that could be used as part of such -an alternative. NEPA requires that agencies explore alternatives that “will avoid or minimize -adverse effects of these actions upon the quality of the human environment.” Such an -alternative could require all standard and additional mitigation measures, while adding limits -such as late-season drilling prohibitions to protect migrating bowhead whales and reduce the -harm from an oil spill. NMFS should consider analyzing such an alternative in the Final EIS. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 16 -Comment Analysis Report - -Cumulative Effects (CEF) -CEF Comments related to cumulative impacts in general and for a specific resource - -CEF 1 NMFS should review cumulative effects section; many “minor” and “negligible” impacts can -combine to be more than “minor” or “negligible”. - -CEF 2 Adverse cumulative effects need to be considered in more depth for: - -• Fisheries and prey species for marine mammals; -• Marine mammals and habitat; -• Wildlife in general; -• North Slope communities; -• Migratory pathways of marine mammals; -• Subsistence resources and traditional livelihoods. - -CEF 3 A narrow focus on oil and gas activities is therefore likely to underestimate the overall level -of impact on the bowhead whale, whereas an Ecosystem Based Management (EBM) -approach would better regulate the totality of potential impacts to wildlife habitat and -ecosystem services in the Arctic. - -CEF 4 NMFS should include more in its cumulative effects analysis the impacts caused by: - -• Climate change; -• Oil Spills; -• Ocean noise; -• Planes; -• Transportation in general; -• Discharge; -• Assessments/research/monitoring; -• Dispersants; and -• Invasive species. - -CEF 5 The cumulative effects analysis overall in the DEIS is inadequate. Specific comments -include: - -• The DEIS fails to develop a coherent analytical framework by which impacts are -assessed and how decisions are made; - -• The cumulative impact section does not provide details about what specific methodology -was used; - -• The cumulative effects analysis does not adequately assess the impacts from noise, -air/water quality, subsistence, and marine mammals; - -• The list of activities is incomplete; -• The assessment of impacts to employment/socioeconomics/income are not considered in - -assessment of cumulative impacts for any alternative other than the no action alternative; -• The industry has not shown that their activities will have no cumulative, adverse and - -unhealthy effects upon the animals, the air, the waters nor the peoples of the coastal -communities in the Arctic; - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 17 -Comment Analysis Report - -• The analysis on seals and other pinnipeds is inadequate and is not clear on whether -potential listings was considered; and - -• Recent major mortality events involving both walrus and ice seals must be considered -when determining impacts. A negligible impact determination cannot be made without -more information about these disease events. - -CEF 6 The cumulative effects analyzed are overestimated. Specific comments include: - -• There is no evidence from over 60 years of industry activities that injurious cumulative -sound levels occur; - -• Given that the seismic vessel is moving in and out of a localized area and the fact that -animals are believed to avoid vessel traffic and seismic sounds, cumulative sound -exposure is again likely being overestimated in the DEIS; - -• Cumulative impacts from oil and gas activities are generally prescriptive, written to limit -exploration activities during the short open water season. - -CEF 7 There is a lack of studies on the adverse and cumulative effects on communities, ecosystems, -air/water quality, subsistence resources, economy, and culture. NMFS should not authorize -Incidental Harassment Authorizations without adequate scientific data. - -CEF 8 Adverse cumulative effects need to be considered in more depth for marine mammals and -habitat, specifically regarding: - -• Oil and gas activities in the Canadian Beaufort and the Russian Chukchi Sea; -• Entanglement with fishing gear; -• Increased vessel traffic; -• Discharge; -• Water/Air pollution; -• Sources of underwater noise; -• Climate change; -• Ocean acidification; -• Production structures and pipelines. - -CEF 9 The DEIS does not adequately analyze the cumulative and synergistic effects of exploration -noise impacts to marine mammals. Specific comments include: - -• The DEIS only addresses single impacts to individual animals. In reality a whale does -not experience a single noise in a stationary area as the DEIS concludes but is faced with -a dynamic acoustic environment which all must be factored into estimating exposure not -only to individuals but also to populations; - -• A full characterization of risk to marine mammals from the impacts of noise will be a -function of the sources of noise in the marine and also the cumulative effects of multiple -sources of noise and the interaction of other risk factors; - -• The DEIS does not incorporate chronic stress into its cumulative impact analysis, such as -by using other species as proxies for lower life expectancies; - -• The DEIS fails to consider the impacts of noise on foraging and energetics; -• Because the acoustic footprint of seismic operations is so large, it is quite conceivable - -that bowhead whales could be exposed to seismic operations in the Canadian Beaufort, -the Alaskan Beaufort, and the Chukchi Sea; and - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 18 -Comment Analysis Report - -• An Arctic sound budget should include any noise that could contribute to a potential take, -not simply seismic surveying, oil and gas drilling, and ice management activities. - -CEF 10 The DEIS does not adequately analyze the combined effects of multiple surveying and -drilling operations taking place in the Arctic Ocean year after year. - -CEF 11 Over the last several years, the scientific community has identified a number of pathways by -which anthropogenic noise can affect vital rates and populations of animals. These efforts -include the 2005 National Research Council study, which produced a model for the -Population Consequences of Acoustic Disturbance; an ongoing Office of Naval Research -program whose first phase has advanced the NRC model; and the 2009 Okeanos workshop on -cumulative impacts. The draft EIS employs none of these methods, and hardly refers to any -biological pathway of impact. - -CEF 12 NMFS should include the following in the cumulative effects analysis: - -• Current and future activities including deep water port construction by the military, the -opening of the Northwest Passage, and production at BP’s Liberty prospect; - -• Past activities including past activities in the Arctic for which NMFS has issued IHAs; -commercial shipping and potential deep water port construction; production of offshore -oil and gas resources or production related activities; and commercial fishing; - -• A baseline for analysis of current activities and past IHAs; -• Recent studies: a passive acoustic monitoring study conducted by Scripps, and NOAA’s - -working group on cumulative noise mapping; and -• Ecosystem mapping of the entire project. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 19 -Comment Analysis Report - -Coordination and Compatibility (COR) -COR Comments on compliance with other statues, laws or regulations that should be considered; - -coordinating with federal, state, local agencies or organizations; permitting requirements. - -COR 1 Continued government to government consultation needs to include: - -• Increased focus on how NMFS and other Federal Agencies are required to protect natural -resources and minimize the impact of hydrocarbon development to adversely affect -subsistence hunting. - -• More consultations are needed with the tribes to incorporate their traditional knowledge -into the DEIS decision making process. - -• Direct contact between NMFS and Kotzebue IRA, Iñupiat Community of the Arctic -Slope (ICAS) and Native Village of Barrow should be initiated by NMFS. - -• Tribal organizations should be included in meeting with stakeholders and cooperating -agencies. - -• Consultation should be initiated early and from NOAA/NMFS, not through their -contractor. Meetings should be in person. - -COR 2 Data and results that are gathered should be shared throughout the impacted communities. -Often, adequate data is not shared and therefore perceived inaccurate. Before and after an -IHA is authorized, communities should receive feedback from industry, NMFS, and marine -observers. - -COR 3 There needs to be permanent system of enforcement and reporting for marine mammal -impacts to ensure that oil companies are complying with the terms of the IHA and Threatened -and Endangered species authorizations. This system needs to be developed and implemented -in collaboration with the North Slope Borough and the ICAS and should be based on the -Conflict Avoidance Agreements. - -COR 4 The United States and Canada needs to adopt an integrated and cooperative approach to -impact assessment of hydrocarbon development in the Arctic. NMFS should coordinate with -the Toktoyaktuk and the Canadian government because of the transboundry impacts of -exploratory activities and the United States’ non-binding co-management agreements with -indigenous peoples in Canada (Alaska Beluga Whale Committee and Nunavut Wildlife -Management Board). - -COR 5 The State of Alaska should be consulted and asked to join the DEIS team as a Cooperating -Agency because the DEIS addresses the potential environmental impacts of oil and gas -exploration in State water and because operators on state lands must comply with the MMPA. - -COR 6 Local city councils within the affected area need to be informed of public involvement -meetings, since they are the elected representatives for the community. - -COR 7 NMFS should be explicit in how the CAA process is integrated into the process of reviewing -site specific industry proposals and should require offshore operators to enter into a CAA -with AEWC for the following reasons: - -• Affected communities depend on the CAA process to provide a voice in management of -offshore activities. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 20 -Comment Analysis Report - -• Through the CAA process, whaling captains use their traditional knowledge to determine -whether and how oil and gas activities can be conducted consistent with our subsistence -activities. - -• Promotes a community-based, collaborative model for making decisions, which is much -more likely to result in consensus and reduce conflict. - -• Promotes the objectives of OCSLA, which provides for the "expeditious and orderly -development [of the OCS], subject to environmental safeguards ...” - -• Serves the objectives of the MMPA, which states that the primary objective of -management of marine mammals "should be to maintain the health and stability of the -marine ecosystem." - -COR 8 NMFS should develop a mechanism to ensure that there is a coordinated effort by federal and -state agencies, industry, affected communities, and non-governmental organizations and -stakeholders to improve the integration of scientific data and develop a comprehensive, long- -term monitoring program for the Arctic ecosystem. - -COR 9 Effort should be put towards enhancing interagency coordination for managing noise. -Improved communication among federal agencies involved in noise impact assessment would -enhance compliance with the US National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act -(NTTAA). The NTTAA promotes the use of consensus-based standards rather than agency- -specific standards whenever possible and/or appropriate. - -COR 10 It is recommended that NMFS coordinate with BOEM on the following activities: - -• To conduct supplemental activity-specific environmental analyses under NEPA that -provides detailed information on proposed seismic surveys and drilling activities and the -associated environmental effects. - -• Ensure that the necessary information is available to estimate the number of takes as -accurately as possible given current methods and data. - -• Make activity-specific analyses available for public review and comment rather than -issuing memoranda to the file or categorical exclusions that do not allow for public -review/comment. - -• Encourage BOEM to make those analyses available for public review and comment -before the Service makes its final determination regarding applications for incidental take -authorizations. - -COR 11 It is recommended that BOEM should have more than a cooperating agency role since the -proposed action includes BOEM issuance of G&G permits. - -COR 12 NMFS should integrate its planning and permitting decisions with coastal and marine spatial -planning efforts for the Arctic region. - -COR 13 NMFS needs to coordinate with the oil and gas industry to identify the time period that the -assessment will cover, determine how the information will be utilized, and request a range of -activity levels that companies / operators might undertake in the next five years. - -COR 14 It is requested that the DEIS clarify how in the DEIS the appropriate mechanism for -considering exclusion areas from leasing can be during the BOEM request for public -comments on its Five Year OCS Leasing Plan when the recent BOEM Draft EIS five-year -plan refused to consider additional deferral areas. In that document, BOEM eliminated - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 21 -Comment Analysis Report - -additional details from further analysis by stating that it would consider the issue further as -part of lease sale decisions. - -COR 15 It is recommend that NMFS work to harmonize the DEIS with the President’s goals under -Executive Order 13580. - -COR 16 Consultation with USGS would help NMFS make a more informed prediction regarding the -likelihood and extent of successful exploration and development in the project area and thus -affect the maximum level of activity it analyzed. - -COR 17 NMFS must consider the comments that BOEM received on the five-year plan draft EIS as -well as the plan itself before extensively relying on the analysis, specifically for its oil spill -analysis. - -COR 18 NMFS should consult with the AEWC about how to integrate the timing of the adaptive -management process with the decisions to be made by both NMFS and BOEM regarding -annual activities. This would avoid the current situation where agencies often ask for input -from local communities on appropriate mitigation measures before the offshore operators and -AEWC have conducted annual negotiations. - -COR 19 NMFS should adopt an ecosystem based management approach consistent with the policy -objectives of the MMPA and the policy objectives of the Executive Branch and President -Obama's Administration. - -COR 20 The EIS should have better clarification that a Very Large Oil Spill (VLOS) are violations of -the Clean Water Act and illegal under a MMPA permit. - -COR 21 The 2011 DEIS does not appear to define what new information became available requiring a -change in the scope, set of alternatives, and analysis, as stated in the 2009 NOI to withdraw -the DPEIS. Although Section 1.7 of the 2011 DEIS lists several NEPA documents (most -resulting in a finding of no significant impact) prepared subsequent to the withdrawal of the -DPEIS, NMFS has not clearly defined what new information would drive such a significant -change to the proposed action and require the radical alternatives analysis presented in the -2011 DEIS. - -COR 22 The 2011 DEIS is inconsistent with past NEPA reviews on Arctic exploration activities. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 22 -Comment Analysis Report - -Data (DAT) -DATA Comments referencing scientific studies that should be considered. - -DATA 1 NMFS should consider these additional references regarding effects to beluga whales: - -[Effects of noise] Christine Erbe and David M. Farmer, Zones of impact around icebreakers -affecting beluga whales in the Beaufort Sea. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 108 (3), Pt. 1 p.1332 - -[avoidance] Findley, K.J., Miller, G.W., Davis, R.A., and Greene, C.R., Jr., Reactions of -beluga whales, Delphinapterus leucas, and narwhals, Monodon monoceros, to ice-breaking -ships in the Canadian high Arctic, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 224: 97-117 (1990); see also -Cosens, S.E., and Dueck, L.P., Ice breaker noise in Lancaster Sound, NWT, Canada: -implications for marine mammal behavior, Mar. Mamm. Sci. 9: 285-300 (1993). - -[beluga displacement]See, e.g., Fraker, M.A., The 1976 white whale monitoring program, -MacKenzie estuary, report for Imperial Oil, Ltd., Calgary (1977); Fraker, M.A., The 1977 -white whale monitoring program, MacKenzie estuary, report for Imperial Oil, Ltd., Calgary -(1977); Fraker, M.A., The 1978 white whale monitoring program, MacKenzie estuary, report -for Imperial Oil, Ltd., Calgary (1978); Stewart, B.S., Evans, W.E., and Awbrey, F.T., Effects -of man-made water-borne noise on the behaviour of beluga whales, Delphinapterus leucas, in -Bristol Bay, Alaska, Hubbs Sea World (1982) (report 82-145 to NOAA); Stewart, B.S., -Awbrey, F.T., and Evans, W.E., Belukha whale (Delphinapterus leucas) responses to -industrial noise in Nushagak Bay, Alaska: 1983 (1983); Edds, P.L., and MacFarlane, J.A.F., -Occurrence and general behavior of balaenopterid cetaceans summering in the St. Lawrence -estuary, Canada, Can. J. Zoo. 65: 1363-1376 (1987). - -[beluga displacement] Miller, G.W., Moulton, V.D., Davis, R.A., Holst, M., Millman, P., -MacGillivray, A., and Hannay, D., Monitoring seismic effects on marine mammals - -southeastern Beaufort Sea, 2001-2002, in Armsworthy, S.L., et al. (eds.),Offshore oil and gas -environmental effects monitoring/Approaches and technologies, at 511-542 (2005). - -DATA 2 NMFS should consider these additional references regarding the general effects of noise, -monitoring during seismic surveys and noise management as related to marine mammals: - -[effects of noise] Jochens, A., D. Biggs, K. Benoit-Bird, D. Engelhaupt, J. Gordon, C. Hu, N. -Jaquet, M. Johnson, R. Leben, B. Mate, P. Miller, J. Ortega-Ortiz, A. Thode, P. Tyack, and B. -Würsig. 2008. Sperm whale seismic study in the Gulf of Mexico: Synthesis report. U.S. -Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New -Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2008-006. 341 pp. SWSS final report was centered on the -apparent lack of large-scale effects of airguns (distribution of sperm whales on scales of 5- -100km were no different when airguns were active than when they were silent), but a key -observation was that one D-tagged whale exposed to sound levels of 164dB re:1µPa ceased -feeding and remained at the surface for the entire four hours that the survey vessel was -nearby, then dove to feed as soon as the airguns were turned off. - -[effects of noise] Miller, G.W., R.E. Elliott, W.R. Koski, V.D. Moulton, and W.J. -Richardson. 1999. Whales. p. 5-1 – 5- 109 In W.J. Richardson, (ed.), Marine mammal and -acoustical monitoring of Western Geophysical's openwater seismic program in the Alaskan -Beaufort Sea, 1998. LGL Report TA2230-3. Prepared by LGL Ltd., King City, ONT, and - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 23 -Comment Analysis Report - -Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Western Geophysical, Houston, TX, and -NMFS, Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. 390 p. - -[effects of noise] Richardson, W.J., Greene Jr, C.R., Malme, C.I. and Thomson, D.H. 1995. -Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego. 576pp. - -[effects of noise] Holst, M., M.A. Smultea, W.R. Koski, and B. Haley. 2005. Marine -mammal and sea turtle monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory’s marine -seismic program off the Northern Yucatan Peninsula in the Southern Gulf of Mexico, January -February 2005. LGL Report TA2822-31. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research -associates, King City, ONT, for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, -Palisades, NY, and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. June. 96 p. - -[marine mammals and noise] Balcomb III, KC, Claridge DE. 2001. A mass stranding of -cetaceans caused by naval sonar in the Bahamas. Bahamas J. Sci. 8(2):2-12. - -[noise from O&G activities] Richardson, W.J., Greene Jr, C.R., Malme, C.I. and Thomson, -D.H. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego. 576pp. - -A study on ship noise and marine mammal stress was recently issued. Rolland, R.M., Parks, -S.E., Hunt, K.E.,Castellote, M., Corkeron, P.J., Nowacek, D.P., Wasser, S.K., and Kraus, -S.D., Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right whales, Proceedings of the Royal -Society B: Biological Sciences doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.2429 (2012). - -Lucke, K., Siebert, U., Lepper, P.A., and Blanchet, M.-A., Temporary shift in masked hearing -thresholds in a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) after exposure to seismic airgun stimuli, -Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125: 4060-4070 (2009). - -Gedamke, J., Gales, N., and Frydman, S., Assessing risk of baleen whale hearing loss from -seismic surveys: The effect of uncertainty and individual variation, Journal of the Acoustical -Society of America 129:496-506 (2011). - -[re. relationship between TTS and PTS] Kastak, D., Mulsow, J., Ghoul, A., Reichmuth, C., -Noise-induced permanent threshold shift in a harbor seal [abstract], Journal of the Acoustical -Society of America 123: 2986 (2008) (sudden, non-linear induction of permanent threshold -shift in harbor seal during TTS experiment); Kujawa, S.G., and Liberman, M.C., Adding -insult to injury: Cochlear nerve degeneration after ‘temporary’ noise-induced hearing loss, -Journal of Neuroscience 29: 14077-14085 (2009) (mechanism linking temporary to -permanent threshold shift). - -[exclusion zones around foraging habitat] See Miller, G.W., Moulton, V.D., Davis, R.A., -Holst, M., Millman, P., MacGillivray, A., and Hannay, D. Monitoring seismic effects on -marine mammals in the southeastern Beaufort Sea, 2001-2002, in Armsworthy, S.L., et -al.(eds.), Offshore oil and gas environmental effects monitoring/Approaches and -technologies, at 511-542 (2005). - -[passive acoustic monitoring limitations] See also Gillespie, D., Gordon, J., Mchugh, R., -Mclaren, D., Mellinger, D.K., Redmond, P., Thode, A., Trinder, P., and Deng, X.Y., -PAMGUARD: semiautomated, open source software for real-time acoustic detection and -localization of ceteaceans, Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics 30(5) (2008). - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 24 -Comment Analysis Report - -BOEM, Site-specific environmental assessment of geological and geophysical survey -application no. L11-007for TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Company, at 22 (2011) (imposing -separation distance in Gulf of Mexico, noting that purpose is to “allow for a corridor for -marine mammal movement”). - -[harbor porpoise avoidance] Bain, D.E., and Williams, R., Long-range effects of airgun noise -on marine mammals: responses as a function of received sound level and distance (2006) -(IWC Sci. Comm. Doc. IWC/SC/58/E35); Kastelein, R.A., Verboom, W.C., Jennings, N., and -de Haan, D., Behavioral avoidance threshold level of a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) -for a continuous 50 kHz pure tone, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123: 1858- -1861 (2008); Kastelein, R.A., Verboom, W.C., Muijsers, M., Jennings, N.V., and van der -Heul, S., The influence of acoustic emissions for underwater data transmission on the -behavior of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in a floating pen, Mar. Enviro. Res. 59: -287-307 (2005); Olesiuk, P.F., Nichol, L.M., Sowden, M.J., and Ford, J.K.B., Effect of the -sound generated by an acoustic harassment device on the relative abundance and distribution -of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in Retreat Passage, British Columbia, Mar. Mamm. -Sci. 18: 843-862 (2002). - -A special issue of the International Journal of Comparative Psychology (20:2-3) is devoted to -the problem of noise-related stress response in marine mammals. For an overview published -as part of that volume, see, e.g., A.J. Wright, N. Aguilar Soto, A.L. Baldwin, M. Bateson, -C.M. Beale, C. Clark, T. Deak, E.F. Edwards, A. Fernandez, A.Godinho, L. Hatch, A. -Kakuschke, D. Lusseau, D. Martineau, L.M. Romero, L. Weilgart, B. Wintle, G. Notarbartolo -di Sciara, and V. Martin, Do marine mammals experience stress related to anthropogenic -noise? (2007). - -[methods to address data gaps] Bejder, L., Samuels, A., Whitehead, H., Finn, H., and Allen, -S., Impact assessment research: use and misuse of habituation, sensitization and tolerance in -describing wildlife responses to anthropogenic stimuli, Marine Ecology Progress Series -395:177-185 (2009). - -[strandings] Brownell, R.L., Jr., Nowacek, D.P., and Ralls, K., Hunting cetaceans with sound: -a worldwide review, Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 10: 81-88 (2008); -Hildebrand, J.A., Impacts of anthropogenic sound, in Reynolds, J.E. III, Perrin, W.F., Reeves, -R.R., Montgomery, S., and Ragen, T.J., eds., Marine Mammal Research: Conservation -beyond Crisis (2006). - -[effects of noise] Harris, R.E., T. Elliot, and R.A. Davis. 2007. Results of mitigation and -monitoring program, Beaufort Span 2-D marine seismic program, open-water season 2006. -LGL Rep. TA4319-1. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., for GX Technology Corp., -Houston, TX. 48 p. - -Hutchinson and Ferrero (2011) noted that there were on-going studies that could help provide -a basis for a sound budget. - -[refs regarding real-time passive acoustic monitoring to reduce ship strike] Abramson, L., -Polefka, S., Hastings, S., and Bor, K., Reducing the Threat of Ship Strikes on Large -Cetaceans in the Santa Barbara Channel Region and Channel Islands National Marine -Sanctuary: Recommendations and Case Studies (2009) (Marine Sanctuaries Conservation -Series ONMS-11-01); Silber, G.K., S. Bettridge, and D. Cottingham, Report of a workshop to -identify and assess technologies to reduce ship strikes of large whales. Providence, Rhode -Island, July 8-10, 2008 (2009) (NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-OPR-42). - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 25 -Comment Analysis Report - -[time/place restrictions] See, e.g., Letter from Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Undersecretary of -Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, to Nancy Sutley, Chair, Council on Environmental -Quality at 2 (Jan. 19, 2010); Agardy, T., et al., A Global Scientific Workshop on Spatio- -Temporal Management of Noise (October 2007). - -[seismic and ambient noise] Roth, E.H., Hildebrand, J.A., Wiggins, S.M., and Ross, D., -Underwater ambient noise on the Chukchi Sea continental slope, Journal of the Acoustical -Society of America 131:104-110 (2012). - -Expert Panel Review of Monitoring and Mitigation and Protocols in Applications for -Incidental Take Authorizations Related to Oil and Gas Exploration, including Seismic -Surveys in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Anchorage, Alaska 22-26 March 2010. - -[refs regarding monitoring and safety zone best practices] Weir, C.R., and Dolman, S.J., -Comparative review of the regional marine mammal mitigation guidelines implemented -during industrial seismic surveys, and guidance towards a worldwide standard, Journal of -International Wildlife Law and Policy 10: 1-27 (2007); Parsons, E.C.M., Dolman, S.J., -Jasny, M., Rose, N.A., Simmonds, M.P., and Wright, A.J., A critique of the UK’s JNCC -seismic survey guidelines for minimising acoustic disturbance to marine mammals: Best -practice? Marine Pollution Bulletin 58: 643-651 (2009). - -[marine mammals and noise - aircraft] Ljungblad, D.K., Moore, S.E. and Van Schoik, D.R. -1983. Aerial surveys of endangered whales in the Beaufort, eastern Chukchi and northern -Bering Seas, 1982. NOSC Technical Document 605 to the US Minerals Management -Service, Anchorage, AK. NTIS AD-A134 772/3. 382pp - -[marine mammals and noise - aircraft] Southwest Research Associates. 1988. Results of the -1986-1987 gray whale migration and landing craft, air cushion interaction study program. -USN Contract No. PO N62474-86-M-0942. Final Report to Nav. Fac. Eng. Comm., San -Bruno, CA. Southwest Research Associates, Cardiff by the Sea, CA. 31pp. - -DATA 3 NMFS should consider these additional references regarding fish and the general effects of -noise on fish: - -[effects of noise] Arill Engays, Svein Lakkeborg, Egil Ona, and Aud Vold Soldal. Effects of -seismic shooting on local abundance and catch rates of cod (Gadus morhua) and haddock -(Melanogrammus aeglefinus) Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 2238 “2249 (1996). - -[animal adaptations to extreme environments- may not be relevant to EIS] Michael Tobler, -Ingo Schlupp, Katja U. Heubel, Radiger Riesch, Francisco J. Garca de Leon, Olav Giere and -Martin Plath. Life on the edge: hydrogen sulfide and the fish communities of a Mexican cave -and surrounding waters 2006 Extremophiles Journal, Volume 10, Number 6, Pages 577-585 - -[response to noise] Knudsen, F.R., P.S. Enger, and O. Sand. 1994. Avoidance responses to -low frequency sound in downstream migrating Atlantic salmon smolt, Salmo salar. Journal -of Fish Biology 45:227-233. - -See also Fish Fauna in nearshore water of a barrier island in the western Beaufort Sea, -Alaska. SW Johnson, JF Thedinga, AD Neff, and CA Hoffman. US Dept of Commerce, -NOAA. Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-210. July 2010. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 26 -Comment Analysis Report - -[airgun impacts and fish] McCauley, R.D., Fewtrell, J., Duncan, A.J., Jenner, C., Jenner, M.- -N., Penrose, J.D., Prince, R.I.T., Adhitya, A., Murdoch, J., and McCabe, K., Marine seismic -surveys: Analysis and propagation of air-gun signals; and effects of air-gun exposure on -humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and squid (2000) (industry-sponsored study undertaken -by researchers at the Curtin University of Technology, Australia). Lakkeborg, S., Ona, E., -Vold, A., Pena, H., Salthaug, A., Totland, B., Ãvredal, J.T., Dalen, J. and Handegard, N.O., -Effects of seismic surveys on fish distribution and catch rates of gillnets and longlines in -Vesterlen in summer 2009 (2010) (Institute of Marine Research Report for Norwegian -Petroleum Directorate). Slotte, A., Hansen, K., Dalen, J., and Ona, E., Acoustic mapping of -pelagic fish distribution and abundance in relation to a seismic shooting area off the -Norwegian west coast, Fisheries Research 67:143-150 (2004). Skalski, J.R., Pearson, W.H., -and Malme, C.I., Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device on catch-perunit-effort -in a hook-and-line fishery for rockfish (Sebastes ssp.), Canadian Journal of Fisheries and -Aquatic Sciences 49: 1357-1365 (1992). McCauley et al., Marine seismic surveys: analysis -and propagation of air-gun signals, and effects of air-gun exposure; McCauley, R., Fewtrell, -J., and Popper, A.N., High intensity anthropogenic sound damages fish ears, Journal of the -Acoustical Society of America 113: 638-642 (2003); see also Scholik, A.R., and Yan, H.Y., -Effects of boat engine noise on the auditory sensitivity of the fathead minnow, Pimephales -promelas, Environmental Biology of Fishes 63: 203-209 (2002). Purser, J., and Radford, -A.N., Acoustic noise induces attention shifts and reduces foraging performance in -threespined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus), PLoS One, 28 Feb. 2011, DOI: -10.1371/journal.pone.0017478 (2011). Dalen, J., and Knutsen, G.M., Scaring effects on fish -and harmful effects on eggs, larvae and fry by offshore seismic explorations, in Merklinger, -H.M., Progress in Underwater Acoustics 93-102 (1987); Banner, A., and Hyatt, M., Effects of -noise on eggs and larvae of two estuarine fishes, Transactions of the American Fisheries -Society 1:134-36 (1973); L.P. Kostyuchenko, Effect of elastic waves generated in marine -seismic prospecting on fish eggs on the Black Sea, Hydrobiology Journal 9:45-48 (1973). - -Recent work performed by Dr. Brenda Norcross (UAF) for MMS/BOEM. There are -extensive data deficiencies for most marine and coastal fish population abundance and trends -over time. I know because I conducted such an exercise for the MMS in the mid 2000s and -the report is archived as part of lease sale administrative record. Contact Kate Wedermeyer -(BOEM) or myself for a copy if it cannot be located in the administrative record. - -DATA 4 NMFS should consider these additional references on the effects of noise on lower trophic -level organisms: - -[effects of noise] Michel Andra, Marta Sola, Marc Lenoir, Merca¨ Durfort, Carme Quero, -Alex Mas, Antoni Lombarte, Mike van der Schaar1, Manel Lpez-Bejar, Maria Morell, Serge -Zaugg, and Ludwig Hougnigan. Lowfrequency sounds induce acoustic trauma in -cephalopods. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. Nov. 2011V9 Iss.9 - -[impacts of seismic surveys and other activities on invertebrates] See, e.g., McCauley, R.D., -Fewtrell, J., Duncan, A.J., Jenner, C., Jenner, M.-N., Penrose, J.D., Prince, R.I.T., Adhitya, -A., Murdoch, J., and McCabe, K., Marine seismic surveys: Analysis and propagation of air- -gun signals; and effects of air-gun exposure on humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and -squid (2000); Andra, M., Sola, M., Lenoir, M., Durfort, M., Quero, C., Mas, A., Lombarte, -A., van der Schaar, M., Lapez-Bejar, M., Morell, M., Zaugg, S., and Hougnigan, L., Low- -frequency sounds induce acoustic trauma in cephalopods, Frontiers in Ecology and the -Environment doi:10.1890/100124 (2011); Guerra, A., and Gonzales, A.F., Severe injuries in -the giant squid Architeuthis dux stranded after seismic explorations, in German Federal - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 27 -Comment Analysis Report - -Environment Agency, International Workshop on the Impacts of Seismic Survey Activities -on Whales and Other Marine Biota at 32-38 (2006) - -DATA 5 NMFS should consider these additional references on effects of noise on bowhead whales: - -[effects of noise] Richardson WJ, Miller GW, Greene Jr. CR 1999. Displacement of -Migrating Bowhead Whales by Sounds from Seismic Surveys in Shallow Waters of the -Beaufort Sea. J. of Acoust. Soc. of America. 106:2281. - -NMFS cites information from Richardson et al. (1995) which suggested that migrating -bowhead whales may react at sound levels as low as 120 dB (RMS) re 1 uPa but fails to cite -newer work by Christie et al. 2010 and Koski et al. 2009, cited elsewhere in the document, -showing that migrating whales entered and moved through areas ensonified to 120-150 dB -(RMS) deflecting only at levels of ~150 dB. Distances at which whales deflected were similar -in both studies suggesting that factors other than just sound are important in determining -avoidance of an area by migrating bowhead whales. This is a general problem with the EIS in -that it consistently uses outdated information as part of the impact analysis, relying on -previous analyses from other NMFS or MMS EIS documents conducted without the benefit -of the new data. - -Additionally, we ask NMFS to respond to the results of a recent study of the impacts of noise -on Atlantic Right whales, which found "a decrease in baseline concentrations of fGCs in right -whales in association with decreased overall noise levels (6 dB) and significant reductions in -noise at all frequencies between 50 and 150 Hz as a consequence of reduced large vessel -traffic in the Bay of Fundy following the events of 9/11/01. This study of another baleen -whale that is closely related to the bowhead whale supports traditional knowledge regarding -the skittishness and sensitivity of bowhead whales to noise and documents that these -reactions to noise are accompanied by a physiological stress response that could have broader -implications for repeated exposures to noise as contemplated in the DEIS. 68 Rolland, R.M., -et al. Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right whales. Proc. R. Soc. B (2012) -(doi:lO.1098/rspb.2011.2429). Exhibit G. - -Bowhead Whale Aerial Survey Project (or BWASP) sightings show that whales are found -feeding in many years on both sides of the Bay. See also Ferguson et al., A Tale of Two Seas: -Lessons from Multi-decadal Aerial Surveys for Cetaceans in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas -(2011 PowerPoint) (slide 15). A larger version of the map from the PowerPoint is attached as -Exh. 2 Industry surveys have also confirmed whales feeding west of Camden Bay in both -2007 and 2008.159 Shell, Revised Outer Continental Shelf Lease Exploration Plan, Camden -Bay, Beaufort Sea, Alaska, Appendix F 3-79 (May 2011) (Beaufort EIA), available at -http://boem.gov/Oil-and-Gas-Energy-Program/Plans/Regional-Plans/Alaska-Exploration- -Plans/2012-Shell-Beaufort-EP/Index.aspx. - -[bowhead displacement] Miller, G.W., Elliot, R.E., Koski, W.R., Moulton, V.D., and -Richardson W.J., Whales, in Richardson, W.J. (ed.),Marine Mammal and Acoustical -Monitoring of Western Geophysical’s Open-Water Seismic Program in the Alaskan Beaufort -Sea, 1998 (1999); Richardson, W.J., Miller, G.W., and Greene Jr., C.R., Displacement of -migrating bowhead whales by sounds from seismic surveys in shallow waters of the Beaufort -Sea, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106:2281 (1999). - -Clark, C.W., and Gagnon, G.C., Considering the temporal and spatial scales of noise -exposures from seismic surveys on baleen whales (2006) (IWC Sci. Comm. Doc. -IWC/SC/58/E9); Clark, C.W., pers. comm. with M. Jasny, NRDC (Apr. 2010); see also - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 28 -Comment Analysis Report - -MacLeod, K., Simmonds, M.P., and Murray, E., Abundance of fin (Balaenoptera physalus) -and sei whales (B. Borealis) amid oil exploration and development off northwest Scotland, -Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 8: 247-254 (2006). - -DATA 6 NMFS should review and incorporate these additional recent BOEM documents into the -Final EIS: - -BOEM recently issued a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Gulf of -Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale: 2012; Central Planning Area Lease Sale 216/222; -Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale: 2012; Central Planning Area Lease Sale 216/222 -(SEIS). This final SEIS for the GOM correctly concluded that, despite more than 50 years of -oil and gas seismic and other activities, “there are no data to suggest that activities from the -preexisting OCS Program are significantly impacting marine mammal populations.” - -DATA 7 The DEIS should be revised to discuss any and all NMFS or BOEM IQA -requirements/guidance that apply to oil and gas activities in the Arctic Ocean. The final EIS -should discuss Information Quality Act Requirements, and should state that these IQA -requirements also apply to any third-party information that the agencies use or rely on to -regulate oil and gas operations. The DEIS should be revised to discuss: - -• NMFS Instruction on NMFS Data Documentation, which states at pages 11-12 that all -NMFS data disseminations must meet IQA guidelines. - -• NMFS Directive on Data and Information Management, which states at page 3: (General -Policy and Requirements A. Data are among the most valuable public assets that NMFS -controls, and are an essential enabler of the NMFS mission. The data will be visible, -accessible, and understandable to authorized users to support mission objectives, in -compliance with OMB guidelines for implementing the Information Quality Act. - -• NMFS Instruction on Section 515 Pre-Dissemination Review and Documentation Form. -• NMFS Instruction on Guidelines for Agency Administrative Records, which states at - -pages 2-3 that: The AR [Administrative Record] first must document the process the -agency used in reaching its final decision in order to show that the agency followed -required procedures. For NOAA actions, procedural requirements include The -Information Quality Act. - -DATA 8 Information in the EIS should be updated and include information on PAMGUARD that has -been developed by the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers Joint Industry -Project. PAMGUARD is a software package that can interpret and display calls of vocalizing -marine mammals, locate them by azimuth and range and identify some of them by species. -These abilities are critical for detecting animals within safety zones and enabling shut-down. - -DATA 9 NMFS should utilize some of the new predictive modeling techniques that are becoming -available to better describe and analyze the links between impacts experienced at the -individual level to the population level. One example is the tool for sound and marine -mammals; Acoustic Integration Models (AIMs) that estimate how many animals might be -exposed to specific levels of sound. Furthermore, Ellison et al. (2011) suggest a three- -pronged approach that uses marine mammal behaviors to examine sound exposure and help -with planning of offshore activities. Additionally, scenario-modeling tools such as EcoPath -and EcoSim might help with modeling potential outcomes from different anthropogenic -activities. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 29 -Comment Analysis Report - -DATA 10 NMFS should consider these additional references regarding impacts of, or responses to, oil -spills: - -NMFS should update information in the EIS with work recently completed by this gap is -documented in recent oil in ice field studies completed by SINTEF. Despite some advances in -oil spill response technology, there is still a significant gap in the ability to either remove or -burn oil in 30 to 70 percent ice cover. This gap is documented in recent oil in ice field studies -completed by SINTEF and cited by NMFS. - -DATA 11 NMFS should consider review and incorporation of the following document related to energy -development: - -Energy [r]evolution: A Sustainable Energy Outlook: 2010 USA Energy Scenario. -http://www.energyblueprint.info/1239.0.html -http://www.energyblueprint.info/fileadmin/media/documents/national/2010/0910_gpi_E_R__ -usa_report_10_lr.pdf?PHPSESSID=a403f5196a8bfe3a8eaf375d5c936a69 (PDF document, -9.7 MB). - -DATA 12 NMFS should review their previous testimony and comments that the agency has provided on -oil and gas exploration or similarly-related activities to ensure that they are not conflicting -with what is presented in the DEIS. - -• [NMFS should review previous comments on data gaps they have provided] NMFS, -Comments on Minerals Management Service (MMS) Draft EIS for the Chukchi Sea -Planning Area “Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 and Seismic Surveying Activities in the -Chukchi Sea at 2 (Jan. 30, 2007) (NMFS LS 193 Cmts); NMFS, Comments on MMS -Draft EIS for the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas” Oil and Gas Lease -Sales 209, 212, 217, and 221 at 3-5 (March 27, 2009) (NMFS Multi-Sale Cmts). - -• NMFS should review past comment submissions on data gaps, National Oceanic and -Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Comments on the U.S. Department of the -Interior/MMS Draft Proposed Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing -Program for 2010-2015 at 9 (Sept. 9, 2009). - -• Past NEPA documents have concluded that oil and gas exploration in the Chukchi Sea -and Beaufort Sea OCS in conjunction with existing mitigation measures (which do not -include any of the Additional Mitigation Measures) are sufficient to minimize potential -impacts to insignificant levels. - -DATA 13 NMFS should review past comment submissions on data gaps regarding: - -The DPEIS appears not to address or acknowledge the findings of the U.S. Geological Survey -(USGS) June 2011 report “Evaluation of the Science Needs to Inform Decisions on Outer -Continental Shelf Energy Development in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Alaska.” USGS -reinforced that information and data in the Arctic are emerging rapidly, but most studies -focus on subjects with small spatial and temporal extent and are independently conducted -with limited synthesis. USGS recommended that refined regional understanding of climate -change is required to help clarify development scenarios. - -This report found that basic data for many marine mammal species in the Arctic are still -needed, including information on current abundance, seasonal distribution, movements, -population dynamics, foraging areas, sea-ice habitat relationships, and age-specific vital rates. -The need for such fundamental information is apparent even for bowhead whales, one of the -better studied species in the Arctic. The report confirms that more research is also necessary - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 30 -Comment Analysis Report - -to accurately assess marine mammal reactions to different types of noise and that more work -is needed to characterize the seasonal and spatial levels of ambient noise in both the Beaufort -and Chukchi seas. Recognizing the scope and importance of the data gaps, the report states -that missing information serves as a major constraint to a defensible science framework for -critical Arctic decision making. - -Regarding data gaps on Arctic species see, e.g., Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science & -Technology, Addressing the Effects of Human-Generated Sound on Marine Life: An -Integrated Research Plan for U.S. Federal Agencies (Jan. 13, 2009), available at -http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/oceans-mmnoise-IATF.pdf, -(stating that the current status of science as to noise effects often results in estimates of -potential adverse impacts that contain a high degree of uncertainty?); (noting the need for -baseline information, particularly for Arctic marine species); - -National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling -(National Commission), Deep Water: The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore -Drilling, Report to the President (Jan. 2011), available at -http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/sites/default/files/documents/DEEPWATER_Reporttothe -President_FINAL.pdf (finding that “[s]cientific understanding of environmental conditions in -sensitive environments in areas proposed for more drilling, such as the Arctic, is -inadequate”). - -National Commission, Offshore Drilling in the Arctic: Background and Issues for the Future -Consideration of Oil and Gas Activities, Staff Working Paper No. 13 at 19, available at -http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Offshore%20Drilling%20in -%20the%20Arctic_Bac -kground%20and%20Issues%20for%20the%20Future%20Consideration%20of%20Oil%20an -d%20Gas%20Activitie s_0.pdf (listing acoustics research on impacts to marine mammals as a -?high priority?) - -DATA 14 NMFS should include further information on the environmental impacts of EM -[Electromagnetic] surveys. Refer to the recently completed environmental impact assessment -of Electromagnetic (EM) Techniques used for oil and gas exploration and production, -available at http://www.iagc.org/EM-EIA. The EIA concluded that EM sources as presently -used have no potential for significant effects on animal groups such as fish, seabirds, sea -turtles, and marine mammals. - -DATA 15 NMFS and BOEM risk assessors should consider the National Academy of Sciences report -"Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society" for guidance. There are -other ecological risk assessment experiences and approaches with NOAA, EPA, OMB and -other agencies that would inform development of an improved assessment methodology. -(National Research Council). Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic -Society. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1996). - -DATA 16 The following references should be reviewed by NMFS regarding takes and sound level -exposures for marine mammals: - -Richardson et al. (2011) provides a review of potential impacts on marine mammals that -concludes injury (permanent hearing damage) from airguns is extremely unlikely and -behavioral responses are both highly variable and short-term. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 31 -Comment Analysis Report - -The growing scientific consensus is that seismic sources pose little risk of Level A takes -(Southall, 2010; Richardson et al. 2011)12. Southall and Richardson recommended a Level A -threshold, 230 dB re: 1 µPa (peak) (flat) (or 198 dB re 1 µPa2-s, sound exposure level) -The NRC’s expert panel assessment (NRC 2005) and further review as discussed by -Richardson et al (2011) also support the Association’s position. - -The level of sound exposure that will induce behavioral responses may not directly equate to -biologically significant disturbance; therefore additional consideration must be directed at -response and significance (NRC 2005; Richardson et al. 2011; Ellison et al. 2011). To further -complicate a determination of an acoustic Level B take, the animal’s surroundings and/or the -activity (feeding, migrating, etc.) being conducted at the time they receive the sound rather -than solely intensity levels may be as important for behavioral responses (Richardson et al -2011). - -DATA 17 Reports regarding estimated of reserves of oil and gas and impacts to socioeconomics that -NMFS should consider including the EIS include: - -NMFS should have consulted with the United States Geological Service (USGS), which -recently issued a report on anticipated Arctic oil and gas resources (Bird et al. 2008) The -USGS estimates that oil and gas reserves in the Arctic may be significant. This report was not -referenced in the DEIS. - -Two studies by Northern Economics and the Institute for Social and Economic Research at -the University of Alaska provide estimation of this magnitude (NE & ISER 2009; NE & -ISER 2011). As a result, socioeconomic benefits are essentially not considered in assessment -of cumulative impacts for any alternative other than the no-action alternative. This material -deficiency in the DEIS must be corrected. - -Stephen R. Braund and Associates. 2009. Impacts and benefits of oil and gas development to -Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Atqasuk Harvesters. Report to the North Slope Borough -Department of Wildlife Management, PAGEO. Box 69, Barrow, AK.) - -DATA 18 NMFS should consider citing newer work by work by Christie et al. 2010 and Koski et al. -2009 related to bowhead reactions to sound: - -NMFS cites information from Richardson et al. (1995) that suggested that migrating bowhead -whales may react at sound levels as low as 120 dB (rms) re 1 uPa but fails to cite newer work -by Christie et al. 2010 and Koski et al. 2009, cited elsewhere in the document, showing that -migrating whales entered and moved through areas ensonified to 120-150 dB (rms) deflecting -only at levels of ~150-160dB. - -For example, on Page 43 Section 4.5.1.4.2 the DEIS cites information from Richardson et al. -(1995) that suggested that migrating bowhead whales may react to sound levels as low as 120 -dB (rms) re 1 uPa, but fails to cite newer work by Christie et al. (2010) and Koski et al. -(2009), cited elsewhere in the document, showing that migrating whales entered and moved -through areas ensonified to 120-150 dB (rms). In these studies bowhead whales deflected -only at levels of ~150 dB (rms). - -As described earlier in this document, the flawed analysis on Page 43 Section 4.5.1.4.2 of the -DEIS cites information from Richardson et al. (1995), but fails to cite newer work (Christie et -al. 2010, Koski et al. 2009) that increases our perspective on the role of sound and its -influences on marine mammals, specifically bowhead whales. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 32 -Comment Analysis Report - -The first full paragraph of Page 100 indicates that it is not known whether impulsive sounds -affect reproductive rate or distribution and habitat use over periods of days or years. All -evidence indicates that bowhead whale reproductive rates have remained strong despite -seismic programs being conducted in these waters for several decades (Gerber et al. 2007). -Whales return to these habitat areas each year and continue to use the areas in similar ways. -There has been no documented shift in distribution or use (Blackwell et al. 2010). The data -that have been collected suggests that the impacts are short term and on the scale of hours -rather than days or years (MMS 2007, MMS 2008a). - -DATA 19 The DEIS consistently fails to use new information as part of the impact analysis instead -relying on previous analyses from other NMFS or MMS EIS documents conducted without -the benefit of the new data. This implies a pre-disposition toward acceptance of supposition -formed from overly conservative views without the benefit of robust review and toward -rejection of any data not consistent with these views. - -DATA 20 NMFS should consider the incorporation of marine mammal concentration area maps -provided as comments to the DEIS (by Oceana) as strong evidence for robust time and area -closures should NMFS decide to move forward with approval of industrial activities in the -Arctic. While the maps in the DEIS share some of the same sources as the enclosed maps, the -concentration areas presented in the above referenced maps reflect additional new -information, corrections, and discussions with primary researchers. These maps are based in -part on the Arctic Marine Synthesis developed previously, but include some new areas and -significant changes to others. - -DATA 21 NMFS should consider and an updated literature search for the pack ice and ice gouges -section of the EIS: - -Pages 3-6 to 3-7, Section 3.1.2.4 Pack Ice and Ice Gouges: An updated literature search -should be completed for this section. In particular additional data regarding ice gouging -published by MMS and Weeks et al., should be noted. The DEIS emphasizes ice gouging in -20-30 meter water depth: "A study of ice gouging in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea showed that -the maximum number of gouges occur in the 20 to 30m (66 to 99 ft) water-depth range -(Machemehl and Jo 1989)." However, an OCS study commissioned by MMS (2006-059) -noted that Leidersdorf, et al., (2001) examined ice gouges in shallower waters: 48 ice gouges -exceeding the minimum measurement threshold of 0.1 m [that were] detected in the Northstar -pipeline corridor. These were all in shallower waters (< 12 m) and the maximum incision -depth was 0.4 m. "In all four years, however, measurable gouges were confined to water -depths exceeding 5 m." These results are consistent with the earlier work, and these results -are limited to shallow water. Thus, this study will rely on the earlier work by Weeks et al. -which includes deeper gouges and deeper water depths. (Alternative Oil Spill Occurrence -Estimators for the Beaufort/Chukchi Sea OCS (Statistical Approach) MMS Contract Number -1435 - 01 - 00 - PO - 17141 September 5, 2006 TGE Consulting: Ted G. Eschenbach and -William V. Harper). The DEIS should also reference the work by Weeks, including: Weeks, -W.F., P.W. Barnes, D.M. Rearic, and E. Reimnitz, 1984, "Some Probabilistic Aspects of Ice -Gouging on the Alaskan Shelf of the Beaufort Sea," The Alaskan Beaufort Sea: Ecosystems -and Environments, Academic Press. Weeks, W.F., P.W. Barnes, D.M. Rearic, and E. -Reimnitz, June 1983, "Some Probabilistic Aspects of Ice Gouging on the Alaskan Shelf of the -Beaufort Sea," US Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 33 -Comment Analysis Report - -DATA 22 NMFS should consider revisions to the EIS based on data provided below regarding ice seals: - -Page 4-387, Pinnipeds: Ringed seals and some bearded seals spend a fair amount of time -foraging in the open ocean during maximum ice retreat (NSB unpublished data, -http://www.north slope.org/departments/wildlife/Walrus%201ce%20Seals.php#RingedSeal, -Crawford et al. 2011, ADF&G unpublished data). Bearded seals are not restricted to foraging -only in shallow areas on a benthic diet. Consumption of pelagic prey items does occur -(ADF&G unpublished data, Lentfer 1988). - -Pages 4-388 Pinnipeds, and 4-392, Ringed Seal: Ringed seals are known to persist in the -offshore pack ice during all times of the year (Crawford et al. 2011, NSB unpublished data, -Lenter 1988). It has actually been suggested that there are two ecotypes, those that make a -living in the pack ice and shore fast ice animals. This should be stated in one of these -sections. - -NOAA, 2011 Arctic Seal Disease Outbreak Fact Sheet (updated Nov. 22, 2011) (Arctic Seal -Outbreak Fact Sheet), available at -http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/seals/ice/diseased/ume022012.pdf. NMFS -has officially declared an “unusual mortality event” for ringed seals. - -DATA 23 NMFS should consider incorporation of the following references regarding vessel impacts on -marine mammals: - -Renilson, M., Reducing underwater noise pollution from large commercial vessels (2009) -available at www.ifaw.org/oceannoise/reports; Southall, B.L., and Scholik-Schlomer, A. eds. -Final Report of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) International -Symposium: Potential Application of Vessel Quieting Technology on Large Commercial -Vessels, 1-2 May 2007, at Silver Springs, Maryland (2008) available at -http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/acoustics/vessel_symposium_report.pdf. - -[refs regarding vessel speed limits] Laist, D.W., Knowlton, A.R., Mead, J.G., Collet, A.S., -and Podesta, M., Collisions between ships and whales, Marine Mammal Science 17:35-75 -(2001); Pace, R.M., and Silber, G.K., Simple analyses of ship and large whale collisions: -Does speed kill? Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, December 2005, -San Diego, CA. (2005) (abstract); Vanderlaan, A.S.M., and Taggart, C.T., Vessel collisions -with whales: The probability of lethal injury based on vessel speed. Marine Mammal Science -23:144-156 (2007); Renilson, M., Reducing underwater noise pollution from large -commercial vessels (2009) available at www.ifaw.org/oceannoise/reports; Southall, B.L., and -Scholik-Schlomer, A. eds. Final Report of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric -Administration (NOAA) International Symposium: Potential Application of Vessel-Quieting -Technology on Large Commercial Vessels, 1-2 May 2007, at Silver Springs, Maryland -(2008), available at -http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/acoustics/vessel_symposium_report.pdf; Thompson, -M.A., Cabe, B., Pace III, R.M., Levenson, J., and Wiley, D., Vessel compliance and -commitment with speed regulations in the US Cape Cod Bay and off Race Point Right Whale -Seasonal Management Areas. Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, -November-December 2011, Tampa, FL (2011) (abstract); National Marine Fisheries Service, -NOAA. 2010 Large Whale Ship Strikes Relative to Vessel Speed. Prepared within NOAA -Fisheries to support the Ship Strike Reduction Program (2010), available at -http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/shipstrike/ss_speed.pdf. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 34 -Comment Analysis Report - -[aerial monitoring and/or fixed hydrophone arrays] Id.; Hatch, L., Clark, C., Merrick, R., Van -Parijs, S., Ponirakis, D., Schwehr, K., Thompson, M., and Wiley, D., Characterizing the -relative contributions of large vessels to total ocean noise fields: a case study using the Gerry -E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, Environmental Management 42:735- -752 (2008). - -DATA 24 NMFS should review the references below regarding alternative technologies: - -Among the [alternative] technologies discussed in the 2009 [Okeanos] workshop report are -engineering modifications to airguns, which can cut emissions at frequencies not needed for -exploration; controlled sources, such as marine vibroseis, which can dramatically lower the -peak sound currently generated by airguns by spreading it over time; various non-acoustic -sources, such as electromagnetic and passive seismic devices, which in certain contexts can -eliminate the need for sound entirely; and fiber-optic receivers, which can reduce the need for -intense sound at the source by improving acquisition at the receiver.121 An industry- -sponsored report by Noise Control Engineering made similar findings about the availability -of greener alternatives to seismic airguns, as well as alternatives to a variety of other noise -sources used in oil and gas exploration. - -Spence, J., Fischer, R., Bahtiarian, M., Boroditsky, L., Jones, N., and Dempsey, R., Review -of existing and future potential treatments for reducing underwater sound from oil and gas -industry activities (2007) (NCE Report 07-001) (prepared by Noise Control Engineering for -Joint Industry Programme on E&P Sound and Marine Life). Despite the promise indicated in -the 2007 and 2010 reports, neither NMFS nor BOEM has attempted to develop noise- -reduction technology for seismic or any other noise source, aside from BOEM’s failed -investigation of mobile bubble curtains. - -[alternative technologies] Tenghamn, R., An electrical marine vibrator with a flextensional -shell, Exploration Geophysics 37:286-291 (2006); LGL and Marine Acoustics, -Environmental assessment of marine vibroseis (2011) (Joint Industry Programme contract 22 -07-12). - -DATA 25 NMFS should review the references below regarding masking: - -Clark, C.W., Ellison, W.T., Southall, B.L., Hatch, L., van Parijs, S., Frankel, A., and -Ponirakis, D., Acoustic masking in marine ecosystems as a function of anthropogenic sound -sources (2009) (IWC Sci. Comm. Doc.SC/61/E10); Clark, C.W., Ellison, W.T., Southall, -B.L., Hatch, L., Van Parijs, S.M., Frankel, A., and Ponirakis, D., Acoustic masking in marine -ecosystems: intuitions, analysis, and implication, Marine Ecology Progress Series 395: 201- -222 (2009); Williams, R., Ashe, E., Clark, C.W., Hammond, P.S., Lusseau, D., and Ponirakis, -D., Inextricably linked: boats, noise, Chinook salmon and killer whale recovery in the -northeast Pacific, presentation given at the Society for Marine Mammalogy Biennial -Conference, Tampa, Florida, Nov. 29, 2011 (2011). - -DATA 26 NMFS should review the references below regarding acoustic thresholds: - -[criticism of threshold’s basis in RMS]Madsen, P.T., Marine mammals and noise: Problems -with root-mean-squared sound pressure level for transients, Journal of the Acoustical Society -of America 117:3952-57 (2005). - -Tyack, P.L., Zimmer, W.M.X., Moretti, D., Southall, B.L., Claridge, D.E., Durban, J.W., -Clark, C.W., D’Amico, A., DiMarzio, N., Jarvis, S., McCarthy, E., Morrissey, R., Ward, J., - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 35 -Comment Analysis Report - -and Boyd, I.L., Beaked whales respond to simulated and actual Navy sonar, PLoS ONE -6(3):e17009.doi:10.13371/journal.pone.0017009 (2011) (beaked whales); Miller, P.J., -Kvadsheim, P., Lam., F.-P.A., Tyack, P.L., Kuningas, S., Wensveen, P.J., Antunes, R.N., -Alves, A.C., Kleivane, L., Ainslie, M.A., and Thomas, L., Developing dose-response -relationships for the onset of avoidance of sonar by free-ranging killer whales (Orcinus orca), -presentation given at the Society for Marine Mammalogy Biennial Conference, Tampa, -Florida, Dec. 2, 2011 (killer whales); Miller, P., Antunes, R., Alves, A.C., Wensveen, P., -Kvadsheim, P., Kleivane, L., Nordlund, N., Lam, F.-P., van IJsselmuide, S., Visser, F., and -Tyack, P., The 3S experiments: studying the behavioural effects of navy sonar on killer -whales (Orcinus orca), sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus), and long-finned pilot whales -(Globicephala melas) in Norwegian waters, Scottish Oceans Institute Tech. Rep. SOI-2011- -001, available at soi.st-andrews.ac.uk (killer whales). See also, e.g., Fernandez, A., Edwards, -J.F., Rodríguez, F., Espinosa de los Monteros, A., Herraez, P., Castro, P., Jaber, J.R., Martín, -V., and Arbelo, M., Gas and Fat Embolic Syndrome Involving a Mass Stranding of Beaked -Whales (Family Ziphiidae) Exposed to Anthropogenic Sonar Signals, Veterinary Pathology -42:446 (2005); Jepson, P.D., Arbelo, M., Deaville, R., Patterson, I.A.P., Castro, P., Baker, -J.R., Degollada, E., Ross, H.M., Herráez , P., Pocknell, A.M., Rodríguez, F., Howie, F.E., -Espinosa, A., Reid, R.J., Jaber, J.R., Martín, V., Cunningham, A.A., and Fernández, A., -Gas-Bubble Lesions in Stranded Cetaceans, 425 Nature 575-576 (2003); Evans, P.G.H., and -Miller, L.A., eds., Proceedings of the Workshop on Active Sonar and Cetaceans (2004) -(European Cetacean Society publication); Southall, B.L., Braun, R., Gulland, F.M.D., Heard, -A.D., Baird, R.W., Wilkin, S.M., and Rowles, T.K., Hawaiian Melon-Headed Whale -(Peponacephala electra) Mass Stranding Event of July 3-4, 2004 (2006) (NOAA Tech. -Memo. NMFS-OPR-31). - -DATA 27 NMFS should review the references below regarding real-time passive acoustic monitoring to -reduce ship strike: - -Abramson, L., Polefka, S., Hastings, S., and Bor, K., Reducing the Threat of Ship Strikes on -Large Cetaceans in the Santa Barbara Channel Region and Channel Islands National Marine -Sanctuary: Recommendations and Case Studies (2009) (Marine Sanctuaries Conservation -Series ONMS-11-01); Silber, G.K., S. Bettridge, and D. Cottingham, Report of a workshop to -identify and assess technologies to reduce ship strikes of large whales. Providence, Rhode -Island, July 8-10, 2008 (2009) (NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-OPR-42). - -Lusseau, D., Bain, D.E., Williams, R., and Smith, J.C., Vessel traffic disrupts the foraging -behavior of southern resident killer whales Orcinus orca, Endangered Species Research 6: -211-221 (2009); Williams, R., Lusseau, D. and Hammond, P.S., Estimating relative energetic -costs of human disturbance to killer whales (Orcinus orca), Biological Conservation 133: -301-311 (2006); Miller, P.J.O., Johnson, M.P., Madsen, P.T., Biassoni, N., Quero, -[energetics] M., and Tyack, P.L., Using at-sea experiments to study the effects of airguns on -the foraging behavior of sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico, Deep-Sea Research I 56: 1168- -1181 (2009). See also Mayo, C.S., Page, M., Osterberg, D., and Pershing, A., On the path to -starvation: the effects of anthropogenic noise on right whale foraging success, North Atlantic -Right Whale Consortium: Abstracts of the Annual Meeting (2008) (finding that decrements -in North Atlantic right whale sensory range due to shipping noise have a larger impact on -food intake than patch-density distribution and are likely to compromise fitness). - -[mid-frequency, ship strike] Nowacek, D.P., Johnson, M.P., and Tyack, P.L., North Atlantic -right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) ignore ships but respond to alerting stimuli, Proceedings of -the Royal Society of London, Part B: Biological Sciences 271:227 (2004). - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 36 -Comment Analysis Report - -DATA 28 NMFS should review the references below regarding terrestrial mammals and stress response: - -Chang, E.F., and Merzenich, M.M., Environmental Noise Retards Auditory Cortical -Development, 300 Science 498 (2003) (rats); Willich, S.N., Wegscheider, K., Stallmann, M., -and Keil, T., Noise Burden and the Risk of Myocardial Infarction, European Heart Journal -(2005) (Nov. 24, 2005) (humans); Harrington, F.H., and Veitch, A.M., Calving Success of -Woodland Caribou Exposed to Low-Level Jet Fighter Overflights, Arctic 45:213 (1992) -(caribou). - -DATA 29 NMFS should review the references below regarding the inappropriate reliance on adaptive -management inappropriate: - -Taylor, B.L., Martinez, M., Gerrodette, T., Barlow, J., and Hrovat, Y.N., Lessons from -monitoring trends in abundance of marine mammals, Marine Mammal Science 23:157-175 -(2007). - -DATA 30 NMFS should review the references below regarding climate change and polar bears: - -Durner, G. M., et al., Predicting 21st-century polar bear habitat distribution from global -climate models. Ecological Monographs, 79(1):25-58 (2009). - -R. F. Rockwell, L. J. Gormezano, The early bear gets the goose: climate change, polar bears -and lesser snow geese in western Hudson Bay, Polar Biology, 32:539-547 (2009). - -DATA 31 NMFS should review the references below regarding climate change and the impacts of black -carbon: - -Anne E. Gore & Pamela A. Miller, Broken Promises: The Reality of Oil Development in -America’s Arctic at 41 (Sep. 2009) (Broken Promises). - -EPA, Report to Congress on Black Carbon External Peer Review Draft at 12-1 (March 2011) -(Black Carbon Report), available at -http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/05011472499C2FB28525774A0074DADE/$Fil -e/BC%20RTC%20Ext ernal%20Peer%20Review%20Draft-opt.pdf. See D. Hirdman et al., -Source Identification of Short-Lived Air Pollutants in the Arctic Using Statistical Analysis of -Measurement Data and Particle Dispersion Model Output, 10 Atmos. Chem. Phys. 669 -(2010). - -DATA 32 NMFS should review the references below regarding air pollution: - -Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10, Supplemental Statement of Basis for -Proposed OCS Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits Noble Discoverer Drillship, -Shell Offshore Inc., Beaufort Sea Exploration Drilling Program, Permit No. R10OCS/PSD- -AK-2010-01, Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc., Chukchi Sea Exploration Drilling Program, Permit -No. R10OCS/PSD-AK-09-01 at 65 (July 6, 2011) (Discoverer Suppl. Statement of Basis -2011), available at -http://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/permits/shell/discoverer_supplemental_statement_of_ -basis_chukchi_and_beaufort_air_permits_070111.pdf. 393 EPA Region 10, Technical -Support Document, Review of Shell’s Supplemental Ambient Air Quality Impact Analysis -for the Discoverer OCS Permit Applications in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas at 8 (Jun. 24, -2011)(Discoverer Technical Support Document), available at -http://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/permits/shell/discoverer_ambient_air_quality_impact_anal - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 37 -Comment Analysis Report - -ysis_06242011.pdf. 394 EPA, An Introduction to Indoor Air Quality: Nitrogen Dioxide, -available at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/no2.html#Health Effects Associated with Nitrogen -Dioxide 396 EPA, Particulate Matter: Health, available at -http://www.epa.gov/oar/particlepollution/health.html - -DATA 33 NMFS should review the references below regarding introduction of non-native species: - -S. Gollasch, The importance of ship hull fouling as a vector of species introductions into the -North Sea, Biofouling 18(2):105-121 (2002); National Research Council, Stemming the Tide: -Controlling Introductions of Nonindigenous Species by Ships Ballast Water (1996) -(recognizing that the spread of invasive species through ballast water is a serious problem). - -DATA 34 In the Final EIS, NMFS should consider new information regarding the EPA Region 10's -Beaufort (AKG-28-2100) and Chukchi (AKG-28-8100) General Permits. Although not final, -EPA is in the process of soliciting public comment on the fact sheets and draft permits and -this information may be useful depending on the timing of the issuance of the final EIS. Links -to the fact sheets, draft permits, and other related documents can be found at: -http://yosemite.epa.gov/r I 0/water.nsl/nodes+public+notices/arctic-gp-pn-2012. - -DATA 35 NMFS should review the reference below regarding characterization of subsistence -areas/activities for Kotzebue: - -Whiting, A., D. Griffith, S. Jewett, L. Clough, W. Ambrose, and J. Johnson. 2011. -Combining Inupiaq and Scientific Knowledge: Ecology in Northern Kotzebue Sound, -Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks, SG-ED-72, Fairbanks. 71 pp, for a -more accurate representation, especially for Kotzebue Sound uses. - -Crawford, J. A., K. J. Frost, L. T. Quakenbush, and A. Whiting. 201.2. Different habitat use -strategies by subadult and adult ringed seals (Phoca hispida) in the Bering and Chukchi seas. -Polar Biology 35(2):241-255. - -DATA 36 NMFS should review the references below regarding Ecosystem-Based Management: - -Environmental Law Institute. Integrated Ecosystem-Based Management of the U.S. Arctic -Marine Environment- Assessing the Feasibility of Program and Development and -Implementation (2008) - -Siron, Robert et al. Ecosystem-Based Management in the Arctic Ocean: A Multi-Level -Spatial Approach, Arctic Vol. 61, Suppl 1 (2008) (pp 86-102)2 - -Norwegian Polar Institute. Best Practices in Ecosystem-based Oceans Management in the -Arctic, Report Series No. 129 (2009) - -The Aspen Institute Energy and Environment Program. The Shared Future: A Report of the -Aspen Institute Commission on Arctic Climate Change (2011) - -DATA 37 NMFS should consider the following information regarding the use of a multi-pulse standard -for behavior harassment, since it does not take into account the spreading of seismic pulses -over time beyond a certain distance from the array. NMFS‘s own Open Water Panel for the -Arctic has twice characterized the seismic airgun array as a mixed impulsive/continuous -noise source and has stated that NMFS should evaluate its impacts on that basis. That -analysis is supported by the masking effects model referenced above, in which several NMFS - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 38 -Comment Analysis Report - -scientists have participated; by a Scripps study, showing that seismic exploration in the Arctic -has raised ambient noise levels on the Chukchi Sea continental slope); and, we expect, by the -modeling efforts of NOAA‘s Sound Mapping working group, whose work will be completed -this April or May. - -DATA 38 NMFS is asked to review the use of the reference Richardson 1995, on page 4-86, as support -for its statements. NMFS should revise the document to account for Southall et al's 2007 -paper on Effects of Noise on Marine Mammals. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 39 -Comment Analysis Report - -Discharge (DCH) -DCH Comments regarding discharge levels, including requests for zero discharge requirements, - -and deep waste injection wells does not include contamination of subsistence resources. - -DCH 1 Without the benefit of EPA evaluation, the persistence of pollutants, bioaccumulation, and -vulnerability of biological communities cannot be addressed. - -DCH 2 There is insufficient knowledge and no scientific evidence that zero discharge would have -any impacts on animals or humans. - -DCH 3 The term zero discharge should not be used due to discharges guaranteed under any -exploration scenario. This can be confusing to the public - -DCH 4 Zero discharge should be a requirement and implemented for all drilling proposals. - -DCH 5 Concerns for the people in regards to discharges from drilling muds, the development -process, the industrial activities, and water discharges from these activities. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 40 -Comment Analysis Report - -Editorial (EDI) -EDI Comments to be dealt with directly by NMFS. - -EDI 1 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into the Executive Summary - -EDI 2 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 1 - -EDI 3 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 2 - -EDI 4 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 3 – Physical -Environment - -EDI 5 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 3 – Biological -Environment - -EDI 6 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 3 – Social Environment - -EDI 7 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Methodology - -EDI 8 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Physical -Environment - -EDI 9 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Biological -Environment - -EDI 10 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Social Environment - -EDI 11 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Oil Spill Analysis - -EDI 12 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Cumulative Effects -Analysis - -EDI 13 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 5 – Mitigation - -EDI 14 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into these figures of the EIS - -EDI 15 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into these tables of the EIS - -EDI 16 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Appendix A - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 41 -Comment Analysis Report - -Physical Environment – General (GPE) -GPE Comments related to impacts on resources within the physical environment (Physical - -Oceanography, Climate, Acoustics, Environmental Contaminants & Ecosystem Functions) - -GPE 1 Offshore oil and gas exploration in the Arctic produces some of the loudest noises humans -put in the water and interfere with marine mammals' migration routes, feeding opportunities, -resting areas, and other adverse impacts to marine life. - -GPE 2 NMFS should assess the cumulative and synergistic impacts of the multiple noise sources -required for a drilling and exploratory operation in the Arctic. While each individual vessel or -platform can be considered a single, periodic or transient source of noise, all components are -required to successfully complete the operation. As a result, the entire operation around a -drilling ship or drilling platform will need to be quieter than 120 dB in order to be below -NMFS disturbance criteria for continuous noise exposure. - -GPE 3 The EIS should include an analysis of impacts associated with climate change and ocean -acidification including: - -• Addressing threats to species and associated impacts for the bowhead whale, pacific -walrus, and other Arctic species. - -• Effects of loss of sea ice cover, seasonally ice-free conditions on the availability of -subsistence resources to Arctic communities. - -• Increased community stress, including loss of subsistence resources and impacts to ice -cellars. - -GPE 4 Oil and gas activities can release numerous pollutants into the atmosphere. Greater emissions -of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide could triple ozone levels in the Arctic, and increased -black carbon emissions would result in reduced ice reflectivity that could exacerbate the -decline of sea ice. The emission of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5), including black carbon, is -a human health threat. Cumulative impacts will need to be assessed. - -GPE 5 The EIS should include a more detailed analysis of the impact of invasive species, -particularly in how the current "moderate" impact rating was determined. - -GPE 6 A more detailed analysis should be conducted to assess how interactions between high ice -and low ice years and oil and gas activities, would impact various resources (sea ice, lower -trophic levels, fish/EFH, marine mammals). - -GPE 7 Recommendations should be made to industry engineering and risk analysts to ensure that -well design is deep enough to withstand storms and harsh environment based on past -experience of workers in the late 1980's. - -GPE 8 Bowhead whales and seals are not the only subsistence resource that Native Alaskan -communities rely upon. Fishing is also an important resource and different species are hunted -throughout the year. Subsistence users have expressed concern that activities to support -offshore exploration will change migratory patterns of fish and krill that occur along the -coastlines. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 42 -Comment Analysis Report - -GPE 9 NMFS needs to revise the Environmental Consequences analysis presented in the DEIS since -it overstates the potential for impacts from sounds introduced into the water by oil and gas -exploration activity on marine mammals. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 43 -Comment Analysis Report - -Social Environment – General (GSE) -GSE Comments related to impacts on resources within the social environment (Public Health, - -Cultural, Land Ownership/Use/Mgt., Transportation, Recreation & Tourism, Visual -Resources, and Environmental Justice) - -GSE 1 The potential short and long-term benefits from oil and gas development have been -understated in the DEIS and do not take into account the indirect jobs and business generated -by increased oil and gas activity. By removing restrictions on seismic surveys and oil and gas -drilling, there will be an increase in short and long term employment and economic stability. - -GSE 2 Ensure that current human health assessment and environmental justice analysis from -offshore activities in the Arctic are adequately disclosed for public review and comment -before a decision is made among the project alternatives. - -GSE 3 The current environmental justice analysis is inadequate and the NMFS has downplayed the -overall threat to the Iñupiat people. The agency does not adequately address the following: - -• The combined impacts air pollution, water pollution, sociocultural impacts (disturbance -of subsistence practices), and economic impacts on Iñupiat people; - -• The baseline health conditions of local communities and how it may be impacted by the -proposed oil and gas activities; - -• Potential exposure to toxic chemicals and diminished air quality; -• The unequal burden and risks imposed on Iñupiat communities; and -• The analysis fails to include all Iñupiat communities. - -GSE 4 Current and up to date health information should be evaluated and presented in the human -health assessments. Affected communities have a predisposition and high susceptibility to -health problems that need to be evaluated and considered when NMFS develops alternatives -and mitigation measures to address impacts. - -GSE 5 When developing alternatives and mitigation measures, NMFS needs to consider the length -of the work season since a shorter period will increase the risks to workers. - -GSE 6 The DEIS does not address how the proceeds from offshore oil and gas drilling will be shared -with affected communities through revenue sharing, royalties, and taxes. - -GSE 7 The DEIS should broaden the evaluation of impacts of land and water resources beyond -subsistence. There are many diverse water and land uses that will be restricted or prevented -because of specific requirements in the proposed Alternatives. - -GSE 8 The conclusion of negligible or minor cumulative impacts on transportation for Alternative 4 -was not substantiated in the DEIS. The impacts to access, restrictions on vessel traffic, -seismic survey, exploration drilling and ancillary services transportation are severely -restricted both in time and in areal/geographic extent (page 4-551, paragraph 1). - -GSE 9 The Draft EIS should not assume that any delay in exploration activity compromises property -rights or immediately triggers compensation from the government. Offshore leases do not -convey a fee simple interest with a guarantee that exploration activities will take place. As the -Supreme Court recognized, OCSLA‘s plain language indicates that the purchase of a lease -entails no right to proceed with full exploration, development, or production. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 44 -Comment Analysis Report - -Habitat (HAB) -HAB Comments associated with habitat requirements, or potential habitat impacts from seismic - -activities and exploratory drilling. Comment focus is habitat, not animals. - -HAB 1 Alaska's Arctic wildlife and their habitat are currently being threatened by the many negative -effects of oil and gas exploration. - -HAB 2 NMFS should consider an ecosystem-based management plan (EBM) to protect habitat for -the bowhead whale and other important wildlife subsistence species of the Arctic. - -HAB 3 The DEIS does not adequately consider the increased risk of introducing aquatic invasive -species to the Beaufort and Chukchi seas through increased oil and gas activities. - -• Invasive species could be released in ballast water, carried on ship's hulls or on drill rigs. -• Invasive species could compete with or prey on Arctic marine fish or shellfish species, - -which may disrupt the ecosystem and predators that depend on indigenous species for -food. - -• Invasive species could impact the biological structure of bottom habitat or change habitat -diversity. - -• Invasive species, such as rats, could prey upon seabirds or their eggs. -• Establishment of a harmful invasive species could threaten Alaska’s economic well- - -being. - -HAB 4 Occasional feeding by bowhead whales in Camden Bay is insufficient justification for -designating Camden Bay as a Special Habitat Area. Special Habitat would then have to -include the entire length of the Alaska Beaufort Sea coast along which bowhead whales -occasionally feed. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 45 -Comment Analysis Report - -Iñupiat Culture and Way of Life (ICL) -ICL Comments related to potential cultural impacts or desire to maintain traditional practices - -(PEOPLE). - -ICL 1 Industrial activities (such as oil and gas exploration and production) jeopardize the long-term -health and culture of native communities. Specific concerns include: - -• Impacts to Arctic ecosystems and the associated subsistence resources from pollutants, -noise, and vessel traffic; - -• Community and family level cultural impacts related to the subsistence way of life; -• Preserving resources for future generations. - -ICL 2 Native communities would be heavily impacted if a spill occurs, depriving them of -subsistence resources. NMFS should consider the impact of an oil spill when deciding upon -an alternative - -ICL 3 Native communities are at risk for changes from multiple threats, including climate change, -increased industrialization, access to the North Slope, melting ice, and stressed wildlife. -These threats are affecting Iñupiat traditional and cultural uses and NMFS should stop -authorizing offshore oil and gas related activities until these threats to our culture are -addressed. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 46 -Comment Analysis Report - -Mitigation Measures (MIT) -MIT Comments related to suggestions for or implementation of mitigation measures. - -MIT 1 Mitigation measures should be mandatory for all activities, rather than on a case-by-case -basis. Currently identified areas with high wildlife and subsistence values should also receive -permanent deferrals, including Camden Bay, Barrow Canyon/Western Beaufort Sea, Hanna -Shoal, shelf break at the Beaufort Sea, and Kasegaluk Lagoon/Ledyard Bay Critical Habitat -Unit. - -MIT 2 Bristol Bay, the Chukchi, and the Beaufort seas are special nursery areas for Alaska salmon -and should have the strongest possible protections. - -MIT 3 The proposed mitigation measures will severely compromise the economic feasibility of -developing oil and gas in the Alaska OCS: - -• Limiting activity to only two exploration drilling programs in each the Chukchi and -Beaufort seas during a single season would lock out other lease holders and prevent them -from pursuing development of their leases. - -• Arbitrary end dates for prospective operations effectively restrict exploration in Camden -Bay removes 54 percent of the drilling season. - -• Acoustic restrictions extend exclusion zones and curtail lease block access (e.g., studies -by JASCO Applied Sciences Ltd in 2010 showed a 120 dB safety zone with Hanna Shoal -as the center would prevent Statoil from exercising its lease rights because the buffer -zone would encompass virtually all of the leases. A 180 dB buffer zone could still have a -significant negative impact lease rights depending on how the buffer zone was -calculated). - -• Special Habitat Areas arbitrarily restrict lease block access. -• Arbitrary seasonal closures would effectively reduce the brief open water season by up to - -50 percent in some areas of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. -• The realistic drilling window for offshore operations in the Arctic is typically 70 - 150 - -days. Any infringement on this could result in insufficient time to complete drilling -operations. - -• Timing restrictions associated with Additional Mitigation Measures (e.g., D1, B1) would -significantly reduce the operational season. - -MIT 4 Many mitigation measures are unclear or left open to agency interpretation, expanding -uncertainties for future exploration or development. - -MIT 5 The DEIS includes mitigation measures which would mandate portions of Conflict -Avoidance Agreements with broad impacts to operations. Such a requirement supersedes the -authority of NMFS. - -MIT 6 Limiting access to our natural resources is NOT an appropriate measure and should not be -considered. - -MIT 7 A specially equipped, oceangoing platform(s) is needed to carry out the prevention, diagnosis -and treatment of disease in marine animals, including advanced action to promote population -recovery of threatened and endangered species, to restore marine ecosystems health, and to -enhance marine animal welfare. Activities thereby to be made possible or facilitated include, - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 47 -Comment Analysis Report - -but are not limited to: Response to marine environmental disasters and incidents; in -particular oil spills by rescue and decontamination of oil-fouled birds, pinnipeds, otters, and -other sea life. Rescue, treatment and freeing of sea turtles, pinnipeds, cetaceans, and otters -that become entangled in sport fishing lines, commercial fishing gear, and/or marine debris. -General pathobiological research on marine animals to advance basic knowledge of their -diseases and to identify promising avenues for treatment. Specialized pathobiological -research on those marine animals known to provide useful sentinels for toxicological and -other hazards to human health. Evaluation of the safety of treatment modalities for marine -animals, including in particular large balaenopterids. This will have as its ultimate aim -countering problems of climate change and ecosystems deterioration by therapeutic -enhancement of the ecosystems services contributed by now depleted populations of Earth’s -largest and most powerful mammals. Pending demonstration of safety, offshore deployment -of fast boats and expert personnel for the treatment of a known endemic parasitic disease -threatening the health and population recovery of certain large balaenopterids. Rapid transfer -by helicopter of technical experts in disentanglement of large whales to offshore sites not -immediately accessible from land-based facilities. Rapid transfer by helicopter of diseased -and injured marine animals to land-based veterinary hospitals. Coordination with U.S. Coast -Guard’s OCEAN STEWARD mission to reduce the burden on government in this area and to -implement more fully the policy of the United States promulgated by Executive Order 13547. - -MIT 8 Considering current and ongoing oil and gas exploration disasters, the public needs to be -assured of the safety and effectiveness of Arctic environmental safety and mitigation -strategies. - -MIT 9 Mitigation distances and thresholds for seismic surveys are inadequate as they fall far short of -where significant marine mammal disturbances are known to occur. - -MIT 10 There is no need for additional mitigation measures: - -• The DEIS seeks to impose mitigation measures on activities that are already proven to be -adequately mitigated and shown to pose little to no risk to either individual animals or -populations. - -• Many of these mitigation measures are of questionable effectiveness and/or benefit, some -are simply not feasible, virtually all fall outside the bounds of any reasonable cost-benefit -consideration, most are inadequately evaluated. - -• The key impact findings in the DEIS are arbitrary and unsupportable. -• These additional mitigation measures far exceed the scope of NMFS's authority. - -MIT 11 Active Acoustic Monitoring should be further studied, but it is not yet ready to be imposed as -a mitigation measure. - -MIT 12 Because NMFS is already requiring Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) as a monitoring or -mitigation requirement during the Service’s regulation of offshore seismic and sonar, and in -conjunction with Navy sonar, we recommend that the Service emphasize the availability and -encourage the use of PAMGUARD in all NMFS’s actions requiring or recommending the use -of PAM. PAMGUARD is an open source, highly tested and well documented version of -PAM that is an acceptable method of meeting any PAM requirements or recommendations. - -MIT 13 If Kotzebue is included in the EIS area because it is an eligible area for exploration activities, -then the DEIS needs to include recommendations for mitigating impacts through exclusion -areas, or timing issues, including: - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 48 -Comment Analysis Report - -• remove the Hope Basin from the EIS area - -• develop and include additional area/time closures/restrictions for nearshore Kotzebue -Sound and for Point Hope and Kivalina in the Final EIS. - -MIT 14 There should be no on ice discharge of drilling muds due to concentrated - nature of waste -and some likely probability of directly contacting marine mammals, or other wildlife like -arctic foxes and birds. Even if the muds are considered non-toxic the potential for fouling fur -and feathers and impeding thermal regulation properties seems a reasonable concern. - -MIT 15 There should be com centers in the villages during bowhead and beluga hunting if villagers -find this useful and desirable. - -MIT 16 The benefits of concurrent ensonification areas need to be given more consideration in -regards to 15 miles vs. 90 mile separation distances. It is not entirely clear what the -cost/benefit result is on this issue including: - -• Multiple simultaneous surveys in several areas across the migratory corridor could result -in a broader regional biological and subsistence impact -deflection could occur across a -large area of feeding habitat. - -• Potential benefit would depend on the trajectory of migrating animals in relation to the -activity and total area ensonified. - -• Consideration needs to be given to whether mitigation is more effective if operations are -grouped together or spread across a large area. - -MIT 17 Use mitigation measures that are practicable and produce real world improvement on the -level and amount of negative impacts. Don’t use those that theoretically sound good or look -good or feel good, but that actually result in an improved situation. Encourage trials of new -avoidance mechanisms. - -MIT 18 Trained dogs are the most effective means of finding ringed seal dens and breathing holes in -Kotzebue Sound, so should be used to clear path for on ice roads or other on ice activities. - -MIT 19 The potential increased risk associated with the timing that vessels can enter exploration areas -needs to be considered: - -• A delayed start could increase the risk of losing control of a VLOS that will more likely -occur at the end of the season when environmental conditions (ice and freezing -temperatures) rapidly become more challenging and hazardous. - -• Operators could stage at leasing areas but hold off on exploration activity until July l5, or -Point Lay beluga hunt is completed. - -MIT 20 The proposed time/area closures are insufficient to protect areas of ecological and cultural -significance. Alternatives in the final EIS that consider any level of industrial activity should -include permanent subsistence and ecological deferral areas in addition to time and place -restrictions, including: - -• Hanna and Herald shoals, Barrow Canyon, and the Chukchi Sea ice lead system. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 49 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 21 The DEIS should definitively establish the full suite of mandatory mitigation measures for -each Alternative that will be required for any given site-specific activity, instead of listing a -series of mitigation measures that may or may not apply to site-specific actions. - -• NMFS should ensure that mitigation measures are in place prior to starting any activity -rather than considering mitigation measures on a case by case basis later in the process -when it is more difficult as activities have advanced in planning. - -• Make additional mitigation measures standard and include both for any level of activity -that includes, at a minimum, those activities described in section 2.4.9 and 2.4.10. - -• Mitigation measures required previously by IHAs (e.g., a 160dB vessel monitoring zone -for whales during shallow hazard surveys) show it is feasible for operators to perform -these measures. - -• NMFS to require a full suite of mitigation measures to every take authorization issued by -the agency. - -• A number of detection-based measures should be standardized (e.g., sound source -verification, PAM). - -• Routing vessels around important habitat should be standard. - -MIT 22 NMFS could mitigate the risk ice poses by including seasonal operating restrictions in the -final EIS and preferred alternative. - -MIT 23 The time/area closures (Alternative 4 and Additional Mitigation Measure B1) of Camden -Bay, Barrow Canyon and the Western Beaufort Sea, the Shelf Break of the Beaufort Sea, -Hanna Shoal, Kasegaluk Lagoon/Ledyard Bay are unwarranted, arbitrary measures in search -of an adverse impact that does not exist: - -• The DEIS does not identify any data or other scientific information establishing that past, -present, or reasonably anticipated oil and gas activity in these areas has had, or is likely to -have, either more than a negligible impact on marine mammals or any unmitigable -adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence activities. - -• There is no information about what levels of oil and gas activity are foreseeably expected -to occur in the identified areas in the absence of time/area closures, or what the -anticipated adverse impacts from such activities would be. Without this information, the -time/area closure mitigation measures are arbitrary because there is an insufficient basis -to evaluate and compare the effects with and without time/area closures except through -speculation. - -• The time/area closures are for mitigation of an anticipated large number of 2D/3D -seismic surveys, but few 2D/3D seismic surveys are anticipated in the next five years. -There is no scientific evidence that these seismic surveys, individually or collectively, -resulted in more than a negligible impact. - -• The designation of geographic boundaries by NMFS and BOEM should be removed, and -projects should be evaluated based upon specific project requirements, as there is not -sufficient evidence presented that supports that arbitrary area boundary determinations -will provide protection to marine mammal species. - -• There is a lack of scientific evidence around actual importance level and definition of -these closure areas. The descriptions of these areas do not meet the required standard of -using the best available science. - -• With no significant purpose, they should be removed from consideration. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 50 -Comment Analysis Report - -• If the closures intended to reduce disturbances of migrating, feeding, and resting whales -are not reducing the level of impact they should not be considered effective mitigation -measures. - -MIT 24 The time/area closure for Camden Bay (Alternative 4 and Additional Mitigation Measure B1) -is both arbitrary and impracticable because there is no demonstrated need. It needs to be -clarified, modified, or removed: - -• BOEM’s analysis of Shell’s exploration drilling program in Camden Bay found -anticipated impacts to marine mammals and subsistence are minimal and fully mitigated. - -• The proposed September 1 to October 15 closure effectively eliminates over 54 percent -of the open water exploration drilling season in Camden Bay and would likely render -exploration drilling in Camden Bay economically and logistically impracticable, thereby -effectively imposing a full closure of the area under the guise of mitigation. - -• The conclusion that Camden Bay is of particular importance to bowhead whales is not -supported by the available data (e.g., Huntington and Quakenbush 2009, Koski and -Miller 2009, and Quakenbush et al. 2010). Occasional feeding in the area and sightings of -some cow/calf pairs in some years does not make it a uniquely important area. - -• A standard mitigation measure already precludes all activities until the close of the -Kaktovik and Nuiqsut fall bowhead hunts. Furthermore, in the last 10 years no bowhead -whales have been taken after the third week of September in either the Nuiqsut or -Kaktovik hunts so proposing closure to extend well into October is unjustified. - -• This Additional Mitigation Measure (B-1) should be deleted for the reasons outlined -above. If not, then start and end dates of the closure period must be clarified; hard dates -should be provided for the start and end of the closure or the closure should be tied to -actual hunts. - -• How boundaries and timing were determined needs to be described. - -MIT 25 Restrictions intended to prevent sound levels above 120 dB or 160 dB are arbitrary, -unwarranted, and impractical. - -• Restrictions at the 120 dB level, are impracticable to monitor because the resulting -exclusion zones are enormous, and the Arctic Ocean is an extremely remote area that -experiences frequent poor weather. - -• The best scientific evidence does not support a need for imposition of restrictions at 120 -dB or 160 dB levels. One of the most compelling demonstrations of this point comes -from the sustained period of robust growth and recovery experienced by the Western -Arctic stock of bowhead whales, while exposed to decades of seismic surveys and other -activities without restrictions at the 120 dB or 160 dB levels. - -MIT 26 The DEIS should not limit the maximum number of programs per year. Implementing -multiple programs per year is the preferred option for the Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 as there -is not just cause in the DEIS to validate that acoustic and non-acoustic impacts from these -programs are severe enough to cause long term acute or cumulative negative impacts or -adverse modifications to marine mammals throughout the planning area. - -MIT 27 The State recommends that no maximum limit be set on the number of seismic or exploratory -drilling projects per year. The appropriate mitigations can be determined and implemented for -each program at the time of ITA and G&G permit approvals. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 51 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 28 The time/area closures are not warranted and would severely negatively impact seismic and -exploration program activity opportunities: - -• Placing the time closures chronologically in sequence, results in closures from mid-July -through at least mid-September, and in some cases through mid-October. This leaves less -than half of the non-ice season available for activity in those areas, with no resulting -resource and species protection realized. - -• The arbitrary limits to the duration of programs will cause high intensity, short and long -term adverse effects and restrictions to oil and gas land and water uses. - -• The identified time/area closures, and the use of a 120 dB and 160 dB buffer zones, have -no sound scientific or other factual basis and would, in several instances, render oil and -gas exploration impracticable. - -MIT 29 Additional Mitigation Measure C2 should be discussed in more detail, clarified, or deleted in -the final EIS: - -• Shipping routes or shipping lanes of this sort are established and enforced under the -regulatory authority of the U.S. Coast Guard. While NOAA or BOEM could establish -restricted areas, they could not regulate shipping routes. - -• With this mitigation measure in place, successful exploration cannot be conducted in the -Chukchi Sea. - -• Not only would lease holders be unable to conduct seismic and shallow hazard surveys -on some leases, but essential geophysical surveys for pipelines to shore, such as ice -gouge surveys, strudel scour surveys, and bathymetric surveys could not be conducted. - -MIT 30 There is no scientific justification for Additional Mitigation Measure C3. NMFS needs to -explain in the final EIS how NOAA's recommendations can justify being more stringent than -EPA's permit conditions, limitations and requirements. - -MIT 31 The purpose, intent and description of Additional Mitigation Measure C4 need to be clarified -(see page 4-67). - -MIT 32 Additional Mitigation Measure D1 needs to be clarified as to what areas will be -impacted/closed, and justified and/or modified accordingly: - -• It is not clear if this restriction is focused on the nearshore Chukchi Sea or on all areas. -• The logic of restrictions on vessels due to whales avoiding those areas may justify - -restrictions in the nearshore areas, but it is not clear how this logic would justify closing -the entire Chukchi offshore areas to vessel traffic if open water exists. - -• If a more specific exclusion area (e.g., within 30 miles of the coast) would be protective -of beluga whale migration routes, it should be considered instead of closing the Chukchi -Sea to transiting vessels. - -• It is not scientifically supported to close the entire Chukchi Sea to vessel traffic when the -stated intent is to avoid disrupting the subsistence hunt of beluga whales during their -migration along or near the coast near Point Lay. - -• Transits should be allowed provided that they do not interfere with the hunt. -• Transits far off shore should be allowed and transits that are done within the conditions - -established through a Conflict Avoidance Agreement should be allowed. -• Prohibiting movement of drilling vessels and equipment outside of the barrier islands - -would unreasonably limit the entire drilling season to less than two months. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 52 -Comment Analysis Report - -• Movement of drilling vessels and related equipment in a manner that avoids impacts to -subsistence users should be allowed on a case-by-case basis and as determined through -mechanisms such as the Conflict Avoidance Agreement not through inflexible DEIS -mitigation requirements. - -• BOEM (2011b) has previously concluded that oil and gas activities in the Chukchi Sea -would not overlap in space with Point Lay beluga hunting activities, and therefore would -have no effect on Point Lay beluga subsistence resources. Given that the entire Lease -Sale 193 area does not overlap geographically with Point Lay subsistence activities, it is -reasonable to draw the same conclusion for activities of other lease holders in the -Chukchi Sea as well. - -• This measure also prohibits all geophysical activity within 60 mi of the Chukchi -coastline. No reason is offered. The mitigation measure would prohibit lease holders from -conducting shallow hazards surveys and other geophysical surveys on and between -leases. Such surveys are needed for design and engineering. - -MIT 33 The time/area closure of Hanna Shoal is difficult to assess and to justify and should be -removed from Alternative 4 and Additional Mitigation Measure B1: - -• There needs to be information as to how and why the boundaries of the Hanna Shoal -were drawn; it is otherwise not possible to meaningfully comment on whether the -protection itself is justified and whether it should be further protected by a buffer zone. - -• The closure cannot be justified on the basis of mitigating potential impacts to subsistence -hunters during the fall bowhead whale hunt as the DEIS acknowledges that the actual -hunting grounds are well inshore of Hanna Shoal and there is no evidence that industry -activities in that area could impact the hunts. - -• Current science does not support closure of the area for protection of the walrus. -• Closure of the area for gray whales on an annual basis is not supported, as recent aerial - -survey data suggests that it has not been used by gray whales in recent years and the -historic data does not suggest that it was important for gray whales on a routine (annual) -basis. - -• The October 15 end date for the closure is too late in the season to be responsive to -concerns regarding walrus and gray whales. As indicated in the description in the DEIS -of the measure by NMFS and USGS walrus tracking data, the area is used little after -August. Similarly, few gray whales are found in the area after September. - -MIT 34 Plans of Cooperation (POCs) and CAAs are effective tools to ensure that meaningful -consultations continue to take place. We strongly urge NMFS to ensure that POCs and CAAs -continue to be available to facilitate interaction between the oil and gas industry and local -communities for the proper balance that allows for continued development subject to -mitigation measures that adequately protect our subsistence hunting, as well as our local -customs and cultural resources. - -MIT 35 The number of mitigation measures that are necessary or appropriate should be analyzed -case-by-case in the context of issuing ITA/IHA/permit/approval, the nature and extent of the -risk or effect they are mitigating, and cost and effectiveness. The scope of necessary -measures should be dictated by specific activity for which approval or a permit is being -sought. - -MIT 36 NMFS and BOEM are strongly urged to consult closely with locally affected whaling -communities when evaluating potential mitigation measures, including the - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 53 -Comment Analysis Report - -scheduling/timing/scope of specific activities, using tools such as the POC, CAA, and any -other appropriate mechanisms. - -MIT 37 Restricting the number of programs does not necessarily correlate to decreased impacts. - -MIT 38 The additional mitigation measures are too restrictive and could result in serving as the no -action alternative. - -MIT 39 NMFS cannot reasonably mandate use of the technologies to be used under Alternative 5, -since they are not commercially available, not fully tested, unproven and should not be -considered reasonably foreseeable. - -MIT 40 For open water and in-ice marine surveys include the standard mitigation measure of a -mitigation airgun during turns between survey lines and during nighttime activities. - -MIT 41 Include shutdown of activities in specific areas corresponding to start and conclusion of -bowhead whale hunts for all communities that hunt bowhead whales, not just Nuiqsut (Cross -Island) and Kaktovik (as stated on p. 2-41). - -MIT 42 Evaluate the necessity of including dates within the DEIS. Communication with members of -village Whaling Captains Associations indicate that the dates of hunts may shift due to -changing weather patterns, resulting in a shift in blackout dates. - -MIT 43 Additional Mitigation Measure B3 should not be established, particularly at these distances, -because it is both unwarranted from an environmental protection perspective and unnecessary -given how seismic companies already have an incentive for separation. - -• The basis for the distances is premised on use of sound exposure levels that are indicative -of harm. Use of the 160 dB standard would establish a propagation distance of 9-13 -kilometers. The distance in the mitigation measure therefore seems excessive and no -scientific basis was provided. - -• NMFS has justified the 120 dB threshold based on concerns of continuous noise sources, -not impulsive sound sources such as seismic surveys. - -• The argument that overlapping sound fields could mask cetacean communication has -already been judged to be a minor concern. NMFS has noted, "in general, NMFS expects -the masking effects of seismic pulses to be minor, given the normally intermittent nature -of seismic pulses." 76 Fed. Reg. at 6438. - -• The mitigation measure is prohibitively restrictive and it is unclear what, if any -mitigation of impacts this measure would result. - -MIT 44 Additional Mitigation Measure D4 should be consistent with surrounding mitigation -measures that consider start dates of bowhead whale hunting closed areas based on real-time -reporting of whale presence and hunting activity rather than a fixed date. - -MIT 45 Additional Mitigation Measure B3 should not be considered as an EIS area wide alternative. - -• NMFS should only impose limitations of the proximity of seismic surveys to each other -(or to specific habitat areas) when and where they are applicable to known locations -where biologically significant impacts might occur. There is no evidence that such -important feeding areas occur within the EIS area other than just east of Pt. Barrow. - -• It should only be used at specific times and locations and after a full evaluation of the -likelihood of overlap of seismic sound and/or disturbance impacts has actually taken - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 54 -Comment Analysis Report - -place. Simply assuming that seismic sound might overlap and be additive in nature is -incorrect. - -MIT 46 Additional Mitigation Measure A5 provisions are unclear, unjustified, and impractical: - -• The justification for believing that biologically significant effects to individuals or the -bowhead population would occur from exposure of four or more bowhead cow/calf pairs -to >120 dB pulsed sounds is not provided or referenced. - -• The amount of time and effort required to monitoring for four or more bowhead cow/calf -pairs within the 120 dB seismic sound level area take away from better defining the -distances and/or sound level thresholds at which more substantial impacts may be -occurring. - -• Would the referenced 4 or more cow/calf pairs have to be actually observed within the -area to trigger mitigation actions or would mitigation be required if survey data corrected -for sightability biases using standard line-transect protocols suggested 4 or more were -present? - -• If a mitigation measure for aggregations of 12 or more whales were to be included there -needs to be scientific justification for the number of animals required to trigger the -mitigation action. - -MIT 47 Additional Mitigation Measure C1 needs to be more clearly defined (or deleted), as it is -redundant and nearly impossible and impractical for industry to implement. - -• Steering around a loosely aggregated group of animals is nearly impossible as Protected -Species Observers (PSOs) often do not notice such a group until a number of sightings -have occurred and the vessel is already within the higher density patch. At that point it -likely does more harm than good trying to steer away from each individual or small -group of animals as it will only take the vessel towards another individual or small group. - -• This measure contains requirements that are already requirements, such as Standard -Mitigation Measures B1 and D3, such as a minimum altitude of 457 m. - -• The mitigation measure requires the operator to adhere to USFWS mitigation measures. -Why is a measure needed to have operators follow another agency’s mitigation measures -which already would have the force of law. - -• The measure states that there is a buffer zone around polar bear sea ice critical habitat -which is false. - -MIT 48 NMFS’ conclusion that implementation of time closures does not reduce the spatial -distribution of sound levels is not entirely correct (Page 4- 283 Section 4.7.1.4.2). The -closures of Hanna Shoal would effectively eliminate any industrial activities in or near the -area, thereby reducing the spatial distribution of industrial activities and associated sound. - -MIT 49 The time/area closure for the Beaufort Sea shelf needs to be justified by more than -speculation of feeding there by beluga whales. - -• There is no evidence cited in the EIS stating that the whales are feeding there at that time -and that it is an especially important location. - -• Most beluga whales sighted along the shelf break during aerial surveys are observed -traveling or migrating, not feeding. - -• Placing restrictions on the shelf break area of the Beaufort Sea is arbitrary especially -when beluga whale impact analyses generally find only low level impacts under current -standard mitigation measures. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 55 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 50 More stringent mitigation measures are needed to keep oil and gas activities in the Arctic -from having more than a negligible impact - -MIT 51 Quiet buffer areas should be established to protect areas of biological and ecological -significance, such as Hanna Shoal and Barrow Canyon. - -MIT 52 Quieter alternative technologies should be required in areas newly opened to oil and gas -activities - -MIT 53 Noise reduction measures should be implemented by industry within U.S. waters and by U.S. -companies internationally but especially in areas of the Arctic which have not yet been -subjected to high levels of man-made noise. - -MIT 54 Vessel restrictions and other measures need to be implemented to mitigate ship strikes, -including: - -• Vessels should be prohibited from sensitive areas with high levels of wildlife presence -that are determined to be key habitat for feeding, breeding, or calving. - -• Ship routes should be clearly defined including a process for annual review to update and -re-route shipping around these sensitive areas. - -• Speed restrictions may also need to be considered if re-routing is not possible. -• NMFS should require use of real-time passive acoustic monitoring in migratory corridors - -and other sensitive areas to alert ships to the presence of whales, primarily to reduce ship- -strike risk. - -MIT 55 NMFS should pair the additional mitigation measures with the level 1 exploration of -Alternative 2 and not support higher levels of exploration of Alternatives 3-5. - -MIT 56 The DEIS should clearly identify areas where activities will be prohibited to avoid any take -of marine mammals. It should also establish a framework for calculating potential take and -appropriate offsets - -MIT 57 Time/area closures should be included in any Alternative as standard avoidance measures and -should be expanded to include other deferral areas, including: - -• Dease Inlet. -• Boulder patch communities. -• Particular caution should be taken in early fall throughout the region, when peak use of - -the Arctic by marine mammals takes place. -• Add the Coastal Band of the Chukchi Sea (~50 miles wide) [Commenting on the original - -Lease Sale 193 draft EIS, NMFS strongly endorse[d] an alternative that would have -avoided any federal leases out to 60 miles and specifically argued that a 25-mile buffer -[around deferral areas] is inadequate]. - -• Expand Barrow Canyon time/area closure area to the head of Barrow Canyon (off the -coast between Point Barrow and Point Franklin) as well as the mouth of Barrow Canyon -along the shelf break. - -• Areas to the south of Hanna Shoal are important to walrus, bowhead whales, and gray -whales. - -• Encourage NMFS to consider a time and area closure during the winter and spring in the -Beaufort Sea that captures the ice fracture zone between landfast ice and the pack ice -where ringed seal densities are the highest. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 56 -Comment Analysis Report - -• Nuiqsut has long asked federal agencies to create a deferral area in the 20 miles to the -east of Cross Island. This area holds special importance for bowhead whale hunters and -the whales. - -• NMFS should consider designing larger exclusion zones (detection-dependent or - -independent) around river mouths with anadromous fish runs to protect beluga whale -foraging habitat, insofar as these areas are not encompassed by seasonal closures. - -• Final EIS must consider including additional (special habitat) areas and developing a -mechanism for new areas to be added over the life of the EIS. - -• Any protections for Camden Bay should extend beyond the dimensions of the Bay itself -to include areas located to the west and east, recently identified by NMFS as having -special significance to bowhead whales - -• Additional analysis is required related to deferral areas specific to subsistence hunting. -Any final EIS must confront the potential need for added coastal protections in the -Chukchi Sea. - -• There should be a buffer zone between Burger and the coast during migration of walrus -and other marine mammals - -• Future measures should include time/area closures for IEAs (Important Ecological Areas) - -MIT 58 The mitigation measures need to include clear avoidance measures and a description of -offsets that will be used to protect and/or restore marine mammal habitat if take occurs. - -• The sensitivity of the resource (e.g., the resource is irreplaceable and where take would -either cause irreversible impact to the species or its population or where mitigation of the -take would have a low probability of success), not the level of activity should dictate the -location of avoidance areas. - -• NMFS should consider adding an Avoidance Measures section to Appendix A. - -MIT 59 The DEIS fails to address the third step in the mitigation hierarchy which is to compensate -for unavoidable and incidental take. NMFS should provide a clear framework for -compensatory mitigation activities. - -MIT 60 Many of the mitigation measures suggested throughout the DEIS are not applicable to in-ice -towed streamer 2D seismic surveys and should not be required during these surveys. - -MIT 61 NMFS should not seek to pre-empt or undermine the CAA process that industry and the -Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission have used for many years to develop mitigations that -result in a determination of no "unmitigable adverse effect" on the hunt. - -MIT 62 NMFS needs to clarify the use of adaptive management: - -• In the DEIS the term is positioned toward the use of adaptive management to further -restrict activities and it does not leave room for adaptive management to reduce -restrictions. - -• If monitoring shows undetectable or limited impacts, an adaptive management strategy -should allow for decreased restrictions on oil and gas exploration. The conditions under -which decreased restrictions will occur should be plainly stated in the discussion of -adaptive management. - -MIT 63 Mitigation Measure A3: It is neither practicable nor reasonable to require observers on all -support vessels, especially on Ocean Bottom Cable seismic operations, where support vessels -often include small boats without adequate space for observers. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 57 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 64 Aerial overflights are infeasible and risky and should not be required as a monitoring tool: - -• Such mitigation requirements are put forward only in an effort to support the 120dB -observation zones, which are both scientifically unjustified and infeasible to implement. - -• Such over flights pose a serious safety risk. Requiring them as a condition of operating in -the Arctic conflicts with the statutory requirements of OCSLA, which mandates safe -operations. - -MIT 65 The purpose of Mitigation Measure A6 needs to be clarified: - -• If the purpose is to establish a shutdown zone, it is unwarranted because the nature of -drilling operations is such that they cannot sporadically be shutdown or ramped up and -down. - -• If the purpose is the collection of research data, then it should be handled as part of the -BOEM research program. - -MIT 66 Mitigation Measure D2: There should be no requirement for communications center -operations during periods when industry is not allowed to operate and by definition there is -not possibility for industry impact on the hunt. - -MIT 67 Additional Mitigation Measure A1 is problematic and should not be required: - -• Sound source verification tests take time, are expensive, and can expose people to risks. -• Modeling should eventually be able to produce a reliable estimate of the seismic source - -emissions and propagation, so sound source verification tests should not be required -before the start of every seismic survey in the Arctic. - -• This should be eliminated unless NMFS is planning to require the same measurements -for all vessels operating in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. - -• Sound source verification for vessels has no value because there are no criteria for shut -down or other mitigation associated with vessel sounds. - -MIT 68 NMFS should not require monitoring measures to be designed to accomplish or contribute to -what are in fact research goals. NMFS and others should work together to develop a research -program targeting key research goals in a prioritized manner following appropriate scientific -method, rather than attempting to meet these goals through monitoring associated with -activities. - -MIT 69 Additional Mitigation Measure A3 Lacks a Basic Description of the Measure and must be -deleted or clarified as: - -• NMFS provides no further information in the DEIS with regard to what conditions or -situations would meet or fail to meet visibility requirements. - -• NMFS also does not indicate what exploration activities would be affected by such -limitations. - -• Operators cannot assess the potential effects of such mitigation on their operations and -lease obligations, or its practicability, without these specifics. - -• NMFS certainly cannot evaluate the need or efficacy of the mitigation measure without -these details. - -• Cetaceans are not at significantly greater risk of harm when a soft-start is initiated in poor -visibility conditions. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 58 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 70 Additional Mitigation Measure A4: There are limitations to current PAM technology, but its -use may improve monitoring results in some situations and should be used during certain -conditions, with these caveats: - -• A period of confidence in the current PAM capabilities, understanding of limitations, and -experienced operator capacity-building is needed before requiring PAM as a mandatory -monitoring tool during seismic operations. - -• Basic training criteria, such as that specified by many countries for PSOs, should be -developed and required for PAM operators. - -• Minimum requirements for PAM equipment (including capabilities of software and -hardware) should be considered. - -MIT 71 Proposed restrictions under Additional Mitigation Measure B2 are unnecessary, impractical -and must be deleted or clarified: - -• The likelihood of redundant or duplicative surveys is small to non-existent. A new survey -is conducted only if the value of the additional information to be provided will exceed the -cost of acquisition. - -• The restriction is based on the false premise that surveys, which occur in similar places -and times, are the same. A new survey may be warranted by its use of new technology, a -better image, a different target zone, or a host of other considerations. - -• Implementing such a requirement poses several large problems. First, who would decide -what is redundant and by what criteria? Second, recognizing the intellectual property and -commercial property values, how will the agencies protect that information? Any -proposal that the companies would somehow be able to self-regulate is infeasible and -potentially illegal given the various anti-trust statutes. A government agency would likely -find it impossible to set appropriate governing technical and commercial criteria, and -would end up stifling the free market competition that has led to technological -innovations and success in risk reduction. - -• This is already done by industry in some cases, but as a regulatory requirement it is very -vague and needs clarification. - -MIT 72 Additional Mitigation Measures D3, D4, D5, D6, and D8 need clarification about how the -real-time reporting would be handled: - -• If there is the expectation that industry operations could be shutdown quickly and -restarted quickly, the proposal is not feasible. - -• Who would conduct the monitoring for whales? -• How and to whom would reporting be conducted? -• How whale presence would be determined and who would make the determination must - -be elucidated in this measure. This is vague and impracticable. - -MIT 73 NMFS and BOEM should consider various strategies for avoiding unnecessarily redundant -seismic surveys as a way of ensuring the least practicable impact on marine mammals and the -environment. Companies that conduct geophysical surveys for the purpose of selling the data -could make those data available to multiple companies, avoiding the need for each company -to commission separate surveys. - -MIT 74 The list of standard mitigation measures should be incorporated in all incidental take -authorizations issued by NMFS and be included under the terms and conditions for the - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 59 -Comment Analysis Report - -BOEM’s issuance of geological and geophysical permits and ancillary activity and -exploratory drilling approvals. - -MIT 75 NMFS should expand many of the additional mitigation measures and include them as -standard conditions. - -MIT 76 The Marine Mammal Commission recommends that the National Marine Fisheries Service -work with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to incorporate a broader list of -mitigation measures that would be standard for all oil and gas-related incidental take -authorizations in the Arctic region, including: - -a) Detection-based measures intended to reduce near-source acoustic impacts on marine -mammals - -• require operators to use operational- and activity-specific information to estimate -exclusion and buffer zones for all sound sources (including seismic surveys, subbottom -profilers, vertical seismic profiling, vertical cable surveys, drilling, icebreaking, support -aircraft and vessels, etc.) and, just prior to or as the activity begins, verify and (as needed) -modify those zones using sound measurements collected at each site for each sound -source; - -• assess the efficacy of mitigation and monitoring measures and improve detection -capabilities in low visibility situations using tools such as forward-looking infrared or -360o thermal imaging; - -• require the use of passive acoustic monitoring to increase detection probability for real- -time mitigation and monitoring of exclusion zones; and - -• require operators to cease operations when the exclusion zone is obscured by poor -sighting conditions; - -b) Non-detection-based measures intended to lessen the severity of acoustic impacts on -marine mammals or reduce overall numbers taken by acoustic sources - -• limit aircraft overflights to an altitude of 457 m or higher and a horizontal distance of 305 -m or greater when marine mammals are present (except during takeoff, landing, or an -emergency situation)1; - -• require temporal/spatial limitations to minimize impacts in particularly important habitats -or migratory areas, including but not limited to those identified for time-area closures -under Alternative 4 (i.e., Camden Bay, Barrow Canyon/Western Beaufort Sea, Hanna -Shoal, the Beaufort Sea shelf break, and Kasegaluk Lagoon/Ledy Bay critical habitat); - -• prevent concurrent, geographically overlapping surveys and surveys that would provide -the same information as previous surveys; and - -• restrict 2D/3D surveys from operating within 145 km of one another; - -c) Measures intended to reduce/lessen non-acoustic impacts on marine mammals reduce -vessel speed to 9 knots or less when transiting the Beaufort Sea2 - -• reduce vessel speed to 9 knots or less within 274 m of whales2,3; -• avoid changes in vessel direction and speed within 274 m of whales3; -• reduce speed to 9 knots or less in inclement weather or reduced visibility conditions2; -• use shipping or transit routes that avoid areas where marine mammals may occur in high - -densities, such as offshore ice leads; - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 60 -Comment Analysis Report - -• establish and monitor a 160-dB re 1 ¬Pa zone for large whales around all sound sources -and do not initiate or continue an activity if an aggregation of bowhead whales or gray -whales (12 or more whales of any age/sex class that appear to be engaged in a non- -migratory, significant biological behavior (e.g., feeding, socializing)) is observed within -that zone; - -• require operators to cease drilling operations in mid- to late-September to reduce the -possibility of having to respond to a large oil spill in ice conditions; - -• require operators to develop and implement a detailed, comprehensive, and coordinated -Wildlife Protection Plan that includes strategies and sufficient resources for minimizing -contamination of sensitive marine mammal habitats and that provides a realistic -description of the actions that operators can take, if any, to deter animals from spill areas -or respond to oiled or otherwise affected marine mammals the plan should be developed -in consultation with Alaska Native communities (including marine mammal co- -management organizations), state and federal resource agencies, and experienced non- -governmental organizations; and - -• require operators to collect all new and used drilling muds and cuttings and either reinject -them or transport them to an Environmental Protection Agency-licensed -treatment/disposal site outside the Arctic; - -d) Measures intended to ensure no unmitigable adverse impact to subsistence users - -• require the use of Subsistence Advisors; and -• facilitate development of more comprehensive plans of cooperation/conflict avoidance - -agreements that involve all potentially affected communities and comanagement -organizations and account for potential adverse impacts on all marine mammal species -taken for subsistence purposes. - -MIT 77 The Marine Mammal Commission also recommends that the National Marine Fisheries -Service include additional measures to verify compliance with mitigation measures and work -with the Bureau and industry to improve the quality and usefulness of mitigation and -monitoring measures: - -• Track and enforce each operator’s implementation of mitigation and monitoring measures -to ensure that they are executed as expected; provide guidance to operators regarding the -estimation of the number of takes during the course of an activity (e.g., seismic survey) -that guidance should be sufficiently specific to ensure that take estimates are accurate and -include realistic estimates of precision and bias; - -• Provide additional justification for the determination that the mitigation and monitoring -measures that depend on visual observations would be sufficient to detect, with a high -level of confidence, all marine mammals within or entering identified mitigation zones; - -• Work with protected species observers, observer service providers, the Fish and Wildlife -Service, and other stakeholders to establish and implement standards for protected -species observers to improve the quality and usefulness of information collected during -exploration activities; - -• Establish requirements for analysis of data collected by protected species observers to -ensure that those data are used both to estimate potential effects on marine mammals and -to inform the continuing development of mitigation and monitoring measures; - -• Require operators to make the data associated with monitoring programs publicly -available for evaluation by independent researchers; - -• Require operators to gather the necessary data and work with the Bureau and the Service -to assess the effectiveness of soft-starts as a mitigation measure; and - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 61 -Comment Analysis Report - -• Require operators to suspend operations immediately if a dead or seriously injured -marine mammal is found in the vicinity of the operations and the death or injury could be -attributed to the applicant’s activities any suspension should remain in place until the -Service has reviewed the situation and determined that further deaths or serious injuries -are unlikely or has issued regulations authorizing such takes under section 101(a)(5)(A) -of the Act. - -MIT 78 There is no need for the Additional Mitigation Measures in the DEIS and they should be -removed: - -• Potential impacts of oil and gas exploration activities under the Standard Mitigation -Measures, BOEM lease stipulations (MMS 2008c), and existing industry practices, are -already negligible. - -• Analysis of the effectiveness of the Additional Mitigation Measures in reducing any -impacts (especially for marine mammals and subsistence) was not established in the -DEIS so there is no justification for their implementation. - -• The negative impacts these measures would have on industry and on the expeditious -development of resources in the OCS as mandated by OCSLA are significant, and were -not described, quantified, or seriously considered in the DEIS. - -• Any Additional Mitigation Measures carried forward must be clarified and made -practicable, and further analysis must be conducted and presented in the FEIS to explain -why they are needed, how they were developed (including a scientific basis), what -conditions would trigger their implementation and how they would affect industry and -the ability of BOEM to meet its OCSLA mandate of making resources available for -expeditious development. - -• NMFS failed to demonstrate the need for most if not all of the Additional Mitigation -Measures identified in the DEIS, especially Additional Mitigation Measures A4, B1 -(time/area closures), C3, D1, D5, D6, and D8. - -• NMFS has failed to fully evaluate and document the costs associated with their -implementation. - -MIT 79 The time/area closure for Barrow Canyon needs to be clarified or removed: - -• A time area closure is indicated from September 1 to the close of Barrow’s fall bowhead -hunt, but dates are also provided for bowhead whales (late August to early October) and -beluga whales (mid-July to late August), which are both vague and outside the limits of -the closure. - -• It is also not clear if Barrow Canyon and the Western Beaufort Sea Special Habitat Areas -one and the same. Only Barrow Canyon (not the Western Beaufort) is referenced in most -places, including the only map (Figure 3.2-25) of the area. - -MIT 80 Additional Mitigation Measure D7 must be deleted or clarified - -• This is vague. The transit restrictions are not identified, nor are the conditions under -which the transit might be allowed. - -• Some hunting of marine mammals in the Chukchi Sea occurs year round making this -measure impracticable. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 62 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 81 Either the proposed action for the EIS needs to be changed or the analysis is too broad for the -proposed action stated. NMFS should not limit the number of activities allowed: - -• As long as the number of takes has no more than a negligible impact on species or stock. -• Limiting the level of activities also limits the amount of data that can be collected. - -Industry will not be able to collect the best data in the time allotted. - -MIT 82 Ice distribution in recent years indicates drilling at some lease holdings could possibly occur -June-November. NMFS should, therefore, extend the temporal extent of the exploration -drilling season. - -MIT 83 NMFS should not automatically add Additional Mitigation Measures without first assessing -the impact without Additional Mitigation Measures to determine whether they are needed. - -MIT 84 Appendix A Additional Mitigation Measure C4 (the zero discharge additional mitigation -measure) should be deleted since all exploration drilling programs are already required by -regulation to have oil spill response plans. - -• DEIS stated that NPDES permitting effectively regulates/handles discharges from -operations and Zero Discharge was removed from further analysis in Chapter 2.5.4. - -MIT 85 The requirement to recycle drilling muds should not become mandatory as it is not -appropriate for all programs. Drilling mud discharges are already regulated by the EPA -NPDES program and are not harmful to marine mammals or the availability of marine -mammals for subsistence. - -MIT 86 Page 4-68 - For exploratory drilling operations in the Beaufort Sea west of Cross Island, no -drilling equipment or related vessels used for at-sea oil and gas operations shall be moved -onsite at any location outside the barrier islands west of Cross Island until the close of the -bowhead whale hunt in Barrow. This measure would prevent exploration of offshore leases -west of Cross Island during the open water season and would require refunding of lease -purchase and investment by companies that are no longer allowed to explore their leases. - -MIT 87 The statement that eliminating exploration activities through the time/area closures on Hanna -Shoal would benefit all assemblages of marine fish, with some anticipated benefit to -migratory fish, is incorrect. Most migratory fish would not be found in offshore waters. - -MIT 88 Given that the Time/Area closures are for marine mammals, Alternative 4 would be irrelevant -and generally benign in terms of fish and EFH, so it is wrong to state that the closures would -further reduce impact. - -MIT 89 Mitigation Measure A5 can be deleted as it is essentially the same as A4. - -MIT 90 Standard Mitigation Measures under B1 and D3 have identical requirements regarding -aircraft operations and appear to apply to the same activities, so they should be deleted from -one or the other. - -MIT 91 Under conditions when exploration is determined to be acceptable, monitoring and mitigation -plans on a wide range of temporal scales should become both a standard requirement and -industry practice. These must be designed in a manner specific to the nature of the operation -and the environment to minimize the risks of both acute impacts (i.e., direct, short-term, -small-scale harm as predicted from estimates of noise exposure on individuals) and to - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 63 -Comment Analysis Report - -measure/minimize chronic effects (i.e., cumulative, long-term, large-scale adverse effects on -populations as predicted from contextually mediated behavioral responses or the loss of -acoustic habitat). - -MIT 92 To date, standard practices for individual seismic surveys and other activities have been of -questionable efficacy for monitoring or mitigating direct physical impacts (i.e., acute impacts -on injury or hearing) and have essentially failed to address chronic, population level impacts -from masking and other long-term, large-scale effects, which most likely are the greatest risk -to long-term population health and viability. - -MIT 93 More meaningful monitoring and mitigation measures that should be more fully considered -and implemented in the programmatic plans for the Arctic include: - -• Considerations of time and area restrictions based on known sensitive periods/areas; -• Sustained acoustic monitoring, both autonomous and real-time, of key habitat areas to - -assess species presence and cumulative noise exposure with direct federal involvement -and oversight; - -• Support or incentives for research to develop and apply metrics for a population’s health, -such as measures of vital rates, prey availability, ranging patterns, and body condition; - -• Specified spatial-temporal separation zones between intense acoustic events; and -• Requirements or incentives for the reduction of acoustic footprints of intense noise - -sources. - -MIT 94 The mitigation measures outlined in the EIS need to be more stringent and expanded by: - -• Coverage of an adequate amount of important habitat and concentration areas for marine -mammals. - -• Identifying and protecting Important Ecological Areas of the Arctic. - -MIT 95 Time/area closures represent progress, but NMFS’s analysis that the closures provide limited -benefits is faulty and needs further evaluation - -• The current analysis does not well reflect the higher densities of marine mammals in -concentration areas and other Important Ecological Areas (IEAs). - -• The analysis also does not fully recognize the importance of those areas to the overall -health of the species being impacted, and thus underestimates the likely disproportionate -effects of activities in those areas. - -• The analysis concludes no benefit as a result of mitigating impacts. This, along with a -lack of information to assess the size of the benefit beyond unclear and ill-defined levels, -mistakenly results in analysts concluding there is no benefit. - -• The inability to quantitatively estimate the potential impacts of oil and gas activities, or -express the benefits of time and area closures of important habitats, likely has much more -to do with incomplete information than with a perceived lack of benefits from the time -and area closures. - -MIT 96 A precautionary approach should be taken: - -• Faulty analysis, along with the clear gaps in good data for a number of species, only -serves to bolster the need for precaution in the region. - -• While there is good information on the existence of some Important Ecological Areas, the -lack of information about why some concentration areas occur and what portion of a - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 64 -Comment Analysis Report - -population of marine mammals uses each area hampers the ability of NMFS to determine -the benefits of protecting the area. This lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a -reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. - -MIT 97 Ledyard Bay and Kasegaluk Lagoon merit special protection through time and area closures -for all the reasons highlighted in the EIS. - -• Walrus also utilize these areas from June through September, with large haulouts on the -barrier islands of Kasegaluk Lagoon in late August and September. - -MIT 98 Hanna Shoal merits special protection through time and area closures for all the reasons -highlighted in the EIS. - -• It is also a migration area for bowhead whales in the fall, and used by polar bears. - -MIT 99 Barrow Canyon merits considerable protection through time and area closures for all the -reasons highlighted in the EIS. - -MIT 100 Beaufort Shelf Break and Camden Bay merit special protection through time and area -closures for all the reasons highlighted in the EIS. - -• The Beaufort Shelf Break should be included in the map of special habitat areas of the -Beaufort Sea and it is unclear why that area was left out of that section. - -MIT 101 NMFS should create a system where as new and better information becomes available, there -is opportunity to add and adjust areas to protect important habitat. - -MIT 102 There is no point to analyzing hypothetical additional mitigation measures in a DEIS that is a -theoretical analysis of potential measures undertaken in the absence of a specific activity, -location or time. If these measures were ever potentially relevant, reanalysis in a project¬ -specific NEPA document would be required. - -MIT 103 NMFS needs to expand and update its list of mitigation measures to include: - -• Zero discharge requirement to protect water quality and subsistence resources. -• Require oil and gas companies who are engaging in exploration operations to obtain EPA - -issued air permits. -• More stringent regulation of marine vessel discharge for both exploratory drilling - -operations, support vessels, and other operations to eliminate possible environmental -contamination through the introduction of pathogens and foreign organisms through -ballast water, waste water, sewage, and other discharge streams. - -• The requirement that industry signs a CAA with the relevant marine mammal co- -management organizations. - -• Another Standard Mitigation Measure should be developed with regards to marine -mammal monitoring during darkness and inclement weather. This should require more -efficient and appropriate protocols. If more appropriate monitoring methods cannot be -developed, NMFS should not allow for seismic surveys during times when monitoring is -severely limited. - -• NMFS should consider for mitigation a requirement that seismic survey vessels use the -lowest practicable source levels, minimize horizontal propagation of the sound signal, -and/or minimize the density of track lines consistent with the purposes of the survey. -Accordingly, the agencies should consider establishing a review panel, potentially - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 65 -Comment Analysis Report - -overseen by both NMFS and BOEM, to review survey designs with the aim of reducing -their wildlife impacts. - -• A requirement that all vessels undergo measurement for their underwater noise output per -American National Standards Institute/Acoustical Society of America standards (S12.64); -that all vessels undergo regular maintenance to minimize propeller cavitation, which is -the primary contributor to underwater ship noise; and/or that all new vessels be required -to employ the best ship quieting designs and technologies available for their class of ship. - -• NMFS should consider requiring aerial monitoring and/or fixed hydrophone arrays to -reduce the risk of near-source injury and monitor for impacts. - -• Make Marine Mammal Observers (MMOs) and PSOs mandatory on the vessels. -• Unmanned flights should also be investigated for monitoring, as recommended by - -NMFS’s Open Water Panel. -• Mitigation and monitoring measures concerning the introduction of non-native species - -need to be identified and analyzed. - -MIT 104 Both the section on water quality and subsistence require a discussion of mitigation measures -and how NMFS intends to address local community concerns about contamination of -subsistence food from sanitary waste and drilling muds and cuttings. - -MIT 105 NMFS must discuss the efficacy of mitigation measures: - -• Including safety zones, start-up and shut-down procedures, use of Marine Mammal -Observers during periods of limited visibility for preventing impacts to bowhead whales -and the subsistence hunt. - -• Include discussion of the significant scientific debate regarding the effectiveness of many -mitigation measures that are included in the DEIS and that have been previously used by -industry as a means of complying with the MMPA. - -• We strongly encourage NMFS to include in either Chapter 3 or Chapter 4 a separate -section devoted exclusively to assessing whether and to what extent each individual -mitigation measure is effective at reducing impacts to marine mammals and the -subsistence hunt. NMFS should use these revised portions of the DEIS to discuss and -analyze compliance with the "least practicable adverse impact" standard of the MMPA. - -• NMFS must discuss to what extent visual monitoring is effective as a means of triggering -mitigation measures, and, if so, how specifically visual monitoring can be structured or -supplemented with acoustic monitoring to improve performance. - -• NMFS should clearly analyze whether poor visibility restrictions are appropriate and -whether those restrictions are necessary to comply with the "least practicable impact" -standard of the MMPA. - -• NMFS should disclose in the EIS uncertainties as to the efficacy of ramp up procedures -and then discuss and analyze how that uncertainty relates to an estimate of impacts to -marine mammals and, in particular, bowhead whales. - -• This EIS is an important opportunity for NMFS to assess the efficacy of these proposed -measures with the full input of the scientific community before making a decision on -overall levels of industrial activity in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. NMFS should, -therefore, amend the DEIS to include such an analysis, which can then be subject to -further public review and input pursuant to a renewed public comment period. - -MIT 106 NMFS must include in a revised DEIS a discussion of additional deferral areas and a -reasoned analysis of whether and to what extent those deferral areas would benefit our -subsistence practices and habitat for the bowhead whale. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 66 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 107 NMFS should create an alternative modeled off of the adaptive management process of the -CAA. Without doing so the agency cannot fully analyze and consider the benefits provided -by this community based, collaborative approach to managing multiple uses on the Outer -Continental Shelf. - -MIT 108 NMFS needs to it revise the DEIS to include a more complete description of the proposed -mitigation measures, eliminate the concept of "additional mitigation measures," and then -decide in the Record of Decision on a final suite of applicable mitigation measures. - -MIT 109 The peer review panel states that "a single sound source pressure level or other single -descriptive parameter is likely a poor predictor of the effects of introduced anthropogenic -sound on marine life." The panel recommends that NMFS develop a "soundscape" approach -to management, and it was understand that the NSB Department of Wildlife suggested such -an alternative, which was rejected by NMFS. If NMFS moves forward with using simple -measures, it is recommended that these measures "should be based on the more -comprehensive ecosystem assessments and they should be precautionary to compensate for -remaining uncertainty in potential effects." NMFS should clarify how these concerns are -reflected in the mitigation measures set forth in the DEIS and whether the simple sound -pressure level measures are precautionary as suggested by the peer review panel. - -MIT 110 NMFS needs to clarify why it is using 160 dB re 1 Pa rms as the threshold for level B take. -Clarification is needed on whether exposure of feeding whales to sounds up to 160 dB re 1 Pa -rms could cause adverse effects, and, if so, why the threshold for level B harassment is not -lower. - -MIT 111 NMFS should consider implementing mitigation measures designed to avoid exposing -migrating bowhead whales to received sound levels of 120dB or greater given the best -available science, which demonstrates that such noise levels cause behavioral changes in -bowhead whales. - -MIT 112 The DEIS does not list aerial surveys as a standard or additional mitigation measure for either -the Beaufort or Chukchi seas. There is no reasonable scientific basis for this. NMFS should -include aerial surveys as a possible mitigation measure along with a discussion of the peer -review panel's concerns regarding this issue. - -MIT 113 Standard mitigation measures are needed to protect autumn bowhead hunting at Barrow, -Wainwright, and possibly at Point Lay and Point Hope and subsistence hunting of beluga -whales at Point Lay and Wainwright and seal and walrus hunting along the Chukchi Sea -coasts. - -• One approach for protecting beluga hunting at Point Lay would be to implement adaptive -management; whereby, ships and drill rigs would not come within 60 miles of the -community of Point Lay until the beluga hunt is completed. - -• These types of mitigation measures should be standard and should be applied to any -Incidental Take Authorization (ITA). - -MIT 114 The mitigation measure related to discharge of drilling muds does not address the current -industry plan of recycling muds and then discharging any unused or remaining muds at the -end of the season. At the very least, no drilling muds should be discharged. - -• Furthermore, using the best management practice of near- zero discharge, as is being -implemented by Shell in Camden Bay in the Beaufort Sea, would be the best method for - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 67 -Comment Analysis Report - -mitigating impacts to marine mammals and ensuring that habitat is kept as clean and -healthy as possible. - -MIT 115 Reduction levels associated with Additional Mitigation Measure C3 should be specified and -applied to marine vessel traffic supporting operations as well as drill ships. - -MIT 116 NMFS should consider using an independent panel to review survey designs. For example, an -independent peer review panel has been established to evaluate survey design of the Central -Coastal California Seismic Imaging Project, which is aimed at studying fault systems near the -Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. See California Public Utilities Commission, Application -of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Approval of Ratepayer Funding to Perform -Additional Seismic Studies Recommended by the California Energy Commission: Decision -Granting the Application, available at -docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/FINAL_DECISION/122059-09.htm. - -MIT 117 Prohibiting all seismic surveys outside proposed lease sale areas is not essential to the stated -purpose and need. - -MIT 118 Use additional best practices for monitoring and maintaining safety zones around active -airgun arrays and other high-intensity underwater noise sources as set forth in Weir and -Dolman (2007) and Parsons et al. (2009) - -MIT 119 The existing draft EIS makes numerous errors regarding mitigation: - -• Mischaracterizing the effectiveness and practicability of particular measures. -• Failing to analyze variations of measures that may be more effective than the ones - -proposed. -• Failing to standardize measures that are plainly effective. - -MIT 120 Language regarding whether or not standard mitigation measures are required is confusing -and NMFS should make clear that this mitigation is indeed mandatory. - -MIT 121 The rationale for not including mitigation limiting activities in low-visibility conditions, -which can reduce the risk of ship-strikes and near-field noise exposures, as standard -mitigation is flawed and this measure needs to be included: - -• First, it suggests that the restriction could extend the duration of a survey and thus the -potential for cumulative disturbance of wildlife; but this concern would not apply to -activities in migratory corridors, since target species like bowhead whales are transient. - -• Second, while it suggests that the requirement would be expensive to implement, it does -not consider the need to reduce ship-strike risk in heavily-used migratory corridors in -order to justify authorization of an activity under the IHA process. - -• This requirement should be standardized for all activities involving moving vessels that -occur in bowhead whale migratory corridors during the latter parts of the open-water -season (i.e., September-October); and for all transits of support vessels in all areas at all -times. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 68 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 122 NMFS fails to consider a number of recent studies on temporary threshold shift in -establishing its 180/190 dB safety zone standard should conservatively recalculate its safety -zone distances in light of these studies, which indicate the need for larger safety zones, -especially for the harbor porpoise: - -1) A controlled exposure experiment demonstrating that harbor porpoises are substantially -more susceptible to temporary threshold shift than the two species, bottlenose dolphins -and beluga whales, that have previously been tested; - -2) A modeling effort indicating that, when uncertainties and individual variation are -accounted for, a significant number of whales could suffer temporary threshold shift -beyond 1 km from a seismic source; - -3) Studies suggesting that the relationship between temporary and permanent threshold shift -may not be as predictable as previously believed; and - -4) The oft-cited Southall et al. (2007), which suggests use of a cumulative exposure metric -for temporary threshold shift in addition to the present RMS metric, given the potential -occurrence of multiple surveys within reasonably close proximity. - -MIT 123 The draft EIS improperly rejects the 120 dB safety zone for bowhead whales, and the 160 dB -safety zone for bowhead and gray whales that have been used in IHAs over the past five -seasons: - -• It claims that the measure is ineffective because it has never yet been triggered, but does -not consider whether a less stringent, more easily triggered threshold might be more -appropriate given the existing data. For example, the draft EIS fails to consider whether -requiring observers to identify at least 12 whales within the 160 dB safety zone, and then -to determine that the animals are engaged in a nonmigratory, biologically significant -behavior, might not constitute too high a bar, and whether a different standard would -provide a greater conservation benefit while enabling survey activity. - -MIT 124 The assertion by industry regarding the overall safety of conducting fixed-wing aircraft -monitoring flights in the Arctic, especially in the Chukchi Sea, should be reviewed in light of -the multiple aerial surveys that are now being conducted there (e.g., COMIDA and Shell is -planning to implement an aerial monitoring program extending 37 kilometers from the shore, -as it has for a number of years). - -MIT 125 The draft EIS implies that requiring airgun surveys to maintain a 90-mile separation distance -would reduce impacts in some circumstances but not in others, depending on the area of -operation, season, and whether whales are feeding or migrating. - -• NMFS does not provide any biological basis for this finding. -• This analysis fails to consider that the measure would affect only the timing, not the - -spatial extent of the survey effort: the overall area of ensonification would remain the -same over the course of a season since survey activities would only be separated, not -curtailed. - -• If NMFS believes that surveys should not be separated in all cases, it should consider a -measure that defines the conditions in which greater separation would be required. - -MIT 126 Restrictions on numbers of activities to reduce survey duplication: While acknowledging the -conservation benefits of this measure, the draft EIS argues that the agencies have no legal -authority to impose it. This position is based on an incorrect reading of OCSLA. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 69 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 127 The draft EIS should also consider to what degree the time/place restrictions could protect -marine mammals from some of the harmful effects from an oil spill. Avoiding exploration -drilling during times when marine mammals may be concentrated nearby could help to -ameliorate the more severe impacts discussed in the draft EIS. - -MIT 128 Avoiding exploratory drilling proximate to the spring lead system and avoiding late season -drilling would help to reduce the risk of oil contaminating the spring lead. At a minimum, -NMFS should consider timing restrictions in the Chukchi Sea to avoid activities taking place -too early in the open water season. - -MIT 129 NMFS should consider timing restrictions to avoid the peak of the bowhead migration -throughout the Beaufort Sea, particularly north of Dease Inlet to Smith Bay; northeast of -Smith Bay; and northeast of Cape Halkett where bowhead whales feed. - -MIT 130 The draft EIS’s reliance on future mitigation measures required by the FWS and undertaken -by industry is unjustified. It refers to measures typically required through the MMPA and -considers that it is in industry’s self-interest to avoid harming bears. The draft EIS cannot -simply assume that claimed protections resulting from the independent efforts of others will -mitigate for potential harm. - -MIT 131 The EIS identifies appropriate mitigation to address impacts to the extent possible. - -MIT 132 Allowing only one or two drilling programs per sea to proceed: Since six operators hold -leases in the Chukchi and 18 in the Beaufort, the DEIS effectively declares as worthless -leases associated with four Chukchi operators and 16 Beaufort operators. How NMFS -expects to choose which operators can work is not clear, nor is it clear how it would -compensate those operators not chosen for the value of their lease and resources expenditures -to date. - -MIT 133 The time/area closures in protecting critical ecological and subsistence use areas are very -important in ensuring that subsistence way of life continues. Please consider that when you -make your final determination. - -MIT 134 Adaptive management should be used, and an area should not be closed if there are no -animals there. - -MIT 135 The stipulations that are put in or the mitigations that are put in for the Beaufort Sea should -not affect activity in the Chukchi Sea. They are two different worlds, if you think about it, the -depth of the ocean, the movement of the ice, the distance away from our subsistence activity. -Don't take the Beaufort Sea restrictions and make it harder to work in the Chukchi Sea. - -MIT 136 Only grant permits and allow work when whaling is not occurring. - -MIT 137 When examined the time/area closures proposed in the alternatives, specific dates are listed, -but dates for closures need to be flexible to adjust for changes in migration; fixed dates are -very difficult to change. - -MIT 138 Based on traditional knowledge, there is not enough data to really determine season closures -or times of use because we don't know where so many of these animals go when they are not -right here on the coast. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 70 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 139 The MMO (PSO) program is not very effective: - -• Only MMOs who are ethical and work hard see marine mammals; and -• There is no oversight to make sure the MMO was actually working. - -MIT 140 The most effective means of creating mitigation that works is to start small and focused and -reassess after a couple of seasons to determine what works and what doesn’t work. Mitigation -measures could then be adjusted to match reality. - -MIT 141 There should be a mechanism by which the public can be apprised of and provide input on -the efficacy of mitigation efforts. Suggestions include: - -• Something similar to the Open Water meetings. -• Put out a document about the assumptions upon which all these NEPA documents and - -permits are based and assess mitigation - Are they working, how did they work, what -were the problems and challenges, where does attention need to be focused. - -• Include dates if something unusual happened that season that would provide an -opportunity to contact NOAA or BOEM and report what was observed. - -• This would just help us to again refine mitigation recommendations in the future. - -MIT 142 If explosives are used, there needs to be mitigation to ensure that the explosives are -accounted for. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 71 -Comment Analysis Report - -Marine Mammal and other Wildlife Impacts (MMI) -MMI General comments related to potential impacts to marine mammals or wildlife, unrelated to - -subsistence resource concepts. - -MMI 1 The draft EIS improperly dismisses the risk of mortality and serious injury from acoustic -impacts: - -• The draft EIS fails to consider the adverse synergistic effect that at least some types of -anthropogenic noise can have on ship-strike risk (for example mid-frequency sounds with -frequencies in the range of some sub-bottom profilers have been shown to cause North -Atlantic right whales to break off their foraging dives and lie just below the surface, -increasing the risk of vessel strike). - -• Recent studies indicate that anthropogenic sound can induce permanent threshold shift at -lower levels than anticipated. - -• Hearing loss remains a significant risk where, as here, the agency has not required aerial -or passive acoustic monitoring as standard mitigation, appears unwilling to restrict -operations in low-visibility conditions, and has not firmly established seasonal exclusion -areas for biologically important habitat. - -• The draft EIS discounts the potential for marine mammal strandings, even though at least -one stranding event of beaked whales in the Gulf of California correlated with -geophysical survey activity. - -• The draft EIS makes no attempt to assess the long-term effects of chronic noise and -noise-related stress on life expectancy and survival, although terrestrial animals could -serve as a proxy. - -• The agencies’ reliance on monitoring for adaptive management, and their assurance that -activities will be reassessed if serious injury or mortality occurs, is inappropriate given -the probability that even catastrophic declines in Arctic populations would go -unobserved. - -• The DEIS fails to address the wide-ranging impacts that repeated, high-intensity airgun -surveys will have on wildlife. - -• We know far too little about these vulnerable [endangered] species to ensure that the -industry's constant pounding does not significantly impact their populations or jeopardize -their survival. - -MMI 2 Loss of sea-ice habitat due to climate change may make polar bears, ice seals, and walrus -more vulnerable to impacts from oil and gas activities, which needs to be considered in the -EIS. The draft EIS need to adequately consider impacts in the context of climate change: - -• The added stress of habitat loss due to climate change should form a greater part of the -draft EIS analysis. - -• Both polar bears and ringed seals may be affected by multiple-year impacts from -activities associated with drilling (including an associated increase in vessel traffic) given -their dependence on sea-ice and its projected decline. - -• Shifts in distribution and habitat use by polar bears and walrus in the Beaufort and -Chukchi seas attributable to loss of sea ice habitat is insufficiently incorporated into the -DEIS analysis. The DEIS only asserts that possible harm to subsistence and to polar bear -habitat from oil and gas operations would be negligible compared to the potential for -dramatic sea ice loss due to climate change and changes in ecosystems due to ocean - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 72 -Comment Analysis Report - -acidification. For walrus and ice seals, the DEIS simply notes potentially catastrophic -climate effects without adequately considering how oil and gas activities might leave -species more vulnerable to that outcome. - -• Subadult polar bears that return to land in summer because of sea-ice loss are more likely -to be impacted by activities in the water, onshore support of open water activities, and oil -spills; this could represent potentially major impacts to polar bear populations and should -be considered in any final EIS. - -• Walrus feeding grounds are being transformed and walrus are hauling out on land in large -numbers, leaving them vulnerable to land-based disturbances. - -MMI 3 Consider that effects of an oil spill would be long-lasting. Petroleum products cause -malformation in fish, death in marine mammals and birds, and remain in the benthos for at -least 25 years, so would impact the ecosystem for at least a quarter of a century. - -MMI 4 In addition to noise, drilling wastes, air pollution, habitat degradation, shipping, and oil spills -would also adversely affect marine mammals. These adverse effects are ethical issues that -need to be considered. - -MMI 5 Seismic airgun surveys are more disruptive to marine mammals than suggested by the -“unlikely impacts” evaluation peppered throughout the DEIS: - -• They are known to disrupt foraging behavior at distances greater than the typical 1000 -meter observation/mitigation threshold. - -• Beluga whales are known to avoid seismic surveys at distances greater than 10 km. -• Behavioral disturbance of bowhead whales have been observed at distances of 7km to - -35km. -• Marine mammals are seen in significantly lower numbers during seismic surveys - -indicating impacts beyond the standard 1000 meter mitigation set-back. -• Impacts may vary depending on circumstances and conditions and should not be - -dismissed just because of a few studies that indicate only “negligible” impacts. - -MMI 6 There is not enough known about Arctic fish and invertebrate acoustical adaptations to -adequately analyze acoustic impacts, contrary to what is stated in the DEIS. - -• For example: While migratory fish may evade threats by swimming away, many fish, -especially sedentary fish, will “entrench” into their safe zone when threatened, and -prolong exposure to potentially damaging stimulus. Assuming that fish will “move out -harm’s way” is an irresponsible management assumption and needs to be verified prior to -stating that “enough information exists to perform a full analysis.” - -MMI 7 The high probability for disruption or “take” of marine mammals in the water by helicopters -and other heavy load aircraft during the spring and summer months is not adequately -addressed in the DEIS. - -MMI 8 Impacts on Arctic fish species, fish habitat, and fisheries are poorly understood and -inadequately presented in the DEIS. NMFS should consider the following: - -• The DEIS substantially understates the scale of impact on Arctic fish species, and fails to -consider any measures to mitigate their effects. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 73 -Comment Analysis Report - -• Airgun surveys are known to significantly affect the distribution of some fish species, -which can impact fisheries and displace or reduce the foraging success of marine -mammals that rely on them for prey. - -• Airguns have been shown experimentally to dramatically depress catch rates of some -commercial fish species, by 40 to 80% depending on catch method, over thousands of -square kilometers around a single array. - -• Impacts on fisheries were found to last for some time beyond the survey period, not fully -recovering within 5 days of post-survey monitoring. - -• The draft EIS appears to assume without support that effects on both fish and fisheries -would be localized. - -• Fish use sound for communication, homing, and other important purposes, and can -experience temporary or permanent hearing loss on exposure to intense sound. - -• Other impacts on commercially harvested fish include reduced reproductive performance -and mortality or decreased viability of fish eggs and larvae. - -• A rigorous analysis is necessary to assess direct and indirect impacts of industry activities -on rare fish populations. - -• The DEIS lacks a rigorous analysis of noise impacts to fish, particularly relating to the -interaction of two or more acoustic sources (e.g., two seismic surveys). - -• A rigorous analysis is needed that investigates how two or more noise generating -activities interact to displace fish moving/feeding along the coast, as acoustic barriers -may interrupt natural processes important to the life cycle and reproductive success of -some fish species/populations. - -MMI 9 Impacts of seismic airgun surveys on squid and other invertebrates need to be included and -considered in terms of the particular species and their role as prey of marine mammals and -commercial and protected fish. - -MMI 10 Oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development in the Arctic Ocean has had no known -adverse impact on marine mammal species and stocks, and the reasonably anticipated impacts -to marine mammals from OCS exploration activities occurring in the next five years are, at -most, negligible. - -• There is no evidence that serious injury, death, or stranding by marine mammals can -occur from exposure to airgun pulses, even in the case of large airgun arrays. - -• No whales or other marine mammals have been killed or injured by past seismic -operations. - -• The western Arctic bowhead whale population has been increasing for over 20 years, -suggesting impacts of oil and gas industry on individual survival and reproduction in the -past have likely been minor. - -• These activities are unlikely to have any effect on the other four stocks of bowhead -whales. - -• Only the western North Pacific stock of humpback whales and the Northeast Pacific -stock of fin whales would be potentially affected by oil and gas leasing and exploration -activities in the Chukchi Sea. There would be no effect on the remaining worldwide -stocks of humpback or fin whales. - -• Most impacts would be due to harassment of whales, which may lead to behavioral -reactions from which recovery is fairly rapid. - -• There is no evidence of any biologically significant impacts at the individual or -population level. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 74 -Comment Analysis Report - -MMI 11 Noise impacts on key habitats and important biological behaviors of marine mammals (e.g., -breeding, feeding, communicating) could cause detrimental effects at the population level. -Consider the following: - -• According to an IWC Scientific Committee report, repeated and persistent exposure of -noise across a large area could cause detrimental impacts to marine mammal populations. - -• A recent study associated reduced underwater noise with a reduction in stress hormones, -providing evidence that noise may contribute to long-term stress (negatively affecting -growth, immune response to diseases, and reproduction) for individuals and populations. - -MMI 12 Most marine mammals primarily rely on their acoustic sense, and they would likely suffer -more from noise exposure than other species. While marine mammals have seemingly -developed strategies to deal with noise and related shipping traffic (e.g., changing -vocalizations, shifting migration paths, etc.), the fact that some species have been exposed to -anthropogenic changes for only one generation (e.g., bowhead whales) makes it unlikely that -they have developed coping mechanisms appropriate to meet novel environmental pressures, -such as noise. Marine mammals living in relatively pristine environments, such as the Arctic -Ocean, and have less experience with noise and shipping traffic may experience magnified -impacts. - -MMI 13 Impacts from ship-strikes (fatal and non-fatal) need to be given greater consideration, -especially with increased ship traffic and the development of Arctic shipping routes. - -• Potential impacts on beluga whales and other resources in Kotzebue Sound needs to be -considered with vessels traveling past this area. - -• There is great concern for ship strikes of bowhead and other whales and these significant -impacts must be addressed in conjunction with the project alternatives. - -MMI 14 Walrus could also be affected by operations in the Bering Sea. For instance, the winter range -and the summer range for male and subadult walrus could place them within the Bering Sea, -potentially overlapping with bottom trawling. - -MMI 15 Surveys recently conducted during the open water season documented upwards of a thousand -walrus in a proposed exploratory drilling (study) area, potentially exposing a large number of -walrus to stresses associated with oil and gas activity, including drilling and vessel activity. -Since a large proportion of these animals in the Chukchi Sea are comprised of females and -calves, it is possible that the production of the population could be differentially affected. - -MMI 16 The 120 dB threshold may represent a lower level at which some individual marine mammals -will exhibit minor avoidance responses. While this avoidance might, in some but not all -circumstances, be meaningful to a native hunter, scientific research does not indicate -dramatic responses in most animals. In fact, the detailed statistical analyses often needed to -confirm subtle changes in direction are not available. The significance of a limited avoidance -response (to the animal) likely is minor (Richardson et al., 2011). - -MMI 17 Seismic operations are most often in timescales of weeks and reduce the possibility of -significant displacement since they do not persist in an area for an extended period of time. -However, little evidence of area-wide displacement exists or has been demonstrated. - -MMI 18 The DEIS analysis does not adequately consider the fact that many animals avoid vessels -regardless of whether they are emitting loud sounds and may increase that avoidance distance -during seismic operations (Richardson et al. 2011). Therefore, it should be a reasonable - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 75 -Comment Analysis Report - -assumption that natural avoidance serves to provide another level of protection to the -animals. - -MMI 19 Bowhead whale cows do not abandon or separate from their calves in response to seismic -exploration or other human activities. There is no scientific support whatsoever for any -assumption or speculation that seismic operations have such impacts or could result in the -loss or injury of a whale. To the contrary, all of the scientific evidence shows that seismic and -other anthropogenic activities, including commercial whaling, have not been shown to cause -the separation or abandonment of cow/calf pairs. - -MMI 20 Bowhead whales do not routinely deflect 20 kilometers from seismic operations. The DEIS -asserts that bowhead whales have rarely been observed within 20 kilometers of active seismic -operations but fails to utilize other information that challenge the validity of this assertion. - -MMI 21 In the Arctic, sound levels follow a highly distinct seasonal pattern dominated in winter by -ice-related sound and then altered by sound from wind, waves, vessels, seismic surveys, and -drilling in the open-water period. The sound signatures (i.e., frequency, intensity, duration, -variability) of the various sources are either well known or easily described and, for any -given region, they should be relatively predictable. The primary source of anthropogenic -sound in the Arctic during the open-water season is oil and gas-related seismic activity, and -those activities can elevate sound levels by 2-8 dB (Roth et al. 2012). The Service and Bureau -should be able to compare seasonal variations in the Arctic soundscape to the movement -patterns and natural histories of marine mammals and to subsistence hunting patterns. - -MMI 22 The lack of observed avoidance is not necessarily indicative of a lack of impact (e.g., animals -that have a learned tolerance of sound and remain in biologically important areas may still -incur physiological (stress) costs from exposure or suffer significant communication -masking). - -MMI 23 Marine mammal concentration areas are one potential example of Important Ecological Areas -that require robust management measures to ensure the health of the ecosystem as a whole. -Impacts to marine mammal concentration areas, especially those areas where multiple marine -mammal species are concentrated in a particular place and time, are more likely to cascade -throughout populations and ecosystems. - -• Displacement from a high-density feeding area-in the absence of alternate feeding areas - -may be energetically stressful. - -MMI 24 Bowhead whales are long-lived and travel great distances during their annual migration, -leaving them potentially exposed to a wide range of potential anthropogenic impacts and -cumulative effects over broad geographical and temporal scales. This is why an ecosystem -based management system is useful. - -MMI 25 NMFS should include a discussion of the recent disease outbreak affecting seals and walrus, -include this outbreak as part of the baseline, and discuss how potential similar future events -(of unknown origin) are likely to increase in the future. - -MMI 26 There remains great uncertainty in the nature and extent of the impacts of oil and gas -exploration on marine mammals, which needs to be taken into consideration. - -• All industrial activity is not the same and some will likely have more of an impact on -marine mammals than others. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 76 -Comment Analysis Report - -MMI 27 Short-term displacement that occurs during a critical and stressful portion on the animals -annual life cycle (e.g., molt in seals) could further increase stress to displaced individuals and -needs to be considered. - -• Disturbance to ringed and bearded seals from spill clean-up activities during the early -summer molt period would greatly increase stress to these species. - -MMI 28 The effects that a very large oil spill could have on seal populations are understated in the -analyses. - -• The oil spill would not have to reach polyna or lead systems to affect seals. Ringed seals -feed under the pack ice in the water column layer where oil would likely be entrained and -bearded seals travel through this water layer. - -• Numerous individuals are likely to become oiled no matter where such a spill is likely to -occur. - -• Food sources for all seal species would be heavily impacted in spill areas. -• More than one "subpopulation" could likely be affected by a very large oil spill. - -MMI 29 Analysis should include the high probability for polar bears to be impacted if a spill reached -the lead edge between the shorefast and pack ice zones, which is critical foraging habitat -especially during spring after den emergence by females with cubs. - -MMI 30 The draft EIS must further explore a threat of biologically significant effects, since as much -as 25% of the EIS project area could be exposed to 120 dB sound levels known to provoke -significant behavioral reactions in migrating bowhead whales, multiple activities could result -in large numbers of bowhead whales potentially excluded from feeding habitat, exploration -activities would occur annually over the life of the EIS, and there is a high likelihood of -drilling around Camden Bay. - -MMI 31 The draft EIS should compare the extent of past activities and the amount of noise produced -to what is projected with the proposed activities under the alternatives and the draft EIS must -also consider the fact that the bowhead population may be approaching carrying capacity, -potentially altering the degree to which it can withstand repeated disturbances. - -MMI 32 Impacts to beluga whales needs to be more thoroughly considered: - -• Beluga whales’ strong reactions to higher frequencies illustrate the failure of the draft -EIS to calculate ensonified zones for sub-bottom profilers, side scan sonar, and -echosounders - -• The draft EIS does not discuss beluga whales’ well-documented reaction to ships and ice -breakers in the context of surveying with ice breaker support or exploratory drilling. Ice -management activity has the potential to disturb significant numbers of beluga whale - -• The draft EIS makes very little effort to estimate where and when beluga whales might be -affected by oil and gas activities. If noise disrupts important behaviors (mating, nursing, -or feeding), or if animals are displaced from important habitat over long periods of time, -then impacts of noise and disturbance could affect the long-term survival of the -population. - -MMI 33 NMFS should consider whether ice management or ice breaking have the potential to -seriously injure or kill ice seals resting on pack ice, including in the area of Hanna Shoal that -is an important habitat for bearded seals. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 77 -Comment Analysis Report - -MMI 34 NMFS should consider that on-ice surveys may directly disrupt nursing polar bears in their -dens and ringed seals in their lairs, potentially causing abandonment, or mortality if the dens -or lairs are crushed by machinery. - -MMI 35 The draft EIS’s analysis for gray whales is faulty: - -• Gray whales were grouped with other cetaceans, so more attention specific to gray -whales is needed. - -• Contrary to what the draft EIS claims (without support), gray whale feeding and -migration patterns do not closely mimic those of bowhead whales: gray whales migrate -south to Mexico and typically no farther north than the Chukchi Sea, and are primarily -benthic feeders. - -• Analysis of the effects for Alternatives 2 and 3 does not discuss either the gray whale’s -reliance on the Chukchi Sea for its feeding or its documented preference for Hanna -Shoal. - -• In another comparisons to bowhead whales, the draft EIS states that both populations -increased despite previous exploration activities. Gray whale numbers, however, have -declined since Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections were removed in 1994, and -there is speculation that the population is responding to environmental limitations. - -• Gray whales can be disturbed by very low levels of industrial noise, with feeding -disruptions occurring at noise levels of 110 dB. - -• The DEIS needs to more adequately consider effects of activities and possible closure -areas in the Chukchi Sea (e.g., Hanna Shoal) on gray whales. When discussing the -possibility that area closures could concentrate effects elsewhere, the draft EIS focuses on -the Beaufort Sea, such as on the Beaufort shelf between Harrison Bay and Camden Bay -during those time periods. - -MMI 36 There needs to be more analysis of noise and other disturbance effects specific to harbor -porpoise; the DEIS acknowledges that harbor porpoise have higher relative abundance in the -Chukchi Sea than other marine mammals. - -MMI 37 The agencies must consider the impacts of seismic surveys and other activities on -invertebrates [e.g. sea turtles, squid, cephalopods]. - -MMI 38 NMFS and BOEM must expand their impacts analysis to include a rigorous and -comprehensive analysis of potential non-native species introductions via industry vessel -traffic stopping in Alaska ports and transiting its coastal waters in southern and western -Alaska. - -MMI 39 NMFS should conduct more rigorous analysis for birds and mammals, including: - -• How do multiple seismic surveys in the same region modify the foraging of marine birds -(e.g., where forage fish have been displaced to deeper water or away from nesting areas). - -• How do multiple surveys interact to modify marine mammal foraging? - -MMI 40 NMFS should analyze the impacts to invertebrate and fish resources of introducing artificial -structures (i.e., drilling platform and catenaries; seafloor structures) into the water column or -the seafloor. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 78 -Comment Analysis Report - -MMI 41 The draft EIS does not do enough to look at how severe direct impacts to the bowhead whale -during the migration, as well as the cumulative impacts to the bowhead whales could be. - -• NMFS must quantify how many bowhead whales or other marine mammals are going to -be affected. - -MMI 42 One of the challenges is that sometimes these best geological prospects happen to conflict -with some of the marine mammal productivity areas, calving areas, birthing. And that's the -challenge is that you look at these geological areas, there is often a conflict. - -MMI 43 It is important for NMFS to look at the possibility of affecting a global population of marine -mammals; just not what's existing here, but a global population. - -MMI 44 NMFS should reexamine the DEIS’s analysis of sockeye and coho salmon. Comments -include: - -• The known northern distribution of coho salmon from southern Alaska ends at about -Point Hope (Mecklenburg et al. 2002). - -• Sockeye salmon’s (O. nerka) North Pacific range ends at Point Hope (Mecklenburg et al. -2002). - -• Both sockeye and coho salmon are considered extremely rare in the Beaufort Sea, -representing no more than isolated migrants from populations in southern Alaska or -Russian (Mecklenburg et al. 2002). - -• The discussion of coho salmon and sockeye salmon EFH on pages 3-74 to 3-75 is -unnecessary and should be deleted. - -MMI 45 NMFS should reconsider the DEIS’s analysis of Chinook salmon and possibly include the -species based on the small but significant numbers of the species that are harvested in the -Barrow domestic fishery. - -MMI 46 NMFS is asked to revise the following statement “Migratory fish are likely to benefit from -this closure… and many amphidromous fish also use brackish water for substantial portions -of their life. Therefore, increased protection of these areas would be beneficial to migratory -species (4-290).” It is felt that this statement is likely incorrect. In one of the few nearshore -fish surveys conducted in the coastal waters of the Chukchi Sea, Fechhelm et al. (1984) -conducted summer sampling in Kasegaluk Lagoon proper and in the nearshore coastal waters -in the vicinity. They reported “When compared with nearshore summer surveys in the -Beaufort Sea, the most prominent feature of the Point Lay catch is the virtual absence of -anadromous fish [anadromous/amphidromous] fish” (Fechhelm et al. 1984). - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 79 -Comment Analysis Report - -National Energy Demand and Supply (NED) -NED Comments related to meeting national energy demands, supply of energy. - -NED 1 The U.S needs stable sources of energy from oil and natural gas to meet its increasing energy -demands. Access to domestic supplies, such as those located on the Alaska Arctic outer -continental shelf, is important to meeting this demand. Other benefits include: Decreased -reliance on foreign sources and less dependence on other countries. More jobs, income, -energy for the state and nation, and lowering our nations trade deficit. - -NED 2 Proposed restrictions make it difficult and uneconomical for developers and could preclude -any development in Alaska and the continental U.S. needs. - -NED 3 Leases and future leases in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas will be handicapped in performing -the work necessary due to the mitigation measures and will severely compromise the -feasibility of developing oil and gas resources in Alaska - -NED 4 The DEIS environmental consequences analysis incorrectly describes the environmental -effects of energy exploration and production activities and then conversely understates the -economic consequences of limiting American exploration programs. The analysis therefore -has no merit. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 80 -Comment Analysis Report - -NEPA (NEP) -NEP Comments on impact criteria (Chapter 4) that require clarification of NEPA process and - -methodologies for impact determination - -NEP 1 The scope of the DEIS is flawed, and misaligned with any incidental take action that NMFS -might take under authority of the MMPA. MMPA ITAs may only be issued if the anticipated -incidental take is found to have no more than a negligible impact. There can never be a -purpose or need to prepare an EIS to evaluate the impact of actions that must have no more -than a negligible impact. Accordingly, there is no need now, nor can there ever be a need, for -NMFS to prepare an EIS in order to issue an MMPA incidental take authorization. NMFS -decision to prepare an EIS reflects a serious disconnect between its authority under the -MMPA and its NEPA analysis. - -NEP 2 The EIS should be limited exclusively to exploration activities. Any additional complexities -associated with proposed future extraction should be reviewed in their own contexts. - -NEP 3 The ‘need’ for the EIS presupposes the extraction of hydrocarbons from the Arctic and makes -the extraction of discovered hydrocarbons inevitable by stating that NMFS and BOEM will -tier from this EIS to support future permitting decisions if such activities fall outside the -scope of the EIS. - -NEP 4 The purpose and need of this DEIS is described and structured as though NMFS intends to -issue five-year ITRs for all oil and gas activities in the Arctic Ocean regarding all marine -mammal species. However, there is no such pending proposal with NMFS for any ITRs for -any oil and gas activity in the Arctic Ocean affecting any marine mammal stock or -population. The DEIS is not a programmatic NEPA analysis. Accordingly, were NMFS to -complete this NEPA process, there would be no five-year ITR decision for it to make and no -Record of Decision (ROD) to issue. Because the IHA process is working adequately, and -there is no bases for NMFS to initiate an ITR process, this DEIS is disconnected from any -factual basis that would provide a supporting purpose and need. - -NEP 5 The scope of NEPA analysis directed to issuance of any form of MMPA incidental take -authorization should be necessarily limited to the impacts of the anticipated take on the -affected marine mammal stocks, and there is no purpose or need for NMFS to broadly -analyze the impacts of future oil and gas activities in general. Impacts on, for example, -terrestrial mammals, birds, fish, land use, and air quality are irrelevant in this context because -in issuing IHAs (or, were one proposed, an ITR), NMFS is only authorizing take of marine -mammals. The scope of the current DEIS is vastly overbroad and does not address any -specific incidental take authorization under the MMPA. - -NEP 6 The stated purpose of the DEIS has expanded significantly to include the evaluation of -potential effects of a Very Large Oil Spill, as well as the potential effects of seismic activity -and alternate approaches for BOEM to issue G&G permit decisions. Neither of these topics -were considered in the original 2007 DEIS. The original assumption was that the DEIS would -include an evaluation of the effects of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) activities as they relate -to authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to oil and gas activities pursuant to the -MMPA. Per NEPA requirements, the public should have been informed about the expansion -of the original EIS scope at a minimum, and the lead federal agency should have offered -additional scoping opportunities to gather comments from the public, affected State and local - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 81 -Comment Analysis Report - -agencies, and other interested stakeholders. This is a significant oversight of the NEPA -process. - -NEP 7 It is troubling that the DEIS has failed to describe which specific action has triggered the -NEPA process, explaining only that conceptual ideas of seismic effects from possible OCS -oil and gas activities are being evaluated. The analysis is not based on reasonably foreseeable -levels of activity in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. This vague understanding of conceptual -ideas would complicate and limit the ability to properly assess environmental impacts and -provide suitable mitigation. There is no purpose or need for NMFS to prepare a non- -programmatic EIS for future MMPA ITAs that have not been requested. NEPA does not give -agencies the authority to engage in non-programmatic impact analyses in the absence of a -proposed action, which is what NMFS has done. - -NEP 8 Although NMFS has stated that the new 2011 DEIS is based on new information becoming -available, the 2011 DEIS does not appear to define what new information became available -requiring a change in the scope, set of alternatives, and analysis, as stated in the 2009 NOI to -withdraw the DPEIS. Although Section 1.7 of the 2011 DEIS lists several NEPA documents -(most resulting in a finding of no significant impact) prepared subsequent to the withdrawal -of the DPEIS, NMFS has not clearly defined what new information would drive such a -significant change to the proposed action and require the radical alternatives analysis -presented in the 2011 DEIS. - -NEP 9 The NOI for the 2011 DEIS did not specify that the intent of the document was to evaluate -finite numbers of exploration activities. As stated in the NOI, NMFS prepared the DEIS to -update the previous 2007 DPEIS based on new information and to include drilling. -Additionally, the NOI indicated that NMFS’ analysis would rely on evaluating a range of -impacts resulting from an unrestricted number of programs to no programs. NMFS did not -analyze an unrestricted range of programs in any of the alternatives. The original scope -proposed in the NOI does not match what was produced in the DEIS; therefore NMFS has -performed an incomplete analysis. - -NEP 10 It is discordant that the proposed action for the DEIS would include BOEM actions along -with NMFS’ issuance of ITAs. Geological and geophysical activities are, by definition, -limited in scope, duration and impact. These activities do not have the potential to -significantly affect the environment and so do not require an EIS. - -NEP 11 The structural issues with the DEIS are so significant that NMFS should: - -• Abandon the DEIS and start a new NEPA process, including a new round of scoping, -development of a new proposed action, development of new alternatives that comply -with the MMPA, and a revised environmental consequences analysis; - -• Abandon the DEIS and work in collaboration with BOEM to initiate a new NEPA -process, and conduct a workshop with industry to develop and analyze a feasible set of -alternatives; - -• Abandon the EIS process entirely and continue with its past practice of evaluating impact -of oil and gas activities in the Arctic through project-specific NEPA analyses; or - -• Abandon the EIS and restart the NEPA process when a project has been identified and -there is need for such analysis. - -NEP 12 The current DEIS process is unnecessary and replicates NEPA analyses that have already -been performed. There has already been both a final and supplemental EIS for Chukchi Sea - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 82 -Comment Analysis Report - -Lease Sale 193, which adequately addressed seismic exploration and other lease activities to -which this DEIS is intended to assess. In addition, BOEM has prepared NEPA analyses for -Shell’s exploration drilling programs and will prepare a project specific analysis for all other -Arctic OCS exploration programs. As a result, the DEIS duplicates and complicates the -NEPA process by introducing a competing impact assessment to BOEM’s work. - -NEP 13 NMFS should add Cook Inlet to the project area for the EIS, as Cook Inlet is tied into the five -year OCS Plan. - -NEP 14 As the ultimate measure of potential effects, the impact criteria provided in the DEIS are -problematic. They do not inform the relevant agencies as to how impacts relate to their -substantive statutory responsibilities, and they do not provide adequate information as to their -relationship to the NEPA significance threshold, the MMPA, or OCSLA. The DEIS should -be revised to reflect these concerns: - -• The DEIS does not articulate thresholds for “significance,” the point at which NEPA -requires the preparation of an EIS. This is important given the programmatic nature of the -document, and because there have been conflicting definitions of significance in recent -NEPA documents related to the Arctic; and - -• The DEIS does not provide the necessary information to determine whether any of the -proposed alternatives will have more than a negligible impact on any marine mammal -stock, no unmitigable adverse impacts on subsistence uses, and whether there may be -undue harm to aquatic life. NMFS has previously recommended such an approach to -BOEM for the Draft Supplemental EIS for lease sale 193. Any impact conclusion in the -DEIS greater than “negligible” would be in conflict with the MMPA “negligible impact” -finding. Future site-specific activities will require additional NEPA analysis. - -NEP 15 NMFS should characterize this analysis as a programmatic EIS, and should make clear that -additional site-specific NEPA analysis must be performed in conjunction to assess individual -proposed projects and activities. A programmatic EIS, such as the one NMFS has proposed -here, cannot provide the detailed information required to ensure that specific projects will -avoid serious environmental harm and will satisfy the standards established by the MMPA. -For example, it may be necessary to identify with specificity the locations of sensitive -habitats that may be affected by individual projects in order to develop and implement -appropriate mitigation measures. The DEIS, as written, cannot achieve this level of detail. - -NEP 16 The DEIS presents an environmental consequences analysis that is inadequate and does not -provide a basis for assessing the relative merits of the alternatives. - -• The criteria for characterizing impact levels are not clear and do not provide adequate, -distinct differences between categories. Ratings are given by agency officials, which -could vary from person to person and yield inconsistent assessments. This methodology -is in contradiction to the NEPA requirements and guidelines that require objective -decision-making procedures. - -• A basis for comparison across alternatives, such as a cost-benefit analysis or other -assessment of relative value between human economic activity and physical/biological -impacts, is not included. From the existing evaluation system, a “minor” biological effect -and a “minor” social environment effect would be equivalent. - -• Minor and short-term behavioral effects appear to be judged more consequential than -known causes of animal mortality. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 83 -Comment Analysis Report - -• Available technical information on numerous issues does not appear to have been -evaluated or included in the impact analysis. - -• The assumptions for analysis are flawed and substantially underestimates industry -activities. - -• There is no attention to the probability of impacts. -• There is little attention paid to the severity of effects discussed. -• Many conclusions lack supporting data, and findings are not incorporated into a - -biologically meaningful analysis. - -NEP 17 There is no purpose and need for the scope of any NEPA analysis prepared by NMFS to -address the impacts of incidental take of polar bears and walrus by the oil and gas industry. -There are existing ITRs and NEPA analyses that cover these species. The scope of the DEIS -should be revised to exclude polar bears and walrus. - -NEP 18 NMFS should extend the public comment period to accommodate the postponed public -meetings in Kaktovik and Nuiqsut. It seems appropriate to keep the public comment period -open for all public entities until public meetings have been completed. NMFS should ensure -that adherence to the public process and NEPA compliance has occurred. - -NEP 19 The DEIS should define the potential future uses of tiering from the NEPA document, -specifically related to land and water management and uses. This future management intent -may extend the regulatory jurisdiction beyond the original scope of the DEIS. - -NEP 20 There are no regulations defining the term “potential effects,” which is used quite frequently -in the DEIS. Many of these potential effects are questionable due the lack of scientific -certainty, and in some critical areas, the virtual absence of knowledge. The DEIS confuses -agency decision-making by presenting an extensive list of “potential effects” as if they are -certainties -- and then demands they be mitigated. Thus, it is impossible for the DEIS to -inform, guide or instruct agency managers to differentiate between activities that have no -effect, minor or major effect to a few animals or to an entire population. - -NEP 21 The DEIS analysis provides inconsistent conclusions between resources and should be -revised. For example: - -• The analysis appears to give equivalent weight to potential risks for which there is no -indication of past effect and little to no scientific basis beyond the hypothesis of concern. -The analysis focuses on de minimus low-level industry acoustic behavioral effects well -below either NMFS’ existing and precautionary acoustic thresholds and well below levels -that recent science indicates are legitimate thresholds of harm. These insupportably low -behavioral effect levels are then labeled as a greater risk ("moderate") than non-industry -activities involving mortality to marine mammals of concern, which are labeled as -"minor" environmental effects. - -• Beneficial socioeconomic impacts are characterized as “minor” while environmental -impacts are characterized as “major.” This level of impact characterization implies an -inherent judgment of relative value, not supported by environmental economic analysis or -valuation. - -• The DEIS concedes that because exploration activities can continue for several years, the -duration of effects on the acoustic environment should be considered “long term,” but -this overview is absent from the bowhead assessment. - -• In discussing effects to subsistence hunting from permitted discharges, the DEIS refers to -the section on public health. The summary for the public health effects, however, refers - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 84 -Comment Analysis Report - -to the entirety of the cumulative effects discussion. That section appears to contain no -more than a passing reference to the issue. The examination of the mitigation measure -that would require recycling of drilling muds fares no better. The section simply -reinforces the fact that residents are very concerned about contamination without -considering the benefits that could come from significantly reducing the volume of toxic -discharges. - -• The only category with differently rated impacts between Alternatives 3 and 4 is "cultural -resources." Although authorization of marine mammal incidental take would have no -impact on cultural resources, for Alternatives 2 and 3, impacts to cultural resources are -rated as "negligible" rather than none. With imposition of additional mitigation measures -in Alternative 4, NMFS inexplicably increased the impact to "minor." - -NEP 22 The DEIS fails to explain how the environmental consequences analysis relates single animal -risk effect to the population level effect analysis and whether the analysis is premised on a -deterministic versus a probabilistic risk assessment approach. The DEIS apparently relies on -some type of "hybrid" risk assessment protocol and therefore is condemned to an unscientific -assessment that leads to an arbitrary and unreasonable conclusion that potential low-level -behavioral effects on few individual animals would lead to a biologically significant -population level effect. - -NEP 23 As written, the DEIS impact criteria provide no objective or reproducible scientific basis for -agency personnel to make decisions. The DEIS process would inherently require agency -decision makers to make arbitrary decisions not based upon objective boundaries. The DEIS -impact criteria are hard to differentiate between and should be revised to address the -following concerns: - -• The distinction made among these categories raises the following questions: What is -"perceptible" under Low Impact? What does "noticeably alter" mean? How does -"perceptible" under Low Impact differ from "detectable" under Moderate Impact? What -separates an "observable change in resource condition" under Moderate Intensity from an -"observable change in resource condition" under High Impact? Is it proper to establish an -"observable change" without assessment of the size of the change or more importantly the -effect as the basis to judge whether an action should be allowable? - -• There is no reproducible scientific process to determine relative judgment about intensity, -duration, extent, and context. - -NEP 24 The projection of risk in the DEIS is inconsistent with reality of effect. The characterizations -of risk are highly subjective and fully dependent upon the selection of the evaluator who -would be authorized to use his/her own, individual scientific understanding, views and biases. -The assessments cannot be replicated. The DEIS itself acknowledges the inconsistency from -assessment to assessment. This creates a situation in which the DEIS determines that -otherwise minor effects from industry operations (ranging from non-detectable to short-term -behavioral effects with no demonstrated population-level effects) are judged to be a higher -rated risk to the species than known causes of mortality. - -NEP 25 NMFS and BOEM should examine this process to handle uncertainty, and should include in a -revised DEIS the assumptions and precautionary factors applied that are associated with each -step of this process such as: - -1) Estimates of seismic activity; -2) Source sizes and characterizations; - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 85 -Comment Analysis Report - -3) Underwater sound propagation; -4) Population estimates and densities of marine mammals; -5) Noise exposure criteria; and -6) Marine mammal behavior. - -Until the agencies document and communicate these underlying decisions in a transparent -fashion neither the industry nor agency resource managers can know and understand how -such decisions are made and therefore the range and rate of error. The DEIS as presently -written presents an "on the one hand; on the other" approach which does not inform the issue -for agency resource managers. - -NEP 26 It is necessary for the DEIS to clearly define what constitutes a “take” and why, and what -thresholds will be utilized in the rulemaking. If there is reason for differing thresholds, those -differences should be clearly communicated and their rationale thoroughly explained. The -DEIS should: - -• Assert that exposure to sound does not equal an incidental taking. -• Communicate that the 120/160/180 dB thresholds used as the basis of the DEIS analysis - -are inappropriate and not scientifically supportable. -• Adopt the Southall Criteria (Southall, et al. 2007), which would establish the following - -thresholds: Level A at 198 dB re 1 µPa-rms; Level B at the lowest level of TTS-onset as -a proxy until better data is developed. - -NEP 27 The DEIS analysis should consider the frequency component, nature of the sound source, -cetacean hearing sensitivities, and biological significance when determining what constitutes -Level B incidental take. The reliance on the 160 dB guideline for Level B take estimation is -antiquated and should be revised by NMFS. - -NEP 28 The DEIS fails to: - -• Adequately reflect prior research contradicting the Richardson et al. (1999) findings; -• Address deficiencies in the Richardson et al. (1999) study; and -• Present and give adequate consideration to newer scientific studies that challenge the - -assertion that bowhead whales commonly deflect around industry sound sources. - -NEP 29 Fundamental legal violations of Administrative Procedure Act (APA), NEPA, and OCSLA -may have occurred during the review process and appear throughout the DEIS document. -There are significant NEPA failures in the scoping process, in the consultation process with -agency experts, in the development and assessment of action alternatives, and in the -development and assessment of mitigation measures. There are also many assumptions and -conclusions in the DEIS that are clearly outside of NMFS’ jurisdiction, raise anti- -competitiveness concerns, and are likely in violation of the contract requirements and -property rights established through the OCSLA. In total, these legal violations create the -impression that NMFS pre-judged the results of their NEPA analysis. - -• NMFS did not evaluate different numbers per sea/alternative of drilling programs, as was -requested in public comments listed as COR 38 in Appendix C [of the EIS scoping -report]. - -• The arbitrary ceiling on exploration and development activities chosen by NMFS raises -anti-competitiveness concerns. NMFS will be put in the position of picking and choosing -which lessees will get the opportunity to explore their leases. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 86 -Comment Analysis Report - -NEP 30 The various stages of oil and gas exploration and development are connected actions that -should have been analyzed in the DEIS. The DEIS analyzes activities independently, but fails -to account for the temporal progression of exploration toward development on a given -prospect. By analyzing only a “snapshot” of activity in a given year, the DEIS fails to account -for the potential bottleneck caused by its forced cap on the activity allowed under its NEPA -analysis. NMFS should have considered a level of activity that reflected reasonably -foreseeable lessee demand for authorization to conduct oil and gas exploration and -development, and because it did not, the DEIS is legally defective and does not meet the -requirement to provide a reasonably accurate estimate of future activities necessary for the -DEIS to support subsequent decision-making under OCSLA. - -NEP 31 The DEIS should also include consideration of the additional time required to first oil under -each alternative and mitigation measure, since the delay between exploration investment and -production revenue has a direct impact on economic viability and, by extension, the -cumulative socioeconomic impacts of an alternative. - -NEP 32 NMFS should consider writing five-year Incidental Take Regulations for oil and gas -exploration activities rather than using this DEIS as the NEPA document. - -NEP 33 In order to designate “special habitat areas,” NMFS must go through the proper channels, -including a full review process. No such process was undertaken prior to designating these -“special habitat areas” in the DEIS. - -NEP 34 NMFS should consider basing its analysis of bowhead whales on the potential biological -removal (PBR) – a concept that reflects the best scientific information available and a -concept that is defined within the MMPA. NMFS could use information from the stock -assessments, current subsistence harvest quotas, and natural mortality to assess PBR. If -NMFS does not include PBR as an analysis technique in the DEIS, it should be stated why it -was not included. - -NEP 35 NMFS needs to quantify the number of marine mammals that it expects to be taken each year -under all of the activities under review in the DEIS, and provide an overall quantification. -This is critical to NMFS ensuring that its approval of IHAs will comport with the MMPA. - -NEP 36 The impact criteria that were used for the magnitude or intensity of impacts for marine -mammals are not appropriate. For a high intensity activity, whales and other marine -mammals would have to entirely leave the EIS project area. This criterion is arbitrary and has -no basis in biology. Instead, the intensity of the impact should relate to animals missing -feeding opportunities, being deflected from migratory routes, the potential for stress related -impacts, or other risk factors. - -NEP 37 The DEIS repeatedly asserts, without support, that time and place limitations may not result -in fewer exploration activities. The DEIS must do more to justify its position. It cannot -simply assume that desirable locations for exploration activities are fungible enough that a -restriction on activities in Camden Bay, for example, will lead to more exploration between -Camden Bay and Harrison Bay. - -NEP 38 NMFS must revise the thresholds and methodology used to estimate take from airgun use to -incorporate the following parameters: - -• Employ a combination of specific thresholds for which sufficient species-specific data -are available and generalized thresholds for all other species. These thresholds should be - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 87 -Comment Analysis Report - -expressed as linear risk functions where appropriate. If a risk function is used, the 50% -take parameter for all the baleen whales (bowhead, fin, humpback, and gray whales) and -odontocetes occurring in the area (beluga whales, narwhals, killer whales, harbor -porpoises) should not exceed 140 dB (RMS). Indeed, at least for bowhead whales, beluga -whales, and harbor porpoises, NMFS should use a threshold well below that number, -reflecting the high levels of disturbance seen in these species at 120 dB (RMS) and -below. - -• Data on species for which specific thresholds are developed should be included in -deriving generalized thresholds for species for which less data are available. - -• In deriving its take thresholds, NMFS should treat airgun arrays as a mixed acoustic type, -behaving as a multi-pulse source closer to the array and, in effect, as a continuous noise -source further from the array, per the findings of the 2011 Open Water Panel cited above. -Take thresholds for the impulsive component of airgun noise should be based on peak -pressure rather than on RMS. - -• Masking thresholds should be derived from Clark et al. (2009), recognizing that masking -begins when received levels rise above ambient noise. - -NEP 39 The DEIS fails to consider masking effects in establishing a 120 dB threshold for continuous -noise sources. Some biologists have analogized the increasing levels of noise from human -activities as a rising tide of “fog” that is already shrinking the sensory range of marine -animals by orders of magnitude from pre-industrial levels. As noted above, masking of -natural sounds begins when received levels rise above ambient noise at relevant frequencies. -Accordingly, NMFS must evaluate the loss of communication space, and consider the extent -of acoustic propagation, at far lower received levels than the draft EIS currently employs. - -NEP 40 The DEIS fails to consider the impacts of sub-bottom profilers and other active acoustic -sources commonly featured in deep-penetration seismic and shallow hazard surveys, and -should be included in the final analysis, regardless of the risk function NMFS ultimately uses. - -NEP 41 As the Ninth Circuit has found, “the considerations made relevant by the substantive statute -during the proposed action must be addressed in NEPA analysis.” Here, in assessing their -MMPA obligations, the agencies presuppose that industry will apply for IHAs rather than -five-year take authorizations and that BOEM will not apply to NMFS for programmatic -rulemaking. But the potential for mortality and serious injury bars industry from using the -incidental harassment process to obtain take authorizations under the MMPA. - -In 1994, Congress amended the MMPA to add provisions that allow for the incidental -harassment of marine mammals through IHAs, but only for activities that result the “taking -by harassment” of marine mammals. For those activities that could result in ‘taking” other -than harassment, interested parties must continue to use the pre-existing procedures for -authorization through specific regulations, often referred to as “five-year regulations.” -Accordingly, NMFS’ implementing regulations state that an IHA in the Arctic cannot be used -for “activities that have the potential to result in serious injury or mortality.” In the preamble -to the proposed regulations, NMFS explained that if there is a potential for serious injury or -death, it must either be “negated” through mitigation requirements or the applicant must -instead seek approval through five-year regulations. - -Given the clear potential for serious injury and mortality, few if any seismic operators in the -Arctic can legally obtain their MMPA authorizations through the IHAs process. BOEM -should consider applying to NMFS for a programmatic take authorization, and NMFS should - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 88 -Comment Analysis Report - -revise its impact and alternatives analyses in the EIS on the assumption that rulemaking is -required. - -NEP 42 The DEIS contains very little discussion of the combined effects of drilling and ice -management. Ice management can significantly expand the extent of a disturbance zone. It is -unclear as to how the disturbance zones for exploratory drilling in the Chukchi Sea were -determined as well. - -NEP 43 The analysis of impacts under Alternative 3 is insufficient and superficial, and shows little -change from the analysis of impacts under Alternative 2 despite adding four additional -seismic surveys, four shallow hazard surveys, and two drilling programs. The analysis in -Alternative 3 highlights the general failure to consider the collective impact of different -activities. For example, the DEIS notes the minimum separation distance for seismic surveys, -but no such impediment exists for separating surveying and exploration drilling, along with -its accompanying ice breaking activities. - -NEP 44 The DEIS references the “limited geographic extent” of ice breaking activities, but it does not -consistently recognize that multiple ice breakers could operate as a result of the exploration -drilling programs. - -NEP 45 NEPA regulations make clear that agencies should not proceed with authorizations for -individual projects until an ongoing programmatic EIS is complete. That limitation is relevant -to the IHAs application currently before NMFS, including Shell’s plan for exploration -drilling beginning in 2012. It would be unlawful for NMFS to approve the marine mammal -harassment associated with Shell’s proposal without completing the EIS. - -NEP 46 The DEIS states that the final document may be used as the “sole” NEPA compliance -document for future activities. Such an approach is unwarranted. The EIS, as written, does -not provide sufficient information about the effects of specific activities taking place in any -particular location in the Arctic. The Ninth Circuit has criticized attempts to rely on a -programmatic overview to justify projects when there is a lack of “any specific information” -about cumulative effects. That specificity is missing here as well. For example, Shell’s -proposed a multi-year exploration drilling program in both seas beginning in 2012 will -involve ten wells, four ice management vessels, and dozens of support ships. The EIS simply -does not provide an adequate analysis that captures the effects of the entire enterprise, -including: 1) the Kulluk’s considerable disturbance zone; 2) the proximity of the drill sites to -bowhead feeding locations and the number of potentially harassed whales; or 3) the total -combined effects of drilling, ice management, and vessel traffic. - -NEP 47 The DEIS fails to incorporate impacts consistently and accurately through all layers of the -food web. A flow chart showing cause-and-effect relationships through each biological layer -may help correct truncation of analyses between resource groups. The resource -specialists/authors should coordinate on the analyses, particularly for prey resources or -habitat parameters. - -NEP 48 NMFS should come back to the communities after comments have been received on the -DEIS and provide a presentation or summary document that shows how communities -comments were incorporated. - -NEP 49 The definition of take should be revised to be more protective of marine mammals. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 89 -Comment Analysis Report - -NEP 50 The communities are feeling overwhelmed with the amount of documents they are being -asked to review related to various aspects of oil and gas exploration and development -activities. The system of commenting needs to be revised. However, the forums of public -meetings are important to people in the communities so their concerns can be heard before -they happen. - -NEP 51 NMFS should consider making document such as the public meeting powerpoint, project -maps, the mitigation measures, the Executive Summary available in hard copy form to the -communities. Even though these documents are on the project website, access to the internet -is not always available and/or reliable. - -NEP 52 Deferring the selection of mitigation measures to a later date, where the public may not be -involved, fails to comport with NEPA’s requirements. “An essential component of a -reasonably complete mitigation discussion is an assessment of whether the proposed -mitigation measures can be effective." In reviewing NEPA documents, courts require this -level of disclosure, because "without at least some evaluation of effectiveness," the -discussion of mitigation measures is "useless" for "evaluating whether the anticipated -environmental impacts can be avoided." A "mere listing of mitigation measures is insufficient -to qualify as the reasoned discussion required by NEPA." The EIS should identify which -mitigation measures will be used. - -NEP 53 The DEIS provides extensive information regarding potential impacts of industry activities on -marine life. However, it gives insufficient attention to the impacts the alternatives and -mitigation measures would have on development of OCS resources. This should include -information on lost opportunity costs and the effect of time and area closures given the -already very short open water and weather windows available for Arctic industry operations. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 90 -Comment Analysis Report - -Oil Spill Risks (OSR) -OSR Concerns about potential for oil spill, ability to clean up spills in various conditions, potential - -impacts to resources or environment from spills. - -OSR 1 A large oil spill in the extreme conditions present in Arctic waters would be extremely -difficult or impossible to clean up. Current cleanup methods are unsuitable and ineffective. -Current technology only allows rescue and repair attempts during ice free parts of the year. -Oil spill responses need to be developed in advance of offshore development. - -OSR 2 An oil spill being a low probability event is optimistic, and would only apply to the -exploration phase. Once full development or production goes into effect an oil spill is more -likely. Is there any data suggesting this is a low probability. Assume a spill will occur and -plan accordingly. - -OSR 3 Concerns about how oil will be skimmed with sea ice present, how would boats be deployed -in heavy ice conditions, how would rough waters effect oil spill response, could the rough -seas and ice churn surface oil, what about oil tramped under ice especially during spring melt, -how would all of this effect spill response? - -OSR 4 It makes sense to drill for more oil, but the problem is where the oil is being drilled. In the -Arctic Ocean there is a chance the well will start to leak. - -OSR 5 Oil spill in the arctic environment would be devastating to numerous biological systems, -habitats, communities and people. There is too little known about Arctic marine wildlife to -know what the population effects would be. Black (oiled) ice would expedite ice melt. The -analysis section needs to be updated. Not only would the Arctic be affected but the waters -surrounding the Arctic as well. - -OSR 6 The company that is held responsible for an oil spill will face financial losses and be viewed -negatively by the public. - -OSR 7 An Oil Spill Response Gap Analysis needs to be developed for existing Arctic Oil and Gas -Operations - -OSR 8 If an oil spill occurs near or into freeze-up, the oil will remain trapped there until spring. -These spring lead systems and melt pools are important areas where wildlife collect. - -OSR 9 The effects of an oil spill on indigenous peoples located on the Canadian side of the border -needs to be assessed. - -OSR 10 The use of dispersants could have more unknown effects in the cold and often ice covered -seas of the Arctic. - -OSR 11 There are many physical effects a spill can have on marine mammals. Thoroughly consider -the impact of routine spills on marine mammals. The marine mammal commissions briefing -on the Deepwater Horizon spill listed many. - -OSR 12 Mitigation measures need to reflect the possibility of an oil spill and lead to a least likely -impact. Identify areas to be protected first in case a spill does occur. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 91 -Comment Analysis Report - -OSR 13 Production facilities increase the risk of spills and have long term environmental impacts. - -OSR 14 Pinnipeds and walruses are said to have only minor to moderate impacts with a very large oil -spill. The conclusion is peculiar since NMFS is considering ringed and bearded seals and -USFWS is considering walruses to be listed under the ESA. - -OSR 15 Proven technology that could operate outside the open-water season should be specified. The -EIS needs to determine if certain vessels like the drillship Discoverer can actually complete a -relief-well late in the operating season when ice may be present, since it is not a true ice class -vessel. - -OSR 16 Hypothetical spill real time constraints and how parameters for past VLOS events need to be -explained and identified. A range of representative oils should be used for scenarios not just a -light-weight oil. Percentages of trajectories need to be explained and identified. - -OSR 17 Ribbon seals could be significantly impacted through prey as concluded in impacts to fish in -the DEIS, but not included in the pinniped impacts, which describes them as not be affected. - -OSR 18 The oil spill section needs to be reworked. No overall risks to the environment are stated, or -severity of spills in different areas, shoreline oiling is inadequate, impacts to whales may be -of higher magnitude due to important feeding areas and spring lead systems. Recovery rates -should be reevaluated for spilled oil. There are no site-specific details. The trajectory model -needs to be more precise. - -OSR 19 Concerns about the dispersants being discussed in the spill response plans. People are -reported to be sick or dead from past use of these dispersants, but yet they are still mentioned -as methods of cleanup. - -OSR 20 The DEIS confirms our [the affected communities] worst fears about both potential negative -impacts from offshore drilling and the fact that the federal government appears ready to place -on our communities a completely unacceptable risk at the behest of the international oil -companies. - -OSR 21 To the extent that a VLOS is not part of the proposed action covered in the DEIS, it is -inappropriate to include an evaluation of the impacts of such an event in this document - -OSR 22 NMFS should recommend an interagency research program on oil spill response in the Arctic -and seek appropriations from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the program as -soon as possible. - -OSR 23 It is recommended that NMFS reassess the impact of oil spills on seal populations. Based on -animal behavior and results from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) it is much more likely -that seals would be attracted to a spill area particularly cleanup operations, leading to a higher -chance of oiling (Nelson 1969, Herreman 2011 personal observation). - -OSR 24 This DEIS should explain how non-Arctic analogs of oil spills are related to the Arctic and -what criteria are used as well as highlight the USGS Data-Gap Report that recommends for -continuous updating of estimates. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 92 -Comment Analysis Report - -Peer Review (PER) -PER Suggestions for peer review of permits, activities, proposals. - -PER 1 A higher-quality survey effort needs to be conducted by an independent and trusted 3rd party. - -PER 2 An open-ended permit should not move into production without proper review of the -extensive processes, technologies, and infrastructure required for commercial hydrocarbon -exploitation. - -PER 3 Research and monitoring cannot just be industry controlled; it needs to be a transparent -process with peer review. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 93 -Comment Analysis Report - -Regulatory Compliance (REG) -REG Comments associated with compliance with existing regulations, laws and statutes. - -REG 1 NMFS should reconsider the use of the word “taking” in reference to the impacts to marine -mammals since these animals are not going to be taken, they are going to be killed and -wasted. - -REG 2 NMFS needs to determine in the DEIS whether the proposed alternatives would cause -impacts "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.” To -ensure that is the case, it is recommended that NMFS revise the DEIS to include a fuller -analysis of each alternative and discuss whether it meets the requirements of the MMPA for -issuing incidental take authorizations. - -REG 3 Narrative impact levels need to be changed since they are vague, relativistic, narrative -standards that do not bear any direct relation the MMPA standards. Although these impact -criteria may be considered sufficient for purposes of the analyses required under NEPA, the -Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations require that NMFS analyze whether the -proposed alternatives will comply with the substantive requirements of the MMPA. It appears -from the text of the DEIS that NMFS does not fully grasp the importance of the MMPA -standards and how they are to be applied. This approach to analyzing potential impacts -represents a significant weakness in the DEIS that may render the final decision arbitrary, -capricious and in noncompliance with NEPA and the MMPA and Administrative Procedure -Act. - -REG 4 It is requested that NMFS quantify the number of bowhead whales that will potentially be -taken by the proposed activities, required to assess compliance with the "negligible impact" -standard of the MMPA and its implementing regulations. Without this information, the -Service cannot make an informed, science-based judgment as to whether those takes will -involve a small number of animals and whether their total impact will be negligible as -required under the MMPA. - -REG 5 Permitted activity level should not exceed what is absolutely essential for the industry to -conduct seismic survey activities. NMFS needs to be sure that activities are indeed, negligible -and at the least practicable level for purposes of the MMPA. - -REG 6 NMFS is encouraged to amend the DEIS to include a more complete description of the -applicable statute and implementing regulations and analyze whether the proposed levels of -industrial activity will comply with the substantive standards of the MMPA. - -REG 7 NMFS should revise the DEIS to encompass only those areas that are within the agency’s -jurisdiction and remove provisions and sections that conflicts with other federal and state -agency jurisdictions (BOEM, USFWS, EPA, Coast Guard, and State of Alaska). The current -DEIS is felt to constitute a broad reassessment and expansion of regulatory oversight. -Comments include: - -• The EIS mandates portions of Conflict Avoidance Agreements, which are voluntary and -beyond NMFS jurisdiction. - -• The EIS proposes polar bear mitigations measures that could contradict those issued by -USFWS under the MMPA and ESA. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 94 -Comment Analysis Report - -• Potential requirements for zero discharge encroach on EPA’s jurisdiction under the Clean -Water Act regarding whether and how to authorize discharges. - -• Proposed mitigation measures, acoustic restrictions and “Special Habitat” area effectively -extend exclusion zones and curtail lease block access, in effect “capping” exploration -activities. These measures encroach on the Department of the Interior’s jurisdiction to -identify areas open for leasing and approve exploration plans, as designated under -OCSLA. - -• The proposed requirement for an Oil Spill Response Plan conflicts with BOEM, Bureau -of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and the Coast Guard’s jurisdiction, as -established in OPA-90, which requires spill response planning. - -• NMFS does not have the authority to restrict vessel transit, which is under the jurisdiction -of the Coast Guard. - -• Proposed restrictions, outcomes, and mitigation measures duplicate and contradict -existing State lease stipulations and mitigation measures. - -REG 8 It is recommended that NMFS take into account the safety and environmental concerns -highlight in the Gulf of Mexico incident and how these factors will be exacerbated in the -more physically challenging Arctic environment. Specifically, NMFS is asked to consider the -systematic safety problems with the oil and gas industry, the current lack regulatory oversight -and the lax enforcement of violations. - -REG 9 The DEIS needs to be revised to comply with Executive Order 13580, "Interagency Working -Group on Coordination of Domestic Energy Development and Permitting in Alaska," issued -on July 12,2011 by President Obama. It is felt that the current DEIS is in noncompliance -because it does not assess a particular project, is duplicative, creates the need for additional -OCS EIS documents, and is based upon questionable authority. - -REG 10 NMFS should take a precautionary approach in its analysis of impacts of oil and gas activities -and in the selection of a preferred alternative. - -REG 11 The EIS needs to be revised to ensure compliance with Article 18 of the Vienna Convention -of the Law on Treaties and the Espoo Convention, which states that a country engaging in -offshore oil and gas development must take all appropriate and effective measures to prevent, -reduce and control significant adverse transboundary environmental impacts from proposed -activities and must notify and provide information to a potentially affected country. - -REG 12 The Arctic DEIS needs to identify and properly address the importance of balancing the -requirements of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the MMPA and ESA. Currently, the -DEIS substantially gives undue weight to considerations involving incidental taking of -marine mammals under the MMPA and virtually ignores the requirements of OCSLA. - -REG 13 The DEIS needs to address several essential factors and requirements of the Outer -Continental shelf Lands Act. Comments include: - -• The DEIS contains little or no assessment of the impact of alternatives on BOEM’s -ability to meet the OCSLA requirements for exploration and development. - -• A forced limitation in industry activity by offering only alternatives that constrain -industry activities would logically result in violating the expeditious development -provisions of OCSLA. - -• All of the alternatives would slow the pace of exploration and development so much that -lease terms may be violated and development may not be economically viable. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 95 -Comment Analysis Report - -REG 14 The range of alternatives in the DEIS needs to be expanded to avoid violating a variety of -anti-trust statues. By capping industry activity, the DEIS would create a situation where some -applicants "would be selected" and granted permits and others not. - -REG 15 NMFS’s actions under both NEPA and OCSLA need to be reviewed under the arbitrary and -capricious standard of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). An agency’s decision is -arbitrary and capricious under the APA where the agency (i) relies on factors Congress did -not intend it to consider, (ii) entirely fails to consider an important aspect of the problem, or -(iii) offers an explanation that runs counter to the evidence before the agency or is so -implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency -expertise. Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The current -DEIS errs in all three ways. - -REG 16 NMFS’s explicit limitations imposed on future exploration and development on existing -leases in the DEIS undermine the contractual agreement between lessees and the Federal -government in violation of the Supreme Court’s instruction in Mobil Oil Exploration & -Producing Southeast v. United States, 530 U.S. 604 (2000). - -REG 17 The DEIS needs to be changed to reflect the omnibus bill signed by President Obama on -December 23, 2011 that transfers Clean Air Act permitting authority from the EPA -Administrator to the Secretary of Interior (BOEM) in Alaska Arctic OCS. - -REG 18 Until there an indication that BOEM intends to adopt new air permitting regulations for the -Arctic or otherwise adopt regulations that will ensure compliance with the requirements of -the Clean Air Act, it is important that NMFS address the worst case scenario- offshore oil and -gas activities proceeding under BOEM's current regulations. - -REG 19 The DEIS needs to discuss threatened violations of substantive environmental laws. In -analyzing the effects "and their significance" pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16, CEQ -regulations require the agency to consider "whether the action threatens a violation of -Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment." - -REG 20 The current DEIS impact criteria need to be adjusted to reflect MMPA standards, specifically -in relation to temporal duration and the geographical extent of impacts. In assessing whether -the proposed alternatives would comply with the MMPA standards, NMFS must analyze -impacts to each individual hunt to identify accurately the potential threats to each individual -community. MMPA standards focuses on each individual harvest for each season and do not -allow NMFS to expand the geographic and temporal scope of its analysis. MMPA regulations -define an unmitigable adverse impact as one that is "likely to reduce the availability of the -species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs." Within the DEIS, the -current impact criteria would tend to mask impacts to local communities over shorter -durations of time. - -REG 21 Language needs to be changed throughout the conclusion of impacts to subsistence, where -NMFS repeatedly discusses the impacts using qualified language; however, the MMPA -requires a specific finding that the proposed activities "will not" have an adverse impact to -our subsistence practices. It is asked that NMFS implement the will of Congress and disclose -whether it has adequate information to reach these required findings before issuing ITAs. - -REG 22 It is suggested that NMFS include in the DEIS an explicit discussion of whether and to what -extent the options available for mitigation comply with the "lease practicable adverse impact" -standard of the MMPA. This is particularly important for the "additional mitigation - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 96 -Comment Analysis Report - -measures" that NMFS has, to this point, deferred for future consideration. By focusing its -analysis on the requirements of MMPA, we believe that NMFS will recognize its obligation -to make an upfront determination of whether these additional mitigation measures are -necessary to comply with the law. Deferring the selection of mitigation measures to a later -date, where the public may not be involved, fails to comport with NEPA's requirements. - -REG 23 The DEIS needs to consistently apply section 1502.22 and consider NMFS and BOEM’s -previous conclusions as to their inability to make informed decisions as to potential effects. -NMFS acknowledges information gaps without applying the CEQ framework and disregards -multiple sources that highlight additional fundamental data gaps concerning the Arctic and -the effects of oil and gas disturbance. - -REG 24 NMFS needs to reassess the legal uncertainty and risks associated with issuing marine -mammal take authorizations under the MMPA based upon a scope as broad as the Arctic -Ocean. - -REG 25 NMFS needs to assess the impact of offshore coastal development in light of the fact that -Alaska lacks a coastal management program, since the State lacks the program infrastructure -to effectively work on coastal development issues. - -REG 26 NMFS needs to ensure that it is in compliance with the Ninth Circuit court ruling that when -an action is taken pursuant to a specific statute, not only do the statutory objectives of the -project serve as a guide by which to determine the reasonableness of objectives outlined in an -EIS, but the statutory objectives underlying the agency’s action work significantly to define -its analytic obligations. As a result, NMFS is required by NEPA to explain how alternatives -in an EIS will meet requirements of other environmental laws and policies. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 97 -Comment Analysis Report - -Research, Monitoring, Evaluation Needs (RME) -RME Comments on baseline research, monitoring, and evaluation needs - -RME 1 The United States Geological Survey identified important gaps in existing information related -to the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, including gaps on the effects of noise on marine mammals -which highlighted that the type of information needed to make decisions about the impact of -offshore activity (e.g., seismic noise) on marine mammals remains largely lacking. A -significant unknown is the degree to which sound impacts marine mammals, from the -individual level to the population level. - -The degree of uncertainty regarding impacts to marine mammals greatly handicaps the -agencies' efforts to fully evaluate the impacts of the permitted activities, and NMFS' ability to -determine whether the activity is in compliance with the terms of the MMPA. The agency -should acknowledge these data-gaps required by applicable NEPA regulations (40 C.F.R. -§1502.22), and gather the missing information. - -While research and monitoring for marine mammals in the Arctic has increased, NMFS still -lacks basic information on abundance, trends, and stock structure of most Arctic marine -mammal species. This information is needed to gauge whether observed local or regional -effects on individuals or groups of marine mammals are likely to have a cumulative or -population level effect. - -The lack of information about marine mammals in the Arctic and potential impacts of -anthropogenic noise, oil spills, pollution and other impacts on those marine mammals -undercuts NMFS ability to determine the overall effects of such activities. - -RME 2 The DEIS does not address or acknowledge the increasingly well-documented gaps in -knowledge of baseline environmental conditions and data that is incomplete in the Beaufort -and Chukchi seas for marine mammals and fish, nor how baseline conditions and marine -mammal populations are being affected by climate change. Information regarding -information regarding the composition, distribution, status, ecology of the living marine -resources and sensitive habitats in these ecosystems needs to be better known. Baseline data -are also critical to developing appropriate mitigation measures and evaluating their -effectiveness. It is unclear what decisions over what period of time would be covered under -the DEIS or how information gaps would be addressed and new information incorporated into -future decisions. The information gaps in many areas with relatively new and expanding -exploration activities are extensive and severe enough that it may be too difficult for -regulators to reach scientifically reliable conclusions about the risks to marine mammals from -oil and gas activities. - -To complicate matters, much of the baseline data about individual species (e.g., population -dynamics) remains a noteworthy gap. It is this incomplete baseline that NMFS uses as their -basis for comparing the potential impacts of each alternative. - -RME 3 Prior to installation and erection, noises from industry equipment need to be tested: - -• Jack-up drilling platforms have not been evaluated in peer reviewed literature and will -need to be evaluated prior to authorizing the use of this technology under this EIS. The -DEIS states that it is assumed that the first time a jack-up rig is in operation in the Arctic, -detailed measurements will be conducted to determine the acoustic characteristics. This - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 98 -Comment Analysis Report - -statement implies an assumption that the noise levels found on erecting the jack-up rig -will be below levels required for mitigation. The DEIS needs to explain what would be -the procedure if the noise exposure threshold was exceeded. It is suggest that the noises -of erecting a jack-up rig be characterized in a trial basis before deployment to a remote -location where the environment is more sensitive to disruption and where the phrase -“practical mitigation” can be applied. - -• Noise from the erection and deployment of Jack-up rigs and other stationary platforms -need to be quantified and qualified prior to introducing them into the Arctic. - -• Noise from thruster-driven dynamic positioning systems on drilling platforms and drill -ships need to be quantified and qualified prior to introducing them into the Arctic. - -RME 4 Propagation of airgun noise from in-ice seismic surveys is not accurately known, -complicating mitigation threshold distances and procedures. - -RME 5 Noise impacts of heavy transport aircraft and helicopters needs to be evaluated and -incorporated into the DEIS - -RME 6 Protection of acoustic environments relies upon accurate reference conditions and that -requires the development of procedures for measuring the source contributions of noise as -well as analyses of historical patterns of noise exposure in a particular region. Even studies -implemented at this very moment will not be entirely accurate since shipping traffic has -already begun taking advantage of newly ice-free routes. The Arctic is likely the last place on -the planet where acoustic habitat baseline information can be gathered and doing so is -imperative to understanding the resulting habitat loss from these activities. A comprehensive -inventory of acoustical conditions would be the first step towards documenting the extent of -current noise conditions, and estimating the pristine historic and desired future conditions. - -Analysis of potential impacts at this stage is speculative at best because of the lack of -definitive information regarding sound source levels, the type and duration of proposed -exploration activities, and the mitigation measures that each operator would be required to -meet. However, before an incidental take authorization can be issued NMFS will need such -information to make the findings required under the MMPA. - -RME 7 Information on Page 4-355, Section 4.9.4.9 Volume of Oil Reaching Shore includes some -older references to research work that was done in the 1980's and 1990's. More recent -research or reports based on the Deepwater Horizon incident could be referenced here. In -addition NMFS and BOEM should consider a deferral on exploration drilling until the -concerns detailed by the U.S. Oil Spill Commission are adequately addressed. - -RME 8 The DEIS does not explain why obtaining data quality or environmental information on -alternative technologies would have been exorbitant. - -RME 9 It was recommended that agencies and industry involved in Arctic oil and gas exploration -establish a research fund to reduce source levels in seismic surveys. New techniques -including vibroseis should be considered particularly in areas where there have not been -previous surveys and so comparability with earlier data is not an issue. Likewise, similar to -their vessel-quieting technology workshops, NOAA is encouraged to fund and facilitate -expanded research and development in noise reduction measures for seismic surveys. - -RME 10 The DEIS wrongly reverts to dated acoustic thresholds and ignores significant more recent -recommendations on improving criteria. At a minimum, NMFS should substantiate for the -record its basis for retaining these old criteria. The DEIS in several places relies on Root - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 99 -Comment Analysis Report - -Mean Square (RMS) Sound Pressure Level criteria for acoustic impacts. The most recent -research has questioned the adequacy of these criteria. Instead, the criteria should be replaced -by a combination of Sound Exposure Level limits and Peak (not RMS) Sound Pressure -Levels or other metric being considered. - -RME 11 NMFS has provided only conceptual examples of the temporal and spatial distribution of -proposed activities under each alternative and the maps and figures provided do not include -all possible activities considered for each alternative or how these activities might overlap -spatially and temporally. The lack of specific information precludes a full assessment of the -potential effects of the combined activities, including such things as an estimation of the -number of takes for species that transit through the action area during the timeframe being -considered. Similarly, the range of airgun volumes, source levels, and distances to the 190-, -180-, 160-, and 120-dB re µPa harassment thresholds (Table 4.5- 10, which are based on -measurements from past surveys) vary markedly and cannot be used to determine with any -confidence the full extent of harassment of marine mammals. Such assessment requires -modeling of site-specific operational and environmental parameters, which is simply not -possible based on the information in this programmatic assessment. - -To assess the effects of the proposed oil and gas exploration activities under the MMPA, -NMFS should work with BOEM estimate the site-specific acoustic footprints for each sound -threshold (i.e., 190, 180, 160, and 120 dB re 1 µPa) and the expected number of marine -mammal takes, accounting for all types of sound sources and their cumulative impacts. - -Any analysis of potential impacts at this stage is speculative at best because of the lack of -definitive information regarding sound source levels, the type and duration of proposed -exploration activities, and the mitigation measures that each operator would be required to -meet. However, before an incidental take authorization can be issued, NMFS will need such -information to make the findings required under the MMPA. - -RME 12 There is missing information regarding: - -• Whether enough is known about beluga whales and their habitat use to accurately predict -the degree of harm expected from multiple years of exploration activity. - -• Issues relevant to effects on walrus regarding the extent of the missing information are -vast, as well summarized in the USGS Report. Information gaps include: population -size; stock structure; foraging ecology in relation to prey distributions and oceanography; -relationship of changes in sea ice to distribution, movements, reproduction, and survival; -models to predict the effects of climate change and anthropogenic impacts; and improved -estimates of harvest. Impacts to walrus of changes in Arctic and subarctic ice dynamics -are not well understood. - -RME 13 To predict the expected effects of oil and gas and other activities more accurately, a broader -synthesis and integration of available information on bowhead whales and other marine -mammals is needed. That synthesis should incorporate such factors as ambient sound levels, -natural and anthropogenic sound sources, abundance, movement patterns, the oceanographic -features that influence feeding and reproductive behavior, and traditional knowledge -(Hutchinson and Ferrero 2011). - -RME 14 An ecosystem-wide, integrated synthesis of available information would help identify -important data gaps that exist for Arctic marine mammals, particularly for lesser-studied -species such as beluga whales, walruses, and ice seals. It also would help the agencies better -understand and predict the long-term, cumulative effects of the proposed activities, in light of - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 100 -Comment Analysis Report - -increasing human activities in the Arctic and changing climatic conditions. It is recommended -that NMFS work with BOEM and other entities as appropriate to establish and fully support -programs designed to collect and synthesize the relevant scientific information and traditional -knowledge necessary to evaluate and predict the long-term and cumulative effects of oil and -gas activities on Arctic marine mammals and their environment. - -Robust monitoring plans for authorized activities could be a key component to filling some of -these gaps. Not only do these monitoring plans need to be implemented, but all data collected -should be publically available for peer review and analysis. In the current system, there is no -choice but to accept industries' interpretation of results. This is not appropriate when we are -talking about impacts to the public and its resources. Since industry is exploring for oil and -gas that belongs to the people of the US and they are potentially impacting other resources -that also belong to the people of the US, data from monitoring programs should be available -to the public. - -RME 15 Additional Mitigation Measure C3 - Measures to Ensure, Reduced, Limited, or Zero -Discharges. This measure purports to contain requirements to ensure reduced, limited, or zero -discharge of any or all of the discharge streams identified with potential impacts to marine -mammals or habitat and lists drill cuttings, drilling fluids, sanitary waste, bilge water, ballast -water, and domestic waste. We know of absolutely no scientific reports that indicate any of -these discharges have any effect on marine mammals and anything beyond a negligible effect -on habitat. - -RME 16 Page 4-516 Section 4.10.5.4.4 the DEIS suggests that marine mammals may have trouble -navigating between seismic surveys and drill operations because of overlapping sound -signatures but the analysis does not provide any distances or data to support this conclusion. - -RME 17 Page 4-98 Bowhead Whales, Direct and Indirect Effects [Behavioral Disturbance]. This -section on bowhead whales does not include more recent data in the actual analysis of the -impacts though it does occasionally mention some of the work. Rather it falls back to -previous analyses that did not have this work to draw upon and makes similar conclusions. -NMFS makes statements that are conjectural to justify its conclusions and not based on most -recent available data. - -RME 18 The continued reliance on overly simplified, scientifically outdated, and artificially rigid -impact thresholds used in MMPA rulemakings and environmental assessments to predict -potential impacts of discrete events associated with seismic exploration is of great concern. -The working assumption that impulsive noise never disrupts marine mammal behavior at -levels below 160 dB (RMS), and disrupts behavior with 100% probability at higher levels has -been repeatedly demonstrated to be incorrect, including in cases involving the sources and -areas being considered in the Arctic DEIS. That 160 dB (RMS) threshold level originated -from the California HESS panel report in the late 1990s1 and was based on best available -data from reactions to seismic surveys measured in the 1980s. Since then considerable -evidence has accumulated, and these newer data indicate that behavioral disruptions from -pulsed sources can occur well below that 160 dB (RMS) threshold and are influenced by -behavioral and contextual co-variates. - -RME 19 It has become painfully obvious that the use of received level alone is seriously limited in -terms of reliably predicting impacts of sound exposure. However, if NMFS intends to -continue to define takes accordingly, a more representative probabilistic approach would be -more defensible. A risk function with a 50% midpoint at 140 dB (RMS) that accounts, even -qualitatively, for contextual issues likely affecting response probability, comes much closer to - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 101 -Comment Analysis Report - -reflecting the existing data for marine mammals, including those in the Arctic, than the 160 -dB (RMS) step-function that has previously been used and is again relied upon in the Arctic -DEIS. - -RME 20 Page 3-68, Section 3.2.2.3.2 - The Cryopelagic Assemblage: The sentence "The arctic cod is -abundant in the region, and their enormous autumn-winter pre spawning swarms are well -known" is misleading. What is the referenced region? There are no well-known pre spawning -swarms known if for the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Oil and Gas leasing areas. Furthermore -large aggregations of arctic Cod have not been common in the most recent fish surveys -conducted in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas (same references used in this EIS). - -RME 21 Page 400, 3rd paragraph Section 4.5.2.4.9.1. The middle of this paragraph states that -"behavioral responses of bowhead whales to activities are expected to be temporary." There -are no data to support this conclusion. The duration of impacts from industrial activities to -bowhead whales is unknown. This statement should clearly state the limitations in data. If a -conclusion is made without data, more information is needed about how NMFS reached this -conclusion. - -RME 22 Page 4-102, 2nd paragraph, Section 4.5.2.4.9.1. Direct and Indirect Effects, Site Clearance -and High Resolution Shallow Hazards Survey Programs: A discussion about how bowhead -whales respond to site clearance/shallow hazard surveys occurs in this paragraph but -references only Richardson et al. (1985). Given the number of recent site clearance/shallow -hazard surveys, there should be additional information to be available from surveys -conducted since 2007. If there are not more recent data, this raises questions regarding the -failure of monitoring programs to examine effects to bowhead whales from site -clearance/shallow hazard surveys. - -RME 23 Page 4-104, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence, Section 4.5.2.4.9.1 Direct and Indirect Effects, -Exploratory Drilling: The conclusions based on the impact criteria are not supported by data. -For example, there are no data on the duration of impacts to bowhead whales from -exploratory drilling. If NMFS is going to make conclusions, they should highlight that -conclusions are not based on data but on supposition. - -RME 24 Page 4-104, Section 4.5.2.4.9.1, Direct and Indirect Effects, Associated Vessels and Aircraft: -This section does not use the best available science. A considerable effort has occurred to -evaluate impacts from activities associated with BP's Northstar production island. Those -studies showed that resupply vessels were one of the noisiest activities at Northstar and that -anthropogenic sounds caused bowhead whales to deflect north of the island or to change -calling behavior. This EIS should provide that best available information about how bowhead -whales respond to vessel traffic to the public and decision makers. - -RME 25 Page 4-104, Section 4.5.2.4.9.1, Direct and Indirect Effects, Associated Vessels and Aircraft: -This section does not use the best available science. A considerable effort has occurred to -evaluate impacts from activities associated with BP's Northstar production island. Those -studies showed that resupply vessels were one of the noisiest activities at Northstar and that -anthropogenic sounds caused bowhead whales to deflect north of the island or to change -calling behavior. This EIS should provide that best available information about how bowhead -whales respond to vessel traffic to the public and decision makers. - -RME 26 Page 4-107, Section 4.5.2.4.9.1 Direct and Indirect Effects, Hearing Impairment, Injury, and -Mortality: The sentence states that hearing impairment, injury or mortality is "highly -unlikely." Please confirm if there are data to support this statement. It is understood is that - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 102 -Comment Analysis Report - -there are no data about hearing impairment in bowhead or beluga whales. Again, if -speculation or supposition is used to make conclusions, this should be clearly stated. - -RME 27 The draft EIS contains a number of instances in which it acknowledges major information -gaps related to marine mammals but insists that there is an adequate basis for making an -assessment of impacts. For example, the draft EIS finds that it is not known whether -impulsive sounds affect reproductive rate or distribution and habitat use [of bowhead whales] -over periods of days or years. Moreover, the potential for increased stress, and the long-term -effects of stress, are unknown, as research on stress effects in marine mammals is limited. -Nevertheless, the draft EIS concludes that for bowhead whales the level of available -information is sufficient to support sound scientific judgments and reasoned managerial -decisions, even in the absence of additional data of this type. The draft EIS also maintains -that sufficient information exists to evaluate impacts on walrus and polar bear despite -uncertainties about their populations. - -RME 28 Although the draft EIS takes note of some of the missing information related to the effects of -noise on fish, it maintains that what does exist is sufficient to make an informed decision. -BOEM’s original draft supplemental EIS for Lease Sale 193, however, observed that -experiments conducted to date have not contained adequate controls to allow us to predict the -nature of the change or that any change would occur. NOAA subsequently submitted -comments noting that BOEM’s admission indicated that the next step would be to address -whether the cost to obtain the information is exorbitant, or the means of doing so unclear. - -The draft EIS also acknowledges that robust population estimates and treads for marine fish -are unavailable and detailed information concerning their distribution is lacking. Yet the draft -EIS asserts that [g]eneral population trends and life histories are sufficiently understood to -conclude that impacts on fish resources would be negligible. As recently as 2007, BOEM -expressed stronger concerns when assessing the effects of a specific proposal for two -drillships operating in the Beaufort Sea. It found that it could not concur that the effects on all -fish species would be short term or that these potential effects are insignificant, nor would -they be limited to the localized displacement of fish, because they could persist for up to five -months each year for three consecutive years and they could occur during critical times in the -life cycle of important fish species. The agencies’ prior conclusions are equally applicable in -the context of this draft EIS. - -Fish and EFH Impacts Analysis (Direct and Indirect; Alternatives 2 through 5) is -substantively incomplete and considered to be unsupported analysis lacking analytical rigor -and depth; conclusions are often not rationally and effectively supported by data; some -statements are simply false and can be demonstrated so with further analysis of available -data, studies, and a plethora of broad data gaps that include data gaps concerning the -distribution, population abundance, and life history statistics for the various arctic fish -species. - -RME 29 Significant threshold discussion should be expanded based on MMS, Shell Offshore Inc. -Beaufort Sea Exploration Plan, Environmental Assessment, OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-009 at -50-51 (Feb. 2007) (2007 Drilling EA), available at -http://www.alaska.boemre.gov/ref/EIS%20EA/ShellOffshoreInc_EA/SOI_ea.pdf. BOEM -avoided looking more closely at the issue by resting on a significance threshold that required -effects to extend beyond multiple generations. The issue of an appropriate significance -threshold in the draft EIS is discussed in the text. A panel of the Ninth Circuit determined that -the uncertainty required BOEM to obtain the missing information or provide a convincing - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 103 -Comment Analysis Report - -statement of its conclusion of no significant impacts notwithstanding the uncertainty. Alaska -Wilderness League v. Salazar, 548 F.3d 815, 831 (9th Cir. 2008), opinion withdrawn, 559 -F.3d 916 (9th Cir. Mar 06, 2009), vacated as moot, 571 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 2009). - -RME 30 The draft EIS reveals in many instances that studies are in fact already underway, indicating -that the necessary information gathering is not cost prohibitive. A study undertaken by BP, -the North Slope Borough, and the University of California will help better understand -masking and the effects of masking on marine mammals[.] It will also address ways to -overcome the inherent uncertainty of where and when animals may be exposed to -anthropogenic noise by developing a model for migrating bowhead whales. NOAA has -convened working groups on Underwater Sound mapping and Cetacean Mapping in the -Arctic. BOEM has an Environmental Studies Program that includes a number of ongoing and -proposed studies in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas that are intended to address a wide-variety -of issues relevant to the draft EIS. - -NMFS’s habitat mapping workshop is scheduled to release information this year, and the -Chukchi Sea Acoustics, Oceanography, and Zooplankton study is well underway. These and -other studies emphasize the evolving nature of information available concerning the Arctic. -As part of the EIS, NMFS should establish a plan for continuing to gather information. As -these and other future studies identify new areas that merit special management, the EIS -should have a clearly defined process that would allow for their addition. - -RME 31 The draft EIS’s use of the Conoco permit is also improper because the draft EIS failed to -acknowledge all of Conoco’s emissions and potential impacts. The draft EIS purports to -include a list of typical equipment for an Arctic oil and gas survey or exploratory drilling. -The list set forth in the draft EIS is conspicuously incomplete, however, as it assumes that -exploratory drilling can be conducted using only a single icebreaker. Conoco’s proposed -operations were expected to necessitate two icebreakers. Indeed, the three other OCS air -permits issued in 2011 also indicate the need for two icebreakers. The failure of the draft EIS -to account for the use of two icebreakers in each exploratory drilling operations is significant -because the icebreakers are the largest source of air pollution associated with an exploratory -drilling operation in the Arctic. - -RME 32 Recent regulatory decisions cutting the annual exploratory drilling window by one third, -purportedly to temporally expand the oil spill response window during the open water season. -At the least, the agencies should collect the necessary data by canvassing lessees as to what -their exploration schedules are, instead of guessing or erroneously assuming what that level -of activity might be over the five years covered by the EIS. This is an outstanding example of -not having basic information (e.g., lessee planned activity schedules) necessary even though -such information is available (upon request) to assess environmental impacts. Such -information can be and should be obtained (at negligible cost) by the federal government, and -used to generate accurate assumptions for analysis. Sharing activity plans/schedules are also -the best of interest of lessees so as to expedite the completion of the EIS and subsequent -issuance of permits. NMFS and BOEM should also canvas seismic survey companies to -gather information concerning their interest and schedules of conducting procured or -speculative seismic surveys in the region and include such data in the generation of their -assumptions for analysis. - -RME 33 Throughout the draft EIS, there are additional acknowledgements of missing information, but -without any specific findings as to the importance to the agencies’ decision making, as -required by Section 1502.22, including: Foraging movements of pack-ice breeding seals are - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 104 -Comment Analysis Report - -not known. There are limited data as to the effects of masking. The greatest limiting factor in -estimating impacts of masking is a lack of understanding of the spatial and temporal scales -over which marine mammals actually communicate. It is not known whether impulsive noises -affect marine mammal reproductive rate or distribution. It is not currently possible to predict -which behavioral responses to anthropogenic noise might result in significant population -consequences for marine mammals, such as bowhead whales, in the future. The potential -long-term effects on beluga whales from repeated disturbance are unknown. Moreover, the -current population trend of the Beaufort Sea stock of beluga whales is unknown. The degree -to which ramp-up protects marine mammals from exposure to intense noises is unknown. -Chemical response techniques to address an oil spill, such as dispersants could result in -additional degradation of water quality, which may or may not offset the benefits of -dispersant use. - -There is no way to tell what may or may not affect marine mammals in Russian, U.S. or in -Canadian waters. - -RME 34 As noted throughout these comments, the extent of missing information in the Arctic is -daunting and this holds equally true for bowhead whales. The long-term effects of -disturbance on bowhead whales are unknown. The potential for increased stress is unknown, -and it is unknown whether impulsive sounds affect the reproductive rate or distribution and -habitat use over a period of days or years. Although there are some data indicting specific -habitat use in the Beaufort Sea, information is especially lacking to determine where -bowhead aggregations occur in the Chukchi Sea. What is known about the sensitivity of -bowhead whales to sound and disturbance indicates that the zones of influence for a single -year that included as many as twenty-one surveys, four drillships, and dozens of support -vessels “including ice management vessels” would be considerable and almost certainly -include important habitat areas. The assumption that the resulting effects over five years -would be no more than moderate is unsupported. - -RME 35 There is too little information known about the existing biological conditions in the Arctic, -especially in light of changes wrought by climate change, to be able to reasonably -understand, evaluate and address the cumulative, adverse impacts of oil and gas activities on -those arctic ice environments including: - -• Scientific literature emphasizes the need to ensure that the resiliency of ecosystems is -maintained in light of the changing environmental conditions associated with climate -change. Uncertainties exist on topics for which more science focus is required, including -physical parameters, such as storm frequency and intensity, and circulation patterns, and -species response to environmental changes. - -• There is little information on the potential for additional stresses brought by oil and gas -activity and increased shipping and tourism and how these potential stressors may -magnify the impacts associated with changing climate and shrinking sea ice habitats. -There are more studies that need to be done on invasive species, black carbon, aggregate -noise. - -• It was noted that a majority of the studies available have been conducted during the -summer and there is limited data about the wintertime when there is seven to eight -months of ice on the oceans. - -RME 36 Oil and gas activities in the Arctic Ocean should not be expanded until there is adequate -information available both from western science and local and traditional knowledge to -adequately assess potential impacts and make informed decisions. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 105 -Comment Analysis Report - -RME 37 The EIS in that it consistently fails to use new information as part of the impact analysis -instead relying on previous analyses from other NMFS or MMS EIS documents conducted -without the benefit of the new data. There are a number of instances in this DEIS where -NMFS recognizes the lack of relevant data, or instances where conclusions are drawn without -supporting data. - -RME 38 In the case of seismic surveys, improvements to analysis and processing methods would -allow for the use of less powerful survey sources reducing the number of air-gun blasts. -Better planning and coordination of surveys along with data sharing will help to reduce the -number and lengths of surveys by avoiding duplication and minimizing survey noise. -Requirements should be set in place for data collection, presence of adequate marine mammal -observers, and use of passive acoustic monitoring to avoid surveys when and where marine -mammals are present. - -RME 39 NMFS should make full use of the best scientific information and assessment methodologies, -and rigorously analyze impacts to the physical, biological, and subsistence resources -identified in the DEIS. Steps should be taken to: - -• Move away from arbitrary economic, political or geographic boundaries and instead -incorporate the latest science to address how changes in one area or species affect -another. - -• Develop long-term, precautionary, science-based planning that acknowledges the -complexity, importance, remoteness and fragility of America’s Arctic region. The -interconnected nature of Arctic marine ecosystems demands a more holistic approach to -examining the overall health of the Arctic and assessing the risks and impacts associated -with offshore oil and gas activities in the region. - -• NMFS should carefully scrutinize the impacts analysis for data deficiencies, as well as -statements conflicting with available scientific studies. - -It is impossible to know what the effects would be on species without more information or to -determine mitigation measures on species without any effectiveness of said measures without -first knowing what the impacts would be. - -RME 40 Modeling allows for only have a small census of data that is used to develop an area around -planes, plants that are not well understood, it's very different on the Chukchi side versus the -Beaufort side. Yet your own guidelines do not have effective criteria saying that you should -cut off some of these activities on the Beaufort side real early versus the Chukchi side. - -RME 41 Electronic data available to rural Alaskans is extremely limited. The conversion of -documented science to electronic format is slow and information that is available in -repositories and libraries are not available through the Internet. - -RME 42 The final EIS should state that Active Acoustic Monitoring should be further studied, but is -not yet ready to be imposed as a mitigation measure. - -RME 43 At present the ambient noise budgets are not very well known in the Arctic, but the USGS -indicated that this type of data was needed for scientists to understand the magnitude and -significance of potential effects of anthropogenic sound on marine mammals. Noise impacts -on marine mammals from underwater acoustic communication systems needs to be evaluated -and incorporated into the DEIS. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 106 -Comment Analysis Report - -The U.S. Geological Survey’s recommendation to develop an inventory/database of seismic -sound sources used in the Arctic would be a good first step toward a better understanding of -long-term, population-level effects of seismic and drilling activities. Two recent projects that -will help further such an integrated approach are NOAA’s recently launched Synthesis of -Arctic Research (SOAR) and the North Pacific Marine Research Institute’s industry- -supported synthesis of existing scientific and traditional knowledge of Bering Strait and -Arctic Ocean marine ecosystem information. - -RME 44 G&G activities in the Arctic must be accompanied by a parallel research effort that improves -understanding of ecosystem dynamics and the key ecological attributes that support polar -bears, walrus, ice seals and other ice-dependent species. NMFS, as the agency with principal -responsibility for marine mammals, should acknowledge that any understanding of -cumulative effects is hampered by the need for better information. NMFS should -acknowledge the need for additional research and monitoring coupled with long-term species -monitoring programs supported by industry funding, and research must be incorporated into a -rapid review process for management on an ongoing basis. By allowing the science and -technology to develop, more concrete feasible and effective mitigation strategies can be -provided which in turn would benefit energy security and proper wildlife protections. - -Identification of important ecological areas should be an ongoing part of an integrated, long- -term scientific research and monitoring program for the Arctic, not a static, one-time event. -As an Arctic research and monitoring program gives us a greater understanding of the -ecological functioning of Arctic waters, it may reveal additional important ecological areas -that BOEM and NMFS should exclude from future lease sales and other oil and gas activities. - -RME 45 While it is reasonable to assume that many outstanding leases will not ultimately result in -development (or even exploration), NMFS should have truth-tested with its cooperating -agency whether the maximum level of activity it assumed was, in fact, a reasonable -assumption of the upper limit on anticipated activity. BOEM would have been able to provide -NMFS with guidance on one of these leases. Use of a properly constructed scenario would -have provided NMFS with a more realistic understanding of the level of activity necessary to -allow current leaseholders an opportunity to develop their leases within the lease terms. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 107 -Comment Analysis Report - -Socioeconomic Impacts (SEI) -SEI Comments on economic impacts to local communities, regional economy, and national - -economy, can include changes in the social or economic environments (MONEY, JOBS). - -SEI 1 The analysis of socioeconomic impacts in the DEIS inadequate. Comments include: - -• The analysis claims inaccurately many impacts are unknown or cannot be predicted and -fails to consider the full potential of unrealized employment, payroll, government -revenue, and other benefits of exploration and development, as well as the effectiveness -of local hire efforts. - -• The analysis is inappropriately limited in a manner not consistent with the analysis of -other impacts in the DEIS. Potential beneficial impacts from development should not be -considered “temporary” and economic impacts should not be considered “minor”. This -characterization is inconsistent with the use of these same terms for environmental -impacts analysis. - -• NMFS did not provide a complete evaluation of the socioeconomic impacts of instituting -the additional mitigation measures; - -• The projected increase in employment appears to be low. -• The forecasts for future activity in the DEIS scope of alternatives, if based on historical - -activity, appear to ignore the impact of economic forces, especially resource value as -impacted by current and future market prices. Historical exploration activity in the -Chukchi and Beaufort OCS in the 1980s and early 1990s declined and ceased due to low -oil price rather than absence of resource. - -• Positive benefits were not captured adequately. - -SEI 2 The DEIS will compromise the economic feasibility of developing oil and gas in the Alaska -OCS. Specific issues include: - -• It would also adversely impact the ability of regional corporations to meet the obligations -imposed upon them by Congress with regard to their shareholders; - -• Development will not go forward if exploration is not allowed or is rendered impractical -and investors may dismiss Alaska’s future potential for offshore oil and gas exploration, -further limiting the state’s economic future; - -• The limited alternatives considered would significantly increase the length of time -required to explore and appraise hydrocarbon resources. - -SEI 3 As a result of the restricted number of programs for seismic surveys and exploratory drilling -in both the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, the long-term effects will negatively impact the -economy of Alaskans - -SEI 4 It was recommends that an Economic Impact Study be conducted on the Subsistence -Economies, the Human Health Adverse and Cumulative and Aggregate Impacts; and Climate -Change Impacts to the economies of the Coastal Communities of Alaska. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 108 -Comment Analysis Report - -SEI 5 The State of Alaska and the entire nation benefit economically from offshore oil and gas -development through job creation and generation of local, state, and federal revenues. Related -economic issues identified include: - -• Oil companies provide employment and donations to charities and nonprofits; -• Oil and gas developments has already had an impact on a number of important sectors of - -the economy; -• Exploration and development in the area covered by the DEIS will help keep the Trans- - -Alaska Pipeline system a viable part of the nation's energy infrastructure; -• There is a need for more oil and gas development to increase economic opportunity; -• Indirect hiring, such as for Marine Mammal Observers, is beneficial to the economy; and -• When the benefits of the oil and gas activities that were considered as part of this analysis - -are weighed against the temporary environmental effects (and lack of adverse long term -impacts), the benefits outweigh the effects. - - - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 109 -Comment Analysis Report - -Subsistence Resource Protection (SRP) -SRP Comments on need to protect subsistence resources and potential impacts to these resources. - -Can include ocean resources as our garden, contamination (SUBSISTENCE ANIMALS, -HABITAT). - -SRP 1 The DEIS is lacking in an in-depth analysis of impacts to subsistence. NMFS should analyze -the following in more detail: - -• Effects of oil and gas activities on subsistence resources and how climate change could -make species even more vulnerable to those effects; - -• The discussion of subsistence in the section on oil spills; -• Long-term impacts to communities from loss of our whale hunting tradition; -• Impacts on subsistence hunting that occur outside the project area, for example, in the - -Canadian portion of the Beaufort Sea; and -• Impacts associated with multiple authorizations taking place over multiple years. - -SRP 2 Subsistence hunters are affected by industrial activities in ways that do not strictly correlate -to the health of marine mammal populations, such as when marine mammals deflect away -from exploration activities, hunting opportunities may be lost regardless of whether or not the -deflection harms the species as a whole. - -SRP 3 NMFS should include consultation with other groups of subsistence hunters in the affected -area, including the Village of Noatak and indigenous peoples in Canada. - -SRP 4 Many people depend on the Beaufort and Chukchi seas for subsistence resources. Protection -of these resources is important to sustaining food sources, nutrition, athletics, and the culture -of Alaskan Natives for future generations. - -SRP 5 Industrial activities adversely affect subsistence resources; resulting in negative impacts that -could decrease food security, and encourage consumption of store-bought foods with less -nutritional value. - -SRP 6 NMFS should use the information acquired on subsistence hunting grounds and provide real -information about what will happen in these areas and when, and then disclose what the -impacts will be to coastal villages. - -SRP 7 Exploratory activities occurring during September and October could potentially clash with -the migratory period of the Beluga and bowhead whales perhaps requiring hunters to travel -further to hunt and potentially reducing the feasibility of the hunt. Even minor disruptions to -the whale's migration pathway can seriously affect subsistence hunts. - -SRP 8 NMFS must ensure oil and gas activities do not reduce the availability of any affected -population or species to a level insufficient to meet subsistence needs. - -SRP 9 If an oil spill the size of the one in the Gulf of Mexico were to happen in the Arctic, -subsistence resources would be in jeopardy, harming communities’ primary sources of -nutrition and culture. - -SRP 10 NMFS need to consider not only subsistence resources, but the food, prey, and habitat of -those resources. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 110 -Comment Analysis Report - -SRP 11 Subsistence resources could be negatively impacted by exploratory activities. Specific -comments include: - -• Concerns about the health and welfare of the animals, with results such as that the -blubber is getting too hard, as a result of seismic activity; - -• Reduction of animals; -• Noise from seismic operations, exploration drilling, and/or development and production - -activities may make bowhead whales skittish and more difficult to hunt; -• Aircraft associated with oil and gas operations may negatively affect other subsistence - -resources, including polar bears, walrus, seals, caribou, and coastal and marine birds, -making it more difficult for Alaska Native hunters to obtain these resources; - -• Water pollution could release toxins that bioaccumulate in top predators, including -humans; and - -• Increased shipping traffic and the associated noise are going to impact whaling and other -marine mammal subsistence activities. - -SRP 12 The draft EIS must also do more to address the potential for harm to coastal communities due -to the perceived contamination of subsistence resources. The draft EIS cites to studies -demonstrating that perceived contamination is a very real issue for local residents, and -industrialization at the levels contemplated by the draft EIS would undoubtedly contribute to -that belief. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 111 -Comment Analysis Report - -Use of Traditional Knowledge (UTK) -UTK Comments regarding how traditional knowledge (TK) is used in the document or decision - -making process, need to incorporate TK, or processes for documenting TK. - -UTK 1 Applying the traditional knowledge is not only observing the animals, but also seeing the big -picture, big picture meaning the Arctic environment. - -UTK 2 There hasn't been enough contracting with our local expertise. Contracting has been involved -with Barrow Village Corporation and Wainwright, but not with smaller village corporations -in regards to biological studies and work. Communities feel they are being left out of the -decision making process, and others come up with decisions that are impacting them. - -UTK 3 There needs to be a clear definition of what that traditional knowledge is. - -UTK 4 Specific Traditional Knowledge that NMFS should be included in the DEIS. Comments -include: - -• The selection of specific deferral areas should be informed by the traditional knowledge -of our whaling captains and should be developed with specific input of each community; - -• NMFS must incorporate the traditional knowledge of our whaling captains about -bowhead whales. Their ability to smell, their sensitivity to water pollution, and the -potential interference with our subsistence activity and/or tainting of our food; and - -• Primary hunting season is usually from April until about August, for all animals. It starts -in January for seals. Most times it is also year-round, too, with climate change, depending -on the migration of the animals. Bowhead hunts start in April, and beluga hunts are -whenever they migrate; usually starting in April and continuing until the end of summer. - -UTK 5 To be meaningful, NMFS must obtain and incorporate traditional knowledge before it -commits to management decisions that may adversely affect subsistence resources. - -UTK 6 Gathering and using traditional knowledge will require both a precautionary and adaptive -approach. NMFS should make a better effort to ensure that traditional knowledge truly -informs the final EIS and preferred alternative. - -UTK 7 There needs to be some protection against the incidental sharing of Traditional Knowledge, -with written consent and accountability for use. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 112 -Comment Analysis Report - -Vessel Operations and Movements (VOM) -VOM Comments regarding vessel operations and movements. - -VOM 1 Vessel transit to lease holding areas are not included in regulatory jurisdiction so -requirements provide unwarranted restrictions. - -VOM 2 Vessel transit speeds need to include AEWC's conflict avoidance agreements which includes -speed restrictions. - -VOM 3 Consider development of Arctic shipping routes and increased ship traffic and resulting -impacts. - -VOM 4 North Slope communities are concerned about the increase in vessel traffic and the impact -this will have on marine mammals. - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 113 -Comment Analysis Report - -Water and Air Quality (WAQ) -WAQ Comments regarding water and air quality, including potential to impact or degrade these - -resources. - -WAQ 1 The effects of greenhouse gases are of concern, with regards to sea level rise and ocean -acidification that occurs with fossil fuel combustion - -WAQ 2 Increases in oil and gas exploration would inevitably bring higher levels of pollution and -emissions. Discharges, oil spills, increases in air traffic and drill cuttings could all cause both -water and air damage causing potential effects on human health and the overall environment. - -WAQ 3 The air quality analysis on impacts is flawed and needs more information. Reliance on recent -draft air permits is not accurate especially for the increases in vessel traffic due to oil and gas -exploration. All emissions associated with oil and gas development need to be considered not -just those that are subject to direct regulation or permit conditions. Emissions calculations -need to include vessels outside the 25 mile radius not just inside. Actual icebreaker emissions -need to be included also. This will allow more accurate emissions calculations. The use of -stack testing results and other emissions calculations for Arctic operations are recommended. - -WAQ 4 Many operators have agreed to use ultra low sulfur fuel or low sulfur fuel in their operations, -but those that do not agree have to be accounted for. The use of projected air emissions for -NOx and SOz need to be included to account for those that do not use the lower fuel grades. - -WAQ 5 Since air permits have not yet been applied for by oil companies engaging in seismic or -geological and geophysical surveys, control factors should not be applied to them without -knowing the actual information. - -WAQ 6 Concerns about the potential for diversion of bowhead whales and other subsistence species -due to water and air discharges. The location of these discharges, and waste streams, and -where they will overlap between the air and water needs to be compared to the whale -migrations and discern the potential areas of impact. - -WAQ 7 The evaluation of potential air impacts is now outdated. The air quality in Alaska is no longer -regulated by EPA and the Alaska DEC, and is no longer subject to EPA's OCS regulations -and air permitting requirements. The new regulatory authority is the Department of the -Interior. This shows that at least some sources will not be subject to EPA regulations or air -permitting - -WAQ 8 Other pollutants are a cause of concern besides just CO and PM. What about NOX, and -PM2.5 emissions? All of these are of concern in the Alaska OCS. - -WAQ 9 The use of exclusion zones around oil and gas activities will not prevent pollutant levels -above regulatory standards. Air pollution is expected to be the highest within the exclusion -zones and likely to exceed applicable standards. A full and transparent accounting of these -impacts needs to be assessed. - -WAQ 10 The DEIS needs to analyze the full size of the emissions potential of the equipment that the -oil companies are intending to operate in these areas - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 114 -Comment Analysis Report - -WAQ 11 Identify the total number of oil and gas projects that may be expected to operate during a -single season in each sea, the potential proximity of such operations, and the impacts of -multiple and/or clustered operations upon local and regional air quality. - -WAQ 12 Native Alaskans expressed concerned about the long term effects of dispersants, air pollution, -and water pollution. All emissions must be considered including drilling ships, vessels, -aircraft, and secondary pollution like ozone and secondary particulate matters. Impacts of -water quality and discharges tainting subsistence foods which is considered likely to occur. - -WAQ 13 The final EIS should include updated data sources including: - -• Preliminary results from the Kotzebue Air Toxics Monitoring Study which should be -available from the DEC shortly. - -• Data collected from the Red Dog Mine lead monitoring program in Noatak and Kivalina. - -WAQ 14 Page 4-21, paragraph three should reference the recently issued Ocean Discharge Criteria -Evaluation (ODCE) that accompanies the draft Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea NPDES -General Permits, which has more recent dispersal modeling. - -WAQ 15 The recently released Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluations (ODCEs) for the Beaufort and -Chukchi Sea were developed by the EPA and released for public comment. These evaluations -should be referenced in the Final EA to clarify the “increased concentration” language used -on page 4-56. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -APPENDIX A -Submission and Comment Index - - - - - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-1 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -Abramaitis, -Loretta - -2827 CEF 9, OSR 5 - -AEWC -Aiken, Johnny - -3778 ALT 22, ALT 23, ALT 33, CEF 2, CEF 5, CEF 7, CEF 8, -CEF 12, COR 7, COR 14, COR 18, DATA 2, DATA 5, EDI -3, MIT 21, MIT 57, MIT 105, MIT 106, MIT 107, MIT 108, -MIT 109, MIT 110, MIT 111, MIT 112, MMI 13, MMI 34, -NEP 1, NEP 11, NEP 35, NEP 52, REG 2, REG 3, REG 4, -REG 6, REG 19, REG 20, REG 21, REG 22, RME 6, UTK 4 - -Anchorage -Public Meeting - -13142 ALT 2, ALT 4, ALT 5, ALT 7, ALT 8, ALT 9, ALT 14, -CEF 2, CEF 5, CEF 6, CEF 7, CEF 8, CEF 9, CEF 10, COR -8, COR 10, COR 11, DCH 2, GPE 1, GSE 1, GSE 5, MIT 3, -MIT 4, MIT 21, MIT 23, MIT 24, MIT 38, MIT 78, MMI 6, -MIT 132, MIT 133, MIT 134, NED 1, NED 2, NED 3, NEP -1, NEP 4, NEP 5, NEP 7, NEP 10, NEP 11, NEP 13, NEP -14, NEP 15, NEP 16, NEP 17, NEP 51, OSR 1, OSR 5, REG -3, REG 7, REG 24, RME 1, RME 23, RME 33, RME 35, -RME 39, SEI 5, SRP 4, SRP 7, SRP 11, UTK 5, WAQ 12 - -Barrow Public -Meeting - -13144 ACK 1, CEF 4, CEF 7, CEF 8, CEF 10, COR 1, COR 3, -COR 7, DCH 4, GPE 7, GSE 3, ICL 1, ICL 3, MIT 21, MIT -57, MIT 103, MIT 133, MIT 136, MMI 41, NEP 48, OSR 1, -OSR 5, OSR 19, OSR 20, PER 3, REG 2, RME 2, RME 35, -RME 40, SRP 4, SRP 10, UTK 1, UTK 2, UTK 3, UTK 4, -UTK 5, UTK 7, WAQ 12 - -Bednar, Marek 3002 ACK 1 -Black, Lester -(Skeet) - -2095 MIT 6, NED 2, SEI 3, SEI 5 - -Boone, James 2394 CEF 9, MIT 1, OSR 1, REG 3 -Bouwmeester, -Hanneke - -82 MMI 1, REG 1 - -North Slope -Borough -Brower, -Charlotte - -3779 ALT 19, ALT 23, ALT 24, CEF 5, CEF 9, DATA 3, DATA -17, DATA 21, DATA 22, EDI 1, EDI 4, EDI 5, EDI 9, EDI -11, EDI 12, EDI 14, GSE 4, MIT 21, MMI 1, MMI 2, MIT -103, MMI 5, MIT 113, MIT 114, MIT 115, MMI 26, MMI -27, MMI 28, MMI 29, MMI 32, NEP 36, OSR 1, OSR 3, -OSR 11, OSR 14, OSR 15, OSR 16, OSR 17, OSR 23, OSR -24, RME 1, RME 14, RME 20, RME 21, RME 22, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 37, RME 39 - -Conocophillips -Brown, David - -3775 ALT 5, ALT 7, ALT 9, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 32, COR 11, -COR 22, MIT 3, MIT 4, MIT 10, MIT 23, MIT 24, MIT 25, -MIT 28, MIT 78, MMI 1, MIT 102, MMI 10, NEP 1, NEP 4, -NEP 5, NEP 7, NEP 11, NEP 12, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 17, -NEP 21, REG 7 - -Burnell Gutsell, -Anneke-Reeve - -1964 CEF 9, MIT 1, OSR 5, REG 3, RME 1 - -Cagle, Andy 81 ALT 1, OSR 5, WAQ 1 - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-2 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -Alaska Inter- -Tribal Council -Calcote, Delice - -2093 ALT 1, ALT 2, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 7, COR 1, EDI 3, ICL 2, -MIT 1, NEP 2, NEP 13, OSR 7, RME 2, RME 35, SEI 4 - -Childs, Jefferson 3781 ALT 10, DATA 3, EDI 15, GPE 5, GPE 6, HAB 3, MIT -103, MMI 8, MMI 38, MMI 39, MMI 40, NEP 13, NEP 16, -NEP 47, REG 9, RME 8, RME 28, RME 32, RME 39 - -Christiansen , -Shane B. - -80 ACK 1 - -Cornell -University -Clark, -Christopher - -3772 CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, DATA 2, MIT 91, MIT 92, MIT 93, -MMI 22, RME 2, RME 18, RME 19 - -Clarke, Chris 76 ALT 1, NED 4 -Cummings, Terry 87 ALT 1, MMI 45, OSR 1, OSR 22, SRP 4 -Danger, Nick 77 SEI 5 -Davis, William 2884 CEF 9, MIT 1, OSR 5, REG 3, RME 1 -International -Fund for Animal -Welfare -Flocken, Jeffrey - -3762 ALT 2, CEF 4, CEF 9, CEF 11, COR 9, MIT 21, MIT 50, -MIT 51, MIT 52, MIT 53, MIT 54, MIT 55, OSR 1, OSR -11, RME 6, RME 9, RME 38 - -Foster, Dolly 89 SRP 3 -ION Geophysical -Corporation -Gagliardi, Joe - -3761 ALT 7, ALT 13, ALT 18, CEF 6, COR 11, EDI 1, EDI 2, -EDI 3, EDI 8, EDI 9, EDI 13, HAB 4, MIT 23, MIT 24, MIT -32, MIT 33, MIT 37, MIT 38, MIT 39, MIT 40, MIT 41, -MIT 42, MIT 43, MIT 44, MIT 45, MIT 46, MIT 47, MIT -48, MIT 49, MMI 10, NEP 8, NEP 9, NEP 11, REG 7, SEI 1 - -Giessel, Sen., -Cathy - -2090 NEP 7, REG 7 - -Arctic Slope -Regional -Corporation -Glenn, Richard - -3760 CEF 5, EDI 10, EDI 12, MIT 34, MIT 35, MIT 36, NED 1, -NED 2, NEP 7, NEP 11, NEP 12, OSR 5, OSR 21, SEI 2, -SEI 3, SEI 5 - -Harbour, Dave 3773 REG 7, SEI 2 -Ocean -Conservancy -Hartsig, Andrew - -3752 ALT 5, ALT 23, CEF 1, CEF 2, CEF 8, CEF 9, CEF 12, -DATA 2, DATA 9, DATA 10, EDI 3, EDI 4, EDI 7, EDI 10, -GPE 2, MIT 20, MIT 21, MIT 22, MIT 57, MMI 2, MMI 14, -MMI 15, NEP 14, NEP 15, OSR 3, OSR 8, REG 10, RME 1, -RME 2, RME 9, RME 35, RME 43, SRP 5, SRP 8, SRP 11, -UTK 5, UTK 6 - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-3 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -The Pew -Environmental -Group -Heiman, Marilyn - -3752 ALT 5, ALT 23, CEF 1, CEF 2, CEF 8, CEF 9, CEF 12, -DATA 2, DATA 9, DATA 10, EDI 3, EDI 4, EDI 7, EDI 10, -GPE 2, MIT 20, MIT 21, MIT 22, MIT 57, MMI 2, MMI 14, -MMI 15, NEP 14, NEP 15, OSR 3, OSR 8, REG 10, RME 1, -RME 2, RME 9, RME 35, RME 43, SRP 5, SRP 8, SRP 11, -UTK 5, UTK 6 - -Hicks, Katherine 2261 COR 13, NED 1, NED 3, NEP 11, SEI 5 -Hof, Justin 83 ALT 2 -Greenpeace -Howells, Dan - -3753 ALT 2, ALT 5, ALT 7, CEF 2, COR 4, DATA 11, EDI 1, -GSE 1, GSE 6, GSE 8, GSE 9, OSR 5, OSR 9, REG 2, REG -11, SRP 1, SRP 7 - -World Wildlife -Fund -Hughes, Layla - -3780 ALT 2, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 17, ALT 19, -ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 23, ALT 34, ALT 35, CEF 4, CEF 5, -CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, CEF 12, COR 17, DATA 1, DATA -2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, -DATA 27, DATA 28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, -DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, EDI 11, GPE 3, GPE 4, -GSE 4, GSE 9, HAB 3, MIT 21, MIT 54, MIT 57, MMI 1, -MMI 2, MIT 103, MMI 6, MMI 8, MMI 10, MMI 11, MIT -116, MIT 118, MIT 119, MIT 120, MIT 121, MIT 122, MIT -123, MIT 124, MIT 125, MMI 25, MIT 126, MIT 127, MMI -27, MIT 128, MIT 129, MIT 130, MMI 30, MMI 31, MMI -32, MMI 33, MMI 34, MMI 35, MMI 36, MMI 37, MMI 41, -NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 27, NEP 35, NEP 37, NEP -38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, NEP 43, NEP 44, -NEP 45, NEP 46, OSR 1, OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 21, REG -23, REG 26, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 12, RME 19, -RME 23, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME 31, -RME 32, RME 33, RME 34, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 12, WAQ -2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Natural -Resources -Defense Council -Jasny, Michael - -3780 ALT 2, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 17, ALT 19, -ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 23, ALT 34, ALT 35, CEF 4, CEF 5, -CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, CEF 12, COR 17, DATA 1, DATA -2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, -DATA 27, DATA 28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, -DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, EDI 11, GPE 3, GPE 4, -GSE 4, GSE 9, HAB 3, MIT 21, MIT 54, MIT 57, MMI 1, -MMI 2, MIT 103, MMI 6, MMI 8, MMI 10, MMI 11, MIT -116, MIT 118, MIT 119, MIT 120, MIT 121, MIT 122, MIT -123, MIT 124, MIT 125, MMI 25, MIT 126, MIT 127, MMI -27, MIT 128, MIT 129, MIT 130, MMI 30, MMI 31, MMI -32, MMI 33, MMI 34, MMI 35, MMI 36, MMI 37, MMI 41, -NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 27, NEP 35, NEP 37, NEP -38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, NEP 43, NEP 44, - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-4 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -NEP 45, NEP 46, OSR 1, OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 21, REG -23, REG 26, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 12, RME 19, -RME 23, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME 31, -RME 32, RME 33, RME 34, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 12, WAQ -2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -National Ocean -Industries -Association -Johnson, Luke - -3766 ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 5, ALT 7, ALT 9, ALT 14, ALT 15, -ALT 16, ALT 25, ALT 26, ALT 27, ALT 28, CEF 5, CEF 6, -DATA 14, DATA 15, DATA 16, EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI -4, MIT 3, MIT 10, MIT 23, MIT 24, MIT 28, MIT 32, MIT -35, MIT 43, MIT 46, MIT 60, MIT 61, MIT 62, MIT 63, -MIT 64, MIT 65, MIT 66, MIT 67, MIT 68, MIT 69, MIT -70, MIT 71, MIT 72, MIT 76, MMI 1, MMI 10, MMI 16, -MMI 17, MMI 18, MMI 19, MMI 20, NED 1, NEP 5, NEP -11, NEP 16, NEP 20, NEP 21, NEP 22, NEP 23, NEP 24, -NEP 25, NEP 26, NEP 27, NEP 28, NEP 30, NEP 53, REG -7, REG 12, REG 13, REG 14, RME 10, SEI 1, SEI 2 - -Friends of the -Earth -Kaltenstein, John - -3780 ALT 2, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 17, ALT 19, -ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 23, ALT 34, ALT 35, CEF 4, CEF 5, -CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, CEF 12, COR 17, DATA 1, DATA -2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, -DATA 27, DATA 28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, -DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, EDI 11, GPE 3, GPE 4, -GSE 4, GSE 9, HAB 3, MIT 21, MIT 54, MIT 57, MMI 1, -MMI 2, MIT 103, MMI 6, MMI 8, MMI 10, MMI 11, MIT -116, MIT 118, MIT 119, MIT 120, MIT 121, MIT 122, MIT -123, MIT 124, MIT 125, MMI 25, MIT 126, MIT 127, MMI -27, MIT 128, MIT 129, MIT 130, MMI 30, MMI 31, MMI -32, MMI 33, MMI 34, MMI 35, MMI 36, MMI 37, MMI 41, -NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 27, NEP 35, NEP 37, NEP -38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, NEP 43, NEP 44, -NEP 45, NEP 46, OSR 1, OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 21, REG -23, REG 26, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 12, RME 19, -RME 23, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME 31, -RME 32, RME 33, RME 34, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 12, WAQ -2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Kivalina Public -Meeting - -13146 COR 1, COR 6, NEP 49, OSR 5, OSR 11 - -Kotzebue Public -Meeting - -13145 CEF 9, EDI 14, ICL 1, MIT 137, MIT 138, MIT 139, MMI -42, MMI 43, REG 25, RME 2, SRP 4 - -U.S. Chamber of -Commerce -Kovacs, William -L. - -3766 ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 5, ALT 7, ALT 9, ALT 14, ALT 15, -ALT 16, ALT 25, ALT 26, ALT 27, ALT 28, CEF 5, CEF 6, -DATA 14, DATA 15, DATA 16, EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI -4, MIT 3, MIT 10, MIT 23, MIT 24, MIT 28, MIT 32, MIT -35, MIT 43, MIT 46, MIT 60, MIT 61, MIT 62, MIT 63, -MIT 64, MIT 65, MIT 66, MIT 67, MIT 68, MIT 69, MIT - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-5 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -70, MIT 71, MIT 72, MIT 76, MMI 1, MMI 10, MMI 16, -MMI 17, MMI 18, MMI 19, MMI 20, NED 1, NEP 5, NEP -11, NEP 16, NEP 20, NEP 21, NEP 22, NEP 23, NEP 24, -NEP 25, NEP 26, NEP 27, NEP 28, NEP 30, NEP 53, REG -7, REG 12, REG 13, REG 14, RME 10, SEI 1, SEI 2 - -Krause, Danielle 3625 CEF 9, MIT 1, OSR 5, REG 3, RME 1 -Lambertsen, -Richard - -2096 MIT 7 - -Pacific -Environment -Larson, Shawna - -3780 ALT 2, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 17, ALT 19, -ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 23, ALT 34, ALT 35, CEF 4, CEF 5, -CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, CEF 12, COR 17, DATA 1, DATA -2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, -DATA 27, DATA 28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, -DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, EDI 11, GPE 3, GPE 4, -GSE 4, GSE 9, HAB 3, MIT 21, MIT 54, MIT 57, MMI 1, -MMI 2, MIT 103, MMI 6, MMI 8, MMI 10, MMI 11, MIT -116, MIT 118, MIT 119, MIT 120, MIT 121, MIT 122, MIT -123, MIT 124, MIT 125, MMI 25, MIT 126, MIT 127, MMI -27, MIT 128, MIT 129, MIT 130, MMI 30, MMI 31, MMI -32, MMI 33, MMI 34, MMI 35, MMI 36, MMI 37, MMI 41, -NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 27, NEP 35, NEP 37, NEP -38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, NEP 43, NEP 44, -NEP 45, NEP 46, OSR 1, OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 21, REG -23, REG 26, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 12, RME 19, -RME 23, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME 31, -RME 32, RME 33, RME 34, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 12, WAQ -2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Lish, Chris 3763 ALT 2, CEF 9, MIT 1, NEP 16, OSR 5, REG 3, RME 1 -Locascio, Julie 86 ACK 1 -Lopez, Irene 88 ALT 2, HAB 1 -Shell Alaska -Venture -Macrander, -Michael - -3768 ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 5, ALT 7, ALT 9, ALT 11, ALT 14, -ALT 18, ALT 19, ALT 31, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 12, COR 5, -COR 8, COR 10, COR 11, COR 13, COR 16, COR 21, COR -22, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 17, DATA 18, DATA 19, -DCH 2, DCH 3, EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI 4, EDI 5, EDI 7, -EDI 8, EDI 9, EDI 10, EDI 11, EDI 12, EDI 13, EDI 16, -GPE 3, GPE 9, GSE 1, GSE 7, MIT 3, MIT 10, MIT 21, -MIT 23, MIT 24, MIT 28, MIT 29, MIT 32, MIT 33, MIT -39, MIT 43, MIT 46, MIT 48, MIT 49, MIT 69, MIT 71, -MIT 72, MIT 77, MIT 78, MIT 79, MIT 80, MIT 81, MIT -82, MIT 83, MIT 84, MIT 85, MIT 86, MIT 87, MIT 88, -MIT 89, MIT 90, MMI 10, MMI 44, MMI 45, MMI 46, -NED 3, NEP 9, NEP 10, NEP 11, NEP 12, NEP 16, NEP 21, -NEP 26, NEP 29, NEP 30, NEP 31, NEP 32, NEP 33, OSR -21, REG 7, REG 13, REG 15, REG 16, REG 17, RME 15, - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-6 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -RME 16, RME 17, RME 37, RME 45, SEI 1, SEI 2, SEI 5, -VOM 1 - -Loggerhead -Instruments -Mann, David - -3772 CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, DATA 2, MIT 91, MIT 92, MIT 93, -MMI 22, RME 2, RME 18, RME 19 - -Earthjustice -Mayer, Michael - -3780 ALT 2, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 17, ALT 19, -ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 23, ALT 34, ALT 35, CEF 4, CEF 5, -CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, CEF 12, COR 17, DATA 1, DATA -2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, -DATA 27, DATA 28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, -DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, EDI 11, GPE 3, GPE 4, -GSE 4, GSE 9, HAB 3, MIT 21, MIT 54, MIT 57, MMI 1, -MMI 2, MIT 103, MMI 6, MMI 8, MMI 10, MMI 11, MIT -116, MIT 118, MIT 119, MIT 120, MIT 121, MIT 122, MIT -123, MIT 124, MIT 125, MMI 25, MIT 126, MIT 127, MMI -27, MIT 128, MIT 129, MIT 130, MMI 30, MMI 31, MMI -32, MMI 33, MMI 34, MMI 35, MMI 36, MMI 37, MMI 41, -NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 27, NEP 35, NEP 37, NEP -38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, NEP 43, NEP 44, -NEP 45, NEP 46, OSR 1, OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 21, REG -23, REG 26, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 12, RME 19, -RME 23, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME 31, -RME 32, RME 33, RME 34, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 12, WAQ -2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Oceana -Mecum, Brianne - -3774 ALT 1, ALT 2, CEF 5, COR 12, DATA 20, EDI 5, MIT 34, -MIT 57, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT -99, MIT 100, MIT 101, MIT 106, MMI 11, MMI 23, OSR 1, -RME 4, RME 27, RME 36, RME 39, WAQ 2 - -Northern Alaska -Environmental -Center -Miller, Pamela -A. - -3780 ALT 2, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 17, ALT 19, -ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 23, ALT 34, ALT 35, CEF 4, CEF 5, -CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, CEF 12, COR 17, DATA 1, DATA -2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, -DATA 27, DATA 28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, -DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, EDI 11, GPE 3, GPE 4, -GSE 4, GSE 9, HAB 3, MIT 21, MIT 54, MIT 57, MMI 1, -MMI 2, MIT 103, MMI 6, MMI 8, MMI 10, MMI 11, MIT -116, MIT 118, MIT 119, MIT 120, MIT 121, MIT 122, MIT -123, MIT 124, MIT 125, MMI 25, MIT 126, MIT 127, MMI -27, MIT 128, MIT 129, MIT 130, MMI 30, MMI 31, MMI -32, MMI 33, MMI 34, MMI 35, MMI 36, MMI 37, MMI 41, -NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 27, NEP 35, NEP 37, NEP -38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, NEP 43, NEP 44, -NEP 45, NEP 46, OSR 1, OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 21, REG -23, REG 26, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 12, RME 19, -RME 23, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME 31, - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-7 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -RME 32, RME 33, RME 34, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 12, WAQ -2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -University of St. -Andrews -Miller, Patrick - -3772 CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, DATA 2, MIT 91, MIT 92, MIT 93, -MMI 22, RME 2, RME 18, RME 19 - -Miller, Peter 2151 CEF 9, MIT 1, OSR 5, REG 3, RME 1 -U.S. Oil & Gas -Association -Modiano, Alby - -3766 ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 5, ALT 7, ALT 9, ALT 14, ALT 15, -ALT 16, ALT 25, ALT 26, ALT 27, ALT 28, CEF 5, CEF 6, -DATA 14, DATA 15, DATA 16, EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI -4, MIT 3, MIT 10, MIT 23, MIT 24, MIT 28, MIT 32, MIT -35, MIT 43, MIT 46, MIT 60, MIT 61, MIT 62, MIT 63, -MIT 64, MIT 65, MIT 66, MIT 67, MIT 68, MIT 69, MIT -70, MIT 71, MIT 72, MIT 76, MMI 1, MMI 10, MMI 16, -MMI 17, MMI 18, MMI 19, MMI 20, NED 1, NEP 5, NEP -11, NEP 16, NEP 20, NEP 21, NEP 22, NEP 23, NEP 24, -NEP 25, NEP 26, NEP 27, NEP 28, NEP 30, NEP 53, REG -7, REG 12, REG 13, REG 14, RME 10, SEI 1, SEI 2 - -Statoil USA E&P -Inc. -Moore, Bill - -3758 ALT 9, ALT 14, DATA 38, EDI 3, EDI 4, EDI 5, EDI 8, -EDI 9, MIT 3, MIT 33, MMI 2, NEP 4, NEP 7, NEP 11, -NEP 12, NEP 14, REG 3 - -Alaska Oil and -Gas Association -Moriarty, Kara - -3754 ALT 4, ALT 9, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 32, COR 22, EDI 7, -MIT 10, MIT 23, MIT 24, MIT 25, MMI 1, MMI 10, NEP 1, -NEP 4, NEP 5, NEP 7, NEP 11, NEP 12, NEP 17, REG 3, -REG 7 - -Mottishaw, Petra 3782 CEF 7, NED 1, REG 3, RME 1 -Oceana -Murray, Susan - -3780 ALT 2, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 17, ALT 19, -ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 23, ALT 34, ALT 35, CEF 4, CEF 5, -CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, CEF 12, COR 17, DATA 1, DATA -2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, -DATA 27, DATA 28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, -DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, EDI 11, GPE 3, GPE 4, -GSE 4, GSE 9, HAB 3, MIT 21, MIT 54, MIT 57, MMI 1, -MMI 2, MIT 103, MMI 6, MMI 8, MMI 10, MMI 11, MIT -116, MIT 118, MIT 119, MIT 120, MIT 121, MIT 122, MIT -123, MIT 124, MIT 125, MMI 25, MIT 126, MIT 127, MMI -27, MIT 128, MIT 129, MIT 130, MMI 30, MMI 31, MMI -32, MMI 33, MMI 34, MMI 35, MMI 36, MMI 37, MMI 41, -NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 27, NEP 35, NEP 37, NEP -38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, NEP 43, NEP 44, -NEP 45, NEP 46, OSR 1, OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 21, REG -23, REG 26, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 12, RME 19, -RME 23, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME 31, -RME 32, RME 33, RME 34, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 12, WAQ -2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-8 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -Audubon Alaska -Myers, Eric F. - -3780 ALT 2, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 17, ALT 19, -ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 23, ALT 34, ALT 35, CEF 4, CEF 5, -CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, CEF 12, COR 17, DATA 1, DATA -2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, -DATA 27, DATA 28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, -DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, EDI 11, GPE 3, GPE 4, -GSE 4, GSE 9, HAB 3, MIT 21, MIT 54, MIT 57, MMI 1, -MMI 2, MIT 103, MMI 6, MMI 8, MMI 10, MMI 11, MIT -116, MIT 118, MIT 119, MIT 120, MIT 121, MIT 122, MIT -123, MIT 124, MIT 125, MMI 25, MIT 126, MIT 127, MMI -27, MIT 128, MIT 129, MIT 130, MMI 30, MMI 31, MMI -32, MMI 33, MMI 34, MMI 35, MMI 36, MMI 37, MMI 41, -NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 27, NEP 35, NEP 37, NEP -38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, NEP 43, NEP 44, -NEP 45, NEP 46, OSR 1, OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 21, REG -23, REG 26, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 12, RME 19, -RME 23, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME 31, -RME 32, RME 33, RME 34, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 12, WAQ -2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -National -Resources -Defense Council -(form letter -containing -36,445 -signatures) - -3784 ALT 1, MMI 1, OSR 5 - -Center for -Biological -Diversity -Noblin, Rebecca - -3780 ALT 2, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 17, ALT 19, -ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 23, ALT 34, ALT 35, CEF 4, CEF 5, -CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, CEF 12, COR 17, DATA 1, DATA -2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, -DATA 27, DATA 28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, -DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, EDI 11, GPE 3, GPE 4, -GSE 4, GSE 9, HAB 3, MIT 21, MIT 54, MIT 57, MMI 1, -MMI 2, MIT 103, MMI 6, MMI 8, MMI 10, MMI 11, MIT -116, MIT 118, MIT 119, MIT 120, MIT 121, MIT 122, MIT -123, MIT 124, MIT 125, MMI 25, MIT 126, MIT 127, MMI -27, MIT 128, MIT 129, MIT 130, MMI 30, MMI 31, MMI -32, MMI 33, MMI 34, MMI 35, MMI 36, MMI 37, MMI 41, -NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 27, NEP 35, NEP 37, NEP -38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, NEP 43, NEP 44, -NEP 45, NEP 46, OSR 1, OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 21, REG -23, REG 26, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 12, RME 19, -RME 23, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME 31, -RME 32, RME 33, RME 34, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 12, WAQ -2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-9 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -Duke University -Nowacek, -Douglas P. - -3772 CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, DATA 2, MIT 91, MIT 92, MIT 93, -MMI 22, RME 2, RME 18, RME 19 - -International -Association of -Drilling -Contractors -Petty, Brian - -3766 ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 5, ALT 7, ALT 9, ALT 14, ALT 15, -ALT 16, ALT 25, ALT 26, ALT 27, ALT 28, CEF 5, CEF 6, -DATA 14, DATA 15, DATA 16, EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI -4, MIT 3, MIT 10, MIT 23, MIT 24, MIT 28, MIT 32, MIT -35, MIT 43, MIT 46, MIT 60, MIT 61, MIT 62, MIT 63, -MIT 64, MIT 65, MIT 66, MIT 67, MIT 68, MIT 69, MIT -70, MIT 71, MIT 72, MIT 76, MMI 1, MMI 10, MMI 16, -MMI 17, MMI 18, MMI 19, MMI 20, NED 1, NEP 5, NEP -11, NEP 16, NEP 20, NEP 21, NEP 22, NEP 23, NEP 24, -NEP 25, NEP 26, NEP 27, NEP 28, NEP 30, NEP 53, REG -7, REG 12, REG 13, REG 14, RME 10, SEI 1, SEI 2 - -World Wildlife -Fund -Pintabutr, -America May - -3765 ALT 2 - -Point Hope -Public Meeting - -13147 COR 10, GPE 8, GSE 6, ICL 1, MIT 105, NEP 51, OSR 1, -RME 1, RME 41, SRP 4, SRP 11, UTK 2 - -Resource -Development -Council -Portman, Carl - -2303 ALT 4, ALT 7, DCH 2, MIT 3, MIT 10, NED 3, NEP 1, -NEP 10, NEP 11, NEP 12, REG 7, SEI 5 - -American -Petroleum -Institute -Radford, Andy - -3766 ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 5, ALT 7, ALT 9, ALT 14, ALT 15, -ALT 16, ALT 25, ALT 26, ALT 27, ALT 28, CEF 5, CEF 6, -DATA 14, DATA 15, DATA 16, EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI -4, MIT 3, MIT 10, MIT 23, MIT 24, MIT 28, MIT 32, MIT -35, MIT 43, MIT 46, MIT 60, MIT 61, MIT 62, MIT 63, -MIT 64, MIT 65, MIT 66, MIT 67, MIT 68, MIT 69, MIT -70, MIT 71, MIT 72, MIT 76, MMI 1, MMI 10, MMI 16, -MMI 17, MMI 18, MMI 19, MMI 20, NED 1, NEP 5, NEP -11, NEP 16, NEP 20, NEP 21, NEP 22, NEP 23, NEP 24, -NEP 25, NEP 26, NEP 27, NEP 28, NEP 30, NEP 53, REG -7, REG 12, REG 13, REG 14, RME 10, SEI 1, SEI 2 - -Marine Mammal -Commission -Ragen, Timothy -J. - -3767 ALT 5, ALT 8, ALT 19, ALT 28, ALT 30, CEF 12, COR 8, -COR 10, EDI 3, EDI 8, EDI 9, MIT 73, MIT 74, MIT 75, -MIT 76, MIT 77, MMI 21, NEP 14, REG 2, REG 3, REG 4, -REG 5, RME 6, RME 11, RME 13, RME 14, RME 43 - -Randelia, Cyrus 78 ACK 1, CEF 5, OSR 2, OSR 3 -The Nature -Conservancy -Reed, Amanda - -3764 CEF 10, COR 12, COR 20, DATA 13, EDI 5, EDI 11, EDI -12, GPE 3, MIT 56, MIT 57, MIT 58, MIT 59, NEP 15, -OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 22, RME 1, RME 2, RME 9, -RME 35 - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-10 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -US EPA, Region -10 -Reichgott, -Christine - -3783 DATA 34, MIT 131 - -Reiner, Erica 2098 NEP 16, PER 1, REG 11 -Sierra Club -Ritzman, Dan - -3780 ALT 2, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 17, ALT 19, -ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 23, ALT 34, ALT 35, CEF 4, CEF 5, -CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, CEF 12, COR 17, DATA 1, DATA -2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, -DATA 27, DATA 28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, -DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, EDI 11, GPE 3, GPE 4, -GSE 4, GSE 9, HAB 3, MIT 21, MIT 54, MIT 57, MMI 1, -MMI 2, MIT 103, MMI 6, MMI 8, MMI 10, MMI 11, MIT -116, MIT 118, MIT 119, MIT 120, MIT 121, MIT 122, MIT -123, MIT 124, MIT 125, MMI 25, MIT 126, MIT 127, MMI -27, MIT 128, MIT 129, MIT 130, MMI 30, MMI 31, MMI -32, MMI 33, MMI 34, MMI 35, MMI 36, MMI 37, MMI 41, -NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 27, NEP 35, NEP 37, NEP -38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, NEP 43, NEP 44, -NEP 45, NEP 46, OSR 1, OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 21, REG -23, REG 26, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 12, RME 19, -RME 23, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME 31, -RME 32, RME 33, RME 34, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 12, WAQ -2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Cultural -REcyclists -Robinson, Tina - -3759 ALT 2, CEF 2, CEF 12, GPE 3, NEP 13, OSR 10 - -Rossin, Linda 3548 CEF 9, MIT 1, OSR 5, REG 3, RME 1 -Schalavin, Laurel 79 NED 1, SEI 5 -Alaska -Wilderness -League -Shogan, Cindy - -3780 ALT 2, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 17, ALT 19, -ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 23, ALT 34, ALT 35, CEF 4, CEF 5, -CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, CEF 12, COR 17, DATA 1, DATA -2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, -DATA 27, DATA 28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, -DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, EDI 11, GPE 3, GPE 4, -GSE 4, GSE 9, HAB 3, MIT 21, MIT 54, MIT 57, MMI 1, -MMI 2, MIT 103, MMI 6, MMI 8, MMI 10, MMI 11, MIT -116, MIT 118, MIT 119, MIT 120, MIT 121, MIT 122, MIT -123, MIT 124, MIT 125, MMI 25, MIT 126, MIT 127, MMI -27, MIT 128, MIT 129, MIT 130, MMI 30, MMI 31, MMI -32, MMI 33, MMI 34, MMI 35, MMI 36, MMI 37, MMI 41, -NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 27, NEP 35, NEP 37, NEP -38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, NEP 43, NEP 44, -NEP 45, NEP 46, OSR 1, OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 21, REG - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-11 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -23, REG 26, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 12, RME 19, -RME 23, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME 31, -RME 32, RME 33, RME 34, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 12, WAQ -2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Sierra Club -(form letter -containing -12,991 -signatures) - -90 ALT 1, CEF 9, MIT 1, OSR 5, REG 3, RME 1 - -Simon, Lorali 2094 MIT 3, MIT 4, MIT 5, REG 7 -Center for -Regulatory -Effectivness -Slaughter, Scott - -2306 DATA 6, DATA 7, DATA 8, DATA 13, EDI 2, EDI 3, MIT -3, MIT 11, MIT 12, MIT 30, MMI 10, RME 42 - -SEA Inc. -Southall, -Brandon - -3772 CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, DATA 2, MIT 91, MIT 92, MIT 93, -MMI 22, RME 2, RME 18, RME 19 - -Ocean -Conservation -Research -Stocker, Michael - -2099 DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, GPE 1, -GPE 2, MIT 8, MIT 9, MMI 5, MMI 6, MMI 7, MMI 8, -MMI 9, NEP 2, NEP 3, OSR 2, PER 2, REG 8, RME 3, -RME 4, RME 5, RME 43 - -Ocean -Conservation -Research -Stocker, Michael - -3780 ALT 2, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 17, ALT 19, -ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 23, ALT 34, ALT 35, CEF 4, CEF 5, -CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, CEF 12, COR 17, DATA 1, DATA -2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, -DATA 27, DATA 28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, -DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, EDI 11, GPE 3, GPE 4, -GSE 4, GSE 9, HAB 3, MIT 21, MIT 54, MIT 57, MMI 1, -MMI 2, MIT 103, MMI 6, MMI 8, MMI 10, MMI 11, MIT -116, MIT 118, MIT 119, MIT 120, MIT 121, MIT 122, MIT -123, MIT 124, MIT 125, MMI 25, MIT 126, MIT 127, MMI -27, MIT 128, MIT 129, MIT 130, MMI 30, MMI 31, MMI -32, MMI 33, MMI 34, MMI 35, MMI 36, MMI 37, MMI 41, -NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 27, NEP 35, NEP 37, NEP -38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, NEP 43, NEP 44, -NEP 45, NEP 46, OSR 1, OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 21, REG -23, REG 26, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 12, RME 19, -RME 23, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME 31, -RME 32, RME 33, RME 34, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 12, WAQ -2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Stoutamyer, -Carla - -2465 CEF 9, MIT 1, REG 3 - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-12 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -AK Dept Natural -Resources -Sullivan, Daniel - -3756 ALT 4, ALT 9, ALT 12, ALT 14, COR 5, COR 8, COR 15, -DCH 1, EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI 4, EDI 7, EDI 8, EDI 9, -EDI 10, EDI 11, EDI 12, EDI 13, GPE 4, GSE 1, GSE 7, -GSE 8, MIT 3, MIT 23, MIT 26, MIT 27, MIT 28, MIT 29, -MIT 30, MIT 31, MIT 32, NED 1, NED 3, NEP 6, NEP 7, -NEP 12, NEP 18, NEP 19, REG 7, REG 9, RME 7, SEI 1, -SEI 3, SEI 5, WAQ 13, WAQ 14, WAQ 15 - -Thorson, Scott 2097 ALT 4, NED 2, NED 3, NEP 11 -International -Association of -Geophysical -Contractors -Tsoflias, Sarah - -3766 ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 5, ALT 7, ALT 9, ALT 14, ALT 15, -ALT 16, ALT 25, ALT 26, ALT 27, ALT 28, CEF 5, CEF 6, -DATA 14, DATA 15, DATA 16, EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI -4, MIT 3, MIT 10, MIT 23, MIT 24, MIT 28, MIT 32, MIT -35, MIT 43, MIT 46, MIT 60, MIT 61, MIT 62, MIT 63, -MIT 64, MIT 65, MIT 66, MIT 67, MIT 68, MIT 69, MIT -70, MIT 71, MIT 72, MIT 76, MMI 1, MMI 10, MMI 16, -MMI 17, MMI 18, MMI 19, MMI 20, NED 1, NEP 5, NEP -11, NEP 16, NEP 20, NEP 21, NEP 22, NEP 23, NEP 24, -NEP 25, NEP 26, NEP 27, NEP 28, NEP 30, NEP 53, REG -7, REG 12, REG 13, REG 14, RME 10, SEI 1, SEI 2 - -World Society -for the Protection -of Animals -Vale, Karen - -3749 ALT 2, MMI 4, MMI 11, MMI 12, MMI 13, NEP 14, OSR -1, OSR 5, REG 3 - -Vishanoff, -Jonathan - -84 OSR 4, SRP 9 - -Wainwright -Public Meeting - -13143 ACK 1, GSE 5, MIT 135, NEP 50, SEI 5 - -Walker, Willie 2049 CEF 9, MIT 1, OSR 5, REG 3, RME 1 -Defenders of -Wildlife -Weaver, Sierra - -3780 ALT 2, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 17, ALT 19, -ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 23, ALT 34, ALT 35, CEF 4, CEF 5, -CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, CEF 12, COR 17, DATA 1, DATA -2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, -DATA 27, DATA 28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, -DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, EDI 11, GPE 3, GPE 4, -GSE 4, GSE 9, HAB 3, MIT 21, MIT 54, MIT 57, MMI 1, -MMI 2, MIT 103, MMI 6, MMI 8, MMI 10, MMI 11, MIT -116, MIT 118, MIT 119, MIT 120, MIT 121, MIT 122, MIT -123, MIT 124, MIT 125, MMI 25, MIT 126, MIT 127, MMI -27, MIT 128, MIT 129, MIT 130, MMI 30, MMI 31, MMI -32, MMI 33, MMI 34, MMI 35, MMI 36, MMI 37, MMI 41, -NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 27, NEP 35, NEP 37, NEP -38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, NEP 43, NEP 44, -NEP 45, NEP 46, OSR 1, OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 21, REG -23, REG 26, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 12, RME 19, -RME 23, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME 31, - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-13 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -RME 32, RME 33, RME 34, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 12, WAQ -2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -The Wilderness -Society -Whittington- -Evans, Nicole - -3780 ALT 2, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 17, ALT 19, -ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 23, ALT 34, ALT 35, CEF 4, CEF 5, -CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, CEF 12, COR 17, DATA 1, DATA -2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, -DATA 27, DATA 28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, -DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, EDI 11, GPE 3, GPE 4, -GSE 4, GSE 9, HAB 3, MIT 21, MIT 54, MIT 57, MMI 1, -MMI 2, MIT 103, MMI 6, MMI 8, MMI 10, MMI 11, MIT -116, MIT 118, MIT 119, MIT 120, MIT 121, MIT 122, MIT -123, MIT 124, MIT 125, MMI 25, MIT 126, MIT 127, MMI -27, MIT 128, MIT 129, MIT 130, MMI 30, MMI 31, MMI -32, MMI 33, MMI 34, MMI 35, MMI 36, MMI 37, MMI 41, -NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 27, NEP 35, NEP 37, NEP -38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, NEP 43, NEP 44, -NEP 45, NEP 46, OSR 1, OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 21, REG -23, REG 26, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 12, RME 19, -RME 23, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME 31, -RME 32, RME 33, RME 34, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 12, WAQ -2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -AEWC -Winter, Chris - -3778 ALT 22, ALT 23, ALT 33, CEF 2, CEF 5, CEF 7, CEF 8, -CEF 12, COR 7, COR 14, COR 18, DATA 2, DATA 5, EDI -3, MIT 21, MIT 57, MIT 105, MIT 106, MIT 107, MIT 108, -MIT 109, MIT 110, MIT 111, MIT 112, MMI 13, MMI 34, -NEP 1, NEP 11, NEP 35, NEP 52, REG 2, REG 3, REG 4, -REG 6, REG 19, REG 20, REG 21, REG 22, RME 6, UTK 4 - -Wittmaack, -Christiana - -85 ALT 2, MMI 2, MMI 3, OSR 1, OSR 6, SRP 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -APPENDIX B -PLACEHOLDER - -Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - - - - - - -DRAFT -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS B-1 -Comment Analysis Report - -[ Appendix B to be placed here ] - - - - - - - Draft Comment Analysis Report - Arctic EIS (032912).pdf - TABLE OF CONTENTS - LIST OF TABLES - LIST OF FIGURES - LIST OF APPENDICES - ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS - 1.0 INTRODUCTION - 2.0 BACKGROUND - 3.0 THE ROLE OF PUBLIC COMMENT - Table 1. Public Meetings, Locations and Dates - - 4.0 ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS - Table 2. Issue Categories for DEIS Comments - Figure 1: Comments by Issue - - 5.0 STATEMENTS OF CONCERN - APPENDIX A - APPENDIX B - PLACEHOLDER - - diff --git a/test_docs/090004d280249872/record.json b/test_docs/090004d280249872/record.json deleted file mode 100644 index e8a24f0..0000000 --- a/test_docs/090004d280249872/record.json +++ /dev/null @@ -1,18 +0,0 @@ -{ - "agency": "DOC", - "author": null, - "download_url": "https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/getContent?objectId=BivaKjN4lqvMvk6iAcxL_XBC20sGtgM8", - "exemptions": null, - "file_size": "1.362722396850586", - "file_type": "pdf", - "landing_id": "090004d280249872", - "landing_url": "https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/view/record?objectId=090004d280249872", - "released_on": "2014-04-24", - "released_original": "Thu Apr 24 12:29:17 EDT 2014", - "request_id": "DOC-NOAA-2012-000993", - "retention": "6 year", - "title": "2012 0404 Nachman email to Rosenthal Submittal - Drft CAR", - "type": "record", - "unreleased": false, - "year": "2012" -} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/test_docs/090004d280249872/record.pdf b/test_docs/090004d280249872/record.pdf deleted file mode 100644 index 7a82638..0000000 Binary files a/test_docs/090004d280249872/record.pdf and /dev/null differ diff --git a/test_docs/090004d280249872/record.txt b/test_docs/090004d280249872/record.txt deleted file mode 100644 index d4b0a16..0000000 --- a/test_docs/090004d280249872/record.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,11687 +0,0 @@ - -"Bellion, Tara" - -04/04/2012 01:20 PM - -To ArcticAR - -cc - -bcc - -Subject FW: Submittal - Draft Comment Analysis Report for Review - -  -  -Tara Bellion ‐ Environmental Planner -URS Corporation -3504 Industrial Avenue, Suite 126 -Fairbanks, AK 99701 -  -Tel: 907.374.0303 ext 15 -Fax: 907.374‐0309 -tara.bellion@urs.com -www.urs.com  -  -From: Candace Nachman [mailto:candace.nachman@noaa.gov] -Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 1:17 PM -To: Rosenthal, Amy -Cc: jolie.harrison@noaa.gov; Michael.Payne@noaa.gov; Isaacs, Jon; Fuchs, Kim; Bellion, Tara; Kluwe, -Joan -Subject: Re: Submittal - Draft Comment Analysis Report for Review - -Amy, - -I have reviewed the Draft CAR. I have made all edits in track changes and using comment -bubbles. My biggest comment is that I think there are a lot of redundancies. I have made -suggestions for where combining could occur to cut us down from 1883 separate SOCs. There -are also some that are really not comments that require a response or any edits to the document. -I have suggested moving those to the comment acknowledged section. - -Thanks, -Candace -On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Rosenthal, Amy wrote: -Hi all – - -Attached is the Draft Comment Analysis Report for your review (word and PDF versions). We -have a placeholder for the government-to-government CAR, which will be an Appendix to this -report, until we are able to code any comments from the upcoming Point Lay meeting next week. -And for all of the “Editorial” comments we received (i.e. specific changes to the text), we will be -giving you a separate table that tracks those by section of the document. - -As always, comments back from you in track changes works best. The schedule shows us -receiving comments back from you on April 4th by end of the day. - - - - -I will be out of the office the rest of this week, but back in on Monday. If you have questions, -feel free to call my cell (503-804-4292) or contact Kim Fuchs or Jon Isaacs. - -Thanks, -Amy - -**** Please note my new email address: amy.rosenthal@urs.com **** - -Amy C. Rosenthal -Environmental Planner -URS Corporation - -503-948-7223 (direct phone) -503-222-4292 (fax) - - -This e-mail and any attachments contain URS Corporation confidential information that may be proprietary or privileged. If you -receive this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this -information and you should destroy the e-mail and any attachments or copies. - --- -Candace Nachman -Fishery Biologist - -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -National Marine Fisheries Service -Office of Protected Resources -Permits and Conservation Division -1315 East West Highway, Rm 3503 -Silver Spring, MD 20910 - -Ph: (301) 427-8429 -Fax: (301) 713-0376 - -Web: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas - -Activities in the Arctic Ocean -Draft Comment Analysis Report - - - - - - -United States Department of Commerce - -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - -National Marine Fisheries Service - -Office of Protected Resources - -March 29, 2012 - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS i - -Comment Analysis Report - -TABLE OF CONTENTS - -TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................ i - -LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................... ii - -LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................... ii - -LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ ii - -ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... ii - - - -1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 1 - -2.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 1 - -3.0 THE ROLE OF PUBLIC COMMENT ....................................................................................... 1 - -4.0 ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS .................................................................................. 3 - -5.0 STATEMENTS OF CONCERN .................................................................................................. 7 - - - -APPENDICES - - - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS ii - -Comment Analysis Report - -LIST OF TABLES - -Table 1 Public Meetings, Locations and Dates ....................................................................... Page 2 - -Table 2 Issue Categories for DEIS Comments ....................................................................... Page 4 - - - - - -LIST OF FIGURES - -Figure 1 Comments by Issue .................................................................................................... Page 6 - - - - - -LIST OF APPENDICES - -Appendix A Submission and Comment Index - -Appendix B Placeholder for Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - - - - - -ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS - -AEWC Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission - -APA Administrative Procedure Act - -BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management - -CAA Conflict Avoidance Agreement - -CAR Comment Analysis Report - -CASy Comment Analysis System database - -DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement - -ESA Endangered Species Act - -IEA Important Ecological Area - -IHA Incidental Harassment Authorization - -ITAs iIncidental tTake aAuthorizations - -ITRs Incidental Take Regulations - -MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act - -NEPA National Environmental Policy Act - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS iii - -Comment Analysis Report - -NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service - -OCS Outer Continental Shelf - -OCSLA Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act - -PAM Passive Acoustic Monitoring - -SOC Statement of Concern - -TK Traditional Knowledge - -USC United States Code - -USGS U.S. Geological Survey - -VLOS Very Large Oil Spill - - - - - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 1 - -Comment Analysis Report - -1.0 INTRODUCTION - -The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration‟s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and -the U.S. Department of the Interior‟s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) have prepared and -released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that analyzes the effects of offshore geophysical - -seismic surveys and exploratory drilling in the federal and state waters of the U.S. Beaufort and Chukchi - -seas. - -The proposed actions considered in the Draft EIS are: - - NMFS‟ issuance of incidental take authorizations (ITAs) under Section 101(a)(5) of the Marine -Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), for the taking of marine mammals incidental to conducting - -seismic surveys, ancillary activities, and exploratory drilling; and - - BOEM‟s issuance of permits and authorizations under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act for -seismic surveys and ancillary activities. - -2.0 BACKGROUND - -NMFS is serving as the lead agency for this EIS. BOEM (formerly called the U.S. Minerals Management - -Service) and the North Slope Borough are cooperating agencies on this EIS. The U.S. Environmental - -Protection Agency is serving as a consulting agency. NMFS is also coordinating with the Alaska Eskimo - -Whaling Commission pursuant to our co-management agreement under the MMPA. - -The Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2010 (75 FR - -6175). On December 30, 2011, Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register (76 FR - -82275) that NMFS had released for public comment the „„Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) -for the Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean.” The original deadline to submit comments -was February 13, 2012. Based on several written requests received by NMFS, the public comment period - -for this DEIS was extended by 15 days. Notice of extension of the comment period and notice of public - -meetings was published January 18, 2012, in the Federal rRegister (77 FR 2513). The comment period - -concluded on February 28, 2012, making the entire comment period 60 days in total. - -NMFS intends to use this EIS to: 1) evaluate the potential effects of different levels of offshore seismic - -surveys and exploratory drilling activities occurring in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas; 2) take a - -comprehensive look at potential cumulative impacts in the EIS project area; and 3) evaluate the - -effectiveness of various mitigation measures. NMFS will use the findings of the EIS when reviewing - -individual applications for ITAs associated with seismic surveys, ancillary activities, and exploratory - -drilling in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. - -3.0 THE ROLE OF PUBLIC COMMENT - -During the public comment period, public meetings were held to inform and to solicit comments from the - -public on the DEIS. The meetings consisted of an open house, a brief presentation, and then a public - -comment opportunity. Transcripts of each public meeting are available on the project website - -(http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/eis/arctic.htm). Meetings were cancelled in the communities of - -Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Point Lay due to extreme weather conditions. The six public meetings that were - -held are described in Table 1. - -Formatted: Font: Italic - -Formatted: Font: Italic - -Formatted: Font: Italic - -Field Code Changed - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 2 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Table 1. Public Meetings, Locations and Dates - -Meeting Date Location - -Wainwright January 30, 2012 Wainwright Community Center, - -Wainwright, AK - -Barrow January 31, 2012 Inupiat Heritage Center, - -Barrow, AK - -Kivalina February 6, 2012 McQueen School, - -Kivalina - -Kotzebue February 7, 2012 Northwest Arctic Borough Assembly Chambers, - -Kotzebue, AK - -Point Hope February 8, 2012 Point Hope Community Center, - -Point Hope, AK - -Anchorage February 13, 2012 - -12:00-2:00 p.m. - -Loussac Library – Wilda Marston Theatre -Anchorage, Anchorage, AK - - - -These meetings were attended by a variety of stakeholders, including Federal agencies, Tribal - -governments, state agencies, local governments, Alaska Native organizations, businesses, special interest - -groups/non-governmental organizations, and individuals. - -In a separate, but parallel process for government to government consultation, Tribal governments in each - -community, with the exception of Anchorage, were notified of the availability of the DEIS and invited to - -give comments. The first contact was via letter that was faxed, dated December 22, 2011; follow-up calls - -and emails were made with the potentially affected Tribal governments, and in the communities listed - -above, each government was visited during the comment period. Because NMFS was not able to make it - -to the communities of Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Point Lay on the originally scheduled dates, a follow-up - -letter was sent on February 29, 2012, requesting a teleconference meeting for government to government - -consultation. Nuiqsut and Point Lay rescheduled with teleconferences. However, the Native Village of - -Nuiqsut did not call-in to the rescheduled teleconference. [NMFS: language here for something about - -Nuiqsut “no show” on March 26, 2012?]. The comments received during government to government -consultation between NMFS, BOEM, and the Tribal governments are included in a separate Comment - -Analysis Report (CAR) (Appendix B of this document). Comments submitted in writing by Tribal - -governments are also included in Appendix B. - -NMFS and the cooperating agencies will review all comments, determine how the comments should be - -addressed, and make appropriate revisions in preparing the Final EIS. The Final EIS will contain the - -comments submitted and a summary of comment responses to those comments. - -The Final EIS will include public notice of document availability, the distribution of the document, and a - -30-day comment/waiting period on the final document. Public statements of agency decisions are - -expected in September 2012. NMFS and BOEM are expected to each issue a separate Record of Decision - -(ROD), which will then conclude the EIS process in early 2013. The selected alternative will be - -identified in each ROD, as well as the agency‟s rationale for their conclusions regarding the -environmental effects and appropriate mitigation measures for the proposed project. - -Comment [CAN1]: What does this statement -mean? Is this going from the old schedule? Right - -now, the schedule has us giving the document to - -everyone for review in September 2012. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 3 - -Comment Analysis Report - -4.0 ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS - -The body of this report provides a brief summary of the comment analysis process, and the comments that - -were received during the public comment period. Two appendices follow this narrative, including the - -Submission and Comment Index, and the Government to Government CAR. - -Comments were received on the DEIS in several ways: - - Oral discussion or testimony from the public meeting transcripts; - - Written comments received by mail or by fax; and - - Written comments submitted electronically by email or through the project website. - -NMFS received a total of 67 unique submissions on the DEIS. There were 49,436 form letters received - -and reviewed. One submission as a form letter from the Natural Resources Defense Council contained - -36,445 signatures, and another submission as a form letter from the Sierra Club contained 12,991 - -signatures. Group affiliations of those that submitted comments include: fFederal agencies, Tribal - -governments, state agencies, local governments, Alaska Native organizations, businesses, special interest - -groups/non-governmental organizations, and individuals. The complete text of public comments received - -will be included in the Administrative Record for the EIS. - -This CAR provides an analytical summary of these submissions. It presents the methodology used by - -NMFS in reviewing, sorting, and synthesizing substantive comments within each submission into - -common themes. As described in the following sections of this report, a careful and deliberate approach - -has been undertaken to ensure that all substantive public comments were captured. - -The coding phase was used to divide each submission into a series of substantive comments (herein - -referred to as „comments‟). All submissions on the DEIS were read, reviewed, and logged into the -Comment Analysis System database (CASy) where they were assigned an automatic tracking number - -(Submission ID). These comments were recorded into the CASy and given a unique Comment ID - -number (with reference to the Submission ID) for tracking and synthesis. The goal of this process was to - -ensure that each sentence and paragraph in a submission containing a substantive comment pertinent to - -the DEIS was entered into the CASy. Substantive content constituted assertions, suggested actions, data, - -background information, or clarifications relating to the content of the DEIS. - -Comments were assigned subject issue categories to describe the content of the comment (see Table 2). - -The issues were grouped by general topics, including effects, available information, regulatory - -compliance, and Inupiat culture. The relative distribution of comments by issue is shown in Figure 1. - -A total of 25 issue categories were developed for coding during the first step of the analysis process as - -shown in Table 2. These categories evolved from common themes found throughout the submissions - -received by NMFS. Some categories correspond directly to sections of the DEIS, while others focus on - -more procedural topics. Several submissions included attachments of scientific studies or reports, or - -requested specific edits to the DEIS text. - -The public comment submissions generated 1,883 substantive comments, which were then grouped into - -Statements of Concern (SOCs). SOCs are summary statements intended to capture the different themes - -identified in the substantive comments. SOCs are frequently supported by additional text to further - -explain the concern, or alternatively to capture the specific comment variations within that grouping. - -SOCs are not intended to replace actual comments. Rather, they summarize for the reader the range of - -comments on a specific topic. - -Every substantive comment was assigned to an SOC; a total of 540 SOCs were developed. Each SOC is - -represented by an issue category code followed by a number. NMFS will use the SOCs to respond to - -substantive comments on the DEIS, as appropriate. Each issue category may have more than one SOC. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 4 - -Comment Analysis Report - -For example, there are 12 SOCs under the issue category “Cumulative Effects” (CEF 1, CEF 2, CEF 3, -etc.). Each comment was assigned to one SOC. The complete list of SOCs can be found in Section 5.0. - -Table 2. Issue Categories for DEIS Comments - -GROUP Issue Category Code Summary - -Effects Cumulative Effects CEF Comments related to cumulative impacts in general, - -or for a specific resource - -Physical Environment - -(General) - -GPE Comments related to impacts on resources within - -the physical environment (Physical Oceanography, - -Climate, Acoustics, Environmental Contaminants & - -Ecosystem Functions) - -Social Environment (General) GSE Comments related to impacts on resources within - -the social environment (Public Health, Cultural, - -Land Ownership/Use/Mgt., Transportation, - -Recreation & Tourism, Visual Resources, EJ) - -Habitat HAB Comments associated with habitat requirements, or - -potential habitat impacts from seismic activities and - -exploratory drilling. Comment focus is habitat, not - -animals. - -Marine Mammal and other - -Wildlife Impacts - -MMI General comments related to potential impacts to - -marine mammals or other wildlife, unrelated to - -subsistence resource concepts. - -National Energy Demand and - -Supply - -NED Comments related to meeting national energy - -demands, supply of energy. - -Oil Spill Risks OSR Concerns about potential for oil spill, ability to - -clean up spills in various conditions, potential - -impacts to resources or environment from spills. - -Socioeconomic Impacts SEI Comments on economic impacts to local - -communities, regional economy, and national - -economy, can include changes in the social or - -economic environments (MONEY, JOBS). - -Subsistence Resource - -Protection - -SRP Comments on need to protect subsistence resources - -and potential impacts to these resources. Can - -include ocean resources as our garden, - -contamination (SUBSISTENCE ANIMALS, - -HABITAT). - -Vessel Operations and - -Movements - -VOM Comments regarding vessel operations and - -movements. - -Water and Air Quality WAQ Comments regarding water and air quality, - -including potential to impact or degrade these - -resources. - - - -Info - -Available - -Data DATA Comments referencing scientific studies that should - -be considered. - -Research, Monitoring, - -Evaluation Needs - -RME Comments on baseline research, monitoring, and - -evaluation needs - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 5 - -Comment Analysis Report - -GROUP Issue Category Code Summary - -Process: - -NEPA, - -Permits, - -the DEIS - -Alternatives ALT Comments related to alternatives or alternative - -development. - -Coordination and - -Compatibility - -COR Coordinating with Federal, state, local agencies or - -organizations; permitting requirements. - -Discharge DCH Comments regarding discharge levels, including - -requests for zero discharge requirements, and deep - -waste injection wells. Does not include - -contamination of subsistence resources. - -Mitigation Measures MIT Comments related to suggestions for or - -implementation of mitigation measures. - -NEPA NEP Comments on impact criteria (Chapter 4) that - -require clarification of NEPA process and - -methodologies for impact determination - -Peer Review PER Suggestions for peer review of permits, activities, - -proposals. - -Regulatory Compliance REG Comments associated with compliance with - -existing regulations, laws, and statutes. - -General Editorial EDI Comments associated with specific text edits to the - -document. - -Comment Acknowledged ACK Entire submission determined not to be substantive - -and warranted only a “comment acknowledged” -response. - -Inupiat - -Culture - -Inupiat Culture and Way of - -Life - -ICL Comments related to potential cultural impacts or - -desire to maintain traditional practices (PEOPLE). - -Use of Traditional Knowledge UTK Comments regarding how traditional knowledge - -(TK) is used in the document or decision making - -process, need to incorporate TK, or processes for - -documenting TK. - - - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 6 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Figure 1: Comments by Issue - - - - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 7 - -Comment Analysis Report - -5.0 STATEMENTS OF CONCERN - -This section presents the SOCs developed to help summarize comments received on the DEIS. To assist - -in finding which SOCs were contained in each submission, a Submission and Comment Index - -(Appendix A) was created. The index is a list of all submissions received, presented alphabetically by the - -last name of the commenter, as well as the Submission ID associated with the submission, and which - -SOCs responds to their specific comments. To identify the specific issues that are contained in an - -individual submission:, 1) first search for the submission of interest in Appendix A;, then2) note which - -SOC codes are listed under the submissions;, 3) locate the SOC within Section 5.0; and 4)then read the - -text next to that SOC. Each substantive comment contained in a submission was assigned to one SOC. - - - - - - - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 8 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Comment Acknowledged (ACK) - -ACK Entire submission determined not to be substantive and warranted only a “comment -acknowledged” response. - -ACK 1 Comment Acknowledged. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 9 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Alternatives (ALT) - -ALT Comments related to alternatives or alternative development. - -ALT 1 NMFS should not permit any more oil and gas exploration within the U.S. Beaufort and - -Chukchi Seas unless and until there is a plan in place that shows those activities can be - -conducted without harming the health of the ecosystem or opportunities for the subsistence - -way of life. - -ALT 2 NMFS should adopt the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) as the preferred alternative, - -which represents a precautionary, ecosystem-based approach. There is a considerable amount - -of public support for this alternative. It is the only reliable way to prevent a potential - -catastrophic oil spill from occurring in the Arctic Ocean, and provides the greatest protections - -from negative impacts to marine mammals from noise and vessel strikes. Alternative 1 is the - -only alternative that makes sense given the state of missing scientific baseline, as well as - -long-term, data on impacts to marine mammals and subsistence activities resulting from oil - -and gas exploration. - -ALT 3 NMFS should edit the No Action Alternative to describe the present agency decision-making - -procedures. The No Action Alternative should be rewritten to include NMFS‟ issuance of -Incidental Harassment Authorizations (IHA) and preparing project-specific EAs for - -exploration activities as they do currently. If NMFS wishes to consider an alternative in - -which they stop issuing authorizations, it should be considered as an additional alternative, - -not the No Action alternative. - -ALT 4 Limiting the extent of activity to two exploration programs annually in the Beaufort and - -Chukchi seas is unreasonable and will shut out leaseholders. The restrictions and mitigation - -measures outlined in the five alternatives of the DEIS would likely make future development - -improbabley and uneconomic. Because the DEIS does not present any alternative that would - -cover the anticipated level of industry activity, it would cap industry activity in a way that (a) - -positions the DEIS as a decisional document in violation of NEPA standards, and (b) would - -constitute an economic taking. NMFS should revise the levels of activity within the action - -alternatives to address these concerns. - -ALT 5 The “range” of action alternatives only considers two levels of activity. The narrow range of -alternatives presented in the DEIS and the lack of specificity regarding the source levels, - -timing, duration, and location of the activities being considered do not provide a sufficient - -basis for determining whether other options might exist for oil and gas development with - -significantly less environmental impact, including reduced effects on marine mammals. - -NMFS and BOEM should expand the range of alternatives to ensure that oil and gas - -exploration activities have no more than a negligible impact on marine mammal species and - -stocks, and will not have adverse impacts on the Alaska Native communities that depend on - -the availability of marine mammals for subsistence, as required under the Marine Mammal - -Protection Act. - -ALT 6 The range of alternatives presented in the DEIS do not assist decision-makers in determining - -what measures can be taken to reduce impacts and what choices may be preferential from an - -environmental standpoint. There is no indication in the analysis as to which alternative - -would be cause for greater concern, from either an activity level or location standpoint. - -Comment [CAN2]: This one doesn‟t really seem -like it relates to the alternatives or alternative - -development; however, I am having difficulty -deciding on where it should go. To me it almost - -seems more like a comment acknowledged or maybe - -regulatory compliance. I‟m also thinking that maybe -we need another Issue Category, perhaps a general - -one, as I see some other SOCs that don‟t necessarily -fall into any of the already created categories. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 10 - -Comment Analysis Report - -NMFS needs to revise the alternatives and their assessment of effects to reflect these - -concerns. - -ALT 7 An EIS must evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives in order to fully comply with NEPA. - -The DEIS does not provide a reasonable range of alternatives. The No Action Alternative is - -inaccurately stated (does not reflect current conditions), and Alternative 5 is infeasible - -because those technologies are not available. Multiple alternatives with indistinguishable - -outcomes do not represent a “range” and do not assist in determining preferential options. -NMFS needs to revise the EIS to present a reasonable range of alternatives for analysis. - -ALT 8 NMFS should consider additional alternatives (or components of alternatives) including: - - A phased, adaptive approach for increasing oil and gas activities, - - Avoidance of redundant seismic surveys, - - Development of a soundscape approach and consideration of caps on noise or activity -levels for managing sound sources during the open water period, and - - A clear basis for judging whether the impacts of industry activities are negligible as -required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. - -ALT 9 The levels of oil and gas exploration activity identified in Alternatives 2 and 3 are not - -accurate. In particular, the DEIS significantly over estimates the amount of seismic - -exploration that is reasonably foreseeable in the next five years, while underestimating the - -amount of exploration drilling that could occur. The alternatives are legally flawed because - -none of the alternatives address scenarios that are currently being contemplated and which are - -most likely to occur. For example: - - Level 1 activity assumes as many as three site clearance and shallow hazard survey -programs in the Chukchi Sea, while Level 2 activity assumes as many as 5 such - -programs. By comparison, the Incidental Take Reduction (ITR) petition recently - -submitted by Alaska Oil and Gas Association to USFWS for polar bear and walrus - -projects as many as seven (and as few as zero) shallow hazard surveys and as many as - -two (and as few as one) other G&G surveys annually in the Chukchi Sea over the next - -five years. - - The assumption for the number of source vessels and concurrent activity is unlikely. - - By 2014, ConocoPhillips intends to conduct exploration drilling in the Chukchi Sea. It is -also probable that Statoil will be conducting exploration drilling on their prospects in the - -Chukchi Sea beginning in 2014. Accordingly, in 2014, and perhaps later years depending - -upon results, there may be as many as three exploration drilling programs occurring in - -the Chukchi Sea. - -The alternatives scenarios should be adjusted by NMFS to account for realistic levels of - -seismic and exploratory drilling activities, and the subsequent impact analyses should be - -substantially revised. The DEIS does not explain why alternatives that would more - -accurately represent likely levels of activity were omitted from inclusion in the DEIS as - -required under 40 C.F.R. Sections 1500.1 and Section 1502.14. - -ALT 10 NMFS should include, as part of the assumptions associated with the alternatives, an analysis - -examining how many different lessees there are, where their respective leases are in each - -planning area (Beaufort vs. Chukchi seas), when their leases expire, and when they anticipate - -exploring (by activity) their leases for hydrocarbons. This will help frame the levels of - -activity that are considered in the EIS. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 11 - -Comment Analysis Report - -ALT 11 There is a 2016 lease sale in Chukchi Sea and a 2015 lease sale in Beaufort Sea within the - -Proposed 5 Year Plan. Alternatives should include some seismic, shallow hazard and - -possibly drilling to account for these lease sales. - -ALT 12 In every impact category but one, the draft impact findings for Alternative 4 are identical to - -the draft impact findings for Alternative 3 (Level 2 activity with standard mitigation - -measures). Given that the impacts with and without additional mitigation are the same, - -Alternative 4 neither advances thoughtful decision-making nor provides a rational - -justification under the MMPA for NMFS to impose any additional conditions beyond - -standard mitigation measures. Alternative 4 provides no useful analysis because the context - -is entirely abstract (i.e., independent from a specific proposal). The need and effectiveness of - -any given mitigation measure, standard or otherwise, can only be assessed in the context of a - -specific activity proposed for a given location and time, under then-existing circumstances. - -Finally, the identified time/area closures, and the use of a 120 dB and 160 dB buffer zones, - -have no sound scientific or other factual basis. Alternative 4 should be changed to allow for - -specific mitigations and time constraints designed to match proposed projects as they occur. - -ALT 13 Camden Bay, Barrow Canyon, Hanna Shoal, and Kasegaluk Lagoon are not currently listed - -as critical habitat and do not maintain special protective status. NMFS should remove - -Alternative 4 from further consideration until such time that these areas are officially - -designated by law to warrant special protective measures. In addition, these temporal/spatial - -limitations should be removed from Section 2.4.10(b). - -ALT 14 Alternative 5 should be deleted. The alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the - -exception that it includes "alternative technologies" as possible mitigation measures. - -However, virtually none of the technologies discussed are currently commercially available - -nor will they being during the time frame of this EIS, which makes the analysis useless for - -NEPA purposes. Because the majority of these technologies have not yet been built and/or - -tested, it is difficult to fully analyze the level of impacts from these devices. Therefore, - -additional NEPA analyses (i.e., tiering) will likely be required if applications are received - -requesting to use these technologies during seismic surveys. - -ALT 15 The alternative technologies identified in Alternative 5 should not be viewed as a replacement - -for airgun-based seismic surveys in all cases. - -ALT 16 Positive environmental consequences of some industry activities and technologies are not - -adequately considered, especially alternative technologies and consideration of what the - -benefits of better imaging of the subsurface provides in terms of potentially reducing the - -number of wells to maximize safe production. - -ALT 17 The DEIS fails to include any actionable alternatives to require, incentivize, or test the use of - -new technologies in the Arctic. Such alternatives include: - - Mandating the use of marine vibroseis or other technologies in pilot areas, with an -obligation to accrue data on environmental impacts; - - Creating an adaptive process by which marine vibroseis or other technologies can be -required as they become available; - - Deferring the permitting of surveys in particular areas or for particular applications where -effective mitigative technologies, such as marine vibroseis, could reasonably be expected - -to become available within the life of the EIS; - -Comment [CAN3]: This one doesn‟t really seem -to fit this Issue Category, but I can‟t really decide on -another one that might be more appropriate. Like - -ALT 1, this seems almost like a general statement. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 12 - -Comment Analysis Report - - Providing incentives for use of these technologies as was done for passive acoustic -monitoring systems in NTL 2007-G02; and - - Exacting funds from applicants to support accelerated mitigation research in this area. - -NMFS must include these alternatives in the Final EIS analysis. - -ALT 18 The reasons to not evaluate specific program numbers in the 2007 DPEIS would apply to the - -current DEIS. This is a fundamental shift in reasoning of how alternatives are evaluated. - -NMFS should: - - Address why a previously rejected alternative (limiting number of surveys) has become -the basis for all alternatives currently under consideration; and - - Explain the reasoning behind the change in analysis method. - -If NMFS cannot adequately address this discrepancy, they should consider withdrawing the - -current DEIS and initiating a new analysis that does not focus on limiting program numbers - -as a means of reducing impacts. - -ALT 19 The DEIS improperly dismisses the alternative “Caps on Levels of Activities and/or Noise.” -As NMFS has recognized, oil and gas-related disturbances in the marine environment can - -result in biologically significant impacts depending upon the timing, location, and number of - -the activities. Yet the DEIS declines even to consider an alternative limiting the amount of - -activity that can be conducted in the Arctic, or part of the Arctic, over a given period. The - -“soundscape” of the Arctic should be relatively easy to describe and manage compared to the -soundscapes of other regions, and should be included in the EIS. - -The agencies base their rejection of this alternative not on the grounds that it exceeds their - -legal authority, but that it does not meet the purpose and need of the EIS. Instead of - -developing an activity cap alternative for the EIS, the agencies propose, in effect, to consider - -overall limits on activities when evaluating individual applications under Outer Continental - -Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) and the MMPA. It would, however, be much more difficult for - -NMFS or BOEM to undertake that kind of analysis in an individual IHA application or - -OCSLA exploration plan because the agencies often lack sufficient information before the - -open water season to take an overarching view of the activities occurring that year. - -Determining limits at the outset would also presumably reduce uncertainty for industry. In - -short, excluding any consideration of activity caps from the alternatives analysis in this EIS - -frustrates the purpose of programmatic review, contrary to NEPA. NMFS claims that there is - -inadequate data to quantify impacts to support a cumulative noise cap should serve to limit - -authorizations rather than preventing a limit on activity. - -ALT 20 The DEIS improperly dismisses the alternative “Permanent Closures of Areas.” BOEM‟s -relegation of this alternative to the leasing process is not consistent with its obligation, at the - -exploration and permit approval stage, to reject applications that would cause serious harm or - -undue harm. It is reasonable here for BOEM to define areas whose exploration would exceed - -these legal thresholds regardless of time of year, just as it defines areas for seasonal - -avoidance pursuant to other OCSLA and MMPA standards. Regardless, the lease sale stage - -is not a proper vehicle for considering permanent exclusions for strictly off-lease activities, - -such as off-lease seismic surveys. At the very least, the DEIS should consider establishing - -permanent exclusion areas, or deferring activity within certain areas, outside the boundaries - -of existing lease areas. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 13 - -Comment Analysis Report - -ALT 21 The DEIS improperly dismisses the alternative “Duplicative Surveys.” NMFS‟ Open Water -Panel has twice called for the elimination of unnecessary, duplicative surveys, whether - -through data sharing or some other means. Yet the DEIS pleads that BOEM cannot adopt - -this measure, on the grounds that the agency cannot “require companies to share proprietary -data, combine seismic programs, change lease terms, or prevent companies from acquiring - -data in the same geographic area.” This analysis overlooks BOEM‟s statutory duty under -OCSLA to approve only those permits whose exploration activities are not unduly harmful to - -marine life. While OCSLA does not define the standard, it is difficult to imagine an activity - -more expressive of undue harm than a duplicative survey, which obtains data that the - -government and industry already possess and therefore is not necessary to the expeditious and - -orderly development, subject to environmental safeguards, of the outer continental shelf. It is - -thus within BOEM‟s authority to decline to approve individual permit applications in whole -or part that it finds are unnecessarily duplicative of existing or proposed surveys or data. - -ALT 22 NMFS should include a community-based alternative that establishes direct reliance on the - -Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA), and the collaborative process that has been used to - -implement it. The alternative would include a fully developed suite of mitigation measures - -similar to what is included in each annual CAA. This alternative would also include: - - A communications scheme to manage industry and hunter vessel traffic during whale -hunting; - - Time-area closures that provide a westward-moving buffer ahead of the bowhead -migration in areas important for fall hunting by our villages; - - Vessel movement restrictions and speed limitations for industry vessels moving in the -vicinity of migrating whales; - - Limitations on levels of specific activities; - - Limitations on discharges in near-shore areas where food is taken and eaten directly from -the water; - - Other measures to facilitate stakeholder involvement; and - - An annual adaptive decision making process where the oil industry and Native groups -come together to discuss new information and potential amendments to the mitigation - -measures and/or levels of activity. - -NMFS should also include a more thorough discussion of the 20-year history of the CAA to - -provide better context for assessing the potential benefits of this community-based - -alternative. - -ALT 23 NMFS should include an alternative in the Final EIS that blends the following components of - -the existing DEIS alternatives, which are designed to benefit subsistence hunting: - - Alternative 2 activity levels; - - Mandatory time/area closures of Alternative 4; - - Alternative technologies from Alternative 5; - - Zero discharge in the Beaufort Sea; - - Limitation on vessel transit into the Chukchi Sea; - - Protections for the subsistence hunt in Wainwright, Point Hope, and Point Lay; - - Sound source verification; - - Expanded exclusion zones for seismic activities; and - - Limitations on limited visibility operation of seismic equipment. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 14 - -Comment Analysis Report - -ALT 24 NMFS should include an alternative in the Final EIS that is based on the amount of - -anthropogenic sounds that marine mammals might be exposed to, rather than using numbers - -of activities as a proxy for sound. This alternative, based on accumulation of sound exposure - -level, could evaluate: - - Different types and numbers of industrial activities; - - Different frequencies produced by each activity; - - Location of activities; - - Timing of activities; - - Overlap in time and space with marine mammals; and - - Knowledge about how marine mammals respond to anthropogenic activities. - -Threshold levels could be based on simulation modeling using the above information. This - -approach would use a valid scientific approach, one that is at least as robust, and probably - -more, than the current approach of simply assessing numbers of activities. - -ALT 25 NMFS has defined a seismic "program" as limited to no more than two source vessels - -working in tandem. This would expand the duration required to complete a program, which - -could increase the potential for environmental impacts, without decreasing the amount of - -sound in the water at any one time. NMFS should not limit the number of source vessels - -used in a program in this manner as it could limit exploration efficiencies inherent in existing - -industry practice. - -ALT 26 NMFS should not limit the number of on ice surveys that can be acquired in any year, in - -either the Beaufort or Chukchi seas, as it could limit exploration efficiencies inherent in - -existing industry practice. - -ALT 27 The DEIS alternatives also limit the number of drilling operations each year regardless of the - -type of drilling. Given that there are many different approaches to drilling, each with its own - -unique acoustic footprint and clear difference in its potential to generate other environmental - -effects, a pre-established limit on the number of drilling operations each year is not based on - -a scientific assessment and therefore is unreasonable. NMFS should not limit the number of - -drilling operations. - -ALT 28 By grouping 2D/3D seismic surveys and Controlled Source Electro-Magnetic (CSEM) - -surveys together, the DEIS suggests that these two survey types are interchangeable, produce - -similar types of data and/or have similar environmental impact characteristics. This is - -incorrect and the DEIS should be corrected to separate them and, if the alternatives propose - -limits, then each survey type should be dealt with separately. - -ALT 29 NMFS should consider a phased, adaptive approach to increasing the number of surveys in - -the region because the cumulative effects of seismic surveys are not clear. Such an approach - -would provide an opportunity to monitor and manage effects before they become significant - -and also would help prevent situations where the industry has over-committed its resources to - -activities that may cause unacceptable harm. - -ALT 30 In the Final EIS, NMFS should identify its preferred alternative, including the rationale for its - -selection. - -ALT 31 NMFS must consider alternatives that do not contain the Additional Mitigation Measures - -currently associated with every action alternative in the DEIS. These measures are not - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 15 - -Comment Analysis Report - -warranted, are not scientifically supported, and are onerous, prohibiting exploration activities - -over extensive areas for significant portions of the open water season. - -ALT 32 Alternatives 2 and 3 identify different assumed levels of annual oil and gas activity. Varying - -ranges of oil and gas activity are not alternatives to proposal for incidental take - -authorizations. NMFS should revise the alternatives to more accurately reflect the Purpose - -and Need of the EIS. - -ALT 33 The levels of activity identified in Alternatives 2 and 3 go far above and beyond anything that - -has been seen in the Arctic to date. The DEIS as written preemptively approves specific - -levels of industrial activity. This action is beyond NMFS‟ jurisdiction, and the alternatives -should be revised to reflect these concerns. - -ALT 34 There is nothing in OCSLA that bars BOEM from incentivizing the use of common surveyors - -or data sharing, as already occurs in the Gulf of Mexico, to reduce total survey effort. NMFS - -should include this as part of an alternative in the EIS. - -ALT 35 The analysis in the DEIS avoids proposing a beneficial conservation alternative and - -consistently dilutes the advantages of mitigation measures that could be used as part of such - -an alternative. NEPA requires that agencies explore alternatives that “will avoid or minimize -adverse effects of these actions upon the quality of the human environment.” Such an -alternative could require all standard and additional mitigation measures, while adding limits - -such as late-season drilling prohibitions to protect migrating bowhead whales and reduce the - -harm from an oil spill. NMFS should consider analyzing such an alternative in the Final EIS. - -Comment [CAN4]: This seems very similar to -ALT 21. In order to cut down on duplicative or very - -similar SOCs, it would be good to combine as much -as possible. Suggest including this with ALT 21. I - -realize that this means changing a bunch of the later - -tables, but I think it is important to reduce as much -redundancy as possible. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 16 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Cumulative Effects (CEF) - -CEF Comments related to cumulative impacts in general and for a specific resource - -CEF 1 NMFS should review cumulative effects section; many “minor” and “negligible” impacts can -combine to be more than “minor” or “negligible”. - -CEF 2 Adverse cumulative effects need to be considered in more depth for: - - Fisheries and prey species for marine mammals; - - Marine mammals and habitat; - - Wildlife in general; - - North Slope communities; - - Migratory pathways of marine mammals; - - Subsistence resources and traditional livelihoods. - -CEF 3 A narrow focus on oil and gas activities is therefore likely to underestimate the overall level - -of impact on the bowhead whale, whereas an Ecosystem Based Management (EBM) - -approach would better regulate the totality of potential impacts to wildlife habitat and - -ecosystem services in the Arctic. - -CEF 4 NMFS should include more in its cumulative effects analysis regarding the impacts caused - -by: - - Climate change; - - Oil Spills; - - Ocean noise; - - Planes; - - Transportation in general; - - Discharge; - - Assessments/research/monitoring; - - Dispersants; and - - Invasive species. - -CEF 5 The cumulative effects analysis overall in the DEIS is inadequate. Specific comments - -include: - - The DEIS fails to develop a coherent analytical framework by which impacts are -assessed and how decisions are made; - - The cumulative impact section does not provide details about what specific methodology -was used; - - The cumulative effects analysis does not adequately assess the impacts from noise, -air/water quality, subsistence, and marine mammals; - - The list of activities is incomplete; - - The assessment of impacts to employment/socioeconomics/income are not considered in -assessment of cumulative impacts for any alternative other than the no action alternative; - - The industry has not shown that their activities will have no cumulative, adverse and -unhealthy effects upon the animals, the air, the waters nor the peoples of the coastal - -communities in the Arctic; - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 17 - -Comment Analysis Report - - The analysis on seals and other pinnipeds is inadequate and is not clear on whether -potential listings waswere considered; and - - Recent major mortality events involving both walrus and ice seals must be considered -when determining impacts. A negligible impact determination cannot be made without - -more information about these disease events. - -CEF 6 The cumulative effects analyzed are overestimated. Specific comments include: - - There is no evidence from over 60 years of industry activities that injurious cumulative -sound levels occur; - - Given that the seismic vessel is moving in and out of a localized area and the fact that -animals are believed to avoid vessel traffic and seismic sounds, cumulative sound - -exposure is again likely being overestimated in the DEIS; - - Cumulative impacts from oil and gas activities are generally prescriptive, written to limit -exploration activities during the short open water season. - -CEF 7 There is a lack of studies on the adverse and cumulative effects on communities, ecosystems, - -air/water quality, subsistence resources, economy, and culture. NMFS should not authorize - -Incidental Harassment Authorizations without adequate scientific data. - -CEF 8 Adverse cumulative effects need to be considered in more depth for marine mammals and - -habitat, specifically regarding: - - Oil and gas activities in the Canadian Beaufort and the Russian Chukchi Sea; - - Entanglement with fishing gear; - - Increased vessel traffic; - - Discharge; - - Water/Air pollution; - - Sources of underwater noise; - - Climate change; - - Ocean acidification; - - Production structures and pipelines. - -CEF 9 The DEIS does not adequately analyze the cumulative and synergistic effects of exploration - -noise impacts to marine mammals. Specific comments include: - - The DEIS only addresses single impacts to individual animals. In reality a whale does -not experience a single noise in a stationary area as the DEIS concludes but is faced with - -a dynamic acoustic environment which all must be factored into estimating exposure not - -only to individuals but also to populations; - - A full characterization of risk to marine mammals from the impacts of noise will be a -function of the sources of noise in the marine and also the cumulative effects of multiple - -sources of noise and the interaction of other risk factors; - - The DEIS does not incorporate chronic stress into its cumulative impact analysis, such as -by using other species as proxies for lower life expectancies; - - The DEIS fails to consider the impacts of noise on foraging and energetics; - - Because the acoustic footprint of seismic operations is so large, it is quite conceivable -that bowhead whales could be exposed to seismic operations in the Canadian Beaufort, - -the Alaskan Beaufort, and the Chukchi Sea; and - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 18 - -Comment Analysis Report - - An Arctic sound budget should include any noise that could contribute to a potential take, -not simply seismic surveying, oil and gas drilling, and ice management activities. - -CEF 10 The DEIS does not adequately analyze the combined effects of multiple surveying and - -drilling operations taking place in the Arctic Ocean year after year. - -CEF 11 Over the last several years, the scientific community has identified a number of pathways by - -which anthropogenic noise can affect vital rates and populations of animals. These efforts - -include the 2005 National Research Council study, which produced a model for the - -Population Consequences of Acoustic Disturbance; an ongoing Office of Naval Research - -program whose first phase has advanced the NRC model; and the 2009 Okeanos workshop on - -cumulative impacts. The draft EIS employs none of these methods, and hardly refers to any - -biological pathway of impact. - -CEF 12 NMFS should include the following in the cumulative effects analysis: - - Current and future activities including deep water port construction by the military, the -opening of the Northwest Passage, and production at BP‟s Liberty prospect; - - Past activities including past activities in the Arctic for which NMFS has issued IHAs; -commercial shipping and potential deep water port construction; production of offshore - -oil and gas resources or production related activities; and commercial fishing; - - A baseline for analysis of current activities and past IHAs; - - Recent studies: a passive acoustic monitoring study conducted by Scripps, and NOAA‟s -working group on cumulative noise mapping; and - - Ecosystem mapping of the entire project. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 19 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Coordination and Compatibility (COR) - -COR Comments on compliance with other statues, laws or regulations and Executive Orders that - -should be considered; coordinating with federal, state, or local agencies, or organizations, or - -potential applicants; permitting requirements. - -COR 1 Continued government to government consultation needs to include: - - Increased focus on how NMFS and other Federal Agencies are required to protect natural -resources and minimize the impact of hydrocarbon development to adversely affect - -subsistence hunting. - - More consultations are needed with the tribes to incorporate their traditional knowledge -into the DEIS decision making process. - - Direct contact between NMFS and Kotzebue IRA, Iñupiat Community of the Arctic -Slope (ICAS) and Native Village of Barrow should be initiated by NMFS. - - Tribal organizations should be included in meeting with stakeholders and cooperating -agencies. - - Consultation should be initiated early and from NOAA/NMFS, not through their -contractor. Meetings should be in person. - -COR 2 Data and results that are gathered should be shared throughout the impacted communities. - -Often, adequate data isare not shared and therefore perceived inaccurate. Before and after an - -IHA is authorized, communities should receive feedback from industry, NMFS, and marine - -observers. - -COR 3 There needs to be a permanent system of enforcement and reporting for marine mammal - -impacts to ensure that oil companies are complying with the terms of the IHA and - -Tthreatened and Eendangered species authorizations. This system needs to be developed and - -implemented in collaboration with the North Slope Borough and the ICAS and should be - -based on the Conflict Avoidance AgreementsCAAs. - -COR 4 The United StatesU.S. and Canada needs to adopt an integrated and cooperative approach to - -impact assessment of hydrocarbon development in the Arctic. NMFS should coordinate with - -the Toktoyaktuk and the Canadian government because of the transboundry impacts of - -exploratory activities and the United States‟U.S.‟ non-binding co-management agreements -with indigenous peoples in Canada (Alaska Beluga Whale Committee and Nunavut Wildlife - -Management Board). - -COR 5 The State of Alaska should be consulted and asked to join the DEIS team as a Cooperating - -Agency because the DEIS addresses the potential environmental impacts of oil and gas - -exploration in State water and because operators on state lands must comply with the MMPA. - -COR 6 Local city councils within the affected area need to be informed of public involvement - -meetings, since they are the elected representatives for the community. - -COR 7 NMFS should be explicit in how the CAA process is integrated into the process of reviewing - -site specific industry proposals and should require offshore operators to enter into a CAA - -with AEWC for the following reasons: - -Comment [CAN5]: This word should be -removed since NEPA is discussed in some of the - -SOCs in this section (e.g., COR 5). The word does -not fit. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 20 - -Comment Analysis Report - - Affected communities depend on the CAA process to provide a voice in management of -offshore activities. - - Through the CAA process, whaling captains use their traditional knowledge to determine -whether and how oil and gas activities can be conducted consistent with our subsistence - -activities. - - Promotes a community-based, collaborative model for making decisions, which is much -more likely to result in consensus and reduce conflict. - - Promotes the objectives of OCSLA, which provides for the "expeditious and orderly -development [of the OCS], subject to environmental safeguards ...” - - Serves the objectives of the MMPA, which states that the primary objective of -management of marine mammals "should be to maintain the health and stability of the - -marine ecosystem." - -COR 8 NMFS should develop a mechanism to ensure that there is a coordinated effort by federal and - -state agencies, industry, affected communities, and non-governmental organizations and - -stakeholders to improve the integration of scientific data and develop a comprehensive, long- - -term monitoring program for the Arctic ecosystem. - -COR 9 Effort should be put towards enhancing interagency coordination for managing noise. - -Improved communication among federal agencies involved in noise impact assessment would - -enhance compliance with the US National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act - -(NTTAA). The NTTAA promotes the use of consensus-based standards rather than agency- - -specific standards whenever possible and/or appropriate. - -COR 10 It is recommended that NMFS coordinate with BOEM on the following activities: - - To conduct supplemental activity-specific environmental analyses under NEPA that -provides detailed information on proposed seismic surveys and drilling activities and the - -associated environmental effects. - - Ensure that the necessary information is available to estimate the number of takes as -accurately as possible given current methods and data. - - Make activity-specific analyses available for public review and comment rather than -issuing memoranda to the file or categorical exclusions that do not allow for public - -review/comment. - - Encourage BOEM to make those analyses available for public review and comment -before the Service makes its final determination regarding applications for incidental take - -authorizations. - -COR 11 It is recommended that BOEM should have more than a cooperating agency role since the - -proposed action includes BOEM issuance of G&G permits. - -COR 12 NMFS should integrate its planning and permitting decisions with coastal and marine spatial - -planning efforts for the Arctic region. - -COR 13 NMFS needs to coordinate with the oil and gas industry to identify the time period that the - -assessment will cover, determine how the information will be utilized, and request a range of - -activity levels that companies / operators might undertake in the next five years. - -COR 14 It is requested that the DEIS clarify how in the DEIS the appropriate mechanism for - -considering exclusion areas from leasing can be during the BOEM request for public - -comments on its Five Year OCS Leasing Plan when the recent BOEM Draft EIS five-year - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 21 - -Comment Analysis Report - -plan refused to consider additional deferral areas. In that document, BOEM eliminated - -additional details from further analysis by stating that it would consider the issue further as - -part of lease sale decisions. - -COR 15 It is recommend that NMFS work to harmonize the DEIS with the President‟s goals under -Executive Order 13580. - -COR 16 Consultation with USGS would help NMFS make a more informed prediction regarding the - -likelihood and extent of successful exploration and development in the project area and thus - -affect the maximum level of activity it analyzed. - -COR 17 NMFS must consider the comments that BOEM received on the five-year plan draft EIS, as - -well as the plan itself, before extensively relying on the analysis, specifically for its oil spill - -analysis. - -COR 18 NMFS should consult with the AEWC about how to integrate the timing of the adaptive - -management process with the decisions to be made by both NMFS and BOEM regarding - -annual activities. This would avoid the current situation where agencies often ask for input - -from local communities on appropriate mitigation measures before the offshore operators and - -AEWC have conducted annual negotiations. - -COR 19 NMFS should adopt an ecosystem based management approach consistent with the policy - -objectives of the MMPA and the policy objectives of the Executive Branch and President - -Obama's Administration. - -COR 20 The EIS should have better clarification that a Very Large Oil Spill (VLOS) are violations of - -the Clean Water Act and illegal under a MMPA permit. - -COR 21 The 2011 DEIS does not appear to define what new information became available requiring a - -change in the scope, set of alternatives, and analysis, as stated in the 2009 NOI to withdraw - -the DPEIS. Although Section 1.7 of the 2011 DEIS lists several NEPA documents (most - -resulting in a finding of no significant impact) prepared subsequent to the withdrawal of the - -DPEIS, NMFS has not clearly defined what new information would drive such a significant - -change to the proposed action and require the radical alternatives analysis presented in the - -2011 DEIS. - -COR 22 The 2011 DEIS is inconsistent with past NEPA reviews on Arctic exploration activities. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 22 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Data (DAT) - -DATA Comments referencing scientific studies that should be considered. - -DATA 1 NMFS should consider these additional references regarding effects to beluga whales: - -[Effects of noise] Christine Erbe and David M. Farmer, Zones of impact around icebreakers - -affecting beluga whales in the Beaufort Sea. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 108 (3), Pt. 1 p.1332 - -[avoidance] Findley, K.J., Miller, G.W., Davis, R.A., and Greene, C.R., Jr., Reactions of - -beluga whales, Delphinapterus leucas, and narwhals, Monodon monoceros, to ice-breaking - -ships in the Canadian high Arctic, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 224: 97-117 (1990); see also - -Cosens, S.E., and Dueck, L.P., Ice breaker noise in Lancaster Sound, NWT, Canada: - -implications for marine mammal behavior, Mar. Mamm. Sci. 9: 285-300 (1993). - -[beluga displacement]See, e.g., Fraker, M.A., The 1976 white whale monitoring program, - -MacKenzie estuary, report for Imperial Oil, Ltd., Calgary (1977); Fraker, M.A., The 1977 - -white whale monitoring program, MacKenzie estuary, report for Imperial Oil, Ltd., Calgary - -(1977); Fraker, M.A., The 1978 white whale monitoring program, MacKenzie estuary, report - -for Imperial Oil, Ltd., Calgary (1978); Stewart, B.S., Evans, W.E., and Awbrey, F.T., Effects - -of man-made water-borne noise on the behaviour of beluga whales, Delphinapterus leucas, in - -Bristol Bay, Alaska, Hubbs Sea World (1982) (report 82-145 to NOAA); Stewart, B.S., - -Awbrey, F.T., and Evans, W.E., Belukha whale (Delphinapterus leucas) responses to - -industrial noise in Nushagak Bay, Alaska: 1983 (1983); Edds, P.L., and MacFarlane, J.A.F., - -Occurrence and general behavior of balaenopterid cetaceans summering in the St. Lawrence - -estuary, Canada, Can. J. Zoo. 65: 1363-1376 (1987). - -[beluga displacement] Miller, G.W., Moulton, V.D., Davis, R.A., Holst, M., Millman, P., - -MacGillivray, A., and Hannay, D., Monitoring seismic effects on marine mammals - - -southeastern Beaufort Sea, 2001-2002, in Armsworthy, S.L., et al. (eds.),Offshore oil and gas - -environmental effects monitoring/Approaches and technologies, at 511-542 (2005). - -DATA 2 NMFS should consider these additional references regarding the general effects of noise, - -monitoring during seismic surveys and noise management as related to marine mammals: - -[effects of noise] Jochens, A., D. Biggs, K. Benoit-Bird, D. Engelhaupt, J. Gordon, C. Hu, N. - -Jaquet, M. Johnson, R. Leben, B. Mate, P. Miller, J. Ortega-Ortiz, A. Thode, P. Tyack, and B. - -Würsig. 2008. Sperm whale seismic study in the Gulf of Mexico: Synthesis report. U.S. - -Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New - -Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2008-006. 341 pp. SWSS final report was centered on the - -apparent lack of large-scale effects of airguns (distribution of sperm whales on scales of 5- - -100km were no different when airguns were active than when they were silent), but a key - -observation was that one D-tagged whale exposed to sound levels of 164dB re:1µPa ceased - -feeding and remained at the surface for the entire four hours that the survey vessel was - -nearby, then dove to feed as soon as the airguns were turned off. - -[effects of noise] Miller, G.W., R.E. Elliott, W.R. Koski, V.D. Moulton, and W.J. - -Richardson. 1999. Whales. p. 5-1 – 5- 109 In W.J. Richardson, (ed.), Marine mammal and -acoustical monitoring of Western Geophysical's openwater seismic program in the Alaskan - -Beaufort Sea, 1998. LGL Report TA2230-3. Prepared by LGL Ltd., King City, ONT, and - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 23 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Western Geophysical, Houston, TX, and - -NMFS, Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. 390 p. - -[effects of noise] Richardson, W.J., Greene Jr, C.R., Malme, C.I. and Thomson, D.H. 1995. - -Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego. 576pp. - -[effects of noise] Holst, M., M.A. Smultea, W.R. Koski, and B. Haley. 2005. Marine - -mammal and sea turtle monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory‟s marine -seismic program off the Northern Yucatan Peninsula in the Southern Gulf of Mexico, January - -February 2005. LGL Report TA2822-31. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research - -associates, King City, ONT, for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, - -Palisades, NY, and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. June. 96 p. - -[marine mammals and noise] Balcomb III, KC, Claridge DE. 2001. A mass stranding of - -cetaceans caused by naval sonar in the Bahamas. Bahamas J. Sci. 8(2):2-12. - -[noise from O&G activities] Richardson, W.J., Greene Jr, C.R., Malme, C.I. and Thomson, - -D.H. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego. 576pp. - -A study on ship noise and marine mammal stress was recently issued. Rolland, R.M., Parks, - -S.E., Hunt, K.E.,Castellote, M., Corkeron, P.J., Nowacek, D.P., Wasser, S.K., and Kraus, - -S.D., Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right whales, Proceedings of the Royal - -Society B: Biological Sciences doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.2429 (2012). - -Lucke, K., Siebert, U., Lepper, P.A., and Blanchet, M.-A., Temporary shift in masked hearing - -thresholds in a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) after exposure to seismic airgun stimuli, - -Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125: 4060-4070 (2009). - -Gedamke, J., Gales, N., and Frydman, S., Assessing risk of baleen whale hearing loss from - -seismic surveys: The effect of uncertainty and individual variation, Journal of the Acoustical - -Society of America 129:496-506 (2011). - -[re. relationship between TTS and PTS] Kastak, D., Mulsow, J., Ghoul, A., Reichmuth, C., - -Noise-induced permanent threshold shift in a harbor seal [abstract], Journal of the Acoustical - -Society of America 123: 2986 (2008) (sudden, non-linear induction of permanent threshold - -shift in harbor seal during TTS experiment); Kujawa, S.G., and Liberman, M.C., Adding - -insult to injury: Cochlear nerve degeneration after „temporary‟ noise-induced hearing loss, -Journal of Neuroscience 29: 14077-14085 (2009) (mechanism linking temporary to - -permanent threshold shift). - -[exclusion zones around foraging habitat] See Miller, G.W., Moulton, V.D., Davis, R.A., - -Holst, M., Millman, P., MacGillivray, A., and Hannay, D. Monitoring seismic effects on - -marine mammals in the southeastern Beaufort Sea, 2001-2002, in Armsworthy, S.L., et - -al.(eds.), Offshore oil and gas environmental effects monitoring/Approaches and - -technologies, at 511-542 (2005). - -[passive acoustic monitoring limitations] See also Gillespie, D., Gordon, J., Mchugh, R., - -Mclaren, D., Mellinger, D.K., Redmond, P., Thode, A., Trinder, P., and Deng, X.Y., - -PAMGUARD: semiautomated, open source software for real-time acoustic detection and - -localization of ceteaceans, Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics 30(5) (2008). - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 24 - -Comment Analysis Report - -BOEM, Site-specific environmental assessment of geological and geophysical survey - -application no. L11-007for TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Company, at 22 (2011) (imposing - -separation distance in Gulf of Mexico, noting that purpose is to “allow for a corridor for -marine mammal movement”). - -[harbor porpoise avoidance] Bain, D.E., and Williams, R., Long-range effects of airgun noise - -on marine mammals: responses as a function of received sound level and distance (2006) - -(IWC Sci. Comm. Doc. IWC/SC/58/E35); Kastelein, R.A., Verboom, W.C., Jennings, N., and - -de Haan, D., Behavioral avoidance threshold level of a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) - -for a continuous 50 kHz pure tone, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123: 1858- - -1861 (2008); Kastelein, R.A., Verboom, W.C., Muijsers, M., Jennings, N.V., and van der - -Heul, S., The influence of acoustic emissions for underwater data transmission on the - -behavior of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in a floating pen, Mar. Enviro. Res. 59: - -287-307 (2005); Olesiuk, P.F., Nichol, L.M., Sowden, M.J., and Ford, J.K.B., Effect of the - -sound generated by an acoustic harassment device on the relative abundance and distribution - -of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in Retreat Passage, British Columbia, Mar. Mamm. - -Sci. 18: 843-862 (2002). - -A special issue of the International Journal of Comparative Psychology (20:2-3) is devoted to - -the problem of noise-related stress response in marine mammals. For an overview published - -as part of that volume, see, e.g., A.J. Wright, N. Aguilar Soto, A.L. Baldwin, M. Bateson, - -C.M. Beale, C. Clark, T. Deak, E.F. Edwards, A. Fernandez, A.Godinho, L. Hatch, A. - -Kakuschke, D. Lusseau, D. Martineau, L.M. Romero, L. Weilgart, B. Wintle, G. Notarbartolo - -di Sciara, and V. Martin, Do marine mammals experience stress related to anthropogenic - -noise? (2007). - -[methods to address data gaps] Bejder, L., Samuels, A., Whitehead, H., Finn, H., and Allen, - -S., Impact assessment research: use and misuse of habituation, sensitization and tolerance in - -describing wildlife responses to anthropogenic stimuli, Marine Ecology Progress Series - -395:177-185 (2009). - -[strandings] Brownell, R.L., Jr., Nowacek, D.P., and Ralls, K., Hunting cetaceans with sound: - -a worldwide review, Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 10: 81-88 (2008); - -Hildebrand, J.A., Impacts of anthropogenic sound, in Reynolds, J.E. III, Perrin, W.F., Reeves, - -R.R., Montgomery, S., and Ragen, T.J., eds., Marine Mammal Research: Conservation - -beyond Crisis (2006). - -[effects of noise] Harris, R.E., T. Elliot, and R.A. Davis. 2007. Results of mitigation and - -monitoring program, Beaufort Span 2-D marine seismic program, open-water season 2006. - -LGL Rep. TA4319-1. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., for GX Technology Corp., - -Houston, TX. 48 p. - -Hutchinson and Ferrero (2011) noted that there were on-going studies that could help provide - -a basis for a sound budget. - -[refs regarding real-time passive acoustic monitoring to reduce ship strike] Abramson, L., - -Polefka, S., Hastings, S., and Bor, K., Reducing the Threat of Ship Strikes on Large - -Cetaceans in the Santa Barbara Channel Region and Channel Islands National Marine - -Sanctuary: Recommendations and Case Studies (2009) (Marine Sanctuaries Conservation - -Series ONMS-11-01); Silber, G.K., S. Bettridge, and D. Cottingham, Report of a workshop to - -identify and assess technologies to reduce ship strikes of large whales. Providence, Rhode - -Island, July 8-10, 2008 (2009) (NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-OPR-42). - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 25 - -Comment Analysis Report - -[time/place restrictions] See, e.g., Letter from Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Undersecretary of - -Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, to Nancy Sutley, Chair, Council on Environmental - -Quality at 2 (Jan. 19, 2010); Agardy, T., et al., A Global Scientific Workshop on Spatio- - -Temporal Management of Noise (October 2007). - -[seismic and ambient noise] Roth, E.H., Hildebrand, J.A., Wiggins, S.M., and Ross, D., - -Underwater ambient noise on the Chukchi Sea continental slope, Journal of the Acoustical - -Society of America 131:104-110 (2012). - -Expert Panel Review of Monitoring and Mitigation and Protocols in Applications for - -Incidental Take Authorizations Related to Oil and Gas Exploration, including Seismic - -Surveys in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Anchorage, Alaska 22-26 March 2010. - -[refs regarding monitoring and safety zone best practices] Weir, C.R., and Dolman, S.J., - -Comparative review of the regional marine mammal mitigation guidelines implemented - -during industrial seismic surveys, and guidance towards a worldwide standard, Journal of - -International Wildlife Law and Policy 10: 1-27 (2007); Parsons, E.C.M., Dolman, S.J., - -Jasny, M., Rose, N.A., Simmonds, M.P., and Wright, A.J., A critique of the UK‟s JNCC -seismic survey guidelines for minimising acoustic disturbance to marine mammals: Best - -practice? Marine Pollution Bulletin 58: 643-651 (2009). - -[marine mammals and noise - aircraft] Ljungblad, D.K., Moore, S.E. and Van Schoik, D.R. - -1983. Aerial surveys of endangered whales in the Beaufort, eastern Chukchi and northern - -Bering Seas, 1982. NOSC Technical Document 605 to the US Minerals Management - -Service, Anchorage, AK. NTIS AD-A134 772/3. 382pp - -[marine mammals and noise - aircraft] Southwest Research Associates. 1988. Results of the - -1986-1987 gray whale migration and landing craft, air cushion interaction study program. - -USN Contract No. PO N62474-86-M-0942. Final Report to Nav. Fac. Eng. Comm., San - -Bruno, CA. Southwest Research Associates, Cardiff by the Sea, CA. 31pp. - -DATA 3 NMFS should consider these additional references regarding fish and the general effects of - -noise on fish: - -[effects of noise] Arill Engays, Svein Lakkeborg, Egil Ona, and Aud Vold Soldal. Effects of - -seismic shooting on local abundance and catch rates of cod (Gadus morhua) and haddock - -(Melanogrammus aeglefinus) Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 2238 “2249 (1996). - -[animal adaptations to extreme environments- may not be relevant to EIS] Michael Tobler, - -Ingo Schlupp, Katja U. Heubel, Radiger Riesch, Francisco J. Garca de Leon, Olav Giere and - -Martin Plath. Life on the edge: hydrogen sulfide and the fish communities of a Mexican cave - -and surrounding waters 2006 Extremophiles Journal, Volume 10, Number 6, Pages 577-585 - -[response to noise] Knudsen, F.R., P.S. Enger, and O. Sand. 1994. Avoidance responses to - -low frequency sound in downstream migrating Atlantic salmon smolt, Salmo salar. Journal - -of Fish Biology 45:227-233. - -See also Fish Fauna in nearshore water of a barrier island in the western Beaufort Sea, - -Alaska. SW Johnson, JF Thedinga, AD Neff, and CA Hoffman. US Dept of Commerce, - -NOAA. Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-210. July 2010. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 26 - -Comment Analysis Report - -[airgun impacts and fish] McCauley, R.D., Fewtrell, J., Duncan, A.J., Jenner, C., Jenner, M.- - -N., Penrose, J.D., Prince, R.I.T., Adhitya, A., Murdoch, J., and McCabe, K., Marine seismic - -surveys: Analysis and propagation of air-gun signals; and effects of air-gun exposure on - -humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and squid (2000) (industry-sponsored study undertaken - -by researchers at the Curtin University of Technology, Australia). Lakkeborg, S., Ona, E., - -Vold, A., Pena, H., Salthaug, A., Totland, B., Ãvredal, J.T., Dalen, J. and Handegard, N.O., - -Effects of seismic surveys on fish distribution and catch rates of gillnets and longlines in - -Vesterlen in summer 2009 (2010) (Institute of Marine Research Report for Norwegian - -Petroleum Directorate). Slotte, A., Hansen, K., Dalen, J., and Ona, E., Acoustic mapping of - -pelagic fish distribution and abundance in relation to a seismic shooting area off the - -Norwegian west coast, Fisheries Research 67:143-150 (2004). Skalski, J.R., Pearson, W.H., - -and Malme, C.I., Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device on catch-perunit-effort - -in a hook-and-line fishery for rockfish (Sebastes ssp.), Canadian Journal of Fisheries and - -Aquatic Sciences 49: 1357-1365 (1992). McCauley et al., Marine seismic surveys: analysis - -and propagation of air-gun signals, and effects of air-gun exposure; McCauley, R., Fewtrell, - -J., and Popper, A.N., High intensity anthropogenic sound damages fish ears, Journal of the - -Acoustical Society of America 113: 638-642 (2003); see also Scholik, A.R., and Yan, H.Y., - -Effects of boat engine noise on the auditory sensitivity of the fathead minnow, Pimephales - -promelas, Environmental Biology of Fishes 63: 203-209 (2002). Purser, J., and Radford, - -A.N., Acoustic noise induces attention shifts and reduces foraging performance in - -threespined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus), PLoS One, 28 Feb. 2011, DOI: - -10.1371/journal.pone.0017478 (2011). Dalen, J., and Knutsen, G.M., Scaring effects on fish - -and harmful effects on eggs, larvae and fry by offshore seismic explorations, in Merklinger, - -H.M., Progress in Underwater Acoustics 93-102 (1987); Banner, A., and Hyatt, M., Effects of - -noise on eggs and larvae of two estuarine fishes, Transactions of the American Fisheries - -Society 1:134-36 (1973); L.P. Kostyuchenko, Effect of elastic waves generated in marine - -seismic prospecting on fish eggs on the Black Sea, Hydrobiology Journal 9:45-48 (1973). - -Recent work performed by Dr. Brenda Norcross (UAF) for MMS/BOEM. There are - -extensive data deficiencies for most marine and coastal fish population abundance and trends - -over time. I know because I conducted such an exercise for the MMS in the mid 2000s and - -the report is archived as part of lease sale administrative record. Contact Kate Wedermeyer - -(BOEM) or myself for a copy if it cannot be located in the administrative record. - -DATA 4 NMFS should consider these additional references on the effects of noise on lower trophic - -level organisms: - -[effects of noise] Michel Andra, Marta Sola, Marc Lenoir, Merca¨ Durfort, Carme Quero, - -Alex Mas, Antoni Lombarte, Mike van der Schaar1, Manel Lpez-Bejar, Maria Morell, Serge - -Zaugg, and Ludwig Hougnigan. Lowfrequency sounds induce acoustic trauma in - -cephalopods. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. Nov. 2011V9 Iss.9 - -[impacts of seismic surveys and other activities on invertebrates] See, e.g., McCauley, R.D., - -Fewtrell, J., Duncan, A.J., Jenner, C., Jenner, M.-N., Penrose, J.D., Prince, R.I.T., Adhitya, - -A., Murdoch, J., and McCabe, K., Marine seismic surveys: Analysis and propagation of air- - -gun signals; and effects of air-gun exposure on humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and - -squid (2000); Andra, M., Sola, M., Lenoir, M., Durfort, M., Quero, C., Mas, A., Lombarte, - -A., van der Schaar, M., Lapez-Bejar, M., Morell, M., Zaugg, S., and Hougnigan, L., Low- - -frequency sounds induce acoustic trauma in cephalopods, Frontiers in Ecology and the - -Environment doi:10.1890/100124 (2011); Guerra, A., and Gonzales, A.F., Severe injuries in - -the giant squid Architeuthis dux stranded after seismic explorations, in German Federal - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 27 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Environment Agency, International Workshop on the Impacts of Seismic Survey Activities - -on Whales and Other Marine Biota at 32-38 (2006) - -DATA 5 NMFS should consider these additional references on effects of noise on bowhead whales: - -[effects of noise] Richardson WJ, Miller GW, Greene Jr. CR 1999. Displacement of - -Migrating Bowhead Whales by Sounds from Seismic Surveys in Shallow Waters of the - -Beaufort Sea. J. of Acoust. Soc. of America. 106:2281. - -NMFS cites information from Richardson et al. (1995) which suggested that migrating - -bowhead whales may react at sound levels as low as 120 dB (RMS) re 1 uPa but fails to cite - -newer work by Christie et al. 2010 and Koski et al. 2009, cited elsewhere in the document, - -showing that migrating whales entered and moved through areas ensonified to 120-150 dB - -(RMS) deflecting only at levels of ~150 dB. Distances at which whales deflected were similar - -in both studies suggesting that factors other than just sound are important in determining - -avoidance of an area by migrating bowhead whales. This is a general problem with the EIS in - -that it consistently uses outdated information as part of the impact analysis, relying on - -previous analyses from other NMFS or MMS EIS documents conducted without the benefit - -of the new data. - -Additionally, we ask NMFS to respond to the results of a recent study of the impacts of noise - -on Atlantic Right whales, which found "a decrease in baseline concentrations of fGCs in right - -whales in association with decreased overall noise levels (6 dB) and significant reductions in - -noise at all frequencies between 50 and 150 Hz as a consequence of reduced large vessel - -traffic in the Bay of Fundy following the events of 9/11/01. This study of another baleen - -whale that is closely related to the bowhead whale supports traditional knowledge regarding - -the skittishness and sensitivity of bowhead whales to noise and documents that these - -reactions to noise are accompanied by a physiological stress response that could have broader - -implications for repeated exposures to noise as contemplated in the DEIS. 68 Rolland, R.M., - -et al. Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right whales. Proc. R. Soc. B (2012) - -(doi:lO.1098/rspb.2011.2429). Exhibit G. - -Bowhead Whale Aerial Survey Project (or BWASP) sightings show that whales are found - -feeding in many years on both sides of the Bay. See also Ferguson et al., A Tale of Two Seas: - -Lessons from Multi-decadal Aerial Surveys for Cetaceans in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas - -(2011 PowerPoint) (slide 15). A larger version of the map from the PowerPoint is attached as - -Exh. 2 Industry surveys have also confirmed whales feeding west of Camden Bay in both - -2007 and 2008.159 Shell, Revised Outer Continental Shelf Lease Exploration Plan, Camden - -Bay, Beaufort Sea, Alaska, Appendix F 3-79 (May 2011) (Beaufort EIA), available at - -http://boem.gov/Oil-and-Gas-Energy-Program/Plans/Regional-Plans/Alaska-Exploration- - -Plans/2012-Shell-Beaufort-EP/Index.aspx. - -[bowhead displacement] Miller, G.W., Elliot, R.E., Koski, W.R., Moulton, V.D., and - -Richardson W.J., Whales, in Richardson, W.J. (ed.),Marine Mammal and Acoustical - -Monitoring of Western Geophysical‟s Open-Water Seismic Program in the Alaskan Beaufort -Sea, 1998 (1999); Richardson, W.J., Miller, G.W., and Greene Jr., C.R., Displacement of - -migrating bowhead whales by sounds from seismic surveys in shallow waters of the Beaufort - -Sea, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106:2281 (1999). - -Clark, C.W., and Gagnon, G.C., Considering the temporal and spatial scales of noise - -exposures from seismic surveys on baleen whales (2006) (IWC Sci. Comm. Doc. - -IWC/SC/58/E9); Clark, C.W., pers. comm. with M. Jasny, NRDC (Apr. 2010); see also - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 28 - -Comment Analysis Report - -MacLeod, K., Simmonds, M.P., and Murray, E., Abundance of fin (Balaenoptera physalus) - -and sei whales (B. Borealis) amid oil exploration and development off northwest Scotland, - -Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 8: 247-254 (2006). - -DATA 6 NMFS should review and incorporate these additional recent BOEM documents into the - -Final EIS: - -BOEM recently issued a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Gulf of - -Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale: 2012; Central Planning Area Lease Sale 216/222; - -Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale: 2012; Central Planning Area Lease Sale 216/222 - -(SEIS). This final SEIS for the GOM correctly concluded that, despite more than 50 years of - -oil and gas seismic and other activities, “there are no data to suggest that activities from the -preexisting OCS Program are significantly impacting marine mammal populations.” - -DATA 7 The DEIS should be revised to discuss any and all NMFS or BOEM Information Quality Act - -(IQA) requirements/guidance that apply to oil and gas activities in the Arctic Ocean. The - -final EIS should discuss Information Quality ActIQA Rrequirements, and should state that - -these IQA requirements also apply to any third-party information that the agencies use or rely - -on to regulate oil and gas operations. The DEIS should be revised to discuss: - - NMFS Instruction on NMFS Data Documentation, which states at pages 11-12 that all -NMFS data disseminations must meet IQA guidelines. - - NMFS Directive on Data and Information Management, which states at page 3: (General -Policy and Requirements A. Data are among the most valuable public assets that NMFS - -controls, and are an essential enabler of the NMFS mission. The data will be visible, - -accessible, and understandable to authorized users to support mission objectives, in - -compliance with OMB guidelines for implementing the Information Quality Act. - - NMFS Instruction on Section 515 Pre-Dissemination Review and Documentation Form. - - NMFS Instruction on Guidelines for Agency Administrative Records, which states at -pages 2-3 that: The AR [Administrative Record] first must document the process the - -agency used in reaching its final decision in order to show that the agency followed - -required procedures. For NOAA actions, procedural requirements include The - -Information Quality Act. - -DATA 8 Information in the EIS should be updated and include information on PAMGUARD that has - -been developed by the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers Joint Industry - -Project. PAMGUARD is a software package that can interpret and display calls of vocalizing - -marine mammals, locate them by azimuth and range and identify some of them by species. - -These abilities are critical for detecting animals within safety zones and enabling shut-down. - -DATA 9 NMFS should utilize some of the new predictive modeling techniques that are becoming - -available to better describe and analyze the links between impacts experienced at the - -individual level to the population level. One example is the tool for sound and marine - -mammals; Acoustic Integration Models (AIMs) that estimate how many animals might be - -exposed to specific levels of sound. Furthermore, Ellison et al. (2011) suggest a three- - -pronged approach that uses marine mammal behaviors to examine sound exposure and help - -with planning of offshore activities. Additionally, scenario-modeling tools such as EcoPath - -and EcoSim might help with modeling potential outcomes from different anthropogenic - -activities. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 29 - -Comment Analysis Report - -DATA 10 NMFS should consider these additional references regarding impacts of, or responses to, oil - -spills: - -NMFS should update information in the EIS with work recently completed by this gap is - -documented in recent oil in ice field studies completed by SINTEF. Despite some advances in - -oil spill response technology, there is still a significant gap in the ability to either remove or - -burn oil in 30 to 70 percent ice cover. This gap is documented in recent oil in ice field studies - -completed by SINTEF and cited by NMFS. - -DATA 11 NMFS should consider review and incorporation of the following document related to energy - -development: - -Energy [r]evolution: A Sustainable Energy Outlook: 2010 USA Energy Scenario. - -http://www.energyblueprint.info/1239.0.html - -http://www.energyblueprint.info/fileadmin/media/documents/national/2010/0910_gpi_E_R__ - -usa_report_10_lr.pdf?PHPSESSID=a403f5196a8bfe3a8eaf375d5c936a69 (PDF document, - -9.7 MB). - -DATA 12 NMFS should review their previous testimony and comments that the agency has provided on - -oil and gas exploration or similarly-related activities to ensure that they are not conflicting - -with what is presented in the DEIS. - - [NMFS should review previous comments on data gaps they have provided] NMFS, -Comments on Minerals Management Service (MMS) Draft EIS for the Chukchi Sea - -Planning Area “Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 and Seismic Surveying Activities in the -Chukchi Sea at 2 (Jan. 30, 2007) (NMFS LS 193 Cmts); NMFS, Comments on MMS - -Draft EIS for the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas” Oil and Gas Lease -Sales 209, 212, 217, and 221 at 3-5 (March 27, 2009) (NMFS Multi-Sale Cmts). - - NMFS should review past comment submissions on data gaps, National Oceanic and -Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Comments on the U.S. Department of the - -Interior/MMS Draft Proposed Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing - -Program for 2010-2015 at 9 (Sept. 9, 2009). - - Past NEPA documents have concluded that oil and gas exploration in the Chukchi Sea -and Beaufort Sea OCS in conjunction with existing mitigation measures (which do not - -include any of the Additional Mitigation Measures) are sufficient to minimize potential - -impacts to insignificant levels. - -DATA 13 NMFS should review past comment submissions on data gaps regarding: - -The DPEIS appears not to address or acknowledge the findings of the U.S. Geological Survey - -(USGS) June 2011 report “Evaluation of the Science Needs to Inform Decisions on Outer -Continental Shelf Energy Development in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Alaska.” USGS -reinforced that information and data in the Arctic are emerging rapidly, but most studies - -focus on subjects with small spatial and temporal extent and are independently conducted - -with limited synthesis. USGS recommended that refined regional understanding of climate - -change is required to help clarify development scenarios. - -This report found that basic data for many marine mammal species in the Arctic are still - -needed, including information on current abundance, seasonal distribution, movements, - -population dynamics, foraging areas, sea-ice habitat relationships, and age-specific vital rates. - -The need for such fundamental information is apparent even for bowhead whales, one of the - -better studied species in the Arctic. The report confirms that more research is also necessary - -Comment [CAN6]: This makes no sense. Please -reword. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 30 - -Comment Analysis Report - -to accurately assess marine mammal reactions to different types of noise and that more work - -is needed to characterize the seasonal and spatial levels of ambient noise in both the Beaufort - -and Chukchi seas. Recognizing the scope and importance of the data gaps, the report states - -that missing information serves as a major constraint to a defensible science framework for - -critical Arctic decision making. - -Regarding data gaps on Arctic species see, e.g., Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science & - -Technology, Addressing the Effects of Human-Generated Sound on Marine Life: An - -Integrated Research Plan for U.S. Federal Agencies (Jan. 13, 2009), available at - -http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/oceans-mmnoise-IATF.pdf, - -(stating that the current status of science as to noise effects often results in estimates of - -potential adverse impacts that contain a high degree of uncertainty?); (noting the need for - -baseline information, particularly for Arctic marine species); - -National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling - -(National Commission), Deep Water: The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore - -Drilling, Report to the President (Jan. 2011), available at - -http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/sites/default/files/documents/DEEPWATER_Reporttothe - -President_FINAL.pdf (finding that “[s]cientific understanding of environmental conditions in -sensitive environments in areas proposed for more drilling, such as the Arctic, is - -inadequate”). - -National Commission, Offshore Drilling in the Arctic: Background and Issues for the Future - -Consideration of Oil and Gas Activities, Staff Working Paper No. 13 at 19, available at - -http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Offshore%20Drilling%20in - -%20the%20Arctic_Bac - -kground%20and%20Issues%20for%20the%20Future%20Consideration%20of%20Oil%20an - -d%20Gas%20Activitie s_0.pdf (listing acoustics research on impacts to marine mammals as a - -?high priority?) - -DATA 14 NMFS should include further information on the environmental impacts of EM - -[Electromagnetic] surveys. Refer to the recently completed environmental impact assessment - -of Electromagnetic (EM) Techniques used for oil and gas exploration and production, - -available at http://www.iagc.org/EM-EIA. The EIA concluded that EM sources as presently - -used have no potential for significant effects on animal groups such as fish, seabirds, sea - -turtles, and marine mammals. - -DATA 15 NMFS and BOEM risk assessors should consider the National Academy of Sciences report - -"Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society" for guidance. There are - -other ecological risk assessment experiences and approaches with NOAA, EPA, OMB and - -other agencies that would inform development of an improved assessment methodology. - -(National Research Council). Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic - -Society. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1996). - -DATA 16 The following references should be reviewed by NMFS regarding takes and sound level - -exposures for marine mammals: - -Richardson et al. (2011) provides a review of potential impacts on marine mammals that - -concludes injury (permanent hearing damage) from airguns is extremely unlikely and - -behavioral responses are both highly variable and short-term. - -Comment [CAN7]: Spell out - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 31 - -Comment Analysis Report - -The growing scientific consensus is that seismic sources pose little risk of Level A takes - -(Southall, 2010; Richardson et al. 2011)12. Southall and Richardson recommended a Level A - -threshold, 230 dB re: 1 µPa (peak) (flat) (or 198 dB re 1 µPa2-s, sound exposure level) - -The NRC‟s expert panel assessment (NRC 2005) and further review as discussed by -Richardson et al (2011) also support the Association‟s position. - -The level of sound exposure that will induce behavioral responses may not directly equate to - -biologically significant disturbance; therefore additional consideration must be directed at - -response and significance (NRC 2005; Richardson et al. 2011; Ellison et al. 2011). To further - -complicate a determination of an acoustic Level B take, the animal‟s surroundings and/or the -activity (feeding, migrating, etc.) being conducted at the time they receive the sound rather - -than solely intensity levels may be as important for behavioral responses (Richardson et al - -2011). - -DATA 17 Reports regarding estimated of reserves of oil and gas and impacts to socioeconomics that - -NMFS should consider including in the EIS include: - -NMFS should have consulted with the United States Geological Service (USGS), which - -recently issued a report on anticipated Arctic oil and gas resources (Bird et al. 2008) The - -USGS estimates that oil and gas reserves in the Arctic may be significant. This report was not - -referenced in the DEIS. - -Two studies by Northern Economics and the Institute for Social and Economic Research at - -the University of Alaska provide estimation of this magnitude (NE & ISER 2009; NE & - -ISER 2011). As a result, socioeconomic benefits are essentially not considered in assessment - -of cumulative impacts for any alternative other than the no-action alternative. This material - -deficiency in the DEIS must be corrected. - -Stephen R. Braund and Associates. 2009. Impacts and benefits of oil and gas development to - -Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Atqasuk Harvesters. Report to the North Slope Borough - -Department of Wildlife Management, PAGEO. Box 69, Barrow, AK.) - -DATA 18 NMFS should consider citing newer work by work by Christie et al. 2010 and Koski et al. - -2009 related to bowhead reactions to sound: - -NMFS cites information from Richardson et al. (1995) that suggested that migrating bowhead - -whales may react at sound levels as low as 120 dB (rms) re 1 uPa but fails to cite newer work - -by Christie et al. 2010 and Koski et al. 2009, cited elsewhere in the document, showing that - -migrating whales entered and moved through areas ensonified to 120-150 dB (rms) deflecting - -only at levels of ~150-160dB. - -For example, on Page 43 Section 4.5.1.4.2 the DEIS cites information from Richardson et al. - -(1995) that suggested that migrating bowhead whales may react to sound levels as low as 120 - -dB (rms) re 1 uPa, but fails to cite newer work by Christie et al. (2010) and Koski et al. - -(2009), cited elsewhere in the document, showing that migrating whales entered and moved - -through areas ensonified to 120-150 dB (rms). In these studies bowhead whales deflected - -only at levels of ~150 dB (rms). - -As described earlier in this document, the flawed analysis on Page 43 Section 4.5.1.4.2 of the - -DEIS cites information from Richardson et al. (1995), but fails to cite newer work (Christie et - -al. 2010, Koski et al. 2009) that increases our perspective on the role of sound and its - -influences on marine mammals, specifically bowhead whales. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 32 - -Comment Analysis Report - -The first full paragraph of Page 100 indicates that it is not known whether impulsive sounds - -affect reproductive rate or distribution and habitat use over periods of days or years. All - -evidence indicates that bowhead whale reproductive rates have remained strong despite - -seismic programs being conducted in these waters for several decades (Gerber et al. 2007). - -Whales return to these habitat areas each year and continue to use the areas in similar ways. - -There has been no documented shift in distribution or use (Blackwell et al. 2010). The data - -that have been collected suggests that the impacts are short term and on the scale of hours - -rather than days or years (MMS 2007, MMS 2008a). - -DATA 19 The DEIS consistently fails to use new information as part of the impact analysis instead - -relying on previous analyses from other NMFS or MMS EIS documents conducted without - -the benefit of the new data. This implies a pre-disposition toward acceptance of supposition - -formed from overly conservative views without the benefit of robust review and toward - -rejection of any data not consistent with these views. - -DATA 20 NMFS should consider the incorporation of marine mammal concentration area maps - -provided as comments to the DEIS (by Oceana) as strong evidence for robust time and area - -closures should NMFS decide to move forward with approval of industrial activities in the - -Arctic. While the maps in the DEIS share some of the same sources as the enclosed maps, the - -concentration areas presented in the above referenced maps reflect additional new - -information, corrections, and discussions with primary researchers. These maps are based in - -part on the Arctic Marine Synthesis developed previously, but include some new areas and - -significant changes to others. - -DATA 21 NMFS should consider and an updated literature search for the pack ice and ice gouges - -section of the EIS: - -Pages 3-6 to 3-7, Section 3.1.2.4 Pack Ice and Ice Gouges: An updated literature search - -should be completed for this section. In particular additional data regarding ice gouging - -published by MMS and Weeks et al., should be noted. The DEIS emphasizes ice gouging in - -20-30 meter water depth: "A study of ice gouging in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea showed that - -the maximum number of gouges occur in the 20 to 30m (66 to 99 ft) water-depth range - -(Machemehl and Jo 1989)." However, an OCS study commissioned by MMS (2006-059) - -noted that Leidersdorf, et al., (2001) examined ice gouges in shallower waters: 48 ice gouges - -exceeding the minimum measurement threshold of 0.1 m [that were] detected in the Northstar - -pipeline corridor. These were all in shallower waters (< 12 m) and the maximum incision - -depth was 0.4 m. "In all four years, however, measurable gouges were confined to water - -depths exceeding 5 m." These results are consistent with the earlier work, and these results - -are limited to shallow water. Thus, this study will rely on the earlier work by Weeks et al. - -which includes deeper gouges and deeper water depths. (Alternative Oil Spill Occurrence - -Estimators for the Beaufort/Chukchi Sea OCS (Statistical Approach) MMS Contract Number - -1435 - 01 - 00 - PO - 17141 September 5, 2006 TGE Consulting: Ted G. Eschenbach and - -William V. Harper). The DEIS should also reference the work by Weeks, including: Weeks, - -W.F., P.W. Barnes, D.M. Rearic, and E. Reimnitz, 1984, "Some Probabilistic Aspects of Ice - -Gouging on the Alaskan Shelf of the Beaufort Sea," The Alaskan Beaufort Sea: Ecosystems - -and Environments, Academic Press. Weeks, W.F., P.W. Barnes, D.M. Rearic, and E. - -Reimnitz, June 1983, "Some Probabilistic Aspects of Ice Gouging on the Alaskan Shelf of the - -Beaufort Sea," US Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 33 - -Comment Analysis Report - -DATA 22 NMFS should consider revisions to the EIS based on data provided below regarding ice seals: - -Page 4-387, Pinnipeds: Ringed seals and some bearded seals spend a fair amount of time - -foraging in the open ocean during maximum ice retreat (NSB unpublished data, - -http://www.north slope.org/departments/wildlife/Walrus%201ce%20Seals.php#RingedSeal, - -Crawford et al. 2011, ADF&G unpublished data). Bearded seals are not restricted to foraging - -only in shallow areas on a benthic diet. Consumption of pelagic prey items does occur - -(ADF&G unpublished data, Lentfer 1988). - -Pages 4-388 Pinnipeds, and 4-392, Ringed Seal: Ringed seals are known to persist in the - -offshore pack ice during all times of the year (Crawford et al. 2011, NSB unpublished data, - -Lenter 1988). It has actually been suggested that there are two ecotypes, those that make a - -living in the pack ice and shore fast ice animals. This should be stated in one of these - -sections. - -NOAA, 2011 Arctic Seal Disease Outbreak Fact Sheet (updated Nov. 22, 2011) (Arctic Seal - -Outbreak Fact Sheet), available at - -http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/seals/ice/diseased/ume022012.pdf. NMFS - -has officially declared an “unusual mortality event” for ringed seals. - -DATA 23 NMFS should consider incorporation of the following references regarding vessel impacts on - -marine mammals: - -Renilson, M., Reducing underwater noise pollution from large commercial vessels (2009) - -available at www.ifaw.org/oceannoise/reports; Southall, B.L., and Scholik-Schlomer, A. eds. - -Final Report of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) International - -Symposium: Potential Application of Vessel Quieting Technology on Large Commercial - -Vessels, 1-2 May 2007, at Silver Springs, Maryland (2008) available at - -http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/acoustics/vessel_symposium_report.pdf. - -[refs regarding vessel speed limits] Laist, D.W., Knowlton, A.R., Mead, J.G., Collet, A.S., - -and Podesta, M., Collisions between ships and whales, Marine Mammal Science 17:35-75 - -(2001); Pace, R.M., and Silber, G.K., Simple analyses of ship and large whale collisions: - -Does speed kill? Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, December 2005, - -San Diego, CA. (2005) (abstract); Vanderlaan, A.S.M., and Taggart, C.T., Vessel collisions - -with whales: The probability of lethal injury based on vessel speed. Marine Mammal Science - -23:144-156 (2007); Renilson, M., Reducing underwater noise pollution from large - -commercial vessels (2009) available at www.ifaw.org/oceannoise/reports; Southall, B.L., and - -Scholik-Schlomer, A. eds. Final Report of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric - -Administration (NOAA) International Symposium: Potential Application of Vessel-Quieting - -Technology on Large Commercial Vessels, 1-2 May 2007, at Silver Springs, Maryland - -(2008), available at - -http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/acoustics/vessel_symposium_report.pdf; Thompson, - -M.A., Cabe, B., Pace III, R.M., Levenson, J., and Wiley, D., Vessel compliance and - -commitment with speed regulations in the US Cape Cod Bay and off Race Point Right Whale - -Seasonal Management Areas. Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, - -November-December 2011, Tampa, FL (2011) (abstract); National Marine Fisheries Service, - -NOAA. 2010 Large Whale Ship Strikes Relative to Vessel Speed. Prepared within NOAA - -Fisheries to support the Ship Strike Reduction Program (2010), available at - -http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/shipstrike/ss_speed.pdf. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 34 - -Comment Analysis Report - -[aerial monitoring and/or fixed hydrophone arrays] Id.; Hatch, L., Clark, C., Merrick, R., Van - -Parijs, S., Ponirakis, D., Schwehr, K., Thompson, M., and Wiley, D., Characterizing the - -relative contributions of large vessels to total ocean noise fields: a case study using the Gerry - -E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, Environmental Management 42:735- - -752 (2008). - -DATA 24 NMFS should review the references below regarding alternative technologies: - -Among the [alternative] technologies discussed in the 2009 [Okeanos] workshop report are - -engineering modifications to airguns, which can cut emissions at frequencies not needed for - -exploration; controlled sources, such as marine vibroseis, which can dramatically lower the - -peak sound currently generated by airguns by spreading it over time; various non-acoustic - -sources, such as electromagnetic and passive seismic devices, which in certain contexts can - -eliminate the need for sound entirely; and fiber-optic receivers, which can reduce the need for - -intense sound at the source by improving acquisition at the receiver.121 An industry- - -sponsored report by Noise Control Engineering made similar findings about the availability - -of greener alternatives to seismic airguns, as well as alternatives to a variety of other noise - -sources used in oil and gas exploration. - -Spence, J., Fischer, R., Bahtiarian, M., Boroditsky, L., Jones, N., and Dempsey, R., Review - -of existing and future potential treatments for reducing underwater sound from oil and gas - -industry activities (2007) (NCE Report 07-001) (prepared by Noise Control Engineering for - -Joint Industry Programme on E&P Sound and Marine Life). Despite the promise indicated in - -the 2007 and 2010 reports, neither NMFS nor BOEM has attempted to develop noise- - -reduction technology for seismic or any other noise source, aside from BOEM‟s failed -investigation of mobile bubble curtains. - -[alternative technologies] Tenghamn, R., An electrical marine vibrator with a flextensional - -shell, Exploration Geophysics 37:286-291 (2006); LGL and Marine Acoustics, - -Environmental assessment of marine vibroseis (2011) (Joint Industry Programme contract 22 - -07-12). - -DATA 25 NMFS should review the references below regarding masking: - -Clark, C.W., Ellison, W.T., Southall, B.L., Hatch, L., van Parijs, S., Frankel, A., and - -Ponirakis, D., Acoustic masking in marine ecosystems as a function of anthropogenic sound - -sources (2009) (IWC Sci. Comm. Doc.SC/61/E10); Clark, C.W., Ellison, W.T., Southall, - -B.L., Hatch, L., Van Parijs, S.M., Frankel, A., and Ponirakis, D., Acoustic masking in marine - -ecosystems: intuitions, analysis, and implication, Marine Ecology Progress Series 395: 201- - -222 (2009); Williams, R., Ashe, E., Clark, C.W., Hammond, P.S., Lusseau, D., and Ponirakis, - -D., Inextricably linked: boats, noise, Chinook salmon and killer whale recovery in the - -northeast Pacific, presentation given at the Society for Marine Mammalogy Biennial - -Conference, Tampa, Florida, Nov. 29, 2011 (2011). - -DATA 26 NMFS should review the references below regarding acoustic thresholds: - -[criticism of threshold‟s basis in RMS]Madsen, P.T., Marine mammals and noise: Problems -with root-mean-squared sound pressure level for transients, Journal of the Acoustical Society - -of America 117:3952-57 (2005). - -Tyack, P.L., Zimmer, W.M.X., Moretti, D., Southall, B.L., Claridge, D.E., Durban, J.W., - -Clark, C.W., D‟Amico, A., DiMarzio, N., Jarvis, S., McCarthy, E., Morrissey, R., Ward, J., - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 35 - -Comment Analysis Report - -and Boyd, I.L., Beaked whales respond to simulated and actual Navy sonar, PLoS ONE - -6(3):e17009.doi:10.13371/journal.pone.0017009 (2011) (beaked whales); Miller, P.J., - -Kvadsheim, P., Lam., F.-P.A., Tyack, P.L., Kuningas, S., Wensveen, P.J., Antunes, R.N., - -Alves, A.C., Kleivane, L., Ainslie, M.A., and Thomas, L., Developing dose-response - -relationships for the onset of avoidance of sonar by free-ranging killer whales (Orcinus orca), - -presentation given at the Society for Marine Mammalogy Biennial Conference, Tampa, - -Florida, Dec. 2, 2011 (killer whales); Miller, P., Antunes, R., Alves, A.C., Wensveen, P., - -Kvadsheim, P., Kleivane, L., Nordlund, N., Lam, F.-P., van IJsselmuide, S., Visser, F., and - -Tyack, P., The 3S experiments: studying the behavioural effects of navy sonar on killer - -whales (Orcinus orca), sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus), and long-finned pilot whales - -(Globicephala melas) in Norwegian waters, Scottish Oceans Institute Tech. Rep. SOI-2011- - -001, available at soi.st-andrews.ac.uk (killer whales). See also, e.g., Fernandez, A., Edwards, - -J.F., Rodríguez, F., Espinosa de los Monteros, A., Herraez, P., Castro, P., Jaber, J.R., Martín, - -V., and Arbelo, M., Gas and Fat Embolic Syndrome Involving a Mass Stranding of Beaked - -Whales (Family Ziphiidae) Exposed to Anthropogenic Sonar Signals, Veterinary Pathology - -42:446 (2005); Jepson, P.D., Arbelo, M., Deaville, R., Patterson, I.A.P., Castro, P., Baker, - -J.R., Degollada, E., Ross, H.M., Herráez , P., Pocknell, A.M., Rodríguez, F., Howie, F.E., - -Espinosa, A., Reid, R.J., Jaber, J.R., Martín, V., Cunningham, A.A., and Fernández, A., - -Gas-Bubble Lesions in Stranded Cetaceans, 425 Nature 575-576 (2003); Evans, P.G.H., and - -Miller, L.A., eds., Proceedings of the Workshop on Active Sonar and Cetaceans (2004) - -(European Cetacean Society publication); Southall, B.L., Braun, R., Gulland, F.M.D., Heard, - -A.D., Baird, R.W., Wilkin, S.M., and Rowles, T.K., Hawaiian Melon-Headed Whale - -(Peponacephala electra) Mass Stranding Event of July 3-4, 2004 (2006) (NOAA Tech. - -Memo. NMFS-OPR-31). - -DATA 27 NMFS should review the references below regarding real-time passive acoustic monitoring to - -reduce ship strike: - -Abramson, L., Polefka, S., Hastings, S., and Bor, K., Reducing the Threat of Ship Strikes on - -Large Cetaceans in the Santa Barbara Channel Region and Channel Islands National Marine - -Sanctuary: Recommendations and Case Studies (2009) (Marine Sanctuaries Conservation - -Series ONMS-11-01); Silber, G.K., S. Bettridge, and D. Cottingham, Report of a workshop to - -identify and assess technologies to reduce ship strikes of large whales. Providence, Rhode - -Island, July 8-10, 2008 (2009) (NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-OPR-42). - -Lusseau, D., Bain, D.E., Williams, R., and Smith, J.C., Vessel traffic disrupts the foraging - -behavior of southern resident killer whales Orcinus orca, Endangered Species Research 6: - -211-221 (2009); Williams, R., Lusseau, D. and Hammond, P.S., Estimating relative energetic - -costs of human disturbance to killer whales (Orcinus orca), Biological Conservation 133: - -301-311 (2006); Miller, P.J.O., Johnson, M.P., Madsen, P.T., Biassoni, N., Quero, - -[energetics] M., and Tyack, P.L., Using at-sea experiments to study the effects of airguns on - -the foraging behavior of sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico, Deep-Sea Research I 56: 1168- - -1181 (2009). See also Mayo, C.S., Page, M., Osterberg, D., and Pershing, A., On the path to - -starvation: the effects of anthropogenic noise on right whale foraging success, North Atlantic - -Right Whale Consortium: Abstracts of the Annual Meeting (2008) (finding that decrements - -in North Atlantic right whale sensory range due to shipping noise have a larger impact on - -food intake than patch-density distribution and are likely to compromise fitness). - -[mid-frequency, ship strike] Nowacek, D.P., Johnson, M.P., and Tyack, P.L., North Atlantic - -right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) ignore ships but respond to alerting stimuli, Proceedings of - -the Royal Society of London, Part B: Biological Sciences 271:227 (2004). - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 36 - -Comment Analysis Report - -DATA 28 NMFS should review the references below regarding terrestrial mammals and stress response: - -Chang, E.F., and Merzenich, M.M., Environmental Noise Retards Auditory Cortical - -Development, 300 Science 498 (2003) (rats); Willich, S.N., Wegscheider, K., Stallmann, M., - -and Keil, T., Noise Burden and the Risk of Myocardial Infarction, European Heart Journal - -(2005) (Nov. 24, 2005) (humans); Harrington, F.H., and Veitch, A.M., Calving Success of - -Woodland Caribou Exposed to Low-Level Jet Fighter Overflights, Arctic 45:213 (1992) - -(caribou). - -DATA 29 NMFS should review the references below regarding the inappropriate reliance on adaptive - -management inappropriate: - -Taylor, B.L., Martinez, M., Gerrodette, T., Barlow, J., and Hrovat, Y.N., Lessons from - -monitoring trends in abundance of marine mammals, Marine Mammal Science 23:157-175 - -(2007). - -DATA 30 NMFS should review the references below regarding climate change and polar bears: - -Durner, G. M., et al., Predicting 21st-century polar bear habitat distribution from global - -climate models. Ecological Monographs, 79(1):25-58 (2009). - -R. F. Rockwell, L. J. Gormezano, The early bear gets the goose: climate change, polar bears - -and lesser snow geese in western Hudson Bay, Polar Biology, 32:539-547 (2009). - -DATA 31 NMFS should review the references below regarding climate change and the impacts of black - -carbon: - -Anne E. Gore & Pamela A. Miller, Broken Promises: The Reality of Oil Development in - -America‟s Arctic at 41 (Sep. 2009) (Broken Promises). - -EPA, Report to Congress on Black Carbon External Peer Review Draft at 12-1 (March 2011) - -(Black Carbon Report), available at - -http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/05011472499C2FB28525774A0074DADE/$Fil - -e/BC%20RTC%20Ext ernal%20Peer%20Review%20Draft-opt.pdf. See D. Hirdman et al., - -Source Identification of Short-Lived Air Pollutants in the Arctic Using Statistical Analysis of - -Measurement Data and Particle Dispersion Model Output, 10 Atmos. Chem. Phys. 669 - -(2010). - -DATA 32 NMFS should review the references below regarding air pollution: - -Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10, Supplemental Statement of Basis for - -Proposed OCS Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits Noble Discoverer Drillship, - -Shell Offshore Inc., Beaufort Sea Exploration Drilling Program, Permit No. R10OCS/PSD- - -AK-2010-01, Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc., Chukchi Sea Exploration Drilling Program, Permit - -No. R10OCS/PSD-AK-09-01 at 65 (July 6, 2011) (Discoverer Suppl. Statement of Basis - -2011), available at - -http://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/permits/shell/discoverer_supplemental_statement_of_ - -basis_chukchi_and_beaufort_air_permits_070111.pdf. 393 EPA Region 10, Technical - -Support Document, Review of Shell‟s Supplemental Ambient Air Quality Impact Analysis -for the Discoverer OCS Permit Applications in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas at 8 (Jun. 24, - -2011)(Discoverer Technical Support Document), available at - -http://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/permits/shell/discoverer_ambient_air_quality_impact_anal - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 37 - -Comment Analysis Report - -ysis_06242011.pdf. 394 EPA, An Introduction to Indoor Air Quality: Nitrogen Dioxide, - -available at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/no2.html#Health Effects Associated with Nitrogen - -Dioxide 396 EPA, Particulate Matter: Health, available at - -http://www.epa.gov/oar/particlepollution/health.html - -DATA 33 NMFS should review the references below regarding introduction of non-native species: - -S. Gollasch, The importance of ship hull fouling as a vector of species introductions into the - -North Sea, Biofouling 18(2):105-121 (2002); National Research Council, Stemming the Tide: - -Controlling Introductions of Nonindigenous Species by Ships Ballast Water (1996) - -(recognizing that the spread of invasive species through ballast water is a serious problem). - -DATA 34 In the Final EIS, NMFS should consider new information regarding the EPA Region 10's - -Beaufort (AKG-28-2100) and Chukchi (AKG-28-8100) General Permits. Although not final, - -EPA is in the process of soliciting public comment on the fact sheets and draft permits and - -this information may be useful depending on the timing of the issuance of the final EIS. Links - -to the fact sheets, draft permits, and other related documents can be found at: - -http://yosemite.epa.gov/r I 0/water.nsl/nodes+public+notices/arctic-gp-pn-2012. - -DATA 35 NMFS should review the references below regarding characterization of subsistence - -areas/activities for Kotzebue: - -Whiting, A., D. Griffith, S. Jewett, L. Clough, W. Ambrose, and J. Johnson. 2011. - -Combining Inupiaq and Scientific Knowledge: Ecology in Northern Kotzebue Sound, - -Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks, SG-ED-72, Fairbanks. 71 pp, for a - -more accurate representation, especially for Kotzebue Sound uses. - -Crawford, J. A., K. J. Frost, L. T. Quakenbush, and A. Whiting. 201.2. Different habitat use - -strategies by subadult and adult ringed seals (Phoca hispida) in the Bering and Chukchi seas. - -Polar Biology 35(2):241-255. - -DATA 36 NMFS should review the references below regarding Ecosystem-Based Management: - -Environmental Law Institute. Integrated Ecosystem-Based Management of the U.S. Arctic - -Marine Environment- Assessing the Feasibility of Program and Development and - -Implementation (2008) - -Siron, Robert et al. Ecosystem-Based Management in the Arctic Ocean: A Multi-Level - -Spatial Approach, Arctic Vol. 61, Suppl 1 (2008) (pp 86-102)2 - -Norwegian Polar Institute. Best Practices in Ecosystem-based Oceans Management in the - -Arctic, Report Series No. 129 (2009) - -The Aspen Institute Energy and Environment Program. The Shared Future: A Report of the - -Aspen Institute Commission on Arctic Climate Change (2011) - -DATA 37 NMFS should consider the following information regarding the use of a multi-pulse standard - -for behavioral harassment, since it does not take into account the spreading of seismic pulses - -over time beyond a certain distance from the array. NMFS‟„s own Open Water Panel for the -Arctic has twice characterized the seismic airgun array as a mixed impulsive/continuous - -noise source and has stated that NMFS should evaluate its impacts on that basis. That - -analysis is supported by the masking effects model referenced above, in which several NMFS - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 38 - -Comment Analysis Report - -scientists have participated; by a Scripps study, showing that seismic exploration in the Arctic - -has raised ambient noise levels on the Chukchi Sea continental slope); and, we expect, by the - -modeling efforts of NOAA‟„s Sound Mapping working group, whose work will be completed -this April or May. - -DATA 38 NMFS is asked to review the use of the reference Richardson 1995, on page 4-86, as support - -for its statements. NMFS should revise the document to account for Southall et al's 2007 - -paper on Effects of Noise on Marine Mammals. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 39 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Discharge (DCH) - -DCH Comments regarding discharge levels, including requests for zero discharge requirements, - -and deep waste injection wells; does not include contamination of subsistence resources. - -DCH 1 Without the benefit of EPA evaluation, the persistence of pollutants, bioaccumulation, and - -vulnerability of biological communities cannot be addressed. - -DCH 2 There is insufficient knowledge and no scientific evidence that zero discharge would have - -any impacts on animals or humans. - -DCH 3 The term zero discharge should not be used due to discharges guaranteed under any - -exploration scenario. This can be confusing to the public. - -DCH 4 Zero discharge should be a requirement and implemented for all drilling proposals. - -DCH 5 Concerns for the people in regards to discharges from drilling muds, the development - -process, the industrial activities, and water discharges from these activities. Comment [CAN8]: This statement doesn‟t make -sense. Please reword. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 40 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Editorial (EDI) - -EDI Comments to be dealt with directly by NMFS. - -EDI 1 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into the Executive Summary - -EDI 2 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 1 - -EDI 3 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 2 - -EDI 4 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 3 – Physical -Environment - -EDI 5 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 3 – Biological -Environment - -EDI 6 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 3 – Social Environment - -EDI 7 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Methodology - -EDI 8 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Physical -Environment - -EDI 9 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Biological -Environment - -EDI 10 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Social Environment - -EDI 11 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Oil Spill Analysis - -EDI 12 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Cumulative Effects -Analysis - -EDI 13 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 5 – Mitigation - -EDI 14 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into these figures of the EIS - -EDI 15 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into these tables of the EIS - -EDI 16 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Appendix A - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 41 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Physical Environment – General (GPE) - -GPE Comments related to impacts on resources within the physical environment (Physical - -Oceanography, Climate, Acoustics, Environmental Contaminants & Ecosystem Functions) - -GPE 1 Offshore oil and gas exploration in the Arctic produces some of the loudest noises humans - -put in the water and interfere with marine mammals' migration routes, feeding opportunities, - -resting areas, and other adverse impacts to marine life. - -GPE 2 NMFS should assess the cumulative and synergistic impacts of the multiple noise sources - -required for a drilling and exploratory operation in the Arctic. While each individual vessel or - -platform can be considered a single, periodic or transient source of noise, all components are - -required to successfully complete the operation. As a result, the entire operation around a - -drilling ship or drilling platform will need to be quieter than 120 dB in order to be below - -NMFS disturbance criteria for continuous noise exposure. - -GPE 3 The EIS should include an analysis of impacts associated with climate change and ocean - -acidification including: - - Addressing threats to species and associated impacts for the bowhead whale, pacific -walrus, and other Arctic species. - - Effects of loss of sea ice cover, seasonally ice-free conditions on the availability of -subsistence resources to Arctic communities. - - Increased community stress, including loss of subsistence resources and impacts to ice -cellars. - -GPE 4 Oil and gas activities can release numerous pollutants into the atmosphere. Greater emissions - -of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide could triple ozone levels in the Arctic, and increased - -black carbon emissions would result in reduced ice reflectivity that could exacerbate the - -decline of sea ice. The emission of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5), including black carbon, is - -a human health threat. Cumulative impacts will need to be assessed. - -GPE 5 The EIS should include a more detailed analysis of the impact of invasive species, - -particularly in how the current "moderate" impact rating was determined. - -GPE 6 A more detailed analysis should be conducted to assess how interactions between high ice - -and low ice years and oil and gas activities, would impact various resources (sea ice, lower - -trophic levels, fish/EFH, marine mammals). - -GPE 7 Recommendations should be made to industry engineering and risk analysts to ensure that - -well design is deep enough to withstand storms and harsh environment based on past - -experience of workers in the late 1980's. - -GPE 8 Bowhead whales and seals are not the only subsistence resource that Native Alaskan - -communities rely upon. Fishing is also an important resource and different species are hunted - -throughout the year. Subsistence users have expressed concern that activities to support - -offshore exploration will change migratory patterns of fish and krill that occur along the - -coastlines. - -Comment [CAN9]: This seems like it would be -more appropriate in the Cumulative Effects (CEF) - -Issue Category. - -Comment [CAN10]: This seems like it would be -more appropriate in the Marine Mammal and Other -Wildlife Impacts (MMI) Issue Category. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 42 - -Comment Analysis Report - -GPE 9 NMFS needs to revise the Environmental Consequences analysis presented in the DEIS since - -it overstates the potential for impacts from sounds introduced into the water by oil and gas - -exploration activity on marine mammals. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 43 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Social Environment – General (GSE) - -GSE Comments related to impacts on resources within the social environment (Public Health, - -Cultural, Land Ownership/Use/Mgt., Transportation, Recreation & Tourism, Visual - -Resources, and Environmental Justice) - -GSE 1 The potential short and long-term benefits from oil and gas development have been - -understated in the DEIS and do not take into account the indirect jobs and business generated - -by increased oil and gas activity. By removing restrictions on seismic surveys and oil and gas - -drilling, there will be an increase in short- and long- term employment and economic - -stability. - -GSE 2 Ensure that current human health assessment and environmental justice analysis from - -offshore activities in the Arctic are adequately disclosed for public review and comment - -before a decision is made among the project alternatives. - -GSE 3 The current environmental justice analysis is inadequate, and the NMFS has downplayed the - -overall threat to the Iñupiat people. The agency does not adequately address the following: - - The combined impacts of air pollution, water pollution, sociocultural impacts -(disturbance of subsistence practices), and economic impacts on Iñupiat people; - - The baseline health conditions of local communities and how it may be impacted by the -proposed oil and gas activities; - - Potential exposure to toxic chemicals and diminished air quality; - - The unequal burden and risks imposed on Iñupiat communities; and - - The analysis fails to include all Iñupiat communities. - -GSE 4 Current and up to date health information should be evaluated and presented in the human - -health assessments. Affected communities have a predisposition and high susceptibility to - -health problems that need to be evaluated and considered when NMFS develops alternatives - -and mitigation measures to address impacts. - -GSE 5 When developing alternatives and mitigation measures, NMFS needs to consider the length - -of the work season since a shorter period will increase the risks to workers. - -GSE 6 The DEIS does not address how the proceeds from offshore oil and gas drilling will be shared - -with affected communities through revenue sharing, royalties, and taxes. - -GSE 7 The DEIS should broaden the evaluation of impacts of land and water resources beyond - -subsistence. There are many diverse water and land uses that will be restricted or prevented - -because of specific requirements in the proposed Alternatives. - -GSE 8 The conclusion of negligible or minor cumulative impacts on transportation for Alternative 4 - -was not substantiated in the DEIS. The impacts to access, restrictions on vessel traffic, - -seismic survey, exploration drilling and ancillary services transportation are severely - -restricted both in time and in areal/geographic extent (page 4-551, paragraph 1). - -GSE 9 The Draft EIS should not assume that any delay in exploration activity compromises property - -rights or immediately triggers compensation from the government. Offshore leases do not - -convey a fee simple interest with a guarantee that exploration activities will take place. As the - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 44 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Supreme Court recognized, OCSLA‟„s plain language indicates that the purchase of a lease -entails no right to proceed with full exploration, development, or production. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 45 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Habitat (HAB) - -HAB Comments associated with habitat requirements, or potential habitat impacts from seismic - -activities and exploratory drilling. Comment focus is habitat, not animals. - -HAB 1 Alaska's Arctic wildlife and their habitat are currently being threatened by the many negative - -effects of oil and gas exploration. - -HAB 2 NMFS should consider an ecosystem-based management plan (EBM) to protect habitat for - -the bowhead whale and other important wildlife subsistence species of the Arctic. - -HAB 3 The DEIS does not adequately consider the increased risk of introducing aquatic invasive - -species to the Beaufort and Chukchi seas through increased oil and gas activities. - - Invasive species could be released in ballast water, carried on ship's hulls, or on drill rigs. - - Invasive species could compete with or prey on Arctic marine fish or shellfish species, -which may disrupt the ecosystem and predators that depend on indigenous species for - -food. - - Invasive species could impact the biological structure of bottom habitat or change habitat -diversity. - - Invasive species, such as rats, could prey upon seabirds or their eggs. - - Establishment of a harmful invasive species could threaten Alaska‟s economic well- -being. - -HAB 4 Occasional feeding by bowhead whales in Camden Bay is insufficient justification for - -designating Camden Bay as a Special Habitat Area. Special Habitat would then have to - -include the entire length of the Alaska Beaufort Sea coast along which bowhead whales - -occasionally feed. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 46 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Iñupiat Culture and Way of Life (ICL) - -ICL Comments related to potential cultural impacts or desire to maintain traditional practices - -(PEOPLE). - -ICL 1 Industrial activities (such as oil and gas exploration and production) jeopardize the long-term - -health and culture of native communities. Specific concerns include: - - Impacts to Arctic ecosystems and the associated subsistence resources from pollutants, -noise, and vessel traffic; - - Community and family level cultural impacts related to the subsistence way of life; - - Preserving resources for future generations. - -ICL 2 Native communities would be heavily impacted if a spill occurs, depriving them of - -subsistence resources. NMFS should consider the impact of an oil spill when deciding upon - -an alternative. - -ICL 3 Native communities are at risk for changes from multiple threats, including climate change, - -increased industrialization, access to the North Slope, melting ice, and stressed wildlife. - -These threats are affecting Iñupiat traditional and cultural uses, and NMFS should stop - -authorizing offshore oil and gas- related activities until these threats to our culture are - -addressed. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 47 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Mitigation Measures (MIT) - -MIT Comments related to suggestions for or implementation of mitigation measures. - -MIT 1 Mitigation measures should be mandatory for all activities, rather than on a case-by-case - -basis. Currently identified areas with high wildlife and subsistence values should also receive - -permanent deferrals, including Camden Bay, Barrow Canyon/Western Beaufort Sea, Hanna - -Shoal, shelf break at the Beaufort Sea, and Kasegaluk Lagoon/Ledyard Bay Critical Habitat - -Unit. - -MIT 2 Bristol Bay, the Chukchi, and the Beaufort seas are special nursery areas for Alaska salmon - -and should have the strongest possible protections. - -MIT 3 The proposed mitigation measures will severely compromise the economic feasibility of - -developing oil and gas in the Alaska OCS: - - Limiting activity to only two exploration drilling programs in each the Chukchi and -Beaufort seas during a single season would lock out other lease holders and prevent them - -from pursuing development of their leases. - - Arbitrary end dates for prospective operations effectively restrict exploration in Camden -Bay by removinges 54 percent of the drilling season. - - Acoustic restrictions extend exclusion zones and curtail lease block access (e.g., studies -by JASCO Applied Sciences Ltd in 2010 showed a 120 dB safety zone with Hanna Shoal - -as the center would prevent Statoil from exercising its lease rights because the buffer - -zone would encompass virtually all of the leases. A 180 dB buffer zone could still have a - -significant negative impact on lease rights depending on how the buffer zone was - -calculated). - - Special Habitat Areas arbitrarily restrict lease block access. - - Arbitrary seasonal closures would effectively reduce the brief open water season by up to -50 percent in some areas of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. - - The realistic drilling window for offshore operations in the Arctic is typically 70 - 150 -days. Any infringement on this could result in insufficient time to complete drilling - -operations. - - Timing restrictions associated with Additional Mitigation Measures (e.g., D1, B1) would -significantly reduce the operational season. - -MIT 4 Many mitigation measures are unclear or left open to agency interpretation, expanding - -uncertainties for future exploration or development. - -MIT 5 The DEIS includes mitigation measures which would mandate portions of Conflict - -Avoidance AgreementsCAAs with broad impacts to operations. Such a requirement - -supersedes the authority of NMFS. - -MIT 6 Limiting access to our natural resources is NOT an appropriate measure and should not be - -considered. - -MIT 7 A specially equipped, oceangoing platform(s) is needed to carry out the prevention, - -diagnosis, and treatment of disease in marine animals, including advanced action to promote - -population recovery of threatened and endangered species, to restore marine ecosystems - -health, and to enhance marine animal welfare. Activities thereby to be made possible or - -Comment [CAN11]: You have identified 142 -SOCs for this Issue Category. However, many of - -them are redundant. I recommend combining many -of these. Just because they are from different letters - -or groups does not mean that you cannot put them -into one SOC. This will help cut down on - -redundancies when we start responding to comments - -and updating the document. I have tried to point out -some that I think can be combined, but I was not - -able to do a full sweep of the section to work on - -those suggestions. It is easier to combine comments -from different letters if you don‟t quote the concern -verbatim but rather paraphrase or summarize the - -concern. This allows for similar concerns (even if -they are not verbatim the same) to be combined and - -cut down on redundancies. Especially combine - -SOCs where the same mitigation measure has been -called out. For example, if 3 different letters all - -think that Additional Measure A4 should be deleted - -but for slightly different reasons, you can put that the -SOC is to delete that measure for reasons x, y, and z, - -thereby creating one SOC instead of three. - -Comment [CAN12]: Recommend moving to the -Habitat (HAB) Issue Category. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 48 - -Comment Analysis Report - -facilitated include, but are not limited to: Response to marine environmental disasters and - -incidents; in particular oil spills by rescue and decontamination of oil-fouled birds, pinnipeds, - -otters, and other sea life. Rescue, treatment and freeing of sea turtles, pinnipeds, cetaceans, - -and otters that become entangled in sport fishing lines, commercial fishing gear, and/or - -marine debris. General pathobiological research on marine animals to advance basic - -knowledge of their diseases and to identify promising avenues for treatment. Specialized - -pathobiological research on those marine animals known to provide useful sentinels for - -toxicological and other hazards to human health. Evaluation of the safety of treatment - -modalities for marine animals, including in particular large balaenopterids. This will have as - -its ultimate aim countering problems of climate change and ecosystems deterioration by - -therapeutic enhancement of the ecosystems services contributed by now depleted populations - -of Earth‟s largest and most powerful mammals. Pending demonstration of safety, offshore -deployment of fast boats and expert personnel for the treatment of a known endemic parasitic - -disease threatening the health and population recovery of certain large balaenopterids. Rapid - -transfer by helicopter of technical experts in disentanglement of large whales to offshore sites - -not immediately accessible from land-based facilities. Rapid transfer by helicopter of - -diseased and injured marine animals to land-based veterinary hospitals. Coordination with - -U.S. Coast Guard‟s OCEAN STEWARD mission to reduce the burden on government in this -area and to implement more fully the policy of the United States promulgated by Executive - -Order 13547. - -MIT 8 Considering current and ongoing oil and gas exploration disasters, the public needs to be - -assured of the safety and effectiveness of Arctic environmental safety and mitigation - -strategies. - -MIT 9 Mitigation distances and thresholds for seismic surveys are inadequate as they fall far short of - -where significant marine mammal disturbances are known to occur. - -MIT 10 There is no need for additional mitigation measures: - - The DEIS seeks to impose mitigation measures on activities that are already proven to be -adequately mitigated and shown to pose little to no risk to either individual animals or - -populations. - - Many of these mitigation measures are of questionable effectiveness and/or benefit, some -are simply not feasible, virtually all fall outside the bounds of any reasonable cost-benefit - -consideration, most are inadequately evaluated. - - The key impact findings in the DEIS are arbitrary and unsupportable. - - These additional mitigation measures far exceed the scope of NMFS's authority. - -MIT 11 Active Acoustic Monitoring should be further studied, but it is not yet ready to be imposed as - -a mitigation measure. - -MIT 12 Because NMFS is already requiring Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) as a monitoring or - -mitigation requirement during the Service‟s NMFS‟ regulation of offshore seismic and sonar, -and in conjunction with Navy sonar, we recommend that the Service NMFS emphasize the - -availability and encourage the use of PAMGUARD in all NMFS‟s actions requiring or -recommending the use of PAM. PAMGUARD is an open source, highly tested, and well - -documented version of PAM that is an acceptable method of meeting any PAM requirements - -or recommendations. - -Comment [CAN13]: This is really difficult to -read. Suggest making a bulleted list of the different -points. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 49 - -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 13 If Kotzebue is included in the EIS area because it is an eligible area for exploration activities, - -then the DEIS needs to include recommendations for mitigating impacts through exclusion - -areas, or timing issues, including: - - remove the Hope Basin from the EIS area; and - - develop and include additional area/time closures/restrictions for nearshore Kotzebue -Sound and for Point Hope and Kivalina in the Final EIS. - -MIT 14 There should be no on ice discharge of drilling muds due to concentrated - nature of waste - -and some likely probability of directly contacting marine mammals, or other wildlife like - -arctic foxes and birds. Even if the muds are considered non-toxic, the potential for fouling fur - -and feathers and impeding thermal regulation properties seems a reasonable concern. - -MIT 15 There should be com centers in the villages during bowhead and beluga hunting if villagers - -find this useful and desirable. - -MIT 16 The benefits of concurrent ensonification areas need to be given more consideration in - -regards to 15 miles vs. 90 mile separation distances. It is not entirely clear what the - -cost/benefit result is on this issue, including: - - Multiple simultaneous surveys in several areas across the migratory corridor could result -in a broader regional biological and subsistence impact -deflection could occur across a - -large area of feeding habitat. - - Potential benefit would depend on the trajectory of migrating animals in relation to the -activity and total area ensonified. - - Consideration needs to be given to whether mitigation is more effective if operations are -grouped together or spread across a large area. - -MIT 17 Use mitigation measures that are practicable and produce real world improvement on the - -level and amount of negative impacts. Don‟t use those that theoretically sound good or look -good or feel good, but that actually result in an improved situation. Encourage trials of new - -avoidance mechanisms. - -MIT 18 Trained dogs are the most effective means of finding ringed seal dens and breathing holes in - -Kotzebue Sound, so should be used to clear path for on- ice roads or other on- ice activities. - -MIT 19 The potential increased risk associated with the timing that vessels can enter exploration areas - -needs to be considered: - - A delayed start could increase the risk of losing control of a VLOS that will more likely -occur at the end of the season when environmental conditions (ice and freezing - -temperatures) rapidly become more challenging and hazardous. - - Operators could stage at leasing areas but hold off on exploration activity until July l5, or -until Point Lay beluga hunt is completed. - -MIT 20 The proposed time/area closures are insufficient to protect areas of ecological and cultural - -significance. Alternatives in the final EIS that consider any level of industrial activity should - -include permanent subsistence and ecological deferral areas in addition to time and place - -restrictions, including: - - Hanna and Herald shoals, Barrow Canyon, and the Chukchi Sea ice lead system. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 50 - -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 21 The DEIS should definitively establish the full suite of mandatory mitigation measures for - -each Alternative that will be required for any given site-specific activity, instead of listing a - -series of mitigation measures that may or may not apply to site-specific actions. - - NMFS should ensure that mitigation measures are in place prior to starting any activity -rather than considering mitigation measures on a case by case basis later in the process - -when it is more difficult as activities have advanced in planning. - - Make additional mitigation measures standard and include both for any level of activity -that includes, at a minimum, those activities described in section 2.4.9 and 2.4.10. - - Mitigation measures required previously by IHAs (e.g., a 160dB vessel monitoring zone -for whales during shallow hazard surveys) show it is feasible for operators to perform - -these measures. - - NMFS toshould require a full suite of mitigation measures tofor every take authorization -issued by the agency. - - A number of detection-based measures should be standardized (e.g., sound source -verification, PAM). - - Routing vessels around important habitat should be standard. - -MIT 22 NMFS could mitigate the risk ice poses by including seasonal operating restrictions in the - -final EIS and preferred alternative. - -MIT 23 The time/area closures (Alternative 4 and Additional Mitigation Measure B1) of Camden - -Bay, Barrow Canyon and the Western Beaufort Sea, the Shelf Break of the Beaufort Sea, - -Hanna Shoal, Kasegaluk Lagoon/Ledyard Bay are unwarranted, arbitrary measures in search - -of an adverse impact that does not exist: - - The DEIS does not identify any data or other scientific information establishing that past, -present, or reasonably anticipated oil and gas activity in these areas has had, or is likely to - -have, either more than a negligible impact on marine mammals or any unmitigable - -adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence activities. - - There is no information about what levels of oil and gas activity are foreseeably expected -to occur in the identified areas in the absence of time/area closures, or what the - -anticipated adverse impacts from such activities would be. Without this information, the - -time/area closure mitigation measures are arbitrary because there is an insufficient basis - -to evaluate and compare the effects with and without time/area closures except through - -speculation. - - The time/area closures are for mitigation of an anticipated large number of 2D/3D -seismic surveys, but few 2D/3D seismic surveys are anticipated in the next five years. - -There is no scientific evidence that these seismic surveys, individually or collectively, - -resulted in more than a negligible impact. - - The designation of geographic boundaries by NMFS and BOEM should be removed, and -projects should be evaluated based upon specific project requirements, as there is not - -sufficient evidence presented that supports that arbitrary area boundary determinations - -will provide protection to marine mammal species. - - There is a lack of scientific evidence around actual importance level and definition of -these closure areas. The descriptions of these areas do not meet the required standard of - -using the best available science. - - With no significant purpose, they should be removed from consideration. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 51 - -Comment Analysis Report - - If the closures intended to reduce disturbances of migrating, feeding, and resting whales -are not reducing the level of impact they should not be considered effective mitigation - -measures. - -MIT 24 The time/area closure for Camden Bay (Alternative 4 and Additional Mitigation Measure B1) - -is both arbitrary and impracticable because there is no demonstrated need. It needs to be - -clarified, modified, or removed: - - BOEM‟s analysis of Shell‟s exploration drilling program in Camden Bay found -anticipated impacts to marine mammals and subsistence are minimal and fully mitigated. - - The proposed September 1 to October 15 closure effectively eliminates over 54 percent -of the open water exploration drilling season in Camden Bay and would likely render - -exploration drilling in Camden Bay economically and logistically impracticable, thereby - -effectively imposing a full closure of the area under the guise of mitigation. - - The conclusion that Camden Bay is of particular importance to bowhead whales is not -supported by the available data (e.g., Huntington and Quakenbush 2009, Koski and - -Miller 2009, and Quakenbush et al. 2010). Occasional feeding in the area and sightings of - -some cow/calf pairs in some years does not make it a uniquely important area. - - A standard mitigation measure already precludes all activities until the close of the -Kaktovik and Nuiqsut fall bowhead hunts. Furthermore, in the last 10 years no bowhead - -whales have been taken after the third week of September in either the Nuiqsut or - -Kaktovik hunts so proposing closure to extend well into October is unjustified. - - This Additional Mitigation Measure (B-1) should be deleted for the reasons outlined -above. If not, then start and end dates of the closure period must be clarified; hard dates - -should be provided for the start and end of the closure or the closure should be tied to - -actual hunts. - - How boundaries and timing were determined needs to be described. - -MIT 25 Restrictions intended to prevent sound levels above 120 dB or 160 dB are arbitrary, - -unwarranted, and impractical. - - Restrictions at the 120 dB level, are impracticable to monitor because the resulting -exclusion zones are enormous, and the Arctic Ocean is an extremely remote area that - -experiences frequent poor weather. - - The best scientific evidence does not support a need for imposition of restrictions at 120 -dB or 160 dB levels. One of the most compelling demonstrations of this point comes - -from the sustained period of robust growth and recovery experienced by the Western - -Arctic stock of bowhead whales, while exposed to decades of seismic surveys and other - -activities without restrictions at the 120 dB or 160 dB levels. - -MIT 26 The DEIS should not limit the maximum number of programs per year. Implementing - -multiple programs per year is the preferred option for the Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5, as there - -is not just cause in the DEIS to validate that acoustic and non-acoustic impacts from these - -programs are severe enough to cause long- term acute or cumulative negative impacts or - -adverse modifications to marine mammals throughout the planning area. - -MIT 27 The State recommends that nNo maximum limit should be set on the number of seismic or - -exploratory drilling projects per year. The appropriate mitigations can be determined and - -implemented for each program at the time of ITA and G&G permit approvals. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 52 - -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 28 The time/area closures are not warranted and would severely negatively impact seismic and - -exploration program activity opportunities: - - Placing the time closures chronologically in sequence, results in closures from mid-July -through at least mid-September, and in some cases through mid-October. This leaves less - -than half of the non-ice season available for activity in those areas, with no resulting - -resource and species protection realized. - - The arbitrary limits to the duration of programs will cause high intensity, short and long -term adverse effects and restrictions to oil and gas land and water uses. - - The identified time/area closures, and the use of a 120 dB and 160 dB buffer zones, have -no sound scientific or other factual basis and would, in several instances, render oil and - -gas exploration impracticable. - -MIT 29 Additional Mitigation Measure C2 should be discussed in more detail, clarified, or deleted in - -the final EIS: - - Shipping routes or shipping lanes of this sort are established and enforced under the -regulatory authority of the U.S. Coast Guard. While NOAA or BOEM could establish - -restricted areas, they could not regulate shipping routes. - - With this mitigation measure in place, successful exploration cannot be conducted in the -Chukchi Sea. - - Not only would lease holders be unable to conduct seismic and shallow hazard surveys -on some leases, but essential geophysical surveys for pipelines to shore, such as ice - -gouge surveys, strudel scour surveys, and bathymetric surveys could not be conducted. - -MIT 30 There is no scientific justification for Additional Mitigation Measure C3. NMFS needs to - -explain in the final EIS how NOAA's recommendations can justify being more stringent than - -EPA's permit conditions, limitations, and requirements. - -MIT 31 The purpose, intent, and description of Additional Mitigation Measure C4 need to be clarified - -(see page 4-67). - -MIT 32 Additional Mitigation Measure D1 needs to be clarified as to what areas will be - -impacted/closed, and justified and/or modified accordingly: - - It is not clear if this restriction is focused on the nearshore Chukchi Sea or on all areas. - - The logic of restrictions on vessels due to whales avoiding those areas may justify -restrictions in the nearshore areas, but it is not clear how this logic would justify closing - -the entire Chukchi offshore areas to vessel traffic if open water exists. - - If a more specific exclusion area (e.g., within 30 miles of the coast) would be protective -of beluga whale migration routes, it should be considered instead of closing the Chukchi - -Sea to transiting vessels. - - It is not scientifically supported to close the entire Chukchi Sea to vessel traffic when the -stated intent is to avoid disrupting the subsistence hunt of beluga whales during their - -migration along or near the coast near Point Lay. - - Transits should be allowed provided that they do not interfere with the hunt. - - Transits far off shore should be allowed, and transits that are done within the conditions -established through a Conflict Avoidance AgreementCAAs should be allowed. - - Prohibiting movement of drilling vessels and equipment outside of the barrier islands -would unreasonably limit the entire drilling season to less than two months. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 53 - -Comment Analysis Report - - Movement of drilling vessels and related equipment in a manner that avoids impacts to -subsistence users should be allowed on a case-by-case basis and as determined through - -mechanisms such as the Conflict Avoidance AgreementCAAs not through inflexible - -DEIS mitigation requirements. - - BOEM (2011b) has previously concluded that oil and gas activities in the Chukchi Sea -would not overlap in space with Point Lay beluga hunting activities, and therefore would - -have no effect on Point Lay beluga subsistence resources. Given that the entire Lease - -Sale 193 area does not overlap geographically with Point Lay subsistence activities, it is - -reasonable to draw the same conclusion for activities of other lease holders in the - -Chukchi Sea as well. - - This measure also prohibits all geophysical activity within 60 mi of the Chukchi -coastline. No reason is offered. The mitigation measure would prohibit lease holders from - -conducting shallow hazards surveys and other geophysical surveys on and between - -leases. Such surveys are needed for design and engineering. - -MIT 33 The time/area closure of Hanna Shoal is difficult to assess and to justify and should be - -removed from Alternative 4 and Additional Mitigation Measure B1: - - There needs to be information as to how and why the boundaries of the Hanna Shoal -were drawn; it is otherwise not possible to meaningfully comment on whether the - -protection itself is justified and whether it should be further protected by a buffer zone. - - The closure cannot be justified on the basis of mitigating potential impacts to subsistence -hunters during the fall bowhead whale hunt as the DEIS acknowledges that the actual - -hunting grounds are well inshore of Hanna Shoal, and there is no evidence that industry - -activities in that area could impact the hunts. - - Current science does not support closure of the area for protection of the walrus. - - Closure of the area for gray whales on an annual basis is not supported, as recent aerial -survey data suggests that it has not been used by gray whales in recent years, and the - -historic data does not suggest that it was important for gray whales on a routine (annual) - -basis. - - The October 15 end date for the closure is too late in the season to be responsive to -concerns regarding walrus and gray whales. As indicated in the description in the DEIS - -of the measure by NMFS and USGS walrus tracking data, the area is used little after - -August. Similarly, few gray whales are found in the area after September. - -MIT 34 Plans of Cooperation (POCs) and CAAs are effective tools to ensure that meaningful - -consultations continue to take place. We strongly urge NMFS to ensure that POCs and CAAs - -continue to be available to facilitate interaction between the oil and gas industry and local - -communities for the proper balance that allows for continued development subject to - -mitigation measures that adequately protect our subsistence hunting, as well as our local - -customs and cultural resources. - -MIT 35 The number of mitigation measures that are necessary or appropriate should be analyzed - -case-by-case in the context of issuing ITA/IHA/permit/approval, the nature and extent of the - -risk or effect they are mitigating, and cost and effectiveness. The scope of necessary - -measures should be dictated by specific activity for which approval or a permit is being - -sought. - -MIT 36 NMFS and BOEM are strongly urged to consult closely with locally affected whaling - -communities when evaluating potential mitigation measures, including the - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 54 - -Comment Analysis Report - -scheduling/timing/scope of specific activities, using tools such as the POC, CAA, and any - -other appropriate mechanisms. - -MIT 37 Restricting the number of programs does not necessarily correlate to decreased impacts. - -MIT 38 The additional mitigation measures are too restrictive and could result in serving as the no - -action alternative. - -MIT 39 NMFS cannot reasonably mandate use of the technologies to be used under Alternative 5, - -since they are not commercially available, not fully tested, unproven and should not be - -considered reasonably foreseeable. - -MIT 40 For open water and in-ice marine surveys, include the standard mitigation measure of a - -mitigation airgun during turns between survey lines and during nighttime activities. - -MIT 41 Include shutdown of activities in specific areas corresponding to start and conclusion of - -bowhead whale hunts for all communities that hunt bowhead whales, not just Nuiqsut (Cross - -Island) and Kaktovik (as stated on p. 2-41). - -MIT 42 Evaluate the necessity of including dates within the DEIS. Communication with members of - -village Whaling Captains Associations indicate that the dates of hunts may shift due to - -changing weather patterns, resulting in a shift in blackout dates. - -MIT 43 Additional Mitigation Measure B3 should not be established, particularly at these distances, - -because it is both unwarranted from an environmental protection perspective and unnecessary - -given how seismic companies already have an incentive for separation. - - The basis for the distances is premised on use of sound exposure levels that are indicative -of harm. Use of the 160 dB standard would establish a propagation distance of 9-13 - -kilometers. The distance in the mitigation measure therefore seems excessive and no - -scientific basis was provided. - - NMFS has justified the 120 dB threshold based on concerns of continuous noise sources, -not impulsive sound sources such as seismic surveys. - - The argument that overlapping sound fields could mask cetacean communication has -already been judged to be a minor concern. NMFS has noted, "in general, NMFS expects - -the masking effects of seismic pulses to be minor, given the normally intermittent nature - -of seismic pulses." (76 Fed. Reg. at 6438, INSERT DATE of Publication in FR). - - The mitigation measure is prohibitively restrictive, and it is unclear what, if any, -mitigation of impacts this measure would result. - -MIT 44 Additional Mitigation Measure D4 should be consistent with surrounding mitigation - -measures that consider start dates of bowhead whale hunting closed areas based on real-time - -reporting of whale presence and hunting activity rather than a fixed date. - -MIT 45 Additional Mitigation Measure B3 should not be considered as an EIS area wide alternative. - - NMFS should only impose limitations of the proximity of seismic surveys to each other -(or to specific habitat areas) when and where they are applicable to known locations - -where biologically significant impacts might occur. There is no evidence that such - -important feeding areas occur within the EIS area other than just east of Pt. Barrow. - - It should only be used at specific times and locations and after a full evaluation of the -likelihood of overlap of seismic sound and/or disturbance impacts has actually taken - -Comment [CAN14]: Combine with MIT 43 -above. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 55 - -Comment Analysis Report - -place. Simply assuming that seismic sound might overlap and be additive in nature is - -incorrect. - -MIT 46 Additional Mitigation Measure A5 provisions are unclear, unjustified, and impractical: - - The justification for believing that biologically significant effects to individuals or the -bowhead population would occur from exposure of four or more bowhead cow/calf pairs - -to >120 dB pulsed sounds is not provided or referenced. - - The amount of time and effort required to monitoring for four or more bowhead cow/calf -pairs within the 120 dB seismic sound level area take away from better defining the - -distances and/or sound level thresholds at which more substantial impacts may be - -occurring. - - Would the referenced 4 or more cow/calf pairs have to be actually observed within the -area to trigger mitigation actions or would mitigation be required if survey data corrected - -for sightability biases using standard line-transect protocols suggested 4 or more were - -present? - - If a mitigation measure for aggregations of 12 or more whales were to be included there -needs to be scientific justification for the number of animals required to trigger the - -mitigation action. - -MIT 47 Additional Mitigation Measure C1 needs to be more clearly defined (or deleted), as it is - -redundant and nearly impossible and impractical for industry to implement. - - Steering around a loosely aggregated group of animals is nearly impossible as Protected -Species Observers (PSOs) often do not notice such a group until a number of sightings - -have occurred and the vessel is already within the higher density patch. At that point it - -likely does more harm than good trying to steer away from each individual or small - -group of animals as it will only take the vessel towards another individual or small group. - - This measure contains requirements that are already requirements, such as Standard -Mitigation Measures B1 and D3, such as a minimum altitude of 457 m. - - The mitigation measure requires the operator to adhere to USFWS mitigation measures. -Why is a measure needed to have operators follow another agency‟s mitigation measures -which already would have the force of law. - - The measure states that there is a buffer zone around polar bear sea ice critical habitat -which is false. - -MIT 48 NMFS‟ conclusion that implementation of time closures does not reduce the spatial -distribution of sound levels is not entirely correct (Page 4- 283 Section 4.7.1.4.2). The - -closures of Hanna Shoal would effectively eliminate any industrial activities in or near the - -area, thereby reducing the spatial distribution of industrial activities and associated sound. - -MIT 49 The time/area closure for the Beaufort Sea shelf needs to be justified by more than - -speculation of feeding there by beluga whales. - - There is no evidence cited in the EIS stating that the whales are feeding there at that time -and that it is an especially important location. - - Most beluga whales sighted along the shelf break during aerial surveys are observed -traveling or migrating, not feeding. - - Placing restrictions on the shelf break area of the Beaufort Sea is arbitrary especially -when beluga whale impact analyses generally find only low level impacts under current - -standard mitigation measures. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 56 - -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 50 More stringent mitigation measures are needed to keep oil and gas activities in the Arctic - -from having more than a negligible impact. - -MIT 51 Quiet buffer areas should be established to protect areas of biological and ecological - -significance, such as Hanna Shoal and Barrow Canyon. - -MIT 52 Quieter alternative technologies should be required in areas newly opened to oil and gas - -activities. - -MIT 53 Noise reduction measures should be implemented by industry within U.S. waters and by U.S. - -companies internationally but especially in areas of the Arctic which have not yet been - -subjected to high levels of man-made noise. - -MIT 54 Vessel restrictions and other measures need to be implemented to mitigate ship strikes, - -including: - - Vessels should be prohibited from sensitive areas with high levels of wildlife presence -that are determined to be key habitat for feeding, breeding, or calving. - - Ship routes should be clearly defined, including a process for annual review to update -and re-route shipping around these sensitive areas. - - Speed restrictions may also need to be considered if re-routing is not possible. - - NMFS should require use of real-time passive acoustic monitoringPAM in migratory -corridors and other sensitive areas to alert ships to the presence of whales, primarily to - -reduce ship-strike risk. - -MIT 55 NMFS should pair the additional mitigation measures with the level 1 exploration of - -Alternative 2 and not support higher levels of exploration of Alternatives 3-5. - -MIT 56 The DEIS should clearly identify areas where activities will be prohibited to avoid any take - -of marine mammals. It should also establish a framework for calculating potential take and - -appropriate offsets. - -MIT 57 Time/area closures should be included in any Alternative as standard avoidance measures and - -should be expanded to include other deferral areas, including: - - Dease Inlet. - - Boulder patch communities. - - Particular caution should be taken in early fall throughout the region, when peak use of -the Arctic by marine mammals takes place. - - Add the Coastal Band of the Chukchi Sea (~50 miles wide) [Commenting on the original -Lease Sale 193 draft EIS, NMFS strongly endorse[d] an alternative that would have - -avoided any federal leases out to 60 miles and specifically argued that a 25-mile buffer - -[around deferral areas] is inadequate]. - - Expand Barrow Canyon time/area closure area to the head of Barrow Canyon (off the -coast between Point Barrow and Point Franklin), as well as the mouth of Barrow Canyon - -along the shelf break. - - Areas to the south of Hanna Shoal are important to walrus, bowhead whales, and gray -whales. - - Encourage NMFS to consider a time/ and area closure during the winter and spring in the -Beaufort Sea that captures the ice fracture zone between landfast ice and the pack ice - -where ringed seal densities are the highest. - -Comment [CAN15]: Seems to be a repeat of an -earlier SOC. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 57 - -Comment Analysis Report - - Nuiqsut has long asked federal agencies to create a deferral area in the 20 miles to the -east of Cross Island. This area holds special importance for bowhead whale hunters and - -the whales. - - NMFS should consider designing larger exclusion zones (detection-dependent or - -independent) around river mouths with anadromous fish runs to protect beluga whale - -foraging habitat, insofar as these areas are not encompassed by seasonal closures. - - Final EIS must consider including additional (special habitat) areas and developing a -mechanism for new areas to be added over the life of the EIS. - - Any protections for Camden Bay should extend beyond the dimensions of the Bay itself -to include areas located to the west and east, recently identified by NMFS as having - -special significance to bowhead whales. - - Additional analysis is required related to deferral areas specific to subsistence hunting. -Any final EIS must confront the potential need for added coastal protections in the - -Chukchi Sea. - - There should be a buffer zone between Burger and the coast during migration of walrus -and other marine mammals. - - Future measures should include time/area closures for IEAs (Important Ecological -Areas). - -MIT 58 The mitigation measures need to include clear avoidance measures and a description of - -offsets that will be used to protect and/or restore marine mammal habitat if take occurs. - - The sensitivity of the resource (e.g., the resource is irreplaceable and where take would -either cause irreversible impact to the species or its population or where mitigation of the - -take would have a low probability of success), and not the level of activity should dictate - -the location of avoidance areas. - - NMFS should consider adding an Avoidance Measures section to Appendix A. - -MIT 59 The DEIS fails to address the third step in the mitigation hierarchy which is to compensate - -for unavoidable and incidental take. NMFS should provide a clear framework for - -compensatory mitigation activities. - -MIT 60 Many of the mitigation measures suggested throughout the DEIS are not applicable to in-ice - -towed streamer 2D seismic surveys and should not be required during these surveys. - -MIT 61 NMFS should not seek to pre-empt or undermine the CAA process that industry and the - -Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission have used for many years to develop mitigations that - -result in a determination of no "unmitigable adverse effect" on the hunt. - -MIT 62 NMFS needs to clarify the use of adaptive management: - - In the DEIS the term is positioned toward the use of adaptive management to further -restrict activities and it does not leave room for adaptive management to reduce - -restrictions. - - If monitoring shows undetectable or limited impacts, an adaptive management strategy -should allow for decreased restrictions on oil and gas exploration. The conditions under - -which decreased restrictions will occur should be plainly stated in the discussion of - -adaptive management. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 58 - -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 63 Mitigation Measure A3: It is neither practicable nor reasonable to require observers on all - -support vessels, especially on Ocean Bottom Cable seismic operations, where support vessels - -often include small boats without adequate space for observers. - -MIT 64 Aerial overflights are infeasible and risky and should not be required as a monitoring tool: - - Such mitigation requirements are put forward only in an effort to support the 120dB -observation zones, which are both scientifically unjustified and infeasible to implement. - - Such over flights pose a serious safety risk. Requiring them as a condition of operating in -the Arctic conflicts with the statutory requirements of OCSLA, which mandates safe - -operations. - -MIT 65 The purpose of Mitigation Measure A6 needs to be clarified: - - If the purpose is to establish a shutdown zone, it is unwarranted because the nature of -drilling operations is such that they cannot sporadically be shutdown or ramped up and - -down. - - If the purpose is the collection of research data, then it should be handled as part of the -BOEM research program. - -MIT 66 Mitigation Measure D2: There should be no requirement for communications center - -operations during periods when industry is not allowed to operate and by definition there is - -not possibility for industry impact on the hunt. - -MIT 67 Additional Mitigation Measure A1 is problematic and should not be required: - - Sound source verification tests take time, are expensive, and can expose people to risks. - - Modeling should eventually be able to produce a reliable estimate of the seismic source -emissions and propagation, so sound source verification tests should not be required - -before the start of every seismic survey in the Arctic. - - This should be eliminated unless NMFS is planning to require the same measurements -for all vessels operating in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. - - Sound source verification for vessels has no value because there are no criteria for shut -down or other mitigation associated with vessel sounds. - -MIT 68 NMFS should not require monitoring measures to be designed to accomplish or contribute to - -what are in fact research goals. NMFS and others should work together to develop a research - -program targeting key research goals in a prioritized manner following appropriate scientific - -method, rather than attempting to meet these goals through monitoring associated with - -activities. - -MIT 69 Additional Mitigation Measure A3 Lacks a Basic Description of the Measure and must be - -deleted or clarified as: - - NMFS provides no further information in the DEIS with regard to what conditions or -situations would meet or fail to meet visibility requirements. - - NMFS also does not indicate what exploration activities would be affected by such -limitations. - - Operators cannot assess the potential effects of such mitigation on their operations and -lease obligations, or its practicability, without these specifics. - -Comment [CAN16]: Combine with MIT 69. - -Comment [CAN17]: Combine with MIT 63. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 59 - -Comment Analysis Report - - NMFS certainly cannot evaluate the need or efficacy of the mitigation measure without -these details. - - Cetaceans are not at significantly greater risk of harm when a soft-start is initiated in poor -visibility conditions. - -MIT 70 Additional Mitigation Measure A4: There are limitations to current PAM technology, but its - -use may improve monitoring results in some situations and should be used during certain - -conditions, with these caveats: - - A period of confidence in the current PAM capabilities, understanding of limitations, and -experienced operator capacity-building is needed before requiring PAM as a mandatory - -monitoring tool during seismic operations. - - Basic training criteria, such as that specified by many countries for PSOs, should be -developed and required for PAM operators. - - Minimum requirements for PAM equipment (including capabilities of software and -hardware) should be considered. - -MIT 71 Proposed restrictions under Additional Mitigation Measure B2 are unnecessary, impractical - -and must be deleted or clarified: - - The likelihood of redundant or duplicative surveys is small to non-existent. A new survey -is conducted only if the value of the additional information to be provided will exceed the - -cost of acquisition. - - The restriction is based on the false premise that surveys, which occur in similar places -and times, are the same. A new survey may be warranted by its use of new technology, a - -better image, a different target zone, or a host of other considerations. - - Implementing such a requirement poses several large problems. First, who would decide -what is redundant and by what criteria? Second, recognizing the intellectual property and - -commercial property values, how will the agencies protect that information? Any - -proposal that the companies would somehow be able to self-regulate is infeasible and - -potentially illegal given the various anti-trust statutes. A government agency would likely - -find it impossible to set appropriate governing technical and commercial criteria, and - -would end up stifling the free market competition that has led to technological - -innovations and success in risk reduction. - - This is already done by industry in some cases, but as a regulatory requirement it is very -vague and needs clarification. - -MIT 72 Additional Mitigation Measures D3, D4, D5, D6, and D8 need clarification about how the - -real-time reporting would be handled: - - If there is the expectation that industry operations could be shutdown quickly and -restarted quickly, the proposal is not feasible. - - Who would conduct the monitoring for whales? - - How and to whom would reporting be conducted? - - How whale presence would be determined and who would make the determination must -be elucidated in this measure. This is vague and impracticable. - -MIT 73 NMFS and BOEM should consider various strategies for avoiding unnecessarily redundant - -seismic surveys as a way of ensuring the least practicable impact on marine mammals and the - -environment. Companies that conduct geophysical surveys for the purpose of selling the data - -Comment [CAN18]: Seems to be a repeat of an -earlier SOC. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 60 - -Comment Analysis Report - -could make those data available to multiple companies, avoiding the need for each company - -to commission separate surveys. - -MIT 74 The list of standard mitigation measures should be incorporated in all incidental take - -authorizations issued by NMFS and be included under the terms and conditions for the - -BOEM‟s issuance of geological and geophysical permits and ancillary activity and -exploratory drilling approvals. - -MIT 75 NMFS should expand many of the additional mitigation measures and include them as - -standard conditions. - -MIT 76 The Marine Mammal Commission recommends that the National Marine Fisheries - -ServiceNMFS work with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to incorporate a broader - -list of mitigation measures that would be standard for all oil and gas-related incidental take - -authorizations in the Arctic region, including: - -a) Detection-based measures intended to reduce near-source acoustic impacts on marine -mammals - - require operators to use operational- and activity-specific information to estimate -exclusion and buffer zones for all sound sources (including seismic surveys, subbottom - -profilers, vertical seismic profiling, vertical cable surveys, drilling, icebreaking, support - -aircraft and vessels, etc.) and, just prior to or as the activity begins, verify and (as needed) - -modify those zones using sound measurements collected at each site for each sound - -source; - - assess the efficacy of mitigation and monitoring measures and improve detection -capabilities in low visibility situations using tools such as forward-looking infrared or - -360 -o - thermal imaging; - - require the use of passive acoustic monitoring to increase detection probability for real- -time mitigation and monitoring of exclusion zones; and - - require operators to cease operations when the exclusion zone is obscured by poor -sighting conditions; - -b) Non-detection-based measures intended to lessen the severity of acoustic impacts on -marine mammals or reduce overall numbers taken by acoustic sources - - limit aircraft overflights to an altitude of 457 m or higher and a horizontal distance of 305 -m or greater when marine mammals are present (except during takeoff, landing, or an - -emergency situation)1; - - require temporal/spatial limitations to minimize impacts in particularly important habitats -or migratory areas, including but not limited to those identified for time-area closures - -under Alternative 4 (i.e., Camden Bay, Barrow Canyon/Western Beaufort Sea, Hanna - -Shoal, the Beaufort Sea shelf break, and Kasegaluk Lagoon/Ledy Bay critical habitat); - - prevent concurrent, geographically overlapping surveys and surveys that would provide -the same information as previous surveys; and - - restrict 2D/3D surveys from operating within 145 km of one another; - -c) Measures intended to reduce/lessen non-acoustic impacts on marine mammals reduce -vessel speed to 9 knots or less when transiting the Beaufort Sea2 - - reduce vessel speed to 9 knots or less within 274 m of whales2,3; - -Comment [CAN19]: Seems to be a repeat of an -earlier SOC. - -Comment [CAN20]: Seems to be a repeat of an -earlier SOC. - -Formatted: Font color: Black, Superscript - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 61 - -Comment Analysis Report - - avoid changes in vessel direction and speed within 274 m of whales3; - - reduce speed to 9 knots or less in inclement weather or reduced visibility conditions2; - - use shipping or transit routes that avoid areas where marine mammals may occur in high -densities, such as offshore ice leads; - - establish and monitor a 160-dB re 1 ¬µPa zone for large whales around all sound sources -and do not initiate or continue an activity if an aggregation of bowhead whales or gray - -whales (12 or more whales of any age/sex class that appear to be engaged in a non- - -migratory, significant biological behavior (e.g., feeding, socializing)) is observed within - -that zone; - - require operators to cease drilling operations in mid- to late-September to reduce the -possibility of having to respond to a large oil spill in ice conditions; - - require operators to develop and implement a detailed, comprehensive, and coordinated -Wildlife Protection Plan that includes strategies and sufficient resources for minimizing - -contamination of sensitive marine mammal habitats and that provides a realistic - -description of the actions that operators can take, if any, to deter animals from spill areas - -or respond to oiled or otherwise affected marine mammals the plan should be developed - -in consultation with Alaska Native communities (including marine mammal co- - -management organizations), state and federal resource agencies, and experienced non- - -governmental organizations; and - - require operators to collect all new and used drilling muds and cuttings and either reinject -them or transport them to an Environmental Protection Agency-licensed - -treatment/disposal site outside the Arctic; - -d) Measures intended to ensure no unmitigable adverse impact to subsistence users - - require the use of Subsistence Advisors; and - - facilitate development of more comprehensive plans of cooperation/conflict avoidance -agreements that involve all potentially affected communities and comanagement - -organizations and account for potential adverse impacts on all marine mammal species - -taken for subsistence purposes. - -MIT 77 The Marine Mammal Commission also recommends that the National Marine Fisheries - -ServiceNMFS include additional measures to verify compliance with mitigation measures - -and work with the BureauBOEM and industry to improve the quality and usefulness of - -mitigation and monitoring measures: - - Track and enforce each operator‟s implementation of mitigation and monitoring measures -to ensure that they are executed as expected; provide guidance to operators regarding the - -estimation of the number of takes during the course of an activity (e.g., seismic survey) - -that guidance should be sufficiently specific to ensure that take estimates are accurate and - -include realistic estimates of precision and bias; - - Provide additional justification for the determination that the mitigation and monitoring -measures that depend on visual observations would be sufficient to detect, with a high - -level of confidence, all marine mammals within or entering identified mitigation zones; - - Work with protected species observers, observer service providers, the Fish and Wildlife -Service, and other stakeholders to establish and implement standards for protected - -species observers to improve the quality and usefulness of information collected during - -exploration activities; - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 62 - -Comment Analysis Report - - Establish requirements for analysis of data collected by protected species observers to -ensure that those data are used both to estimate potential effects on marine mammals and - -to inform the continuing development of mitigation and monitoring measures; - - Require operators to make the data associated with monitoring programs publicly -available for evaluation by independent researchers; - - Require operators to gather the necessary data and work with the Bureau and the Service -to assess the effectiveness of soft-starts as a mitigation measure; and - - Require operators to suspend operations immediately if a dead or seriously injured -marine mammal is found in the vicinity of the operations and the death or injury could be - -attributed to the applicant‟s activities any suspension should remain in place until the -Service has reviewed the situation and determined that further deaths or serious injuries - -are unlikely or has issued regulations authorizing such takes under section 101(a)(5)(A) - -of the Act. - -MIT 78 There is no need for the Additional Mitigation Measures in the DEIS and they should be - -removed: - - Potential impacts of oil and gas exploration activities under the Standard Mitigation -Measures, BOEM lease stipulations (MMS 2008c), and existing industry practices, are - -already negligible. - - Analysis of the effectiveness of the Additional Mitigation Measures in reducing any -impacts (especially for marine mammals and subsistence) was not established in the - -DEIS so there is no justification for their implementation. - - The negative impacts these measures would have on industry and on the expeditious -development of resources in the OCS as mandated by OCSLA are significant, and were - -not described, quantified, or seriously considered in the DEIS. - - Any Additional Mitigation Measures carried forward must be clarified and made -practicable, and further analysis must be conducted and presented in the FEIS to explain - -why they are needed, how they were developed (including a scientific basis), what - -conditions would trigger their implementation and how they would affect industry and - -the ability of BOEM to meet its OCSLA mandate of making resources available for - -expeditious development. - - NMFS failed to demonstrate the need for most if not all of the Additional Mitigation -Measures identified in the DEIS, especially Additional Mitigation Measures A4, B1 - -(time/area closures), C3, D1, D5, D6, and D8. - - NMFS has failed to fully evaluate and document the costs associated with their -implementation. - -MIT 79 The time/area closure for Barrow Canyon needs to be clarified or removed: - - A time area closure is indicated from September 1 to the close of Barrow‟s fall bowhead -hunt, but dates are also provided for bowhead whales (late August to early October) and - -beluga whales (mid-July to late August), which are both vague and outside the limits of - -the closure. - - It is also not clear if Barrow Canyon and the Western Beaufort Sea Special Habitat Areas -are one and the same. Only Barrow Canyon (not the Western Beaufort) is referenced in - -most places, including the only map (Figure 3.2-25) of the area. - -MIT 80 Additional Mitigation Measure D7 must be deleted or clarified - -Comment [CAN21]: Seems to be a repeat of an -earlier SOC. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 63 - -Comment Analysis Report - - This is vague. The transit restrictions are not identified, nor are the conditions under -which the transit might be allowed. - - Some hunting of marine mammals in the Chukchi Sea occurs year round making this -measure impracticable. - -MIT 81 Either the proposed action for the EIS needs to be changed or the analysis is too broad for the - -proposed action stated. NMFS should not limit the number of activities allowed: - - As long as the number of takes has no more than a negligible impact on species or stock. - - Limiting the level of activities also limits the amount of data that can be collected. -Industry will not be able to collect the best data in the time allotted. - -MIT 82 Ice distribution in recent years indicates drilling at some lease holdings could possibly occur - -June-November. NMFS should, therefore, extend the temporal extent of the exploration - -drilling season. - -MIT 83 NMFS should not automatically add Additional Mitigation Measures without first assessing - -the impact without Additional Mitigation Measures to determine whether they are needed. - -MIT 84 Appendix A Additional Mitigation Measure C4 (the zero discharge additional mitigation - -measure) should be deleted since all exploration drilling programs are already required by - -regulation to have oil spill response plans. - - DEIS stated that NPDES permitting effectively regulates/handles discharges from -operations and Zero Discharge was removed from further analysis in Chapter 2.5.4. - -MIT 85 The requirement to recycle drilling muds should not become mandatory as it is not - -appropriate for all programs. Drilling mud discharges are already regulated by the EPA - -NPDES program and are not harmful to marine mammals or the availability of marine - -mammals for subsistence. - -MIT 86 Page 4-68 - For exploratory drilling operations in the Beaufort Sea west of Cross Island, no - -drilling equipment or related vessels used for at-sea oil and gas operations shall be moved - -onsite at any location outside the barrier islands west of Cross Island until the close of the - -bowhead whale hunt in Barrow. This measure would prevent exploration of offshore leases - -west of Cross Island during the open water season and would require refunding of lease - -purchase and investment by companies that are no longer allowed to explore their leases. - -MIT 87 The statement that eliminating exploration activities through the time/area closures on Hanna - -Shoal would benefit all assemblages of marine fish, with some anticipated benefit to - -migratory fish, is incorrect. Most migratory fish would not be found in offshore waters. - -MIT 88 Given that the Time/Area closures are for marine mammals, Alternative 4 would be irrelevant - -and generally benign in terms of fish and EFH, so it is wrong to state that the closures would - -further reduce impact. - -MIT 89 Mitigation Measure A5 can be deleted as it is essentially the same as A4. - -MIT 90 Standard Mitigation Measures under B1 and D3 have identical requirements regarding - -aircraft operations and appear to apply to the same activities, so they should be deleted from - -one or the other. - -Comment [CAN22]: Seems more appropriate in -REG or ALT. - -Comment [CAN23]: This seems like it is a more -general comment about our activity descriptions in - -Chapter 2 and does not refer to a mitigation measure. -Perhaps the VOM category could be expanded to - -discuss other aspects of the operations and activities -themselves beyond just vessel operations and - -movements. - -Comment [CAN24]: Seems to be a repeat of an -earlier SOC. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 64 - -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 91 Under conditions when exploration is determined to be acceptable, monitoring and mitigation - -plans on a wide range of temporal scales should become both a standard requirement and - -industry practice. These must be designed in a manner specific to the nature of the operation - -and the environment to minimize the risks of both acute impacts (i.e., direct, short-term, - -small-scale harm as predicted from estimates of noise exposure on individuals) and to - -measure/minimize chronic effects (i.e., cumulative, long-term, large-scale adverse effects on - -populations as predicted from contextually mediated behavioral responses or the loss of - -acoustic habitat). - -MIT 92 To date, standard practices for individual seismic surveys and other activities have been of - -questionable efficacy for monitoring or mitigating direct physical impacts (i.e., acute impacts - -on injury or hearing) and have essentially failed to address chronic, population level impacts - -from masking and other long-term, large-scale effects, which most likely are the greatest risk - -to long-term population health and viability. - -MIT 93 More meaningful monitoring and mitigation measures that should be more fully considered - -and implemented in the programmatic plans for the Arctic include: - - Considerations of time and area restrictions based on known sensitive periods/areas; - - Sustained acoustic monitoring, both autonomous and real-time, of key habitat areas to -assess species presence and cumulative noise exposure with direct federal involvement - -and oversight; - - Support or incentives for research to develop and apply metrics for a population‟s health, -such as measures of vital rates, prey availability, ranging patterns, and body condition; - - Specified spatial-temporal separation zones between intense acoustic events; and - - Requirements or incentives for the reduction of acoustic footprints of intense noise -sources. - -MIT 94 The mitigation measures outlined in the EIS need to be more stringent and expanded by: - - Coverage of an adequate amount of important habitat and concentration areas for marine -mammals. - - Identifying and protecting Important Ecological Areas of the Arctic. - -MIT 95 Time/area closures represent progress, but NMFS‟s analysis that the closures provide limited -benefits is faulty and needs further evaluation - - The current analysis does not well reflect the higher densities of marine mammals in -concentration areas and other Important Ecological Areas (IEAs). - - The analysis also does not fully recognize the importance of those areas to the overall -health of the species being impacted, and thus underestimates the likely disproportionate - -effects of activities in those areas. - - The analysis concludes no benefit as a result of mitigating impacts. This, along with a -lack of information to assess the size of the benefit beyond unclear and ill-defined levels, - -mistakenly results in analysts concluding there is no benefit. - - The inability to quantitatively estimate the potential impacts of oil and gas activities, or -express the benefits of time and area closures of important habitats, likely has much more - -to do with incomplete information than with a perceived lack of benefits from the time - -and area closures. - -MIT 96 A precautionary approach should be taken: - -Comment [CAN25]: Combine with MIT 57. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 65 - -Comment Analysis Report - - Faulty analysis, along with the clear gaps in good data for a number of species, only -serves to bolster the need for precaution in the region. - - While there is good information on the existence of some Important Ecological -AreasIEAs, the lack of information about why some concentration areas occur and what - -portion of a population of marine mammals uses each area hampers the ability of NMFS - -to determine the benefits of protecting the area. This lack of scientific certainty should - -not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental - -degradation. - -MIT 97 Ledyard Bay and Kasegaluk Lagoon merit special protection through time/ and area closures - -for all the reasons highlighted in the EIS. - - Walrus also utilize these areas from June through September, with large haulouts on the -barrier islands of Kasegaluk Lagoon in late August and September. - -MIT 98 Hanna Shoal merits special protection through time/ and area closures for all the reasons - -highlighted in the EIS. - - It is also a migration area for bowhead whales in the fall, and used by polar bears. - -MIT 99 Barrow Canyon merits considerable protection through time/ and area closures for all the - -reasons highlighted in the EIS. - -MIT 100 Beaufort Shelf Break and Camden Bay merit special protection through time/ and area - -closures for all the reasons highlighted in the EIS. - - The Beaufort Shelf Break should be included in the map of special habitat areas of the -Beaufort Sea, and it is unclear why that area was left out of that section. - -MIT 101 NMFS should create a system where as new and better information becomes available, there - -is opportunity to add and adjust areas to protect important habitat. - -MIT 102 There is no point to analyzing hypothetical additional mitigation measures in a DEIS that is a - -theoretical analysis of potential measures undertaken in the absence of a specific activity, - -location or time. If these measures were ever potentially relevant, reanalysis in a project-¬ - -specific NEPA document would be required. - -MIT 103 NMFS needs to expand and update its list of mitigation measures to include: - - Zero discharge requirement to protect water quality and subsistence resources. - - Require oil and gas companies who are engaging in exploration operations to obtain EPA -issued air permits. - - More stringent regulation of marine vessel discharge for both exploratory drilling -operations, support vessels, and other operations to eliminate possible environmental - -contamination through the introduction of pathogens and foreign organisms through - -ballast water, waste water, sewage, and other discharge streams. - - The requirement that industry signs a CAA with the relevant marine mammal co- -management organizations. - - Another Standard Mitigation Measure should be developed with regards to marine -mammal monitoring during darkness and inclement weather. This should require more - -efficient and appropriate protocols. If more appropriate monitoring methods cannot be - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 66 - -Comment Analysis Report - -developed, NMFS should not allow for seismic surveys during times when monitoring is - -severely limited. - - NMFS should consider for mitigation a requirement that seismic survey vessels use the -lowest practicable source levels, minimize horizontal propagation of the sound signal, - -and/or minimize the density of track lines consistent with the purposes of the survey. - -Accordingly, the agencies should consider establishing a review panel, potentially - -overseen by both NMFS and BOEM, to review survey designs with the aim of reducing - -their wildlife impacts. - - A requirement that all vessels undergo measurement for their underwater noise output per -American National Standards Institute/Acoustical Society of America standards (S12.64); - -that all vessels undergo regular maintenance to minimize propeller cavitation, which is - -the primary contributor to underwater ship noise; and/or that all new vessels be required - -to employ the best ship quieting designs and technologies available for their class of ship. - - NMFS should consider requiring aerial monitoring and/or fixed hydrophone arrays to -reduce the risk of near-source injury and monitor for impacts. - - Make Marine Mammal Observers (MMOs) and PSOs mandatory on the vessels. - - Unmanned flights should also be investigated for monitoring, as recommended by -NMFS‟s Open Water Panel. - - Mitigation and monitoring measures concerning the introduction of non-native species -need to be identified and analyzed. - -MIT 104 Both the section on water quality and subsistence require a discussion of mitigation measures - -and how NMFS intends to address local community concerns about contamination of - -subsistence food from sanitary waste and drilling muds and cuttings. - -MIT 105 NMFS must discuss the efficacy of mitigation measures: - - Including safety zones, start-up and shut-down procedures, use of Marine Mammal -Observers during periods of limited visibility for preventing impacts to bowhead whales - -and the subsistence hunt. - - Include discussion of the significant scientific debate regarding the effectiveness of many -mitigation measures that are included in the DEIS and that have been previously used by - -industry as a means of complying with the MMPA. - - We strongly encourage NMFS to include in either Chapter 3 or Chapter 4 a separate -section devoted exclusively to assessing whether and to what extent each individual - -mitigation measure is effective at reducing impacts to marine mammals and the - -subsistence hunt. NMFS should use these revised portions of the DEIS to discuss and - -analyze compliance with the "least practicable adverse impact" standard of the MMPA. - - NMFS must discuss to what extent visual monitoring is effective as a means of triggering -mitigation measures, and, if so, how specifically visual monitoring can be structured or - -supplemented with acoustic monitoring to improve performance. - - NMFS should clearly analyze whether poor visibility restrictions are appropriate and -whether those restrictions are necessary to comply with the "least practicable impact" - -standard of the MMPA. - - NMFS should disclose in the EIS uncertainties as to the efficacy of ramp up procedures -and then discuss and analyze how that uncertainty relates to an estimate of impacts to - -marine mammals and, in particular, bowhead whales. - - This EIS is an important opportunity for NMFS to assess the efficacy of these proposed -measures with the full input of the scientific community before making a decision on - -overall levels of industrial activity in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. NMFS should, - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 67 - -Comment Analysis Report - -therefore, amend the DEIS to include such an analysis, which can then be subject to - -further public review and input pursuant to a renewed public comment period. - -MIT 106 NMFS must include in a revised DEIS a discussion of additional deferral areas and a - -reasoned analysis of whether and to what extent those deferral areas would benefit our - -subsistence practices and habitat for the bowhead whale. - -MIT 107 NMFS should create an alternative modeled off of the adaptive management process of the - -CAA. Without doing so, the agency cannot fully analyze and consider the benefits provided - -by this community based, collaborative approach to managing multiple uses on the Outer - -Continental Shelf. - -MIT 108 NMFS needs to it revise the DEIS to include a more complete description of the proposed - -mitigation measures, eliminate the concept of "additional mitigation measures," and then - -decide in the Record of Decision on a final suite of applicable mitigation measures. - -MIT 109 The peer review panel states that "a single sound source pressure level or other single - -descriptive parameter is likely a poor predictor of the effects of introduced anthropogenic - -sound on marine life." The panel recommends that NMFS develop a "soundscape" approach - -to management, and it was understand that the NSB Department of Wildlife suggested such - -an alternative, which was rejected by NMFS. If NMFS moves forward with using simple - -measures, it is recommended that these measures "should be based on the more - -comprehensive ecosystem assessments and they should be precautionary to compensate for - -remaining uncertainty in potential effects." NMFS should clarify how these concerns are - -reflected in the mitigation measures set forth in the DEIS and whether the simple sound - -pressure level measures are precautionary as suggested by the peer review panel. - -MIT 110 NMFS needs to clarify why it is using 160 dB re 1 Pa rms as the threshold for level B take. - -Clarification is needed on whether exposure of feeding whales to sounds up to 160 dB re 1 - -µPa rms could cause adverse effects, and, if so, why the threshold for level B harassment is - -not lower. - -MIT 111 NMFS should consider implementing mitigation measures designed to avoid exposing - -migrating bowhead whales to received sound levels of 120dB or greater given the best - -available science, which demonstrates that such noise levels cause behavioral changes in - -bowhead whales. - -MIT 112 The DEIS does not list aerial surveys as a standard or additional mitigation measure for either - -the Beaufort or Chukchi seas. There is no reasonable scientific basis for this. NMFS should - -include aerial surveys as a possible mitigation measure along with a discussion of the peer - -review panel's concerns regarding this issue. - -MIT 113 Standard mitigation measures are needed to protect autumn bowhead hunting at Barrow, - -Wainwright, and possibly at Point Lay and Point Hope and subsistence hunting of beluga - -whales at Point Lay and Wainwright and seal and walrus hunting along the Chukchi Sea - -coasts. - - One approach for protecting beluga hunting at Point Lay would be to implement adaptive -management; whereby, ships and drill rigs would not come within 60 miles of the - -community of Point Lay until the beluga hunt is completed. - - These types of mitigation measures should be standard and should be applied to any -Incidental Take Authorization (ITA). - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 68 - -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 114 The mitigation measure related to discharge of drilling muds does not address the current - -industry plan of recycling muds and then discharging any unused or remaining muds at the - -end of the season. At the very least, no drilling muds should be discharged. - - Furthermore, using the best management practice of near- zero discharge, as is being -implemented by Shell in Camden Bay in the Beaufort Sea, would be the best method for - -mitigating impacts to marine mammals and ensuring that habitat is kept as clean and - -healthy as possible. - -MIT 115 Reduction levels associated with Additional Mitigation Measure C3 should be specified and - -applied to marine vessel traffic supporting operations as well as drill ships. - -MIT 116 NMFS should consider using an independent panel to review survey designs. For example, an - -independent peer review panel has been established to evaluate survey design of the Central - -Coastal California Seismic Imaging Project, which is aimed at studying fault systems near the - -Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. See California Public Utilities Commission, Application - -of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Approval of Ratepayer Funding to Perform - -Additional Seismic Studies Recommended by the California Energy Commission: Decision - -Granting the Application, available at - -docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/FINAL_DECISION/122059-09.htm. - -MIT 117 Prohibiting all seismic surveys outside proposed lease sale areas is not essential to the stated - -purpose and need. - -MIT 118 Use additional best practices for monitoring and maintaining safety zones around active - -airgun arrays and other high-intensity underwater noise sources as set forth in Weir and - -Dolman (2007) and Parsons et al. (2009) - -MIT 119 The existing draft EIS makes numerous errors regarding mitigation: - - Mischaracterizing the effectiveness and practicability of particular measures. - - Failing to analyze variations of measures that may be more effective than the ones -proposed. - - Failing to standardize measures that are plainly effective. - -MIT 120 Language regarding whether or not standard mitigation measures are required is confusing, - -and NMFS should make clear that this mitigation is indeed mandatory. - -MIT 121 The rationale for not including mitigation limiting activities in low-visibility conditions, - -which can reduce the risk of ship-strikes and near-field noise exposures, as standard - -mitigation is flawed, and this measure needs to be included: - - First, it suggests that the restriction could extend the duration of a survey and thus the -potential for cumulative disturbance of wildlife; but this concern would not apply to - -activities in migratory corridors, since target species like bowhead whales are transient. - - Second, while it suggests that the requirement would be expensive to implement, it does -not consider the need to reduce ship-strike risk in heavily-used migratory corridors in - -order to justify authorization of an activity under the IHA process. - - This requirement should be standardized for all activities involving moving vessels that -occur in bowhead whale migratory corridors during the latter parts of the open-water - -season (i.e., September-October); and for all transits of support vessels in all areas at all - -times. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 69 - -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 122 NMFS fails to consider a number of recent studies on temporary threshold shift in - -establishing its 180/190 dB safety zone standard. NMFS should conservatively recalculate its - -safety zone distances in light of these studies, which indicate the need for larger safety zones, - -especially for the harbor porpoise: - -1) A controlled exposure experiment demonstrating that harbor porpoises are substantially -more susceptible to temporary threshold shift than the two species, bottlenose dolphins - -and beluga whales, that have previously been tested; - -2) A modeling effort indicating that, when uncertainties and individual variation are -accounted for, a significant number of whales could suffer temporary threshold shift - -beyond 1 km from a seismic source; - -3) Studies suggesting that the relationship between temporary and permanent threshold shift -may not be as predictable as previously believed; and - -4) The oft-cited Southall et al. (2007), which suggests use of a cumulative exposure metric -for temporary threshold shift in addition to the present RMS metric, given the potential - -occurrence of multiple surveys within reasonably close proximity. - -MIT 123 The draft DEIS improperly rejects the 120 dB safety zone for bowhead whales, and the 160 - -dB safety zone for bowhead and gray whales that have been used in IHAs over the past five - -seasons: - - It claims that the measure is ineffective because it has never yet been triggered, but does -not consider whether a less stringent, more easily triggered threshold might be more - -appropriate given the existing data. For example, the draft DEIS fails to consider whether - -requiring observers to identify at least 12 whales within the 160 dB safety zone, and then - -to determine that the animals are engaged in a nonmigratory, biologically significant - -behavior, might not constitute too high a bar, and whether a different standard would - -provide a greater conservation benefit while enabling survey activity. - -MIT 124 The assertion by industry regarding the overall safety of conducting fixed-wing aircraft - -monitoring flights in the Arctic, especially in the Chukchi Sea, should be reviewed in light of - -the multiple aerial surveys that are now being conducted there (e.g., COMIDA and Shell is - -planning to implement an aerial monitoring program extending 37 kilometers from the shore, - -as it has for a number of years). - -MIT 125 The draft DEIS implies that requiring airgun surveys to maintain a 90-mile separation - -distance would reduce impacts in some circumstances but not in others, depending on the - -area of operation, season, and whether whales are feeding or migrating. - - NMFS does not provide any biological basis for this finding. - - This analysis fails to consider that the measure would affect only the timing, not the -spatial extent of the survey effort: the overall area of ensonification would remain the - -same over the course of a season since survey activities would only be separated, not - -curtailed. - - If NMFS believes that surveys should not be separated in all cases, it should consider a -measure that defines the conditions in which greater separation would be required. - -MIT 126 Restrictions on numbers of activities to reduce survey duplication: While acknowledging the - -conservation benefits of this measure, the draft EIS argues that the agencies have no legal - -authority to impose it. This position is based on an incorrect reading of OCSLA. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 70 - -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 127 The draft DEIS should also consider to what degree the time/place restrictions could protect - -marine mammals from some of the harmful effects from an oil spill. Avoiding exploration - -drilling during times when marine mammals may be concentrated nearby could help to - -ameliorate the more severe impacts discussed in the draft DEIS. - -MIT 128 Avoiding exploratory drilling proximate to the spring lead system and avoiding late season - -drilling would help to reduce the risk of oil contaminating the spring lead. At a minimum, - -NMFS should consider timing restrictions in the Chukchi Sea to avoid activities taking place - -too early in the open water season. - -MIT 129 NMFS should consider timing restrictions to avoid the peak of the bowhead migration - -throughout the Beaufort Sea, particularly north of Dease Inlet to Smith Bay; northeast of - -Smith Bay; and northeast of Cape Halkett where bowhead whales feed. - -MIT 130 The draft DEIS‟s reliance on future mitigation measures required by the FWS and undertaken -by industry is unjustified. It refers to measures typically required through the MMPA and - -considers that it is in industry‟s self-interest to avoid harming bears. The draft EIS cannot -simply assume that claimed protections resulting from the independent efforts of others will - -mitigate for potential harm. - -MIT 131 The EIS identifies appropriate mitigation to address impacts to the extent possible. - -MIT 132 Allowing only one or two drilling programs per sea to proceed: Since six operators hold - -leases in the Chukchi and 18 in the Beaufort, the DEIS effectively declares as worthless - -leases associated with four Chukchi operators and 16 Beaufort operators. How NMFS - -expects to choose which operators can work is not clear, nor is it clear how it would - -compensate those operators not chosen for the value of their lease and resources expenditures - -to date. - -MIT 133 The time/area closures in protecting critical ecological and subsistence use areas are very - -important in ensuring that subsistence way of life continues. Please consider that when you - -make your final determination. - -MIT 134 Adaptive management should be used, and an area should not be closed if there are no - -animals there. - -MIT 135 The stipulations that are put in or the mitigations that are put in for the Beaufort Sea should - -not affect activity in the Chukchi Sea. They are two different worlds, if you think about it, the - -depth of the ocean, the movement of the ice, the distance away from our subsistence activity. - -Don't take the Beaufort Sea restrictions and make it harder to work in the Chukchi Sea. - -MIT 136 Only grant permits and allow work when whaling is not occurring. - -MIT 137 When examinedSpecific dates are listed for the time/area closures proposed in the - -alternatives, specific dates are listed, but dates for closures need to be flexible to adjust for - -changes in migration; fixed dates are very difficult to change. - -MIT 138 Based on traditional knowledge, there isare not enough data to really determine season - -closures or times of use because we don't know where so many of these animals go when - -they are not right here on the coast. - -Comment [CAN26]: Seems to be a repeat of an -earlier SOC. - -Comment [CAN27]: This belongs in the ALT -Issue Category and likely can be combined with - -other SOCs already in that category. - -Comment [CAN28]: Seems to be a repeat of an -earlier SOC. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 71 - -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 139 The MMO (PSO) program is not very effective: - - Only MMOs who are ethical and work hard see marine mammals; and - - There is no oversight to make sure the MMO was actually working. - -MIT 140 The most effective means of creating mitigation that works is to start small and focused and - -reassess after a couple of seasons to determine what works and what doesn‟t work. Mitigation -measures could then be adjusted to match reality. - -MIT 141 There should be a mechanism by which the public can be apprised of and provide input on - -the efficacy of mitigation efforts. Suggestions include: - - Something similar to the Open Water meetings. - - Put out a document about the assumptions upon which all these NEPA documents and -permits are based and assess mitigation - Are they working, how did they work, what - -were the problems and challenges, where does attention need to be focused. - - Include dates if something unusual happened that season that would provide an -opportunity to contact NOAA or BOEM and report what was observed. - - This would just help us to again refine mitigation recommendations in the future. - -MIT 142 If explosives are used, there needs to be mitigation to ensure that the explosives are - -accounted for. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 72 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Marine Mammal and other Wildlife Impacts (MMI) - -MMI General comments related to potential impacts to marine mammals or other wildlife, - -unrelated to subsistence resource concepts. - -MMI 1 The draft DEIS improperly dismisses the risk of mortality and serious injury from acoustic - -impacts: - - The draft DEIS fails to consider the adverse synergistic effect that at least some types of -anthropogenic noise can have on ship-strike risk (for example mid-frequency sounds with - -frequencies in the range of some sub-bottom profilers have been shown to cause North - -Atlantic right whales to break off their foraging dives and lie just below the surface, - -increasing the risk of vessel strike). - - Recent studies indicate that anthropogenic sound can induce permanent threshold shift at -lower levels than anticipated. - - Hearing loss remains a significant risk where, as here, the agency has not required aerial -or passive acoustic monitoring as standard mitigation, appears unwilling to restrict - -operations in low-visibility conditions, and has not firmly established seasonal exclusion - -areas for biologically important habitat. - - The draft DEIS discounts the potential for marine mammal strandings, even though at -least one stranding event of beaked whales in the Gulf of California correlated with - -geophysical survey activity. - - The draft DEIS makes no attempt to assess the long-term effects of chronic noise and -noise-related stress on life expectancy and survival, although terrestrial animals could - -serve as a proxy. - - The agencies‟ reliance on monitoring for adaptive management, and their assurance that -activities will be reassessed if serious injury or mortality occurs, is inappropriate given - -the probability that even catastrophic declines in Arctic populations would go - -unobserved. - - The DEIS fails to address the wide-ranging impacts that repeated, high-intensity airgun -surveys will have on wildlife. - - We know far too little about these vulnerable [endangered] species to ensure that the -industry's constant pounding does not significantly impact their populations or jeopardize - -their survival. - -MMI 2 Loss of sea-ice habitat due to climate change may make polar bears, ice seals, and walrus - -more vulnerable to impacts from oil and gas activities, which needs to be considered in the - -EIS. The draft DEIS needs to adequately consider impacts in the context of climate change: - - The added stress of habitat loss due to climate change should form a greater part of the -draft DEIS analysis. - - Both polar bears and ringed seals may be affected by multiple-year impacts from -activities associated with drilling (including an associated increase in vessel traffic) given - -their dependence on sea-ice and its projected decline. - - Shifts in distribution and habitat use by polar bears and walrus in the Beaufort and -Chukchi seas attributable to loss of sea ice habitat is insufficiently incorporated into the - -DEIS analysis. The DEIS only asserts that possible harm to subsistence and to polar bear - -habitat from oil and gas operations would be negligible compared to the potential for - -dramatic sea ice loss due to climate change and changes in ecosystems due to ocean - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 73 - -Comment Analysis Report - -acidification. For walrus and ice seals, the DEIS simply notes potentially catastrophic - -climate effects without adequately considering how oil and gas activities might leave - -species more vulnerable to that outcome. - - Sub-adult polar bears that return to land in summer because of sea-ice loss are more -likely to be impacted by activities in the water, onshore support of open water activities, - -and oil spills; this could represent potentially major impacts to polar bear populations and - -should be considered in any final EIS. - - Walrus feeding grounds are being transformed and walrus are hauling out on land in large -numbers, leaving them vulnerable to land-based disturbances. - -MMI 3 Consider that effects of an oil spill would be long-lasting. Petroleum products cause - -malformation in fish, death in marine mammals and birds, and remain in the benthos for at - -least 25 years, so would impact the ecosystem for at least a quarter of a century. - -MMI 4 In addition to noise, drilling wastes, air pollution, habitat degradation, shipping, and oil spills - -would also adversely affect marine mammals. These adverse effects are ethical issues that - -need to be considered. - -MMI 5 Seismic airgun surveys are more disruptive to marine mammals than suggested by the - -“unlikely impacts” evaluation peppered throughout the DEIS: - - They are known to disrupt foraging behavior at distances greater than the typical 1000 -meter observation/mitigation threshold. - - Beluga whales are known to avoid seismic surveys at distances greater than 10 km. - - Behavioral disturbance of bowhead whales have been observed at distances of 7km to -35km. - - Marine mammals are seen in significantly lower numbers during seismic surveys -indicating impacts beyond the standard 1000 meter mitigation set-back. - - Impacts may vary depending on circumstances and conditions and should not be -dismissed just because of a few studies that indicate only “negligible” impacts. - -MMI 6 There is not enough known about Arctic fish and invertebrate acoustical adaptations to - -adequately analyze acoustic impacts, contrary to what is stated in the DEIS. - - For example: While migratory fish may evade threats by swimming away, many fish, -especially sedentary fish, will “entrench” into their safe zone when threatened, and -prolong exposure to potentially damaging stimulus. Assuming that fish will “move out -harm‟s way” is an irresponsible management assumption and needs to be verified prior to -stating that “enough information exists to perform a full analysis.” - -MMI 7 The high probability for disruption or “take” of marine mammals in the water by helicopters -and other heavy load aircraft during the spring and summer months is not adequately - -addressed in the DEIS. - -MMI 8 Impacts on Arctic fish species, fish habitat, and fisheries are poorly understood and - -inadequately presented in the DEIS. NMFS should consider the following: - - The DEIS substantially understates the scale of impact on Arctic fish species, and fails to -consider any measures to mitigate their effects. - -Comment [CAN29]: Combine with MMI 6. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 74 - -Comment Analysis Report - - Airgun surveys are known to significantly affect the distribution of some fish species, -which can impact fisheries and displace or reduce the foraging success of marine - -mammals that rely on them for prey. - - Airguns have been shown experimentally to dramatically depress catch rates of some -commercial fish species, by 40 to 80% depending on catch method, over thousands of - -square kilometers around a single array. - - Impacts on fisheries were found to last for some time beyond the survey period, not fully -recovering within 5 days of post-survey monitoring. - - The draft DEIS appears to assume without support that effects on both fish and fisheries -would be localized. - - Fish use sound for communication, homing, and other important purposes, and can -experience temporary or permanent hearing loss on exposure to intense sound. - - Other impacts on commercially harvested fish include reduced reproductive performance -and mortality or decreased viability of fish eggs and larvae. - - A rigorous analysis is necessary to assess direct and indirect impacts of industry activities -on rare fish populations. - - The DEIS lacks a rigorous analysis of noise impacts to fish, particularly relating to the -interaction of two or more acoustic sources (e.g., two seismic surveys). - - A rigorous analysis is needed that investigates how two or more noise generating -activities interact to displace fish moving/feeding along the coast, as acoustic barriers - -may interrupt natural processes important to the life cycle and reproductive success of - -some fish species/populations. - -MMI 9 Impacts of seismic airgun surveys on squid and other invertebrates need to be included and - -considered in terms of the particular species and their role as prey of marine mammals and - -commercial and protected fish. - -MMI 10 Oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development in the Arctic Ocean has had no known - -adverse impact on marine mammal species and stocks, and the reasonably anticipated impacts - -to marine mammals from OCS exploration activities occurring in the next five years are, at - -most, negligible. - - There is no evidence that serious injury, death, or stranding by marine mammals can -occur from exposure to airgun pulses, even in the case of large airgun arrays. - - No whales or other marine mammals have been killed or injured by past seismic -operations. - - The western Arctic bowhead whale population has been increasing for over 20 years, -suggesting impacts of oil and gas industry on individual survival and reproduction in the - -past have likely been minor. - - These activities are unlikely to have any effect on the other four stocks of bowhead -whales. - - Only the western North Pacific stock of humpback whales and the Northeast Pacific -stock of fin whales would be potentially affected by oil and gas leasing and exploration - -activities in the Chukchi Sea. There would be no effect on the remaining worldwide - -stocks of humpback or fin whales. - - Most impacts would be due to harassment of whales, which may lead to behavioral -reactions from which recovery is fairly rapid. - - There is no evidence of any biologically significant impacts at the individual or -population level. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 75 - -Comment Analysis Report - -MMI 11 Noise impacts on key habitats and important biological behaviors of marine mammals (e.g., - -breeding, feeding, communicating) could cause detrimental effects at the population level. - -Consider the following: - - According to an IWC Scientific Committee report, repeated and persistent exposure of -noise across a large area could cause detrimental impacts to marine mammal populations. - - A recent study associated reduced underwater noise with a reduction in stress hormones, -providing evidence that noise may contribute to long-term stress (negatively affecting - -growth, immune response to diseases, and reproduction) for individuals and populations. - -MMI 12 Most marine mammals primarily rely on their acoustic sense, and they would likely suffer - -more from noise exposure than other species. While marine mammals have seemingly - -developed strategies to deal with noise and related shipping traffic (e.g., changing - -vocalizations, shifting migration paths, etc.), the fact that some species have been exposed to - -anthropogenic changes for only one generation (e.g., bowhead whales) makes it unlikely that - -they have developed coping mechanisms appropriate to meet novel environmental pressures, - -such as noise. Marine mammals living in relatively pristine environments, such as the Arctic - -Ocean, and have less experience with noise and shipping traffic may experience magnified - -impacts. - -MMI 13 Impacts from ship-strikes (fatal and non-fatal) need to be given greater consideration, - -especially with increased ship traffic and the development of Arctic shipping routes. - - Potential impacts on beluga whales and other resources in Kotzebue Sound needs to be -considered with vessels traveling past this area. - - There is great concern for ship strikes of bowhead and other whales and these significant -impacts must be addressed in conjunction with the project alternatives. - -MMI 14 Walrus could also be affected by operations in the Bering Sea. For instance, the winter range - -and the summer range for male and subadult walrus could place them within the Bering Sea, - -potentially overlapping with bottom trawling. - -MMI 15 Surveys recently conducted during the open water season documented upwards of a thousand - -walrus in a proposed exploratory drilling (study) area, potentially exposing a large number of - -walrus to stresses associated with oil and gas activity, including drilling and vessel activity. - -Since a large proportion of these animals in the Chukchi Sea are comprised of females and - -calves, it is possible that the production of the population could be differentially affected. - -MMI 16 The 120 dB threshold may represent a lower level at which some individual marine mammals - -will exhibit minor avoidance responses. While this avoidance might, in some but not all - -circumstances, be meaningful to a native hunter, scientific research does not indicate - -dramatic responses in most animals. In fact, the detailed statistical analyses often needed to - -confirm subtle changes in direction are not available. The significance of a limited avoidance - -response (to the animal) likely is minor (Richardson et al., 2011). - -MMI 17 Seismic operations are most often in timescales of weeks and reduce the possibility of - -significant displacement since they do not persist in an area for an extended period of time. - -However, little evidence of area-wide displacement exists or has been demonstrated. - -MMI 18 The DEIS analysis does not adequately consider the fact that many animals avoid vessels - -regardless of whether they are emitting loud sounds and may increase that avoidance distance - -during seismic operations (Richardson et al. 2011). Therefore, it should be a reasonable - -Comment [CAN30]: Combine with MMI 16. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 76 - -Comment Analysis Report - -assumption that natural avoidance serves to provide another level of protection to the - -animals. - -MMI 19 Bowhead whale cows do not abandon or separate from their calves in response to seismic - -exploration or other human activities. There is no scientific support whatsoever for any - -assumption or speculation that seismic operations have such impacts or could result in the - -loss or injury of a whale. To the contrary, all of the scientific evidence shows that seismic and - -other anthropogenic activities, including commercial whaling, have not been shown to cause - -the separation or abandonment of cow/calf pairs. - -MMI 20 Bowhead whales do not routinely deflect 20 kilometers from seismic operations. The DEIS - -asserts that bowhead whales have rarely been observed within 20 kilometers of active seismic - -operations but fails to utilize other information that challenge the validity of this assertion. - -MMI 21 In the Arctic, sound levels follow a highly distinct seasonal pattern dominated in winter by - -ice-related sound and then altered by sound from wind, waves, vessels, seismic surveys, and - -drilling in the open-water period. The sound signatures (i.e., frequency, intensity, duration, - -variability) of the various sources are either well known or easily described and, for any - -given region, they should be relatively predictable. The primary source of anthropogenic - -sound in the Arctic during the open-water season is oil and gas-related seismic activity, and - -those activities can elevate sound levels by 2-8 dB (Roth et al. 2012). The Service and - -BureauNMFS and BOEM should be able to compare seasonal variations in the Arctic - -soundscape to the movement patterns and natural histories of marine mammals and to - -subsistence hunting patterns. - -MMI 22 The lack of observed avoidance is not necessarily indicative of a lack of impact (e.g., animals - -that have a learned tolerance of sound and remain in biologically important areas may still - -incur physiological (stress) costs from exposure or suffer significant communication - -masking). - -MMI 23 Marine mammal concentration areas are one potential example of Important Ecological - -AreasIEAs that require robust management measures to ensure the health of the ecosystem as - -a whole. Impacts to marine mammal concentration areas, especially those areas where - -multiple marine mammal species are concentrated in a particular place and time, are more - -likely to cascade throughout populations and ecosystems. - - Displacement from a high-density feeding area-in the absence of alternate feeding areas - -may be energetically stressful. - -MMI 24 Bowhead whales are long-lived and travel great distances during their annual migration, - -leaving them potentially exposed to a wide range of potential anthropogenic impacts and - -cumulative effects over broad geographical and temporal scales. This is why an ecosystem - -based management system is useful. - -MMI 25 NMFS should include a discussion of the recent disease outbreak affecting seals and walrus, - -include this outbreak as part of the baseline, and discuss how potential similar future events - -(of unknown origin) are likely to increase in the future. - -MMI 26 There remains great uncertainty in the nature and extent of the impacts of oil and gas - -exploration on marine mammals, which needs to be taken into consideration. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 77 - -Comment Analysis Report - - All industrial activity is not the same and some will likely have more of an impact on -marine mammals than others. - -MMI 27 Short-term displacement that occurs during a critical and stressful portion on the animals - -annual life cycle (e.g., molt in seals) could further increase stress to displaced individuals and - -needs to be considered. - - Disturbance to ringed and bearded seals from spill clean-up activities during the early -summer molt period would greatly increase stress to these species. - -MMI 28 The effects that a very large oil spill could have on seal populations are understated in the - -analyses. - - The oil spill would not have to reach polyna or lead systems to affect seals. Ringed seals -feed under the pack ice in the water column layer where oil would likely be entrained and - -bearded seals travel through this water layer. - - Numerous individuals are likely to become oiled no matter where such a spill is likely to -occur. - - Food sources for all seal species would be heavily impacted in spill areas. - - More than one "subpopulation" could likely be affected by a very large oil spill. - -MMI 29 Analysis should include the high probability for polar bears to be impacted if a spill reached - -the lead edge between the shorefast and pack ice zones, which is critical foraging habitat - -especially during spring after den emergence by females with cubs. - -MMI 30 The draft DEIS must further explore a threat of biologically significant effects, since as much - -as 25% of the EIS project area could be exposed to 120 dB sound levels known to provoke - -significant behavioral reactions in migrating bowhead whales, multiple activities could result - -in large numbers of bowhead whales potentially excluded from feeding habitat, exploration - -activities would occur annually over the life of the EIS, and there is a high likelihood of - -drilling around Camden Bay. - -MMI 31 The draft DEIS should compare the extent of past activities and the amount of noise produced - -to what is projected with the proposed activities under the alternatives, and the draft DEIS - -must also consider the fact that the bowhead population may be approaching carrying - -capacity, potentially altering the degree to which it can withstand repeated disturbances. - -MMI 32 Impacts to beluga whales needs to be more thoroughly considered: - - Beluga whales‟ strong reactions to higher frequencies illustrate the failure of the draft -DEIS to calculate ensonified zones for sub-bottom profilers, side scan sonar, and - -echosounders - - The draft DEIS does not discuss beluga whales‟ well-documented reaction to ships and -ice breakers in the context of surveying with ice breaker support or exploratory drilling. - -Ice management activity has the potential to disturb significant numbers of beluga whale - - The draft DEIS makes very little effort to estimate where and when beluga whales might -be affected by oil and gas activities. If noise disrupts important behaviors (mating, - -nursing, or feeding), or if animals are displaced from important habitat over long periods - -of time, then impacts of noise and disturbance could affect the long-term survival of the - -population. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 78 - -Comment Analysis Report - -MMI 33 NMFS should consider whether ice management or ice breaking have the potential to - -seriously injure or kill ice seals resting on pack ice, including in the area of Hanna Shoal that - -is an important habitat for bearded seals. - -MMI 34 NMFS should consider that on-ice surveys may directly disrupt nursing polar bears in their - -dens and ringed seals in their lairs, potentially causing abandonment, or mortality if the dens - -or lairs are crushed by machinery. - -MMI 35 The draft DEIS‟s analysis for gray whales is faulty: - - Gray whales were grouped with other cetaceans, so more attention specific to gray -whales is needed. - - Contrary to what the draft DEIS claims (without support), gray whale feeding and -migration patterns do not closely mimic those of bowhead whales: gray whales migrate - -south to Mexico and typically no farther north than the Chukchi Sea, and are primarily - -benthic feeders. - - Analysis of the effects for Alternatives 2 and 3 does not discuss either the gray whale‟s -reliance on the Chukchi Sea for its feeding or its documented preference for Hanna - -Shoal. - - In another comparisons to bowhead whales, the draft DEIS states that both populations -increased despite previous exploration activities. Gray whale numbers, however, have - -declined since Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections were removed in 1994, and - -there is speculation that the population is responding to environmental limitations. - - Gray whales can be disturbed by very low levels of industrial noise, with feeding -disruptions occurring at noise levels of 110 dB. - - The DEIS needs to more adequately consider effects of activities and possible closure -areas in the Chukchi Sea (e.g., Hanna Shoal) on gray whales. When discussing the - -possibility that area closures could concentrate effects elsewhere, the draft DEIS focuses - -on the Beaufort Sea, such as on the Beaufort shelf between Harrison Bay and Camden - -Bay during those time periods. - -MMI 36 There needs to be more analysis of noise and other disturbance effects specific to harbor - -porpoise; the DEIS acknowledges that harbor porpoise have higher relative abundance in the - -Chukchi Sea than other marine mammals. - -MMI 37 The agencies must consider the impacts of seismic surveys and other activities on - -invertebrates [e.g. sea turtles, squid, cephalopods]. - -MMI 38 NMFS and BOEM must expand their impacts analysis to include a rigorous and - -comprehensive analysis of potential non-native species introductions via industry vessel - -traffic stopping in Alaska ports and transiting its coastal waters in southern and western - -Alaska. - -MMI 39 NMFS should conduct more rigorous analysis for birds and mammals, including: - - How do multiple seismic surveys in the same region modify the foraging of marine birds -(e.g., where forage fish have been displaced to deeper water or away from nesting areas). - - How do multiple surveys interact to modify marine mammal foraging? - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 79 - -Comment Analysis Report - -MMI 40 NMFS should analyze the impacts to invertebrate and fish resources of introducing artificial - -structures (i.e., drilling platform and catenaries; seafloor structures) into the water column or - -the seafloor. - -MMI 41 The draft DEIS does not do enough to look at how severe direct impacts to the bowhead - -whale during the migration, as well as the cumulative impacts to the bowhead whales could - -be. - - NMFS must quantify how many bowhead whales or other marine mammals are going to -be affected. - -MMI 42 One of the challenges is that sometimes these best geological prospects happen to conflict - -with some of the marine mammal productivity areas, calving areas, birthing. And that's the - -challenge is that you look at these geological areas, there is often a conflict. - -MMI 43 It is important for NMFS to look at the possibility of affecting a global population of marine - -mammals; just not what's existing here, but a global population. - -MMI 44 NMFS should reexamine the DEIS‟s analysis of sockeye and coho salmon. Comments -include: - - The known northern distribution of coho salmon from southern Alaska ends at about -Point Hope (Mecklenburg et al. 2002). - - Sockeye salmon‟s (O. nerka) North Pacific range ends at Point Hope (Mecklenburg et al. -2002). - - Both sockeye and coho salmon are considered extremely rare in the Beaufort Sea, -representing no more than isolated migrants from populations in southern Alaska or - -Russian (Mecklenburg et al. 2002). - - The discussion of coho salmon and sockeye salmon EFH on pages 3-74 to 3-75 is -unnecessary and should be deleted. - -MMI 45 NMFS should reconsider the DEIS‟s analysis of Chinook salmon and possibly include the -species based on the small but significant numbers of the species that are harvested in the - -Barrow domestic fishery. - -MMI 46 NMFS is asked to revise the following statement “Migratory fish are likely to benefit from -this closure… and many amphidromous fish also use brackish water for substantial portions -of their life. Therefore, increased protection of these areas would be beneficial to migratory - -species (4-290).” It is felt that this statement is likely incorrect. In one of the few nearshore -fish surveys conducted in the coastal waters of the Chukchi Sea, Fechhelm et al. (1984) - -conducted summer sampling in Kasegaluk Lagoon proper and in the nearshore coastal waters - -in the vicinity. They reported “When compared with nearshore summer surveys in the -Beaufort Sea, the most prominent feature of the Point Lay catch is the virtual absence of - -anadromous fish [anadromous/amphidromous] fish” (Fechhelm et al. 1984). - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 80 - -Comment Analysis Report - -National Energy Demand and Supply (NED) - -NED Comments related to meeting national energy demands, supply of energy. - -NED 1 The U.S needs stable sources of energy from oil and natural gas to meet its increasing energy - -demands. Access to domestic supplies, such as those located on the Alaska Arctic outer - -continental shelfOCS, is important to meeting this demand. Other benefits include: - -Ddecreased reliance on foreign sources and less dependence on other countries;. Mmore jobs, - -income, energy for the state and nation;, and lowering our nation‟s trade deficit. - -NED 2 Proposed restrictions make it difficult and uneconomical for developers and could preclude - -any development in Alaska and the continental U.S. needs. - -NED 3 Leases and future leases in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas will be handicapped in performing - -the work necessary due to the mitigation measures and will severely compromise the - -feasibility of developing oil and gas resources in Alaska. - -NED 4 The DEIS environmental consequences analysis incorrectly describes the environmental - -effects of energy exploration and production activities and then conversely understates the - -economic consequences of limiting American exploration programs. The analysis therefore - -has no merit. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 81 - -Comment Analysis Report - -NEPA (NEP) - -NEP Comments on impact criteria (Chapter 4) that require clarification of NEPA process and - -methodologies for impact determination - -NEP 1 The scope of the DEIS is flawed, and misaligned with any incidental take action that NMFS - -might take under authority of the MMPA. MMPA ITAs may only be issued if the anticipated - -incidental take is found to have no more than a negligible impact. There can never be a - -purpose or need to prepare an EIS to evaluate the impact of actions that must have no more - -than a negligible impact. Accordingly, there is no need now, nor can there ever be a need, for - -NMFS to prepare an EIS in order to issue an MMPA incidental take authorizationITA. - -NMFS‟ decision to prepare an EIS reflects a serious disconnect between its authority under -the MMPA and its NEPA analysis. - -NEP 2 The EIS should be limited exclusively to exploration activities. Any additional complexities - -associated with proposed future extraction should be reviewed in their own contexts. - -NEP 3 The „need‟ for the EIS presupposes the extraction of hydrocarbons from the Arctic and makes -the extraction of discovered hydrocarbons inevitable by stating that NMFS and BOEM will - -tier from this EIS to support future permitting decisions if such activities fall outside the - -scope of the EIS. - -NEP 4 The purpose and need of this DEIS is described and structured as though NMFS intends to - -issue five-year Incidental Take Regulations (ITRs) for all oil and gas activities in the Arctic - -Ocean regarding all marine mammal species. However, there is no such pending proposal - -with NMFS for any ITRs for any oil and gas activity in the Arctic Ocean affecting any marine - -mammal stock or population. The DEIS is not a programmatic NEPA analysis. Accordingly, - -were NMFS to complete this NEPA process, there would be no five-year ITR decision for it - -to make and no Record of Decision (ROD) to issue. Because the IHA process is working - -adequately, and there is no basies for NMFS to initiate an ITR process, this DEIS is - -disconnected from any factual basis that would provide a supporting purpose and need. - -NEP 5 The scope of NEPA analysis directed to issuance of any form of MMPA incidental take - -authorizationITA should be necessarily limited to the impacts of the anticipated take on the - -affected marine mammal stocks, and there is no purpose or need for NMFS to broadly - -analyze the impacts of future oil and gas activities in general. Impacts on, for example, - -terrestrial mammals, birds, fish, land use, and air quality are irrelevant in this context because - -in issuing IHAs (or, were one proposed, an ITR), NMFS is only authorizing take of marine - -mammals. The scope of the current DEIS is vastly overbroad and does not address any - -specific incidental take authorizationITA under the MMPA. - -NEP 6 The stated purpose of the DEIS has expanded significantly to include the evaluation of - -potential effects of a Very Large Oil Spill, as well as the potential effects of seismic activity - -and alternate approaches for BOEM to issue G&G permit decisions. Neither of these topics - -were considered in the original 2007 DEIS. The original assumption was that the DEIS would - -include an evaluation of the effects of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) activities as they relate - -to authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to oil and gas activities pursuant to the - -MMPA. Per NEPA requirements, the public should have been informed about the expansion - -of the original EIS scope at a minimum, and the lead federal agency should have offered - -additional scoping opportunities to gather comments from the public, affected State and local - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 82 - -Comment Analysis Report - -agencies, and other interested stakeholders. This is a significant oversight of the NEPA - -process. - -NEP 7 It is troubling that the DEIS has failed to describe which specific action has triggered the - -NEPA process, explaining only that conceptual ideas of seismic effects from possible OCS - -oil and gas activities are being evaluated. The analysis is not based on reasonably foreseeable - -levels of activity in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. This vague understanding of conceptual - -ideas would complicate and limit the ability to properly assess environmental impacts and - -provide suitable mitigation. There is no purpose or need for NMFS to prepare a non- - -programmatic EIS for future MMPA ITAs that have not been requested. NEPA does not give - -agencies the authority to engage in non-programmatic impact analyses in the absence of a - -proposed action, which is what NMFS has done. - -NEP 8 Although NMFS has stated that the new 2011 DEIS is based on new information becoming - -available, the 2011 DEIS does not appear to define what new information became available - -requiring a change in the scope, set of alternatives, and analysis, as stated in the 2009 NOI to - -withdraw the DPEIS. Although Section 1.7 of the 2011 DEIS lists several NEPA documents - -(most resulting in a finding of no significant impact) prepared subsequent to the withdrawal - -of the DPEIS, NMFS has not clearly defined what new information would drive such a - -significant change to the proposed action and require the radical alternatives analysis - -presented in the 2011 DEIS. - -NEP 9 The NOI for the 2011 DEIS did not specify that the intent of the document was to evaluate - -finite numbers of exploration activities. As stated in the NOI, NMFS prepared the DEIS to - -update the previous 2007 DPEIS based on new information and to include drilling. - -Additionally, the NOI indicated that NMFS‟ analysis would rely on evaluating a range of -impacts resulting from an unrestricted number of programs to no programs. NMFS did not - -analyze an unrestricted range of programs in any of the alternatives. The original scope - -proposed in the NOI does not match what was produced in the DEIS; therefore NMFS has - -performed an incomplete analysis. - -NEP 10 It is discordant that the proposed action for the DEIS would include BOEM actions along - -with NMFS‟ issuance of ITAs. Geological and geophysical activities are, by definition, -limited in scope, duration and impact. These activities do not have the potential to - -significantly affect the environment, and, so, do not require an EIS. - -NEP 11 The structural issues with the DEIS are so significant that NMFS should: - - Abandon the DEIS and start a new NEPA process, including a new round of scoping, -development of a new proposed action, development of new alternatives that comply - -with the MMPA, and a revised environmental consequences analysis; - - Abandon the DEIS and work in collaboration with BOEM to initiate a new NEPA -process, and conduct a workshop with industry to develop and analyze a feasible set of - -alternatives; - - Abandon the EIS process entirely and continue with its past practice of evaluating impact -of oil and gas activities in the Arctic through project-specific NEPA analyses; or - - Abandon the EIS and restart the NEPA process when a project has been identified and -there is need for such analysis. - -NEP 12 The current DEIS process is unnecessary and replicates NEPA analyses that have already - -been performed. There has already been both a final and supplemental EIS for Chukchi Sea - -Comment [CAN31]: This is pretty much a -verbatim repeat of COR 21, which was made by -Shell. This SOC was made by ION. Please combine - -here, delete from COR, and attribute to both. - -Comment [CAN32]: Similar to COR 22. -Consider combining. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 83 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Lease Sale 193, which adequately addressed seismic exploration and other lease activities to - -which this DEIS is intended to assess. In addition, BOEM has prepared NEPA analyses for - -Shell‟s exploration drilling programs and will prepare a project specific analysis for all other -Arctic OCS exploration programs. As a result, the DEIS duplicates and complicates the - -NEPA process by introducing a competing impact assessment to BOEM‟s work. - -NEP 13 NMFS should add Cook Inlet to the project area for the EIS, as Cook Inlet is tied into the five - -year OCS Plan. - -NEP 14 As the ultimate measure of potential effects, the impact criteria provided in the DEIS are - -problematic. They do not inform the relevant agencies as to how impacts relate to their - -substantive statutory responsibilities, and they do not provide adequate information as to their - -relationship to the NEPA significance threshold, the MMPA, or OCSLA. The DEIS should - -be revised to reflect these concerns: - - The DEIS does not articulate thresholds for “significance,” the point at which NEPA -requires the preparation of an EIS. This is important given the programmatic nature of the - -document, and because there have been conflicting definitions of significance in recent - -NEPA documents related to the Arctic; and - - The DEIS does not provide the necessary information to determine whether any of the -proposed alternatives will have more than a negligible impact on any marine mammal - -stock, no unmitigable adverse impacts on subsistence uses, and whether there may be - -undue harm to aquatic life. NMFS has previously recommended such an approach to - -BOEM for the Draft Supplemental EIS for lease sale 193. Any impact conclusion in the - -DEIS greater than “negligible” would be in conflict with the MMPA “negligible impact” -finding. Future site-specific activities will require additional NEPA analysis. - -NEP 15 NMFS should characterize this analysis as a programmatic EIS, and should make clear that - -additional site-specific NEPA analysis must be performed in conjunction to assess individual - -proposed projects and activities. A programmatic EIS, such as the one NMFS has proposed - -here, cannot provide the detailed information required to ensure that specific projects will - -avoid serious environmental harm and will satisfy the standards established by the MMPA. - -For example, it may be necessary to identify with specificity the locations of sensitive - -habitats that may be affected by individual projects in order to develop and implement - -appropriate mitigation measures. The DEIS, as written, cannot achieve this level of detail. - -NEP 16 The DEIS presents an environmental consequences analysis that is inadequate and does not - -provide a basis for assessing the relative merits of the alternatives. - - The criteria for characterizing impact levels are not clear and do not provide adequate, -distinct differences between categories. Ratings are given by agency officials, which - -could vary from person to person and yield inconsistent assessments. This methodology - -is in contradiction to the NEPA requirements and guidelines that require objective - -decision-making procedures. - - A basis for comparison across alternatives, such as a cost-benefit analysis or other -assessment of relative value between human economic activity and physical/biological - -impacts, is not included. From the existing evaluation system, a “minor” biological effect -and a “minor” social environment effect would be equivalent. - - Minor and short-term behavioral effects appear to be judged more consequential than -known causes of animal mortality. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 84 - -Comment Analysis Report - - Available technical information on numerous issues does not appear to have been -evaluated or included in the impact analysis. - - The assumptions for analysis are flawed and substantially underestimates industry -activities. - - There is no attention to the probability of impacts. - - There is little attention paid to the severity of effects discussed. - - Many conclusions lack supporting data, and findings are not incorporated into a -biologically meaningful analysis. - -NEP 17 There is no purpose and need for the scope of any NEPA analysis prepared by NMFS to - -address the impacts of incidental take of polar bears and walrus by the oil and gas industry. - -There are existing ITRs and NEPA analyses that cover these species. The scope of the DEIS - -should be revised to exclude polar bears and walrus. - -NEP 18 NMFS should extend the public comment period to accommodate the postponed public - -meetings in Kaktovik and Nuiqsut. It seems appropriate to keep the public comment period - -open for all public entities until public meetings have been completed. NMFS should ensure - -that adherence to the public process and NEPA compliance has occurred. - -NEP 19 The DEIS should define the potential future uses of tiering from the NEPA document, - -specifically related to land and water management and uses. This future management intent - -may extend the regulatory jurisdiction beyond the original scope of the DEIS. - -NEP 20 There are no regulations defining the term “potential effects,” which is used quite frequently -in the DEIS. Many of these potential effects are questionable due the lack of scientific - -certainty, and in some critical areas, the virtual absence of knowledge. The DEIS confuses - -agency decision-making by presenting an extensive list of “potential effects” as if they are -certainties -- and then demands they be mitigated. Thus, it is impossible for the DEIS to - -inform, guide or instruct agency managers to differentiate between activities that have no - -effect, minor or major effect to a few animals or to an entire population. - -NEP 21 The DEIS analysis provides inconsistent conclusions between resources and should be - -revised. For example: - - The analysis appears to give equivalent weight to potential risks for which there is no -indication of past effect and little to no scientific basis beyond the hypothesis of concern. - -The analysis focuses on de minimus low-level industry acoustic behavioral effects well - -below either NMFS‟ existing and precautionary acoustic thresholds and well below levels -that recent science indicates are legitimate thresholds of harm. These insupportably low - -behavioral effect levels are then labeled as a greater risk ("moderate") than non-industry - -activities involving mortality to marine mammals of concern, which are labeled as - -"minor" environmental effects. - - Beneficial socioeconomic impacts are characterized as “minor” while environmental -impacts are characterized as “major.” This level of impact characterization implies an -inherent judgment of relative value, not supported by environmental economic analysis or - -valuation. - - The DEIS concedes that because exploration activities can continue for several years, the -duration of effects on the acoustic environment should be considered “long term,” but -this overview is absent from the bowhead assessment. - - In discussing effects to subsistence hunting from permitted discharges, the DEIS refers to -the section on public health. The summary for the public health effects, however, refers - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 85 - -Comment Analysis Report - -to the entirety of the cumulative effects discussion. That section appears to contain no - -more than a passing reference to the issue. The examination of the mitigation measure - -that would require recycling of drilling muds fares no better. The section simply - -reinforces the fact that residents are very concerned about contamination without - -considering the benefits that could come from significantly reducing the volume of toxic - -discharges. - - The only category with differently rated impacts between Alternatives 3 and 4 is "cultural -resources." Although authorization of marine mammal incidental take would have no - -impact on cultural resources, for Alternatives 2 and 3, impacts to cultural resources are - -rated as "negligible" rather than none. With imposition of additional mitigation measures - -in Alternative 4, NMFS inexplicably increased the impact to "minor." - -NEP 22 The DEIS fails to explain how the environmental consequences analysis relates single animal - -risk effect to the population level effect analysis and whether the analysis is premised on a - -deterministic versus a probabilistic risk assessment approach. The DEIS apparently relies on - -some type of "hybrid" risk assessment protocol and therefore is condemned to an unscientific - -assessment that leads to an arbitrary and unreasonable conclusion that potential low-level - -behavioral effects on few individual animals would lead to a biologically significant - -population level effect. - -NEP 23 As written, the DEIS impact criteria provide no objective or reproducible scientific basis for - -agency personnel to make decisions. The DEIS process would inherently require agency - -decision makers to make arbitrary decisions not based upon objective boundaries. The DEIS - -impact criteria are hard to differentiate between and should be revised to address the - -following concerns: - - The distinction made among these categories raises the following questions: What is -"perceptible" under Low Impact? What does "noticeably alter" mean? How does - -"perceptible" under Low Impact differ from "detectable" under Moderate Impact? What - -separates an "observable change in resource condition" under Moderate Intensity from an - -"observable change in resource condition" under High Impact? Is it proper to establish an - -"observable change" without assessment of the size of the change or more importantly the - -effect as the basis to judge whether an action should be allowable? - - There is no reproducible scientific process to determine relative judgment about intensity, -duration, extent, and context. - -NEP 24 The projection of risk in the DEIS is inconsistent with reality of effect. The characterizations - -of risk are highly subjective and fully dependent upon the selection of the evaluator who - -would be authorized to use his/her own, individual scientific understanding, views and biases. - -The assessments cannot be replicated. The DEIS itself acknowledges the inconsistency from - -assessment to assessment. This creates a situation in which the DEIS determines that - -otherwise minor effects from industry operations (ranging from non-detectable to short-term - -behavioral effects with no demonstrated population-level effects) are judged to be a higher - -rated risk to the species than known causes of mortality. - -NEP 25 NMFS and BOEM should examine this process to handle uncertainty, and should include in a - -revised DEIS the assumptions and precautionary factors applied that are associated with each - -step of this process such as: - -1) Estimates of seismic activity; -2) Source sizes and characterizations; - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 86 - -Comment Analysis Report - -3) Underwater sound propagation; -4) Population estimates and densities of marine mammals; -5) Noise exposure criteria; and -6) Marine mammal behavior. - -Until the agencies document and communicate these underlying decisions in a transparent - -fashion, neither the industry nor agency resource managers can know and understand how - -such decisions are made and therefore the range and rate of error. The DEIS as presently - -written presents an "on the one hand; on the other" approach which does not inform the issue - -for agency resource managers. - -NEP 26 It is necessary for the DEIS to clearly define what constitutes a “take” and why, and what -thresholds will be utilized in the rulemaking. If there is reason for differing thresholds, those - -differences should be clearly communicated and their rationale thoroughly explained. The - -DEIS should: - - Assert that exposure to sound does not equal an incidental taking. - - Communicate that the 120/160/180 dB thresholds used as the basis of the DEIS analysis -are inappropriate and not scientifically supportable. - - Adopt the Southall Criteria (Southall, et al. 2007), which would establish the following -thresholds: Level A at 198 dB re 1 µPa-rms; Level B at the lowest level of TTS-onset as - -a proxy until better data is developed. - -NEP 27 The DEIS analysis should consider the frequency component, nature of the sound source, - -cetacean hearing sensitivities, and biological significance when determining what constitutes - -Level B incidental take. The reliance on the 160 dB guideline for Level B take estimation is - -antiquated and should be revised by NMFS. - -NEP 28 The DEIS fails to: - - Adequately reflect prior research contradicting the Richardson et al. (1999) findings; - - Address deficiencies in the Richardson et al. (1999) study; and - - Present and give adequate consideration to newer scientific studies that challenge the -assertion that bowhead whales commonly deflect around industry sound sources. - -NEP 29 Fundamental legal violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), NEPA, and - -OCSLA may have occurred during the review process and appear throughout the DEIS - -document. There are significant NEPA failures in the scoping process, in the consultation - -process with agency experts, in the development and assessment of action alternatives, and in - -the development and assessment of mitigation measures. There are also many assumptions - -and conclusions in the DEIS that are clearly outside of NMFS‟ jurisdiction, raise anti- -competitiveness concerns, and are likely in violation of the contract requirements and - -property rights established through the OCSLA. In total, these legal violations create the - -impression that NMFS pre-judged the results of their NEPA analysis. - - NMFS did not evaluate different numbers per sea/alternative of drilling programs, as was -requested in public comments listed as COR 38 in Appendix C [of the EIS scoping - -report]. - - The arbitrary ceiling on exploration and development activities chosen by NMFS raises -anti-competitiveness concerns. NMFS will be put in the position of picking and choosing - -which lessees will get the opportunity to explore their leases. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 87 - -Comment Analysis Report - -NEP 30 The various stages of oil and gas exploration and development are connected actions that - -should have been analyzed in the DEIS. The DEIS analyzes activities independently, but fails - -to account for the temporal progression of exploration toward development on a given - -prospect. By analyzing only a “snapshot” of activity in a given year, the DEIS fails to account -for the potential bottleneck caused by its forced cap on the activity allowed under its NEPA - -analysis. NMFS should have considered a level of activity that reflected reasonably - -foreseeable lessee demand for authorization to conduct oil and gas exploration and - -development, and because it did not, the DEIS is legally defective and does not meet the - -requirement to provide a reasonably accurate estimate of future activities necessary for the - -DEIS to support subsequent decision-making under OCSLA. - -NEP 31 The DEIS should also include consideration of the additional time required to first oil under - -each alternative and mitigation measure, since the delay between exploration investment and - -production revenue has a direct impact on economic viability and, by extension, the - -cumulative socioeconomic impacts of an alternative. - -NEP 32 NMFS should consider writing five-year Incidental Take RegulationsITRs for oil and gas - -exploration activities rather than using this DEIS as the NEPA document. - -NEP 33 In order to designate “special habitat areas,” NMFS must go through the proper channels, -including a full review process. No such process was undertaken prior to designating these - -“special habitat areas” in the DEIS. - -NEP 34 NMFS should consider basing its analysis of bowhead whales on the potential biological - -removal (PBR) – a concept that reflects the best scientific information available and a -concept that is defined within the MMPA. NMFS could use information from the stock - -assessments, current subsistence harvest quotas, and natural mortality to assess PBR. If - -NMFS does not include PBR as an analysis technique in the DEIS, it should be stated why it - -was not included. - -NEP 35 NMFS needs to quantify the number of marine mammals that it expects to be taken each year - -under all of the activities under review in the DEIS, and provide an overall quantification. - -This is critical to NMFS ensuring that its approval of IHAs will comport with the MMPA. - -NEP 36 The impact criteria that were used for the magnitude or intensity of impacts for marine - -mammals are not appropriate. For a high intensity activity, whales and other marine - -mammals would have to entirely leave the EIS project area. This criterion is arbitrary and has - -no basis in biology. Instead, the intensity of the impact should relate to animals missing - -feeding opportunities, being deflected from migratory routes, the potential for stress related - -impacts, or other risk factors. - -NEP 37 The DEIS repeatedly asserts, without support, that time and place limitations may not result - -in fewer exploration activities. The DEIS must do more to justify its position. It cannot - -simply assume that desirable locations for exploration activities are fungible enough that a - -restriction on activities in Camden Bay, for example, will lead to more exploration between - -Camden Bay and Harrison Bay. - -NEP 38 NMFS must revise the thresholds and methodology used to estimate take from airgun use to - -incorporate the following parameters: - - Employ a combination of specific thresholds for which sufficient species-specific data -are available and generalized thresholds for all other species. These thresholds should be - -Comment [CAN33]: I think some words are -missing. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 88 - -Comment Analysis Report - -expressed as linear risk functions where appropriate. If a risk function is used, the 50% - -take parameter for all the baleen whales (bowhead, fin, humpback, and gray whales) and - -odontocetes occurring in the area (beluga whales, narwhals, killer whales, harbor - -porpoises) should not exceed 140 dB (RMS). Indeed, at least for bowhead whales, beluga - -whales, and harbor porpoises, NMFS should use a threshold well below that number, - -reflecting the high levels of disturbance seen in these species at 120 dB (RMS) and - -below. - - Data on species for which specific thresholds are developed should be included in -deriving generalized thresholds for species for which less data are available. - - In deriving its take thresholds, NMFS should treat airgun arrays as a mixed acoustic type, -behaving as a multi-pulse source closer to the array and, in effect, as a continuous noise - -source further from the array, per the findings of the 2011 Open Water Panel cited above. - -Take thresholds for the impulsive component of airgun noise should be based on peak - -pressure rather than on RMS. - - Masking thresholds should be derived from Clark et al. (2009), recognizing that masking -begins when received levels rise above ambient noise. - -NEP 39 The DEIS fails to consider masking effects in establishing a 120 dB threshold for continuous - -noise sources. Some biologists have analogized the increasing levels of noise from human - -activities as a rising tide of “fog” that is already shrinking the sensory range of marine -animals by orders of magnitude from pre-industrial levels. As noted above, masking of - -natural sounds begins when received levels rise above ambient noise at relevant frequencies. - -Accordingly, NMFS must evaluate the loss of communication space, and consider the extent - -of acoustic propagation, at far lower received levels than the draft DEIS currently employs. - -NEP 40 The DEIS fails to consider the impacts of sub-bottom profilers and other active acoustic - -sources commonly featured in deep-penetration seismic and shallow hazard surveys, and - -should be included in the final analysis, regardless of the risk function NMFS ultimately uses. - -NEP 41 As the Ninth Circuit has found, “the considerations made relevant by the substantive statute -during the proposed action must be addressed in NEPA analysis.” Here, in assessing their -MMPA obligations, the agencies presuppose that industry will apply for IHAs rather than - -five-year take authorizations and that BOEM will not apply to NMFS for programmatic - -rulemaking. But the potential for mortality and serious injury bars industry from using the - -incidental harassment process to obtain take authorizations under the MMPA. - -In 1994, Congress amended the MMPA to add provisions that allow for the incidental - -harassment of marine mammals through IHAs, but only for activities that result the “taking -by harassment” of marine mammals. For those activities that could result in „taking” other -than harassment, interested parties must continue to use the pre-existing procedures for - -authorization through specific regulations, often referred to as “five-year regulations.” -Accordingly, NMFS‟ implementing regulations state that an IHA in the Arctic cannot be used -for “activities that have the potential to result in serious injury or mortality.” In the preamble -to the proposed regulations, NMFS explained that if there is a potential for serious injury or - -death, it must either be “negated” through mitigation requirements or the applicant must -instead seek approval through five-year regulations. - -Given the clear potential for serious injury and mortality, few if any seismic operators in the - -Arctic can legally obtain their MMPA authorizations through the IHAs process. BOEM - -should consider applying to NMFS for a programmatic take authorization, and NMFS should - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 89 - -Comment Analysis Report - -revise its impact and alternatives analyses in the EIS on the assumption that rulemaking is - -required. - -NEP 42 The DEIS contains very little discussion of the combined effects of drilling and ice - -management. Ice management can significantly expand the extent of a disturbance zone. It is - -unclear as to how the disturbance zones for exploratory drilling in the Chukchi Sea were - -determined as well. - -NEP 43 The analysis of impacts under Alternative 3 is insufficient and superficial, and shows little - -change from the analysis of impacts under Alternative 2 despite adding four additional - -seismic surveys, four shallow hazard surveys, and two drilling programs. The analysis in - -Alternative 3 highlights the general failure to consider the collective impact of different - -activities. For example, the DEIS notes the minimum separation distance for seismic surveys, - -but no such impediment exists for separating surveying and exploration drilling, along with - -its accompanying ice breaking activities. - -NEP 44 The DEIS references the “limited geographic extent” of ice breaking activities, but it does not -consistently recognize that multiple ice breakers could operate as a result of the exploration - -drilling programs. - -NEP 45 NEPA regulations make clear that agencies should not proceed with authorizations for - -individual projects until an ongoing programmatic EIS is complete. That limitation is relevant - -to the IHAs application currently before NMFS, including Shell‟s plan for exploration -drilling beginning in 2012. It would be unlawful for NMFS to approve the marine mammal - -harassment associated with Shell‟s proposal without completing the EIS. - -NEP 46 The DEIS states that the final document may be used as the “sole” NEPA compliance -document for future activities. Such an approach is unwarranted. The EIS, as written, does - -not provide sufficient information about the effects of specific activities taking place in any - -particular location in the Arctic. The Ninth Circuit has criticized attempts to rely on a - -programmatic overview to justify projects when there is a lack of “any specific information” -about cumulative effects. That specificity is missing here as well. For example, Shell‟s -proposed a multi-year exploration drilling program in both seas beginning in 2012 will - -involve ten wells, four ice management vessels, and dozens of support ships. The EIS simply - -does not provide an adequate analysis that captures the effects of the entire enterprise, - -including: 1) the Kulluk‟s considerable disturbance zone; 2) the proximity of the drill sites to -bowhead feeding locations and the number of potentially harassed whales; or 3) the total - -combined effects of drilling, ice management, and vessel traffic. - -NEP 47 The DEIS fails to incorporate impacts consistently and accurately through all layers of the - -food web. A flow chart showing cause-and-effect relationships through each biological layer - -may help correct truncation of analyses between resource groups. The resource - -specialists/authors should coordinate on the analyses, particularly for prey resources or - -habitat parameters. - -NEP 48 NMFS should come back to the communities after comments have been received on the - -DEIS and provide a presentation or summary document that shows how communities - -comments were incorporated. - -NEP 49 The definition of take should be revised to be more protective of marine mammals. - -Comment [CAN34]: Move to COR Issue -Category. - -Comment [CAN35]: Move to REG Issue -Category. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 90 - -Comment Analysis Report - -NEP 50 The communities are feeling overwhelmed with the amount of documents they are being - -asked to review related to various aspects of oil and gas exploration and development - -activities. The system of commenting needs to be revised. However, the forums of public - -meetings are important to people in the communities so their concerns can be heard before - -they happen. - -NEP 51 NMFS should consider making documents such as the public meeting powerpoint, project - -maps, the mitigation measures, the Executive Summary available in hard copy form to the - -communities. Even though these documents are on the project website, access to the internet - -is not always available and/or reliable. - -NEP 52 Deferring the selection of mitigation measures to a later date, where the public may not be - -involved, fails to comport with NEPA‟s requirements. “An essential component of a -reasonably complete mitigation discussion is an assessment of whether the proposed - -mitigation measures can be effective." In reviewing NEPA documents, courts require this - -level of disclosure, because "without at least some evaluation of effectiveness," the - -discussion of mitigation measures is "useless" for "evaluating whether the anticipated - -environmental impacts can be avoided." A "mere listing of mitigation measures is insufficient - -to qualify as the reasoned discussion required by NEPA." The EIS should identify which - -mitigation measures will be used. - -NEP 53 The DEIS provides extensive information regarding potential impacts of industry activities on - -marine life. However, it gives insufficient attention to the impacts the alternatives and - -mitigation measures would have on development of OCS resources. This should include - -information on lost opportunity costs and the effect of time and area closures given the - -already very short open water and weather windows available for Arctic industry operations. - -Comment [CAN36]: Move both of these to COR -Issue Category. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 91 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Oil Spill Risks (OSR) - -OSR Concerns about potential for oil spill, ability to clean up spills in various conditions, potential - -impacts to resources or environment from spills. - -OSR 1 A large oil spill in the extreme conditions present in Arctic waters would be extremely - -difficult or impossible to clean up. Current cleanup methods are unsuitable and ineffective. - -Current technology only allows rescue and repair attempts during ice free parts of the year. - -Oil spill responses need to be developed in advance of offshore development. - -OSR 2 An oil spill being a low probability event is optimistic, and would only apply to the - -exploration phase. Once full development or production goes into effect, an oil spill is more - -likely. IsAre there any data suggesting this is a low probability?. Assume a spill will occur - -and plan accordingly. - -OSR 3 Concerns about how oil will be skimmed with sea ice present, how would boats be deployed - -in heavy ice conditions, how would rough waters effect oil spill response, could the rough - -seas and ice churn surface oil, what about oil tramped under ice especially during spring melt, - -how would all of this effect spill response? - -OSR 4 It makes sense to drill for more oil, but the problem is where the oil is being drilled. In the - -Arctic Ocean there is a chance the well will start to leak. - -OSR 5 An Ooil spill in the arctic environment would be devastating to numerous biological systems, - -habitats, communities and people. There is too little known about Arctic marine wildlife to - -know what the population effects would be. Black (oiled) ice would expedite ice melt. The - -analysis section needs to be updated. Not only would the Arctic be affected but the waters - -surrounding the Arctic as well. - -OSR 6 The company that is held responsible for an oil spill will face financial losses and be viewed - -negatively by the public. - -OSR 7 An Oil Spill Response Gap Analysis needs to be developed for existing Arctic Oil and Gas - -Operations. - -OSR 8 If an oil spill occurs near or into freeze-up, the oil will remain trapped there until spring. - -These spring lead systems and melt pools are important areas where wildlife collect. - -OSR 9 The effects of an oil spill on indigenous peoples located on the Canadian side of the border - -needs to be assessed. - -OSR 10 The use of dispersants could have more unknown effects in the cold and often ice covered - -seas of the Arctic. - -OSR 11 There are many physical effects a spill can have on marine mammals. Thoroughly consider - -the impact of routine spills on marine mammals. The marine mammal commissions briefing - -on the Deepwater Horizon spill listed many. - -OSR 12 Mitigation measures need to reflect the possibility of an oil spill and lead to a least likely - -impact. Identify areas to be protected first in case a spill does occur. - -Comment [CAN37]: Move to ACK Issue -Category. This statement does not need a response - -in the EIS and will not require any changes to the - -document. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 92 - -Comment Analysis Report - -OSR 13 Production facilities increase the risk of spills and have long term environmental impacts. - -OSR 14 Pinnipeds and walruses are said to have only minor to moderate impacts with a very large oil - -spill. The conclusion is peculiar since NMFS is considering ringed and bearded seals and - -USFWS is considering walruses to be listed under the ESA. - -OSR 15 Proven technology that could operate outside the open-water season should be specified. The - -EIS needs to determine if certain vessels like the drillship Discoverer can actually complete a - -relief-well late in the operating season when ice may be present, since it is not a true ice class - -vessel. - -OSR 16 Hypothetical spill real time constraints and how parameters for past VLOS events need to be - -explained and identified. A range of representative oils should be used for scenarios not just a - -light-weight oil. Percentages of trajectories need to be explained and identified. - -OSR 17 Ribbon seals could be significantly impacted through oiling of prey as concluded in impacts - -to fish in the DEIS, but not included in the pinniped impacts, which describes them as not be - -affected. - -OSR 18 The oil spill section needs to be reworked. No overall risks to the environment are stated, or - -severity of spills in different areas, shoreline oiling is inadequate, impacts to whales may be - -of higher magnitude due to important feeding areas and spring lead systems. Recovery rates - -should be reevaluated for spilled oil. There are no site-specific details. The trajectory model - -needs to be more precise. - -OSR 19 Concerns about the dispersants being discussed in the spill response plans. People are - -reported to be sick or dead from past use of these dispersants, but yet they are still mentioned - -as methods of cleanup. - -OSR 20 The DEIS confirms our [the affected communities] worst fears about both potential negative - -impacts from offshore drilling and the fact that the federal government appears ready to place - -on our communities a completely unacceptable risk at the behest of the international oil - -companies. - -OSR 21 To the extent that a VLOS is not part of the proposed action covered in the DEIS, it is - -inappropriate to include an evaluation of the impacts of such an event in this document - -OSR 22 NMFS should recommend an interagency research program on oil spill response in the Arctic - -and seek appropriations from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the program as - -soon as possible. - -OSR 23 It is recommended that NMFS reassess the impact of oil spills on seal populations. Based on - -animal behavior and results from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) it is much more likely - -that seals would be attracted to a spill area particularly cleanup operations, leading to a higher - -chance of oiling (Nelson 1969, Herreman 2011 personal observation). - -OSR 24 This DEIS should explain how non-Arctic analogs of oil spills are related to the Arctic and - -what criteria are used as well as highlight the USGS Data-Gap Report that recommends for - -continuous updating of estimates. - -Comment [CAN38]: I added these words -because I‟m assuming this is what the commenter -meant to say. If this is not what was meant, then -why is this SOC in the Oil Spill section? - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 93 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Peer Review (PER) - -PER Suggestions for peer review of permits, activities, proposals. - -PER 1 A higher-quality survey effort needs to be conducted by an independent and trusted 3rdthird - -party. - -PER 2 An open-ended permit should not move into production without proper review of the - -extensive processes, technologies, and infrastructure required for commercial hydrocarbon - -exploitation. - -PER 3 Research and monitoring cannot just be industry controlled; it needs to be a transparent - -process with peer review. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 94 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Regulatory Compliance (REG) - -REG Comments associated with compliance with existing regulations, laws, and statutes. - -REG 1 NMFS should reconsider the use of the word “taking” in reference to the impacts to marine -mammals since these animals are not going to be taken, they are going to be killed and - -wasted. - -REG 2 NMFS needs to determine in the DEIS whether the proposed alternatives would cause - -impacts "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.” To -ensure that is the case, it is recommended that NMFS revise the DEIS to include a fuller - -analysis of each alternative and discuss whether it meets the requirements of the MMPA for - -issuing incidental take authorizationsITAs. - -REG 3 Narrative impact levels need to be changed since they are vague, relativistic, narrative - -standards that do not bear any direct relation the MMPA standards. Although these impact - -criteria may be considered sufficient for purposes of the analyses required under NEPA, the - -Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations require that NMFS analyze whether the - -proposed alternatives will comply with the substantive requirements of the MMPA. It appears - -from the text of the DEIS that NMFS does not fully grasp the importance of the MMPA - -standards and how they are to be applied. This approach to analyzing potential impacts - -represents a significant weakness in the DEIS that may render the final decision arbitrary, - -capricious and in noncompliance with NEPA and the MMPA and Administrative Procedure - -Act. - -REG 4 It is requested that NMFS quantify the number of bowhead whales that will potentially be - -taken by the proposed activities, required to assess compliance with the "negligible impact" - -standard of the MMPA and its implementing regulations. Without this information, the - -ServiceNMFS cannot make an informed, science-based judgment as to whether those takes - -will involve a small number of animals and whether their total impact will be negligible as - -required under the MMPA. - -REG 5 Permitted activity level should not exceed what is absolutely essential for the industry to - -conduct seismic survey activities. NMFS needs to be sure that activities are indeed, negligible - -and at the least practicable level for purposes of the MMPA. - -REG 6 NMFS is encouraged to amend the DEIS to include a more complete description of the - -applicable statute and implementing regulations and analyze whether the proposed levels of - -industrial activity will comply with the substantive standards of the MMPA. - -REG 7 NMFS should revise the DEIS to encompass only those areas that are within the agency‟s -jurisdiction and remove provisions and sections that conflicts with other federal and state - -agency jurisdictions (BOEM, USFWS, EPA, Coast Guard, and State of Alaska). The current - -DEIS is felt to constitute a broad reassessment and expansion of regulatory oversight. - -Comments include: - - The EIS mandates portions of Conflict Avoidance AgreementsCAAs, which are -voluntary and beyond NMFS jurisdiction. - - The EIS proposes polar bear mitigations measures that could contradict those issued by -USFWS under the MMPA and ESA. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 95 - -Comment Analysis Report - - Potential requirements for zero discharge encroach on EPA‟s jurisdiction under the Clean -Water Act regarding whether and how to authorize discharges. - - Proposed mitigation measures, acoustic restrictions, and “Special Habitat” area -effectively extend exclusion zones and curtail lease block access, in effect “capping” -exploration activities. These measures encroach on the Department of the Interior‟s -jurisdiction to identify areas open for leasing and approve exploration plans, as - -designated under OCSLA. - - The proposed requirement for an Oil Spill Response Plan conflicts with BOEM, Bureau -of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and the Coast Guard‟s jurisdiction, as -established in OPA-90, which requires spill response planning. - - NMFS does not have the authority to restrict vessel transit, which is under the jurisdiction -of the Coast Guard. - - Proposed restrictions, outcomes, and mitigation measures duplicate and contradict -existing State lease stipulations and mitigation measures. - -REG 8 It is recommended that NMFS take into account the safety and environmental concerns - -highlighted in the Gulf of Mexico incident and how these factors will be exacerbated in the - -more physically challenging Arctic environment. Specifically, NMFS is asked to consider the - -systematic safety problems with the oil and gas industry, the current lack of regulatory - -oversight, and the lax enforcement of violations. - -REG 9 The DEIS needs to be revised to comply with Executive Order 13580, "Interagency Working - -Group on Coordination of Domestic Energy Development and Permitting in Alaska," issued - -on July 12, 2011 by President Obama. It is felt that the current DEIS is in noncompliance - -because it does not assess a particular project, is duplicative, creates the need for additional - -OCS EIS documents, and is based upon questionable authority. - -REG 10 NMFS should take a precautionary approach in its analysis of impacts of oil and gas activities - -and in the selection of a preferred alternative. - -REG 11 The EIS needs to be revised to ensure compliance with Article 18 of the Vienna Convention - -of the Law on Treaties and the Espoo Convention, which states that a country engaging in - -offshore oil and gas development must take all appropriate and effective measures to prevent, - -reduce and control significant adverse transboundary environmental impacts from proposed - -activities and must notify and provide information to a potentially affected country. - -REG 12 The Arctic DEIS needs to identify and properly address the importance of balancing the - -requirements of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands ActOCSLA, the MMPA and ESA. - -Currently, the DEIS substantially gives undue weight to considerations involving incidental - -taking of marine mammals under the MMPA and virtually ignores the requirements of - -OCSLA. - -REG 13 The DEIS needs to address several essential factors and requirements of the Outer - -Continental shelf Lands ActOCSLA. Comments include: - - The DEIS contains little or no assessment of the impact of alternatives on BOEM‟s -ability to meet the OCSLA requirements for exploration and development. - - A forced limitation in industry activity by offering only alternatives that constrain -industry activities would logically result in violating the expeditious development - -provisions of OCSLA. - -Comment [CAN39]: Combine with COR 15. - -Comment [CAN40]: Combine these two. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 96 - -Comment Analysis Report - - All of the alternatives would slow the pace of exploration and development so much that -lease terms may be violated and development may not be economically viable. - -REG 14 The range of alternatives in the DEIS needs to be expanded to avoid violating a variety of - -anti-trust statues. By capping industry activity, the DEIS would create a situation where some - -applicants "would be selected" and granted permits and others not. - -REG 15 NMFS‟s actions under both NEPA and OCSLA need to be reviewed under the arbitrary and - -capricious standard of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). An agency‟s decision is -arbitrary and capricious under the APA where the agency (i) relies on factors Congress did - -not intend it to consider, (ii) entirely fails to consider an important aspect of the problem, or - -(iii) offers an explanation that runs counter to the evidence before the agency or is so - -implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency - -expertise. Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The current - -DEIS errs in all three ways. - -REG 16 NMFS‟s explicit limitations imposed on future exploration and development on existing -leases in the DEIS undermine the contractual agreement between lessees and the Federal - -government in violation of the Supreme Court‟s instruction in Mobil Oil Exploration & -Producing Southeast v. United States, 530 U.S. 604 (2000). - -REG 17 The DEIS needs to be changed to reflect the omnibus bill signed by President Obama on - -December 23, 2011 that transfers Clean Air Act permitting authority from the EPA - -Administrator to the Secretary of Interior (BOEM) in Alaska Arctic OCS. - -REG 18 Until there an indication that BOEM intends to adopt new air permitting regulations for the - -Arctic or otherwise adopt regulations that will ensure compliance with the requirements of - -the Clean Air Act, it is important that NMFS address the worst case scenario- offshore oil and - -gas activities proceeding under BOEM's current regulations. - -REG 19 The DEIS needs to discuss threatened violations of substantive environmental laws. In - -analyzing the effects "and their significance" pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16, CEQ - -regulations require the agency to consider "whether the action threatens a violation of - -Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment." - -REG 20 The current DEIS impact criteria need to be adjusted to reflect MMPA standards, specifically - -in relation to temporal duration and the geographical extent of impacts. In assessing whether - -the proposed alternatives would comply with the MMPA standards, NMFS must analyze - -impacts to each individual hunt to identify accurately the potential threats to each individual - -community. MMPA standards focuses on each individual harvest for each season and do not - -allow NMFS to expand the geographic and temporal scope of its analysis. MMPA regulations - -define an unmitigable adverse impact as one that is "likely to reduce the availability of the - -species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs." Within the DEIS, the - -current impact criteria would tend to mask impacts to local communities over shorter - -durations of time. - -REG 21 Language needs to be changed throughout the conclusion of impacts to subsistence, where - -NMFS repeatedly discusses the impacts using qualified language; however, the MMPA - -requires a specific finding that the proposed activities "will not" have an adverse impact to - -our subsistence practices. It is asked that NMFS implement the will of Congress and disclose - -whether it has adequate information to reach these required findings before issuing ITAs. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 97 - -Comment Analysis Report - -REG 22 It is suggested that NMFS include in the DEIS an explicit discussion of whether and to what - -extent the options available for mitigation comply with the "lease practicable adverse impact" - -standard of the MMPA. This is particularly important for the "additional mitigation - -measures" that NMFS has, to this point, deferred for future consideration. By focusing its - -analysis on the requirements of MMPA, we believe that NMFS will recognize its obligation - -to make an upfront determination of whether these additional mitigation measures are - -necessary to comply with the law. Deferring the selection of mitigation measures to a later - -date, where the public may not be involved, fails to comport with NEPA's requirements. - -REG 23 The DEIS needs to consistently apply section 1502.22 and consider NMFS and BOEM‟s -previous conclusions as to their inability to make informed decisions as to potential effects. - -NMFS acknowledges information gaps without applying the CEQ framework and disregards - -multiple sources that highlight additional fundamental data gaps concerning the Arctic and - -the effects of oil and gas disturbance. - -REG 24 NMFS needs to reassess the legal uncertainty and risks associated with issuing marine - -mammal take authorizations under the MMPA based upon a scope as broad as the Arctic - -Ocean. - -REG 25 NMFS needs to assess the impact of offshore coastal development in light of the fact that - -Alaska lacks a coastal management program, since the State lacks the program infrastructure - -to effectively work on coastal development issues. - -REG 26 NMFS needs to ensure that it is in compliance with the Ninth Circuit court ruling that when - -an action is taken pursuant to a specific statute, not only do the statutory objectives of the - -project serve as a guide by which to determine the reasonableness of objectives outlined in an - -EIS, but the statutory objectives underlying the agency‟s action work significantly to define -its analytic obligations. As a result, NMFS is required by NEPA to explain how alternatives - -in an EIS will meet requirements of other environmental laws and policies. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 98 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Research, Monitoring, Evaluation Needs (RME) - -RME Comments on baseline research, monitoring, and evaluation needs - -RME 1 The United States Geological SurveyUSGS identified important gaps in existing information - -related to the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, including gaps on the effects of noise on marine - -mammals which highlighted that the type of information needed to make decisions about the - -impact of offshore activity (e.g., seismic noise) on marine mammals remains largely lacking. - -A significant unknown is the degree to which sound impacts marine mammals, from the - -individual level to the population level. - -The degree of uncertainty regarding impacts to marine mammals greatly handicaps the - -agencies' efforts to fully evaluate the impacts of the permitted activities, and NMFS' ability to - -determine whether the activity is in compliance with the terms of the MMPA. The agency - -should acknowledge these data-gaps required by applicable NEPA regulations (40 C.F.R. - -§1502.22), and gather the missing information. - -While research and monitoring for marine mammals in the Arctic has increased, NMFS still - -lacks basic information on abundance, trends, and stock structure of most Arctic marine - -mammal species. This information is needed to gauge whether observed local or regional - -effects on individuals or groups of marine mammals are likely to have a cumulative or - -population level effect. - -The lack of information about marine mammals in the Arctic and potential impacts of - -anthropogenic noise, oil spills, pollution and other impacts on those marine mammals - -undercuts NMFS ability to determine the overall effects of such activities. - -RME 2 The DEIS does not address or acknowledge the increasingly well-documented gaps in - -knowledge of baseline environmental conditions and data that is incomplete in the Beaufort - -and Chukchi seas for marine mammals and fish, nor how baseline conditions and marine - -mammal populations are being affected by climate change. Information regarding - -information regarding the composition, distribution, status, ecology of the living marine - -resources and sensitive habitats in these ecosystems needs to be better known. Baseline data - -are also critical to developing appropriate mitigation measures and evaluating their - -effectiveness. It is unclear what decisions over what period of time would be covered under - -the DEIS or how information gaps would be addressed and new information incorporated into - -future decisions. The information gaps in many areas with relatively new and expanding - -exploration activities are extensive and severe enough that it may be too difficult for - -regulators to reach scientifically reliable conclusions about the risks to marine mammals from - -oil and gas activities. - -To complicate matters, much of the baseline data about individual species (e.g., population - -dynamics) remains a noteworthy gap. It is this incomplete baseline that NMFS uses as their - -basis for comparing the potential impacts of each alternative. - -RME 3 Prior to installation and erection, noises from industry equipment need to be tested: - - Jack-up drilling platforms have not been evaluated in peer reviewed literature and will -need to be evaluated prior to authorizing the use of this technology under this EIS. The - -DEIS states that it is assumed that the first time a jack-up rig is in operation in the Arctic, - -detailed measurements will be conducted to determine the acoustic characteristics. This - -Comment [CAN41]: Combine with RME 1. -There are a lot of similar themes in the two SOCs. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 99 - -Comment Analysis Report - -statement implies an assumption that the noise levels found on erecting the jack-up rig - -will be below levels required for mitigation. The DEIS needs to explain what would be - -the procedure if the noise exposure threshold was exceeded. It is suggest that the noises - -of erecting a jack-up rig be characterized in a trial basis before deployment to a remote - -location where the environment is more sensitive to disruption and where the phrase - -“practical mitigation” can be applied. - - Noise from the erection and deployment of Jack-up rigs and other stationary platforms -need to be quantified and qualified prior to introducing them into the Arctic. - - Noise from thruster-driven dynamic positioning systems on drilling platforms and drill -ships need to be quantified and qualified prior to introducing them into the Arctic. - -RME 4 Propagation of airgun noise from in-ice seismic surveys is not accurately known, - -complicating mitigation threshold distances and procedures. - -RME 5 Noise impacts of heavy transport aircraft and helicopters needs to be evaluated and - -incorporated into the DEIS. - -RME 6 Protection of acoustic environments relies upon accurate reference conditions and that - -requires the development of procedures for measuring the source contributions of noise, as - -well as analyses of historical patterns of noise exposure in a particular region. Even studies - -implemented at this very moment will not be entirely accurate since shipping traffic has - -already begun taking advantage of newly ice-free routes. The Arctic is likely the last place on - -the planet where acoustic habitat baseline information can be gathered and doing so is - -imperative to understanding the resulting habitat loss from these activities. A comprehensive - -inventory of acoustical conditions would be the first step towards documenting the extent of - -current noise conditions, and estimating the pristine historic and desired future conditions. - -Analysis of potential impacts at this stage is speculative at best because of the lack of - -definitive information regarding sound source levels, the type and duration of proposed - -exploration activities, and the mitigation measures that each operator would be required to - -meet. However, before an incidental take authorizationITA can be issued, NMFS will need - -such information to make the findings required under the MMPA. - -RME 7 Information on Page 4-355, Section 4.9.4.9 Volume of Oil Reaching Shore includes some - -older references to research work that was done in the 1980's and 1990's. More recent - -research or reports based on the Deepwater Horizon incident could be referenced here. In - -addition NMFS and BOEM should consider a deferral on exploration drilling until the - -concerns detailed by the U.S. Oil Spill Commission are adequately addressed. - -RME 8 The DEIS does not explain why obtaining data quality or environmental information on - -alternative technologies would have been exorbitant. - -RME 9 It was recommended that agencies and industry involved in Arctic oil and gas exploration - -establish a research fund to reduce source levels in seismic surveys. New techniques - -including vibroseis should be considered particularly in areas where there have not been - -previous surveys and so comparability with earlier data is not an issue. Likewise, similar to - -their vessel-quieting technology workshops, NOAA is encouraged to fund and facilitate - -expanded research and development in noise reduction measures for seismic surveys. - -RME 10 The DEIS wrongly reverts to dated acoustic thresholds and ignores significant more recent - -recommendations on improving criteria. At a minimum, NMFS should substantiate for the - -record its basis for retaining these old criteria. The DEIS in several places relies on Root - -Comment [CAN42]: Seems to be a repeat of -earlier SOCs in other categories. Find and combine. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 100 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Mean Square (RMS) Sound Pressure Level criteria for acoustic impacts. The most recent - -research has questioned the adequacy of these criteria. Instead, the criteria should be replaced - -by a combination of Sound Exposure Level limits and Peak (not RMS) Sound Pressure - -Levels or other metric being considered. - -RME 11 NMFS has provided only conceptual examples of the temporal and spatial distribution of - -proposed activities under each alternative, and the maps and figures provided do not include - -all possible activities considered for each alternative or how these activities might overlap - -spatially and temporally. The lack of specific information precludes a full assessment of the - -potential effects of the combined activities, including such things as an estimation of the - -number of takes for species that transit through the action area during the timeframe being - -considered. Similarly, the range of airgun volumes, source levels, and distances to the 190-, - -180-, 160-, and 120-dB re Â1 µPa harassment thresholds (Table 4.5- 10, which are based on - -measurements from past surveys) vary markedly and cannot be used to determine with any - -confidence the full extent of harassment of marine mammals. Such assessment requires - -modeling of site-specific operational and environmental parameters, which is simply not - -possible based on the information in this programmatic assessment. - -To assess the effects of the proposed oil and gas exploration activities under the MMPA, - -NMFS should work with BOEM estimate the site-specific acoustic footprints for each sound - -threshold (i.e., 190, 180, 160, and 120 dB re 1 µPa) and the expected number of marine - -mammal takes, accounting for all types of sound sources and their cumulative impacts. - -Any analysis of potential impacts at this stage is speculative at best because of the lack of - -definitive information regarding sound source levels, the type and duration of proposed - -exploration activities, and the mitigation measures that each operator would be required to - -meet. However, before an incidental take authorizationITA can be issued, NMFS will need - -such information to make the findings required under the MMPA. - -RME 12 There is missing information regarding: - - Whether enough is known about beluga whales and their habitat use to accurately predict -the degree of harm expected from multiple years of exploration activity. - - Issues relevant to effects on walrus regarding the extent of the missing information are -vast, as well summarized in the USGS Report. Information gaps include: population - -size; stock structure; foraging ecology in relation to prey distributions and oceanography; - -relationship of changes in sea ice to distribution, movements, reproduction, and survival; - -models to predict the effects of climate change and anthropogenic impacts; and improved - -estimates of harvest. Impacts to walrus of changes in Arctic and subarctic ice dynamics - -are not well understood. - -RME 13 To predict the expected effects of oil and gas and other activities more accurately, a broader - -synthesis and integration of available information on bowhead whales and other marine - -mammals is needed. That synthesis should incorporate such factors as ambient sound levels, - -natural and anthropogenic sound sources, abundance, movement patterns, the oceanographic - -features that influence feeding and reproductive behavior, and traditional knowledge - -(Hutchinson and Ferrero 2011). - -RME 14 An ecosystem-wide, integrated synthesis of available information would help identify - -important data gaps that exist for Arctic marine mammals, particularly for lesser-studied - -species such as beluga whales, walruses, and ice seals. It also would help the agencies better - -understand and predict the long-term, cumulative effects of the proposed activities, in light of - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 101 - -Comment Analysis Report - -increasing human activities in the Arctic and changing climatic conditions. It is recommended - -that NMFS work with BOEM and other entities as appropriate to establish and fully support - -programs designed to collect and synthesize the relevant scientific information and traditional - -knowledge necessary to evaluate and predict the long-term and cumulative effects of oil and - -gas activities on Arctic marine mammals and their environment. - -Robust monitoring plans for authorized activities could be a key component to filling some of - -these gaps. Not only do these monitoring plans need to be implemented, but all data collected - -should be publically available for peer review and analysis. In the current system, there is no - -choice but to accept industries' interpretation of results. This is not appropriate when we are - -talking about impacts to the public and its resources. Since industry is exploring for oil and - -gas that belongs to the people of the US and they are potentially impacting other resources - -that also belong to the people of the US, data from monitoring programs should be available - -to the public. - -RME 15 Additional Mitigation Measure C3 - Measures to Ensure, Reduced, Limited, or Zero - -Discharges. This measure purports to contain requirements to ensure reduced, limited, or zero - -discharge of any or all of the discharge streams identified with potential impacts to marine - -mammals or habitat and lists drill cuttings, drilling fluids, sanitary waste, bilge water, ballast - -water, and domestic waste. We know of absolutely no scientific reports that indicate any of - -these discharges have any effect on marine mammals and anything beyond a negligible effect - -on habitat. - -RME 16 Page 4-516 Section 4.10.5.4.4 the DEIS suggests that marine mammals may have trouble - -navigating between seismic surveys and drill operations because of overlapping sound - -signatures, but the analysis does not provide any distances or data to support this conclusion. - -RME 17 Page 4-98 Bowhead Whales, Direct and Indirect Effects [Behavioral Disturbance]. This - -section on bowhead whales does not include more recent data in the actual analysis of the - -impacts though it does occasionally mention some of the work. Rather it falls back to - -previous analyses that did not have this work to draw upon and makes similar conclusions. - -NMFS makes statements that are conjectural to justify its conclusions and not based on most - -recent available data. - -RME 18 The continued reliance on overly simplified, scientifically outdated, and artificially rigid - -impact thresholds used in MMPA rulemakings and environmental assessments to predict - -potential impacts of discrete events associated with seismic exploration is of great concern. - -The working assumption that impulsive noise never disrupts marine mammal behavior at - -levels below 160 dB (RMS), and disrupts behavior with 100% probability at higher levels has - -been repeatedly demonstrated to be incorrect, including in cases involving the sources and - -areas being considered in the Arctic DEIS. That 160 dB (RMS) threshold level originated - -from the California HESS panel report in the late 1990s1 and was based on best available - -data from reactions to seismic surveys measured in the 1980s. Since then considerable - -evidence has accumulated, and these newer data indicate that behavioral disruptions from - -pulsed sources can occur well below that 160 dB (RMS) threshold and are influenced by - -behavioral and contextual co-variates. - -RME 19 It has become painfully obvious that the use of received level alone is seriously limited in - -terms of reliably predicting impacts of sound exposure. However, if NMFS intends to - -continue to define takes accordingly, a more representative probabilistic approach would be - -more defensible. A risk function with a 50% midpoint at 140 dB (RMS) that accounts, even - -qualitatively, for contextual issues likely affecting response probability, comes much closer to - -Comment [CAN43]: Combine with appropriate -SOCs in MIT Issue Category that deal with -additional mitigation measure C3. - -Comment [CAN44]: This should be moved to -the DATA Issue Category. - -Comment [CAN45]: Seems to be a repeat of -earlier SOCs in other categories. Find and combine. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 102 - -Comment Analysis Report - -reflecting the existing data for marine mammals, including those in the Arctic, than the 160 - -dB (RMS) step-function that has previously been used and is again relied upon in the Arctic - -DEIS. - -RME 20 Page 3-68, Section 3.2.2.3.2 - The Cryopelagic Assemblage: The sentence "The arctic cod is - -abundant in the region, and their enormous autumn-winter pre spawning swarms are well - -known" is misleading. What is the referenced region? There are no well-known pre spawning - -swarms known if for the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Oil and Gas leasing areas. Furthermore - -large aggregations of arctic Cod have not been common in the most recent fish surveys - -conducted in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas (same references used in this EIS). - -RME 21 Page 400, 3rd paragraph Section 4.5.2.4.9.1. The middle of this paragraph states that - -"behavioral responses of bowhead whales to activities are expected to be temporary." There - -are no data to support this conclusion. The duration of impacts from industrial activities to - -bowhead whales is unknown. This statement should clearly state the limitations in data. If a - -conclusion is made without data, more information is needed about how NMFS reached this - -conclusion. - -RME 22 Page 4-102, 2nd paragraph, Section 4.5.2.4.9.1. Direct and Indirect Effects, Site Clearance - -and High Resolution Shallow Hazards Survey Programs: A discussion about how bowhead - -whales respond to site clearance/shallow hazard surveys occurs in this paragraph but - -references only Richardson et al. (1985). Given the number of recent site clearance/shallow - -hazard surveys, there should be additional information to be available from surveys - -conducted since 2007. If there are not more recent data, this raises questions regarding the - -failure of monitoring programs to examine effects to bowhead whales from site - -clearance/shallow hazard surveys. - -RME 23 Page 4-104, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence, Section 4.5.2.4.9.1 Direct and Indirect Effects, - -Exploratory Drilling: The conclusions based on the impact criteria are not supported by data. - -For example, there are no data on the duration of impacts to bowhead whales from - -exploratory drilling. If NMFS is going to make conclusions, they should highlight that - -conclusions are not based on data but on supposition. - -RME 24 Page 4-104, Section 4.5.2.4.9.1, Direct and Indirect Effects, Associated Vessels and Aircraft: - -This section does not use the best available science. A considerable effort has occurred to - -evaluate impacts from activities associated with BP's Northstar production island. Those - -studies showed that resupply vessels were one of the noisiest activities at Northstar and that - -anthropogenic sounds caused bowhead whales to deflect north of the island or to change - -calling behavior. This EIS should provide that best available information about how bowhead - -whales respond to vessel traffic to the public and decision makers. - -RME 25 Page 4-104, Section 4.5.2.4.9.1, Direct and Indirect Effects, Associated Vessels and Aircraft: - -This section does not use the best available science. A considerable effort has occurred to - -evaluate impacts from activities associated with BP's Northstar production island. Those - -studies showed that resupply vessels were one of the noisiest activities at Northstar and that - -anthropogenic sounds caused bowhead whales to deflect north of the island or to change - -calling behavior. This EIS should provide that best available information about how bowhead - -whales respond to vessel traffic to the public and decision makers. - -RME 26 Page 4-107, Section 4.5.2.4.9.1 Direct and Indirect Effects, Hearing Impairment, Injury, and - -Mortality: The sentence states that hearing impairment, injury or mortality is "highly - -unlikely." Please confirm if there are data to support this statement. It is understood is that - -Comment [CAN46]: Move to DATA Issue -Category. - -Comment [CAN47]: This is a verbatim repeat of -RME 24. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 103 - -Comment Analysis Report - -there are no data about hearing impairment in bowhead or beluga whales. Again, if - -speculation or supposition is used to make conclusions, this should be clearly stated. - -RME 27 The draft DEIS contains a number of instances in which it acknowledges major information - -gaps related to marine mammals but insists that there is an adequate basis for making an - -assessment of impacts. For example, the draft DEIS finds that it is not known whether - -impulsive sounds affect reproductive rate or distribution and habitat use [of bowhead whales] - -over periods of days or years. Moreover, the potential for increased stress, and the long-term - -effects of stress, are unknown, as research on stress effects in marine mammals is limited. - -Nevertheless, the draft DEIS concludes that for bowhead whales the level of available - -information is sufficient to support sound scientific judgments and reasoned managerial - -decisions, even in the absence of additional data of this type. The draft DEIS also maintains - -that sufficient information exists to evaluate impacts on walrus and polar bear despite - -uncertainties about their populations. - -RME 28 Although the draft DEIS takes note of some of the missing information related to the effects - -of noise on fish, it maintains that what does exist is sufficient to make an informed decision. - -BOEM‟s original draft supplemental EIS for Lease Sale 193, however, observed that -experiments conducted to date have not contained adequate controls to allow us to predict the - -nature of the change or that any change would occur. NOAA subsequently submitted - -comments noting that BOEM‟s admission indicated that the next step would be to address -whether the cost to obtain the information is exorbitant, or the means of doing so unclear. - -The draft DEIS also acknowledges that robust population estimates and treads for marine fish - -are unavailable and detailed information concerning their distribution is lacking. Yet the draft - -DEIS asserts that [g]eneral population trends and life histories are sufficiently understood to - -conclude that impacts on fish resources would be negligible. As recently as 2007, BOEM - -expressed stronger concerns when assessing the effects of a specific proposal for two - -drillships operating in the Beaufort Sea. It found that it could not concur that the effects on all - -fish species would be short term or that these potential effects are insignificant, nor would - -they be limited to the localized displacement of fish, because they could persist for up to five - -months each year for three consecutive years and they could occur during critical times in the - -life cycle of important fish species. The agencies‟ prior conclusions are equally applicable in -the context of this draft DEIS. - -Fish and EFH Impacts Analysis (Direct and Indirect; Alternatives 2 through 5) is - -substantively incomplete and considered to be unsupported analysis lacking analytical rigor - -and depth; conclusions are often not rationally and effectively supported by data; some - -statements are simply false and can be demonstrated so with further analysis of available - -data, studies, and a plethora of broad data gaps that include data gaps concerning the - -distribution, population abundance, and life history statistics for the various arctic fish - -species. - -RME 29 Significant threshold discussion should be expanded based on MMS, Shell Offshore Inc. - -Beaufort Sea Exploration Plan, Environmental Assessment, OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-009 at - -50-51 (Feb. 2007) (2007 Drilling EA), available at - -http://www.alaska.boemre.gov/ref/EIS%20EA/ShellOffshoreInc_EA/SOI_ea.pdf. BOEM - -avoided looking more closely at the issue by resting on a significance threshold that required - -effects to extend beyond multiple generations. The issue of an appropriate significance - -threshold in the draft DEIS is discussed in the text. A panel of the Ninth Circuit determined - -that the uncertainty required BOEM to obtain the missing information or provide a - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 104 - -Comment Analysis Report - -convincing statement of its conclusion of no significant impacts notwithstanding the - -uncertainty. Alaska Wilderness League v. Salazar, 548 F.3d 815, 831 (9th Cir. 2008), opinion - -withdrawn, 559 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. Mar 06, 2009), vacated as moot, 571 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. - -2009). - -RME 30 The draft DEIS reveals in many instances that studies are in fact already underway, indicating - -that the necessary information gathering is not cost prohibitive. A study undertaken by BP, - -the North Slope Borough, and the University of California will help better understand - -masking and the effects of masking on marine mammals[.] It will also address ways to - -overcome the inherent uncertainty of where and when animals may be exposed to - -anthropogenic noise by developing a model for migrating bowhead whales. NOAA has - -convened working groups on Underwater Sound mapping and Cetacean Mapping in the - -Arctic. BOEM has an Environmental Studies Program that includes a number of ongoing and - -proposed studies in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas that are intended to address a wide-variety - -of issues relevant to the draft DEIS. - -NMFS‟s habitat mapping workshop is scheduled to release information this year, and the -Chukchi Sea Acoustics, Oceanography, and Zooplankton study is well underway. These and - -other studies emphasize the evolving nature of information available concerning the Arctic. - -As part of the EIS, NMFS should establish a plan for continuing to gather information. As - -these and other future studies identify new areas that merit special management, the EIS - -should have a clearly defined process that would allow for their addition. - -RME 31 The draft DEIS‟s use of the Conoco permit is also improper because the draft DEIS failed to -acknowledge all of Conoco‟s emissions and potential impacts. The draft DEIS purports to -include a list of typical equipment for an Arctic oil and gas survey or exploratory drilling. - -The list set forth in the draft DEIS is conspicuously incomplete, however, as it assumes that - -exploratory drilling can be conducted using only a single icebreaker. Conoco‟s proposed -operations were expected to necessitate two icebreakers. Indeed, the three other OCS air - -permits issued in 2011 also indicate the need for two icebreakers. The failure of the draft - -DEIS to account for the use of two icebreakers in each exploratory drilling operations is - -significant because the icebreakers are the largest source of air pollution associated with an - -exploratory drilling operation in the Arctic. - -RME 32 Recent regulatory decisions cutting the annual exploratory drilling window by one third, - -purportedly to temporally expand the oil spill response window during the open water season. - -At the least, the agencies should collect the necessary data by canvassing lessees as to what - -their exploration schedules are, instead of guessing or erroneously assuming what that level - -of activity might be over the five years covered by the EIS. This is an outstanding example of - -not having basic information (e.g., lessee planned activity schedules) necessary even though - -such information is available (upon request) to assess environmental impacts. Such - -information can be and should be obtained (at negligible cost) by the federal government, and - -used to generate accurate assumptions for analysis. Sharing activity plans/schedules are also - -the best of interest of lessees so as to expedite the completion of the EIS and subsequent - -issuance of permits. NMFS and BOEM should also canvas seismic survey companies to - -gather information concerning their interest and schedules of conducting procured or - -speculative seismic surveys in the region and include such data in the generation of their - -assumptions for analysis. - -RME 33 Throughout the draft DEIS, there are additional acknowledgements of missing information, - -but without any specific findings as to the importance to the agencies‟ decision making, as - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 105 - -Comment Analysis Report - -required by Section 1502.22, including: Foraging movements of pack-ice breeding seals are - -not known. There are limited data as to the effects of masking. The greatest limiting factor in - -estimating impacts of masking is a lack of understanding of the spatial and temporal scales - -over which marine mammals actually communicate. It is not known whether impulsive noises - -affect marine mammal reproductive rate or distribution. It is not currently possible to predict - -which behavioral responses to anthropogenic noise might result in significant population - -consequences for marine mammals, such as bowhead whales, in the future. The potential - -long-term effects on beluga whales from repeated disturbance are unknown. Moreover, the - -current population trend of the Beaufort Sea stock of beluga whales is unknown. The degree - -to which ramp-up protects marine mammals from exposure to intense noises is unknown. - -Chemical response techniques to address an oil spill, such as dispersants could result in - -additional degradation of water quality, which may or may not offset the benefits of - -dispersant use. - -There is no way to tell what may or may not affect marine mammals in Russian, U.S. or in - -Canadian waters. - -RME 34 As noted throughout these comments, the extent of missing information in the Arctic is - -daunting and this holds equally true for bowhead whales. The long-term effects of - -disturbance on bowhead whales are unknown. The potential for increased stress is unknown, - -and it is unknown whether impulsive sounds affect the reproductive rate or distribution and - -habitat use over a period of days or years. Although there are some data indicting specific - -habitat use in the Beaufort Sea, information is especially lacking to determine where - -bowhead aggregations occur in the Chukchi Sea. What is known about the sensitivity of - -bowhead whales to sound and disturbance indicates that the zones of influence for a single - -year that included as many as twenty-one surveys, four drillships, and dozens of support - -vessels “including ice management vessels” would be considerable and almost certainly -include important habitat areas. The assumption that the resulting effects over five years - -would be no more than moderate is unsupported. - -RME 35 There is too little information known about the existing biological conditions in the Arctic, - -especially in light of changes wrought by climate change, to be able to reasonably - -understand, evaluate and address the cumulative, adverse impacts of oil and gas activities on - -those arctic ice environments including: - - Scientific literature emphasizes the need to ensure that the resiliency of ecosystems is -maintained in light of the changing environmental conditions associated with climate - -change. Uncertainties exist on topics for which more science focus is required, including - -physical parameters, such as storm frequency and intensity, and circulation patterns, and - -species response to environmental changes. - - There is little information on the potential for additional stresses brought by oil and gas -activity and increased shipping and tourism and how these potential stressors may - -magnify the impacts associated with changing climate and shrinking sea ice habitats. - -There are more studies that need to be done on invasive species, black carbon, aggregate - -noise. - - It was noted that a majority of the studies available have been conducted during the -summer and there is limited data about the wintertime when there is seven to eight - -months of ice on the oceans. - -Comment [CAN48]: It seems as though the 3-4 -SOCs here that mention missing info can be - -combined. Instead of typing out whole paragraphs, - -simply write that the concern is about missing info -and then do a bulleted list that summarizes where all - -those concerns exist, e.g., bowhead whale - -disturbance, foraging movements of ice seals, etc. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 106 - -Comment Analysis Report - -RME 36 Oil and gas activities in the Arctic Ocean should not be expanded until there is adequate - -information available both from western science and local and traditional knowledge to - -adequately assess potential impacts and make informed decisions. - -RME 37 The EIS in that it consistently fails to use new information as part of the impact analysis - -instead relying on previous analyses from other NMFS or MMS EIS documents conducted - -without the benefit of the new data. There are a number of instances in this DEIS where - -NMFS recognizes the lack of relevant data, or instances where conclusions are drawn without - -supporting data. - -RME 38 In the case of seismic surveys, improvements to analysis and processing methods would - -allow for the use of less powerful survey sources reducing the number of air-gun blasts. - -Better planning and coordination of surveys along with data sharing will help to reduce the - -number and lengths of surveys by avoiding duplication and minimizing survey noise. - -Requirements should be set in place for data collection, presence of adequate marine mammal - -observers, and use of passive acoustic monitoringPAM to avoid surveys when and where - -marine mammals are present. - -RME 39 NMFS should make full use of the best scientific information and assessment methodologies, - -and rigorously analyze impacts to the physical, biological, and subsistence resources - -identified in the DEIS. Steps should be taken to: - - Move away from arbitrary economic, political or geographic boundaries and instead -incorporate the latest science to address how changes in one area or species affect - -another. - - Develop long-term, precautionary, science-based planning that acknowledges the -complexity, importance, remoteness and fragility of America‟s Arctic region. The -interconnected nature of Arctic marine ecosystems demands a more holistic approach to - -examining the overall health of the Arctic and assessing the risks and impacts associated - -with offshore oil and gas activities in the region. - - NMFS should carefully scrutinize the impacts analysis for data deficiencies, as well as -statements conflicting with available scientific studies. - -It is impossible to know what the effects would be on species without more information or to - -determine mitigation measures on species without any effectiveness of said measures without - -first knowing what the impacts would be. - -RME 40 Modeling allows for only have a small census of data that isare used to develop an area - -around planes, plants that are not well understood, it's very different on the Chukchi side - -versus the Beaufort side. Yet your own guidelines do not have effective criteria saying that - -you should cut off some of these activities on the Beaufort side real early versus the Chukchi - -side. - -RME 41 Electronic data available to rural Alaskans is extremely limited. The conversion of - -documented science to electronic format is slow, and information that is available in - -repositories and libraries are not available through the Internet. - -RME 42 The final EIS should state that Active Acoustic Monitoring should be further studied, but is - -not yet ready to be imposed as a mitigation measure. - -RME 43 At present the ambient noise budgets are not very well known in the Arctic, but the USGS - -indicated that this type of data waswere needed for scientists to understand the magnitude and - -Comment [CAN49]: What? - -Comment [CAN50]: Identical to MIT 11. Delete -here and just attribute MIT 11 to both letters. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 107 - -Comment Analysis Report - -significance of potential effects of anthropogenic sound on marine mammals. Noise impacts - -on marine mammals from underwater acoustic communication systems needs to be evaluated - -and incorporated into the DEIS. - -The U.S. Geological Survey‟sUSGS‟ recommendation to develop an inventory/database of -seismic sound sources used in the Arctic would be a good first step toward a better - -understanding of long-term, population-level effects of seismic and drilling activities. Two - -recent projects that will help further such an integrated approach are NOAA‟s recently -launched Synthesis of Arctic Research (SOAR) and the North Pacific Marine Research - -Institute‟s industry-supported synthesis of existing scientific and traditional knowledge of -Bering Strait and Arctic Ocean marine ecosystem information. - -RME 44 G&G activities in the Arctic must be accompanied by a parallel research effort that improves - -understanding of ecosystem dynamics and the key ecological attributes that support polar - -bears, walrus, ice seals and other ice-dependent species. NMFS, as the agency with principal - -responsibility for marine mammals, should acknowledge that any understanding of - -cumulative effects is hampered by the need for better information. NMFS should - -acknowledge the need for additional research and monitoring coupled with long-term species - -monitoring programs supported by industry funding, and research must be incorporated into a - -rapid review process for management on an ongoing basis. By allowing the science and - -technology to develop, more concrete feasible and effective mitigation strategies can be - -provided which in turn would benefit energy security and proper wildlife protections. - -Identification of important ecological areas should be an ongoing part of an integrated, long- - -term scientific research and monitoring program for the Arctic, not a static, one-time event. - -As an Arctic research and monitoring program gives us a greater understanding of the - -ecological functioning of Arctic waters, it may reveal additional important ecological areas - -that BOEM and NMFS should exclude from future lease sales and other oil and gas activities. - -RME 45 While it is reasonable to assume that many outstanding leases will not ultimately result in - -development (or even exploration), NMFS should have truth-tested with its cooperating - -agency whether the maximum level of activity it assumed was, in fact, a reasonable - -assumption of the upper limit on anticipated activity. BOEM would have been able to provide - -NMFS with guidance on one of these leases. Use of a properly constructed scenario would - -have provided NMFS with a more realistic understanding of the level of activity necessary to - -allow current leaseholders an opportunity to develop their leases within the lease terms. - -Comment [CAN51]: Move to ALT Issue -Category. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 108 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Socioeconomic Impacts (SEI) - -SEI Comments on economic impacts to local communities, regional economy, and national - -economy, can include changes in the social or economic environments (MONEY, JOBS). - -SEI 1 The analysis of socioeconomic impacts in the DEIS is inadequate. Comments include: - - The analysis claims inaccurately many impacts are unknown or cannot be predicted and -fails to consider the full potential of unrealized employment, payroll, government - -revenue, and other benefits of exploration and development, as well as the effectiveness - -of local hire efforts. - - The analysis is inappropriately limited in a manner not consistent with the analysis of -other impacts in the DEIS. Potential beneficial impacts from development should not be - -considered “temporary” and economic impacts should not be considered “minor”. This -characterization is inconsistent with the use of these same terms for environmental - -impacts analysis. - - NMFS did not provide a complete evaluation of the socioeconomic impacts of instituting -the additional mitigation measures.; - - The projected increase in employment appears to be low. - - The forecasts for future activity in the DEIS scope of alternatives, if based on historical -activity, appear to ignore the impact of economic forces, especially resource value as - -impacted by current and future market prices. Historical exploration activity in the - -Chukchi and Beaufort OCS in the 1980s and early 1990s declined and ceased due to low - -oil price rather than absence of resource. - - Positive benefits were not captured adequately. - -SEI 2 The DEIS will compromise the economic feasibility of developing oil and gas in the Alaska - -OCS. Specific issues include: - - It would also adversely impact the ability of regional corporations to meet the obligations -imposed upon them by Congress with regard to their shareholders; - - Development will not go forward if exploration is not allowed or is rendered impractical -and investors may dismiss Alaska‟s future potential for offshore oil and gas exploration, -further limiting the state‟s economic future; - - The limited alternatives considered would significantly increase the length of time -required to explore and appraise hydrocarbon resources. - -SEI 3 As a result of the restricted number of programs for seismic surveys and exploratory drilling - -in both the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, the long-term effects will negatively impact the - -economy of Alaskans. - -SEI 4 It was recommends that aAn Economic Impact Study should be conducted on the Subsistence - -Economies, the Human Health Adverse and Cumulative and Aggregate Impacts,; and Climate - -Change Impacts to the economies of the Coastal Communities of Alaska. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 109 - -Comment Analysis Report - -SEI 5 The State of Alaska and the entire nation benefit economically from offshore oil and gas - -development through job creation and generation of local, state, and federal revenues. Related - -economic issues identified include: - - Oil companies provide employment and donations to charities and nonprofits; - - Oil and gas developments has already had an impact on a number of important sectors of -the economy; - - Exploration and development in the area covered by the DEIS will help keep the Trans- -Alaska Pipeline system a viable part of the nation's energy infrastructure; - - There is a need for more oil and gas development to increase economic opportunity; - - Indirect hiring, such as for Marine Mammal Observers, is beneficial to the economy; and - - When the benefits of the oil and gas activities that were considered as part of this analysis -are weighed against the temporary environmental effects (and lack of adverse long term - -impacts), the benefits outweigh the effects. - - - -Comment [CAN52]: I think this is more -appropriate in the Comment Acknowledged Issue - -Category. These are just statements that do not -require a response or change to the EIS. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 110 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Subsistence Resource Protection (SRP) - -SRP Comments on need to protect subsistence resources and potential impacts to these resources. - -Can include ocean resources as our garden, contamination (SUBSISTENCE ANIMALS, - -HABITAT). - -SRP 1 The DEIS is lacking in an in-depth analysis of impacts to subsistence. NMFS should analyze - -the following in more detail: - - Effects of oil and gas activities on subsistence resources and how climate change could -make species even more vulnerable to those effects; - - The discussion of subsistence in the section on oil spills; - - Long-term impacts to communities from loss of our whale hunting tradition; - - Impacts on subsistence hunting that occur outside the project area, for example, in the -Canadian portion of the Beaufort Sea; and - - Impacts associated with multiple authorizations taking place over multiple years. - -SRP 2 Subsistence hunters are affected by industrial activities in ways that do not strictly correlate - -to the health of marine mammal populations, such as when marine mammals deflect away - -from exploration activities, hunting opportunities may be lost regardless of whether or not the - -deflection harms the species as a whole. - -SRP 3 NMFS should include consultation with other groups of subsistence hunters in the affected - -area, including the Village of Noatak and indigenous peoples in Canada. - -SRP 4 Many people depend on the Beaufort and Chukchi seas for subsistence resources. Protection - -of these resources is important to sustaining food sources, nutrition, athletics, and the culture - -of Alaskan Natives for future generations. - -SRP 5 Industrial activities adversely affect subsistence resources,; resulting in negative impacts that - -could decrease food security, and encourage consumption of store-bought foods with less - -nutritional value. - -SRP 6 NMFS should use the information acquired on subsistence hunting grounds and provide real - -information about what will happen in these areas and when, and then disclose what the - -impacts will be to coastal villages. - -SRP 7 Exploratory activities occurring during September and October could potentially clash with - -the migratory period of the Bbeluga and bowhead whales perhaps requiring hunters to travel - -further to hunt and potentially reducing the feasibility of the hunt. Even minor disruptions to - -the whale's migration pathway can seriously affect subsistence hunts. - -SRP 8 NMFS must ensure oil and gas activities do not reduce the availability of any affected - -population or species to a level insufficient to meet subsistence needs. - -SRP 9 If an oil spill the size of the one in the Gulf of Mexico were to happen in the Arctic, - -subsistence resources would be in jeopardy, harming communities‟ primary sources of -nutrition and culture. - -SRP 10 NMFS needs to consider not only subsistence resources, but the food, prey, and habitat of - -those resources. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 111 - -Comment Analysis Report - -SRP 11 Subsistence resources could be negatively impacted by exploratory activities. Specific - -comments include: - - Concerns about the health and welfare of the animals, with results such as that the -blubber is getting too hard, as a result of seismic activity; - - Reduction of animals; - - Noise from seismic operations, exploration drilling, and/or development and production -activities may make bowhead whales skittish and more difficult to hunt; - - Aircraft associated with oil and gas operations may negatively affect other subsistence -resources, including polar bears, walrus, seals, caribou, and coastal and marine birds, - -making it more difficult for Alaska Native hunters to obtain these resources; - - Water pollution could release toxins that bioaccumulate in top predators, including -humans; and - - Increased shipping traffic and the associated noise are going to impact whaling and other -marine mammal subsistence activities. - -SRP 12 The draft DEIS must also do more to address the potential for harm to coastal communities - -due to the perceived contamination of subsistence resources. The draft DEIS cites to studies - -demonstrating that perceived contamination is a very real issue for local residents, and - -industrialization at the levels contemplated by the draft DEIS would undoubtedly contribute - -to that belief. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 112 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Use of Traditional Knowledge (UTK) - -UTK Comments regarding how traditional knowledge (TK) is used in the document or decision - -making process, need to incorporate TK, or processes for documenting TK. - -UTK 1 Applying the traditional knowledge TKis not only observing the animals, but also seeing the - -big picture, big picture meaning the Arctic environment. - -UTK 2 There hasn't been enough contracting with our local expertise. Contracting has been involved - -with Barrow Village Corporation and Wainwright, but not with smaller village corporations - -in regards to biological studies and work. Communities feel they are being left out of the - -decision making process, and others come up with decisions that are impacting them. - -UTK 3 There needs to be a clear definition of what that traditional knowledgeTK is. - -UTK 4 Specific Traditional KnowledgeTK that NMFS should behave included in the DEIS. - -Comments include: - - The selection of specific deferral areas should be informed by the traditional -knowledgeTK of our whaling captains and should be developed with specific input of - -each community; - - NMFS must incorporate the traditional knowledgeTK of our whaling captains about -bowhead whales. Their ability to smell, their sensitivity to water pollution, and the - -potential interference with our subsistence activity and/or tainting of our food; and - - Primary hunting season is usually from April until about August, for all animals. It starts -in January for seals. Most times it is also year-round, too, with climate change, depending - -on the migration of the animals. Bowhead hunts start in April, and beluga hunts are - -whenever they migrate; usually starting in April and continuing until the end of summer. - -UTK 5 To be meaningful, NMFS must obtain and incorporate traditional knowledgeTK before it - -commits to management decisions that may adversely affect subsistence resources. - -UTK 6 Gathering and using traditional knowledgeTK will require both a precautionary and adaptive - -approach. NMFS should make a better effort to ensure that traditional knowledgeTK truly - -informs the final EIS and preferred alternative. - -UTK 7 There needs to be some protection against the incidental sharing of Traditional - -KnowledgeTK, with written consent and accountability for use. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 113 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Vessel Operations and Movements (VOM) - -VOM Comments regarding vessel operations and movements. - -VOM 1 Vessel transit to lease holding areas are not included in regulatory jurisdiction so - -requirements provide unwarranted restrictions. - -VOM 2 Vessel transit speeds need to include AEWC's conflict avoidance agreementsCAAs, which - -includes speed restrictions. - -VOM 3 Consider development of Arctic shipping routes and increased ship traffic and resulting - -impacts. - -VOM 4 North Slope communities are concerned about the increase in vessel traffic and the impact - -this will have on marine mammals. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 114 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Water and Air Quality (WAQ) - -WAQ Comments regarding water and air quality, including potential to impact or degrade these - -resources. - -WAQ 1 The effects of greenhouse gases are of concern, with regards to sea level rise and ocean - -acidification that occurs with fossil fuel combustion - -WAQ 2 Increases in oil and gas exploration would inevitably bring higher levels of pollution and - -emissions. Discharges, oil spills, increases in air traffic and drill cuttings could all cause both - -water and air damage causing potential effects on human health and the overall environment. - -WAQ 3 The air quality analysis on impacts is flawed and needs more information. Reliance on recent - -draft air permits is not accurate especially for the increases in vessel traffic due to oil and gas - -exploration. All emissions associated with oil and gas development need to be considered not - -just those that are subject to direct regulation or permit conditions. Emissions calculations - -need to include vessels outside the 25 mile radius not just inside. Actual icebreaker emissions - -need to be included also. This will allow more accurate emissions calculations. The use of - -stack testing results and other emissions calculations for Arctic operations are recommended. - -WAQ 4 Many operators have agreed to use ultra low sulfur fuel or low sulfur fuel in their operations, - -but those that do not agree have to be accounted for. The use of projected air emissions for - -NOx and SOz need to be included to account for those that do not use the lower fuel grades. - -WAQ 5 Since air permits have not yet been applied for by oil companies engaging in seismic or - -geological and geophysical surveys, control factors should not be applied to them without - -knowing the actual information. - -WAQ 6 Concerns about the potential for diversion of bowhead whales and other subsistence species - -due to water and air discharges. The location of these discharges, and waste streams, and - -where they will overlap between the air and water needs to be compared to the whale - -migrations and discern the potential areas of impact. - -WAQ 7 The evaluation of potential air impacts is now outdated. The air quality in Alaska is no longer - -regulated by EPA and the Alaska DEC, and is no longer subject to EPA's OCS regulations - -and air permitting requirements. The new regulatory authority is the Department of the - -Interior. This shows that at least some sources will not be subject to EPA regulations or air - -permitting - -WAQ 8 Other pollutants are a cause of concern besides just CO and PM. What about NOX, and - -PM2.5 emissions? All of these are of concern in the Alaska OCS. - -WAQ 9 The use of exclusion zones around oil and gas activities will not prevent pollutant levels - -above regulatory standards. Air pollution is expected to be the highest within the exclusion - -zones and likely to exceed applicable standards. A full and transparent accounting of these - -impacts needs to be assessed. - -WAQ 10 The DEIS needs to analyze the full size of the emissions potential of the equipment that the - -oil companies are intending to operate in these areas - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 115 - -Comment Analysis Report - -WAQ 11 Identify the total number of oil and gas projects that may be expected to operate during a - -single season in each sea, the potential proximity of such operations, and the impacts of - -multiple and/or clustered operations upon local and regional air quality. - -WAQ 12 Native Alaskans expressed concerned about the long term effects of dispersants, air pollution, - -and water pollution. All emissions must be considered including drilling ships, vessels, - -aircraft, and secondary pollution like ozone and secondary particulate matters. Impacts of - -water quality and discharges tainting subsistence foods which is considered likely to occur. - -WAQ 13 The final EIS should include updated data sources including: - - Preliminary results from the Kotzebue Air Toxics Monitoring Study which should be -available from the DEC shortly. - - Data collected from the Red Dog Mine lead monitoring program in Noatak and Kivalina. - -WAQ 14 Page 4-21, paragraph three should reference the recently issued Ocean Discharge Criteria - -Evaluation (ODCE) that accompanies the draft Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea NPDES - -General Permits, which has more recent dispersal modeling. - -WAQ 15 The recently released Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluations (ODCEs) for the Beaufort and - -Chukchi Sea were developed by the EPA and released for public comment. These evaluations - -should be referenced in the Final EA to clarify the “increased concentration” language used -on page 4-56. - - - - - - - - - - - -Comment [CAN53]: Both of these would be -more appropriate in the DATA Issue Category. - - - - - - -APPENDIX A - -Submission and Comment Index - - - - - -Comment [CAN54]: The table in this appendix -will need to be updated to match the changes made - -to the SOCs. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-1 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter -Submission - -ID -Comments - -Abramaitis, - -Loretta - -2827 CEF 9, OSR 5 - -AEWC - -Aiken, Johnny - -3778 ALT 22, ALT 23, ALT 33, CEF 2, CEF 5, CEF 7, CEF 8, - -CEF 12, COR 7, COR 14, COR 18, DATA 2, DATA 5, EDI - -3, MIT 21, MIT 57, MIT 105, MIT 106, MIT 107, MIT 108, - -MIT 109, MIT 110, MIT 111, MIT 112, MMI 13, MMI 34, - -NEP 1, NEP 11, NEP 35, NEP 52, REG 2, REG 3, REG 4, - -REG 6, REG 19, REG 20, REG 21, REG 22, RME 6, UTK 4 - -Anchorage - -Public Meeting - -13142 ALT 2, ALT 4, ALT 5, ALT 7, ALT 8, ALT 9, ALT 14, - -CEF 2, CEF 5, CEF 6, CEF 7, CEF 8, CEF 9, CEF 10, COR - -8, COR 10, COR 11, DCH 2, GPE 1, GSE 1, GSE 5, MIT 3, - -MIT 4, MIT 21, MIT 23, MIT 24, MIT 38, MIT 78, MMI 6, - -MIT 132, MIT 133, MIT 134, NED 1, NED 2, NED 3, NEP - -1, NEP 4, NEP 5, NEP 7, NEP 10, NEP 11, NEP 13, NEP - -14, NEP 15, NEP 16, NEP 17, NEP 51, OSR 1, OSR 5, REG - -3, REG 7, REG 24, RME 1, RME 23, RME 33, RME 35, - -RME 39, SEI 5, SRP 4, SRP 7, SRP 11, UTK 5, WAQ 12 - -Barrow Public - -Meeting - -13144 ACK 1, CEF 4, CEF 7, CEF 8, CEF 10, COR 1, COR 3, - -COR 7, DCH 4, GPE 7, GSE 3, ICL 1, ICL 3, MIT 21, MIT - -57, MIT 103, MIT 133, MIT 136, MMI 41, NEP 48, OSR 1, - -OSR 5, OSR 19, OSR 20, PER 3, REG 2, RME 2, RME 35, - -RME 40, SRP 4, SRP 10, UTK 1, UTK 2, UTK 3, UTK 4, - -UTK 5, UTK 7, WAQ 12 - -Bednar, Marek 3002 ACK 1 - -Black, Lester - -(Skeet) - -2095 MIT 6, NED 2, SEI 3, SEI 5 - -Boone, James 2394 CEF 9, MIT 1, OSR 1, REG 3 - -Bouwmeester, - -Hanneke - -82 MMI 1, REG 1 - -North Slope - -Borough - -Brower, - -Charlotte - -3779 ALT 19, ALT 23, ALT 24, CEF 5, CEF 9, DATA 3, DATA - -17, DATA 21, DATA 22, EDI 1, EDI 4, EDI 5, EDI 9, EDI - -11, EDI 12, EDI 14, GSE 4, MIT 21, MMI 1, MMI 2, MIT - -103, MMI 5, MIT 113, MIT 114, MIT 115, MMI 26, MMI - -27, MMI 28, MMI 29, MMI 32, NEP 36, OSR 1, OSR 3, - -OSR 11, OSR 14, OSR 15, OSR 16, OSR 17, OSR 23, OSR - -24, RME 1, RME 14, RME 20, RME 21, RME 22, RME 23, - -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 37, RME 39 - -Conocophillips - -Brown, David - -3775 ALT 5, ALT 7, ALT 9, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 32, COR 11, - -COR 22, MIT 3, MIT 4, MIT 10, MIT 23, MIT 24, MIT 25, - -MIT 28, MIT 78, MMI 1, MIT 102, MMI 10, NEP 1, NEP 4, - -NEP 5, NEP 7, NEP 11, NEP 12, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 17, - -NEP 21, REG 7 - -Burnell Gutsell, - -Anneke-Reeve - -1964 CEF 9, MIT 1, OSR 5, REG 3, RME 1 - -Cagle, Andy 81 ALT 1, OSR 5, WAQ 1 - -Comment [CAN55]: Listed out of order. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-2 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter -Submission - -ID -Comments - -Alaska Inter- - -Tribal Council - -Calcote, Delice - -2093 ALT 1, ALT 2, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 7, COR 1, EDI 3, ICL 2, - -MIT 1, NEP 2, NEP 13, OSR 7, RME 2, RME 35, SEI 4 - -Childs, Jefferson 3781 ALT 10, DATA 3, EDI 15, GPE 5, GPE 6, HAB 3, MIT - -103, MMI 8, MMI 38, MMI 39, MMI 40, NEP 13, NEP 16, - -NEP 47, REG 9, RME 8, RME 28, RME 32, RME 39 - -Christiansen , - -Shane B. - -80 ACK 1 - -Cornell - -University - -Clark, - -Christopher - -3772 CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, DATA 2, MIT 91, MIT 92, MIT 93, - -MMI 22, RME 2, RME 18, RME 19 - -Clarke, Chris 76 ALT 1, NED 4 - -Cummings, Terry 87 ALT 1, MMI 45, OSR 1, OSR 22, SRP 4 - -Danger, Nick 77 SEI 5 - -Davis, William 2884 CEF 9, MIT 1, OSR 5, REG 3, RME 1 - -International - -Fund for Animal - -Welfare - -Flocken, Jeffrey - -3762 ALT 2, CEF 4, CEF 9, CEF 11, COR 9, MIT 21, MIT 50, - -MIT 51, MIT 52, MIT 53, MIT 54, MIT 55, OSR 1, OSR - -11, RME 6, RME 9, RME 38 - -Foster, Dolly 89 SRP 3 - -ION Geophysical - -Corporation - -Gagliardi, Joe - -3761 ALT 7, ALT 13, ALT 18, CEF 6, COR 11, EDI 1, EDI 2, - -EDI 3, EDI 8, EDI 9, EDI 13, HAB 4, MIT 23, MIT 24, MIT - -32, MIT 33, MIT 37, MIT 38, MIT 39, MIT 40, MIT 41, - -MIT 42, MIT 43, MIT 44, MIT 45, MIT 46, MIT 47, MIT - -48, MIT 49, MMI 10, NEP 8, NEP 9, NEP 11, REG 7, SEI 1 - -Giessel, Sen., - -Cathy - -2090 NEP 7, REG 7 - -Arctic Slope - -Regional - -Corporation - -Glenn, Richard - -3760 CEF 5, EDI 10, EDI 12, MIT 34, MIT 35, MIT 36, NED 1, - -NED 2, NEP 7, NEP 11, NEP 12, OSR 5, OSR 21, SEI 2, - -SEI 3, SEI 5 - -Harbour, Dave 3773 REG 7, SEI 2 - -Ocean - -Conservancy - -Hartsig, Andrew - -3752 ALT 5, ALT 23, CEF 1, CEF 2, CEF 8, CEF 9, CEF 12, - -DATA 2, DATA 9, DATA 10, EDI 3, EDI 4, EDI 7, EDI 10, - -GPE 2, MIT 20, MIT 21, MIT 22, MIT 57, MMI 2, MMI 14, - -MMI 15, NEP 14, NEP 15, OSR 3, OSR 8, REG 10, RME 1, - -RME 2, RME 9, RME 35, RME 43, SRP 5, SRP 8, SRP 11, - -UTK 5, UTK 6 - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-3 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter -Submission - -ID -Comments - -The Pew - -Environmental - -Group - -Heiman, Marilyn - -3752 ALT 5, ALT 23, CEF 1, CEF 2, CEF 8, CEF 9, CEF 12, - -DATA 2, DATA 9, DATA 10, EDI 3, EDI 4, EDI 7, EDI 10, - -GPE 2, MIT 20, MIT 21, MIT 22, MIT 57, MMI 2, MMI 14, - -MMI 15, NEP 14, NEP 15, OSR 3, OSR 8, REG 10, RME 1, - -RME 2, RME 9, RME 35, RME 43, SRP 5, SRP 8, SRP 11, - -UTK 5, UTK 6 - -Hicks, Katherine 2261 COR 13, NED 1, NED 3, NEP 11, SEI 5 - -Hof, Justin 83 ALT 2 - -Greenpeace - -Howells, Dan - -3753 ALT 2, ALT 5, ALT 7, CEF 2, COR 4, DATA 11, EDI 1, - -GSE 1, GSE 6, GSE 8, GSE 9, OSR 5, OSR 9, REG 2, REG - -11, SRP 1, SRP 7 - -World Wildlife - -Fund - -Hughes, Layla - -3780 ALT 2, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 17, ALT 19, - -ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 23, ALT 34, ALT 35, CEF 4, CEF 5, - -CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, CEF 12, COR 17, DATA 1, DATA - -2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, - -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, - -DATA 27, DATA 28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, - -DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, EDI 11, GPE 3, GPE 4, - -GSE 4, GSE 9, HAB 3, MIT 21, MIT 54, MIT 57, MMI 1, - -MMI 2, MIT 103, MMI 6, MMI 8, MMI 10, MMI 11, MIT - -116, MIT 118, MIT 119, MIT 120, MIT 121, MIT 122, MIT - -123, MIT 124, MIT 125, MMI 25, MIT 126, MIT 127, MMI - -27, MIT 128, MIT 129, MIT 130, MMI 30, MMI 31, MMI - -32, MMI 33, MMI 34, MMI 35, MMI 36, MMI 37, MMI 41, - -NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 27, NEP 35, NEP 37, NEP - -38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, NEP 43, NEP 44, - -NEP 45, NEP 46, OSR 1, OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 21, REG - -23, REG 26, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 12, RME 19, - -RME 23, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME 31, - -RME 32, RME 33, RME 34, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 12, WAQ - -2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Natural - -Resources - -Defense Council - -Jasny, Michael - -3780 ALT 2, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 17, ALT 19, - -ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 23, ALT 34, ALT 35, CEF 4, CEF 5, - -CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, CEF 12, COR 17, DATA 1, DATA - -2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, - -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, - -DATA 27, DATA 28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, - -DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, EDI 11, GPE 3, GPE 4, - -GSE 4, GSE 9, HAB 3, MIT 21, MIT 54, MIT 57, MMI 1, - -MMI 2, MIT 103, MMI 6, MMI 8, MMI 10, MMI 11, MIT - -116, MIT 118, MIT 119, MIT 120, MIT 121, MIT 122, MIT - -123, MIT 124, MIT 125, MMI 25, MIT 126, MIT 127, MMI - -27, MIT 128, MIT 129, MIT 130, MMI 30, MMI 31, MMI - -32, MMI 33, MMI 34, MMI 35, MMI 36, MMI 37, MMI 41, - -NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 27, NEP 35, NEP 37, NEP - -38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, NEP 43, NEP 44, - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-4 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter -Submission - -ID -Comments - -NEP 45, NEP 46, OSR 1, OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 21, REG - -23, REG 26, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 12, RME 19, - -RME 23, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME 31, - -RME 32, RME 33, RME 34, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 12, WAQ - -2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -National Ocean - -Industries - -Association - -Johnson, Luke - -3766 ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 5, ALT 7, ALT 9, ALT 14, ALT 15, - -ALT 16, ALT 25, ALT 26, ALT 27, ALT 28, CEF 5, CEF 6, - -DATA 14, DATA 15, DATA 16, EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI - -4, MIT 3, MIT 10, MIT 23, MIT 24, MIT 28, MIT 32, MIT - -35, MIT 43, MIT 46, MIT 60, MIT 61, MIT 62, MIT 63, - -MIT 64, MIT 65, MIT 66, MIT 67, MIT 68, MIT 69, MIT - -70, MIT 71, MIT 72, MIT 76, MMI 1, MMI 10, MMI 16, - -MMI 17, MMI 18, MMI 19, MMI 20, NED 1, NEP 5, NEP - -11, NEP 16, NEP 20, NEP 21, NEP 22, NEP 23, NEP 24, - -NEP 25, NEP 26, NEP 27, NEP 28, NEP 30, NEP 53, REG - -7, REG 12, REG 13, REG 14, RME 10, SEI 1, SEI 2 - -Friends of the - -Earth - -Kaltenstein, John - -3780 ALT 2, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 17, ALT 19, - -ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 23, ALT 34, ALT 35, CEF 4, CEF 5, - -CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, CEF 12, COR 17, DATA 1, DATA - -2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, - -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, - -DATA 27, DATA 28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, - -DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, EDI 11, GPE 3, GPE 4, - -GSE 4, GSE 9, HAB 3, MIT 21, MIT 54, MIT 57, MMI 1, - -MMI 2, MIT 103, MMI 6, MMI 8, MMI 10, MMI 11, MIT - -116, MIT 118, MIT 119, MIT 120, MIT 121, MIT 122, MIT - -123, MIT 124, MIT 125, MMI 25, MIT 126, MIT 127, MMI - -27, MIT 128, MIT 129, MIT 130, MMI 30, MMI 31, MMI - -32, MMI 33, MMI 34, MMI 35, MMI 36, MMI 37, MMI 41, - -NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 27, NEP 35, NEP 37, NEP - -38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, NEP 43, NEP 44, - -NEP 45, NEP 46, OSR 1, OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 21, REG - -23, REG 26, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 12, RME 19, - -RME 23, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME 31, - -RME 32, RME 33, RME 34, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 12, WAQ - -2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Kivalina Public - -Meeting - -13146 COR 1, COR 6, NEP 49, OSR 5, OSR 11 - -Kotzebue Public - -Meeting - -13145 CEF 9, EDI 14, ICL 1, MIT 137, MIT 138, MIT 139, MMI - -42, MMI 43, REG 25, RME 2, SRP 4 - -U.S. Chamber of - -Commerce - -Kovacs, William - -L. - -3766 ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 5, ALT 7, ALT 9, ALT 14, ALT 15, - -ALT 16, ALT 25, ALT 26, ALT 27, ALT 28, CEF 5, CEF 6, - -DATA 14, DATA 15, DATA 16, EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI - -4, MIT 3, MIT 10, MIT 23, MIT 24, MIT 28, MIT 32, MIT - -35, MIT 43, MIT 46, MIT 60, MIT 61, MIT 62, MIT 63, - -MIT 64, MIT 65, MIT 66, MIT 67, MIT 68, MIT 69, MIT - -Comment [CAN56]: Is this mis-attributed to the -signatories of the multi-association letter? In the - -actual CAR, it says this recommendation was made - -by the Marine Mammal Commission. I‟m thinking -this needs to be deleted here and for all the other - -signatories of this letter. - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-5 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter -Submission - -ID -Comments - -70, MIT 71, MIT 72, MIT 76, MMI 1, MMI 10, MMI 16, - -MMI 17, MMI 18, MMI 19, MMI 20, NED 1, NEP 5, NEP - -11, NEP 16, NEP 20, NEP 21, NEP 22, NEP 23, NEP 24, - -NEP 25, NEP 26, NEP 27, NEP 28, NEP 30, NEP 53, REG - -7, REG 12, REG 13, REG 14, RME 10, SEI 1, SEI 2 - -Krause, Danielle 3625 CEF 9, MIT 1, OSR 5, REG 3, RME 1 - -Lambertsen, - -Richard - -2096 MIT 7 - -Pacific - -Environment - -Larson, Shawna - -3780 ALT 2, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 17, ALT 19, - -ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 23, ALT 34, ALT 35, CEF 4, CEF 5, - -CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, CEF 12, COR 17, DATA 1, DATA - -2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, - -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, - -DATA 27, DATA 28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, - -DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, EDI 11, GPE 3, GPE 4, - -GSE 4, GSE 9, HAB 3, MIT 21, MIT 54, MIT 57, MMI 1, - -MMI 2, MIT 103, MMI 6, MMI 8, MMI 10, MMI 11, MIT - -116, MIT 118, MIT 119, MIT 120, MIT 121, MIT 122, MIT - -123, MIT 124, MIT 125, MMI 25, MIT 126, MIT 127, MMI - -27, MIT 128, MIT 129, MIT 130, MMI 30, MMI 31, MMI - -32, MMI 33, MMI 34, MMI 35, MMI 36, MMI 37, MMI 41, - -NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 27, NEP 35, NEP 37, NEP - -38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, NEP 43, NEP 44, - -NEP 45, NEP 46, OSR 1, OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 21, REG - -23, REG 26, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 12, RME 19, - -RME 23, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME 31, - -RME 32, RME 33, RME 34, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 12, WAQ - -2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Lish, Chris 3763 ALT 2, CEF 9, MIT 1, NEP 16, OSR 5, REG 3, RME 1 - -Locascio, Julie 86 ACK 1 - -Lopez, Irene 88 ALT 2, HAB 1 - -Shell Alaska - -Venture - -Macrander, - -Michael - -3768 ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 5, ALT 7, ALT 9, ALT 11, ALT 14, - -ALT 18, ALT 19, ALT 31, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 12, COR 5, - -COR 8, COR 10, COR 11, COR 13, COR 16, COR 21, COR - -22, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 17, DATA 18, DATA 19, - -DCH 2, DCH 3, EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI 4, EDI 5, EDI 7, - -EDI 8, EDI 9, EDI 10, EDI 11, EDI 12, EDI 13, EDI 16, - -GPE 3, GPE 9, GSE 1, GSE 7, MIT 3, MIT 10, MIT 21, - -MIT 23, MIT 24, MIT 28, MIT 29, MIT 32, MIT 33, MIT - -39, MIT 43, MIT 46, MIT 48, MIT 49, MIT 69, MIT 71, - -MIT 72, MIT 77, MIT 78, MIT 79, MIT 80, MIT 81, MIT - -82, MIT 83, MIT 84, MIT 85, MIT 86, MIT 87, MIT 88, - -MIT 89, MIT 90, MMI 10, MMI 44, MMI 45, MMI 46, - -NED 3, NEP 9, NEP 10, NEP 11, NEP 12, NEP 16, NEP 21, - -NEP 26, NEP 29, NEP 30, NEP 31, NEP 32, NEP 33, OSR - -21, REG 7, REG 13, REG 15, REG 16, REG 17, RME 15, - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-6 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter -Submission - -ID -Comments - -RME 16, RME 17, RME 37, RME 45, SEI 1, SEI 2, SEI 5, - -VOM 1 - -Loggerhead - -Instruments - -Mann, David - -3772 CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, DATA 2, MIT 91, MIT 92, MIT 93, - -MMI 22, RME 2, RME 18, RME 19 - -Earthjustice - -Mayer, Michael - -3780 ALT 2, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 17, ALT 19, - -ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 23, ALT 34, ALT 35, CEF 4, CEF 5, - -CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, CEF 12, COR 17, DATA 1, DATA - -2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, - -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, - -DATA 27, DATA 28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, - -DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, EDI 11, GPE 3, GPE 4, - -GSE 4, GSE 9, HAB 3, MIT 21, MIT 54, MIT 57, MMI 1, - -MMI 2, MIT 103, MMI 6, MMI 8, MMI 10, MMI 11, MIT - -116, MIT 118, MIT 119, MIT 120, MIT 121, MIT 122, MIT - -123, MIT 124, MIT 125, MMI 25, MIT 126, MIT 127, MMI - -27, MIT 128, MIT 129, MIT 130, MMI 30, MMI 31, MMI - -32, MMI 33, MMI 34, MMI 35, MMI 36, MMI 37, MMI 41, - -NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 27, NEP 35, NEP 37, NEP - -38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, NEP 43, NEP 44, - -NEP 45, NEP 46, OSR 1, OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 21, REG - -23, REG 26, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 12, RME 19, - -RME 23, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME 31, - -RME 32, RME 33, RME 34, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 12, WAQ - -2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Oceana - -Mecum, Brianne - -3774 ALT 1, ALT 2, CEF 5, COR 12, DATA 20, EDI 5, MIT 34, - -MIT 57, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT - -99, MIT 100, MIT 101, MIT 106, MMI 11, MMI 23, OSR 1, - -RME 4, RME 27, RME 36, RME 39, WAQ 2 - -Northern Alaska - -Environmental - -Center - -Miller, Pamela - -A. - -3780 ALT 2, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 17, ALT 19, - -ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 23, ALT 34, ALT 35, CEF 4, CEF 5, - -CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, CEF 12, COR 17, DATA 1, DATA - -2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, - -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, - -DATA 27, DATA 28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, - -DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, EDI 11, GPE 3, GPE 4, - -GSE 4, GSE 9, HAB 3, MIT 21, MIT 54, MIT 57, MMI 1, - -MMI 2, MIT 103, MMI 6, MMI 8, MMI 10, MMI 11, MIT - -116, MIT 118, MIT 119, MIT 120, MIT 121, MIT 122, MIT - -123, MIT 124, MIT 125, MMI 25, MIT 126, MIT 127, MMI - -27, MIT 128, MIT 129, MIT 130, MMI 30, MMI 31, MMI - -32, MMI 33, MMI 34, MMI 35, MMI 36, MMI 37, MMI 41, - -NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 27, NEP 35, NEP 37, NEP - -38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, NEP 43, NEP 44, - -NEP 45, NEP 46, OSR 1, OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 21, REG - -23, REG 26, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 12, RME 19, - -RME 23, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME 31, - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-7 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter -Submission - -ID -Comments - -RME 32, RME 33, RME 34, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 12, WAQ - -2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -University of St. - -Andrews - -Miller, Patrick - -3772 CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, DATA 2, MIT 91, MIT 92, MIT 93, - -MMI 22, RME 2, RME 18, RME 19 - -Miller, Peter 2151 CEF 9, MIT 1, OSR 5, REG 3, RME 1 - -U.S. Oil & Gas - -Association - -Modiano, Alby - -3766 ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 5, ALT 7, ALT 9, ALT 14, ALT 15, - -ALT 16, ALT 25, ALT 26, ALT 27, ALT 28, CEF 5, CEF 6, - -DATA 14, DATA 15, DATA 16, EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI - -4, MIT 3, MIT 10, MIT 23, MIT 24, MIT 28, MIT 32, MIT - -35, MIT 43, MIT 46, MIT 60, MIT 61, MIT 62, MIT 63, - -MIT 64, MIT 65, MIT 66, MIT 67, MIT 68, MIT 69, MIT - -70, MIT 71, MIT 72, MIT 76, MMI 1, MMI 10, MMI 16, - -MMI 17, MMI 18, MMI 19, MMI 20, NED 1, NEP 5, NEP - -11, NEP 16, NEP 20, NEP 21, NEP 22, NEP 23, NEP 24, - -NEP 25, NEP 26, NEP 27, NEP 28, NEP 30, NEP 53, REG - -7, REG 12, REG 13, REG 14, RME 10, SEI 1, SEI 2 - -Statoil USA E&P - -Inc. - -Moore, Bill - -3758 ALT 9, ALT 14, DATA 38, EDI 3, EDI 4, EDI 5, EDI 8, - -EDI 9, MIT 3, MIT 33, MMI 2, NEP 4, NEP 7, NEP 11, - -NEP 12, NEP 14, REG 3 - -Alaska Oil and - -Gas Association - -Moriarty, Kara - -3754 ALT 4, ALT 9, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 32, COR 22, EDI 7, - -MIT 10, MIT 23, MIT 24, MIT 25, MMI 1, MMI 10, NEP 1, - -NEP 4, NEP 5, NEP 7, NEP 11, NEP 12, NEP 17, REG 3, - -REG 7 - -Mottishaw, Petra 3782 CEF 7, NED 1, REG 3, RME 1 - -Oceana - -Murray, Susan - -3780 ALT 2, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 17, ALT 19, - -ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 23, ALT 34, ALT 35, CEF 4, CEF 5, - -CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, CEF 12, COR 17, DATA 1, DATA - -2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, - -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, - -DATA 27, DATA 28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, - -DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, EDI 11, GPE 3, GPE 4, - -GSE 4, GSE 9, HAB 3, MIT 21, MIT 54, MIT 57, MMI 1, - -MMI 2, MIT 103, MMI 6, MMI 8, MMI 10, MMI 11, MIT - -116, MIT 118, MIT 119, MIT 120, MIT 121, MIT 122, MIT - -123, MIT 124, MIT 125, MMI 25, MIT 126, MIT 127, MMI - -27, MIT 128, MIT 129, MIT 130, MMI 30, MMI 31, MMI - -32, MMI 33, MMI 34, MMI 35, MMI 36, MMI 37, MMI 41, - -NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 27, NEP 35, NEP 37, NEP - -38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, NEP 43, NEP 44, - -NEP 45, NEP 46, OSR 1, OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 21, REG - -23, REG 26, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 12, RME 19, - -RME 23, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME 31, - -RME 32, RME 33, RME 34, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 12, WAQ - -2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-8 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter -Submission - -ID -Comments - -Audubon Alaska - -Myers, Eric F. - -3780 ALT 2, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 17, ALT 19, - -ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 23, ALT 34, ALT 35, CEF 4, CEF 5, - -CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, CEF 12, COR 17, DATA 1, DATA - -2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, - -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, - -DATA 27, DATA 28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, - -DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, EDI 11, GPE 3, GPE 4, - -GSE 4, GSE 9, HAB 3, MIT 21, MIT 54, MIT 57, MMI 1, - -MMI 2, MIT 103, MMI 6, MMI 8, MMI 10, MMI 11, MIT - -116, MIT 118, MIT 119, MIT 120, MIT 121, MIT 122, MIT - -123, MIT 124, MIT 125, MMI 25, MIT 126, MIT 127, MMI - -27, MIT 128, MIT 129, MIT 130, MMI 30, MMI 31, MMI - -32, MMI 33, MMI 34, MMI 35, MMI 36, MMI 37, MMI 41, - -NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 27, NEP 35, NEP 37, NEP - -38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, NEP 43, NEP 44, - -NEP 45, NEP 46, OSR 1, OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 21, REG - -23, REG 26, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 12, RME 19, - -RME 23, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME 31, - -RME 32, RME 33, RME 34, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 12, WAQ - -2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -National - -Resources - -Defense Council - -(form letter - -containing - -36,445 - -signatures) - -3784 ALT 1, MMI 1, OSR 5 - -Center for - -Biological - -Diversity - -Noblin, Rebecca - -3780 ALT 2, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 17, ALT 19, - -ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 23, ALT 34, ALT 35, CEF 4, CEF 5, - -CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, CEF 12, COR 17, DATA 1, DATA - -2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, - -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, - -DATA 27, DATA 28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, - -DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, EDI 11, GPE 3, GPE 4, - -GSE 4, GSE 9, HAB 3, MIT 21, MIT 54, MIT 57, MMI 1, - -MMI 2, MIT 103, MMI 6, MMI 8, MMI 10, MMI 11, MIT - -116, MIT 118, MIT 119, MIT 120, MIT 121, MIT 122, MIT - -123, MIT 124, MIT 125, MMI 25, MIT 126, MIT 127, MMI - -27, MIT 128, MIT 129, MIT 130, MMI 30, MMI 31, MMI - -32, MMI 33, MMI 34, MMI 35, MMI 36, MMI 37, MMI 41, - -NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 27, NEP 35, NEP 37, NEP - -38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, NEP 43, NEP 44, - -NEP 45, NEP 46, OSR 1, OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 21, REG - -23, REG 26, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 12, RME 19, - -RME 23, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME 31, - -RME 32, RME 33, RME 34, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 12, WAQ - -2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-9 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter -Submission - -ID -Comments - -Duke University - -Nowacek, - -Douglas P. - -3772 CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, DATA 2, MIT 91, MIT 92, MIT 93, - -MMI 22, RME 2, RME 18, RME 19 - -International - -Association of - -Drilling - -Contractors - -Petty, Brian - -3766 ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 5, ALT 7, ALT 9, ALT 14, ALT 15, - -ALT 16, ALT 25, ALT 26, ALT 27, ALT 28, CEF 5, CEF 6, - -DATA 14, DATA 15, DATA 16, EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI - -4, MIT 3, MIT 10, MIT 23, MIT 24, MIT 28, MIT 32, MIT - -35, MIT 43, MIT 46, MIT 60, MIT 61, MIT 62, MIT 63, - -MIT 64, MIT 65, MIT 66, MIT 67, MIT 68, MIT 69, MIT - -70, MIT 71, MIT 72, MIT 76, MMI 1, MMI 10, MMI 16, - -MMI 17, MMI 18, MMI 19, MMI 20, NED 1, NEP 5, NEP - -11, NEP 16, NEP 20, NEP 21, NEP 22, NEP 23, NEP 24, - -NEP 25, NEP 26, NEP 27, NEP 28, NEP 30, NEP 53, REG - -7, REG 12, REG 13, REG 14, RME 10, SEI 1, SEI 2 - -World Wildlife - -Fund - -Pintabutr, - -America May - -3765 ALT 2 - -Point Hope - -Public Meeting - -13147 COR 10, GPE 8, GSE 6, ICL 1, MIT 105, NEP 51, OSR 1, - -RME 1, RME 41, SRP 4, SRP 11, UTK 2 - -Resource - -Development - -Council - -Portman, Carl - -2303 ALT 4, ALT 7, DCH 2, MIT 3, MIT 10, NED 3, NEP 1, - -NEP 10, NEP 11, NEP 12, REG 7, SEI 5 - -American - -Petroleum - -Institute - -Radford, Andy - -3766 ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 5, ALT 7, ALT 9, ALT 14, ALT 15, - -ALT 16, ALT 25, ALT 26, ALT 27, ALT 28, CEF 5, CEF 6, - -DATA 14, DATA 15, DATA 16, EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI - -4, MIT 3, MIT 10, MIT 23, MIT 24, MIT 28, MIT 32, MIT - -35, MIT 43, MIT 46, MIT 60, MIT 61, MIT 62, MIT 63, - -MIT 64, MIT 65, MIT 66, MIT 67, MIT 68, MIT 69, MIT - -70, MIT 71, MIT 72, MIT 76, MMI 1, MMI 10, MMI 16, - -MMI 17, MMI 18, MMI 19, MMI 20, NED 1, NEP 5, NEP - -11, NEP 16, NEP 20, NEP 21, NEP 22, NEP 23, NEP 24, - -NEP 25, NEP 26, NEP 27, NEP 28, NEP 30, NEP 53, REG - -7, REG 12, REG 13, REG 14, RME 10, SEI 1, SEI 2 - -Marine Mammal - -Commission - -Ragen, Timothy - -J. - -3767 ALT 5, ALT 8, ALT 19, ALT 28, ALT 30, CEF 12, COR 8, - -COR 10, EDI 3, EDI 8, EDI 9, MIT 73, MIT 74, MIT 75, - -MIT 76, MIT 77, MMI 21, NEP 14, REG 2, REG 3, REG 4, - -REG 5, RME 6, RME 11, RME 13, RME 14, RME 43 - -Randelia, Cyrus 78 ACK 1, CEF 5, OSR 2, OSR 3 - -The Nature - -Conservancy - -Reed, Amanda - -3764 CEF 10, COR 12, COR 20, DATA 13, EDI 5, EDI 11, EDI - -12, GPE 3, MIT 56, MIT 57, MIT 58, MIT 59, NEP 15, - -OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 22, RME 1, RME 2, RME 9, - -RME 35 - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-10 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter -Submission - -ID -Comments - -US EPA, Region - -10 - -Reichgott, - -Christine - -3783 DATA 34, MIT 131 - -Reiner, Erica 2098 NEP 16, PER 1, REG 11 - -Sierra Club - -Ritzman, Dan - -3780 ALT 2, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 17, ALT 19, - -ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 23, ALT 34, ALT 35, CEF 4, CEF 5, - -CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, CEF 12, COR 17, DATA 1, DATA - -2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, - -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, - -DATA 27, DATA 28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, - -DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, EDI 11, GPE 3, GPE 4, - -GSE 4, GSE 9, HAB 3, MIT 21, MIT 54, MIT 57, MMI 1, - -MMI 2, MIT 103, MMI 6, MMI 8, MMI 10, MMI 11, MIT - -116, MIT 118, MIT 119, MIT 120, MIT 121, MIT 122, MIT - -123, MIT 124, MIT 125, MMI 25, MIT 126, MIT 127, MMI - -27, MIT 128, MIT 129, MIT 130, MMI 30, MMI 31, MMI - -32, MMI 33, MMI 34, MMI 35, MMI 36, MMI 37, MMI 41, - -NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 27, NEP 35, NEP 37, NEP - -38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, NEP 43, NEP 44, - -NEP 45, NEP 46, OSR 1, OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 21, REG - -23, REG 26, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 12, RME 19, - -RME 23, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME 31, - -RME 32, RME 33, RME 34, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 12, WAQ - -2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Cultural - -REcyclists - -Robinson, Tina - -3759 ALT 2, CEF 2, CEF 12, GPE 3, NEP 13, OSR 10 - -Rossin, Linda 3548 CEF 9, MIT 1, OSR 5, REG 3, RME 1 - -Schalavin, Laurel 79 NED 1, SEI 5 - -Alaska - -Wilderness - -League - -Shogan, Cindy - -3780 ALT 2, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 17, ALT 19, - -ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 23, ALT 34, ALT 35, CEF 4, CEF 5, - -CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, CEF 12, COR 17, DATA 1, DATA - -2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, - -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, - -DATA 27, DATA 28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, - -DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, EDI 11, GPE 3, GPE 4, - -GSE 4, GSE 9, HAB 3, MIT 21, MIT 54, MIT 57, MMI 1, - -MMI 2, MIT 103, MMI 6, MMI 8, MMI 10, MMI 11, MIT - -116, MIT 118, MIT 119, MIT 120, MIT 121, MIT 122, MIT - -123, MIT 124, MIT 125, MMI 25, MIT 126, MIT 127, MMI - -27, MIT 128, MIT 129, MIT 130, MMI 30, MMI 31, MMI - -32, MMI 33, MMI 34, MMI 35, MMI 36, MMI 37, MMI 41, - -NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 27, NEP 35, NEP 37, NEP - -38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, NEP 43, NEP 44, - -NEP 45, NEP 46, OSR 1, OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 21, REG - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-11 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter -Submission - -ID -Comments - -23, REG 26, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 12, RME 19, - -RME 23, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME 31, - -RME 32, RME 33, RME 34, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 12, WAQ - -2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Sierra Club - -(form letter - -containing - -12,991 - -signatures) - -90 ALT 1, CEF 9, MIT 1, OSR 5, REG 3, RME 1 - -Simon, Lorali 2094 MIT 3, MIT 4, MIT 5, REG 7 - -Center for - -Regulatory - -Effectivness - -Slaughter, Scott - -2306 DATA 6, DATA 7, DATA 8, DATA 13, EDI 2, EDI 3, MIT - -3, MIT 11, MIT 12, MIT 30, MMI 10, RME 42 - -SEA Inc. - -Southall, - -Brandon - -3772 CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, DATA 2, MIT 91, MIT 92, MIT 93, - -MMI 22, RME 2, RME 18, RME 19 - -Ocean - -Conservation - -Research - -Stocker, Michael - -2099 DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, GPE 1, - -GPE 2, MIT 8, MIT 9, MMI 5, MMI 6, MMI 7, MMI 8, - -MMI 9, NEP 2, NEP 3, OSR 2, PER 2, REG 8, RME 3, - -RME 4, RME 5, RME 43 - -Ocean - -Conservation - -Research - -Stocker, Michael - -3780 ALT 2, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 17, ALT 19, - -ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 23, ALT 34, ALT 35, CEF 4, CEF 5, - -CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, CEF 12, COR 17, DATA 1, DATA - -2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, - -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, - -DATA 27, DATA 28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, - -DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, EDI 11, GPE 3, GPE 4, - -GSE 4, GSE 9, HAB 3, MIT 21, MIT 54, MIT 57, MMI 1, - -MMI 2, MIT 103, MMI 6, MMI 8, MMI 10, MMI 11, MIT - -116, MIT 118, MIT 119, MIT 120, MIT 121, MIT 122, MIT - -123, MIT 124, MIT 125, MMI 25, MIT 126, MIT 127, MMI - -27, MIT 128, MIT 129, MIT 130, MMI 30, MMI 31, MMI - -32, MMI 33, MMI 34, MMI 35, MMI 36, MMI 37, MMI 41, - -NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 27, NEP 35, NEP 37, NEP - -38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, NEP 43, NEP 44, - -NEP 45, NEP 46, OSR 1, OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 21, REG - -23, REG 26, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 12, RME 19, - -RME 23, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME 31, - -RME 32, RME 33, RME 34, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 12, WAQ - -2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Stoutamyer, - -Carla - -2465 CEF 9, MIT 1, REG 3 - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-12 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter -Submission - -ID -Comments - -AK Dept Natural - -Resources - -Sullivan, Daniel - -3756 ALT 4, ALT 9, ALT 12, ALT 14, COR 5, COR 8, COR 15, - -DCH 1, EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI 4, EDI 7, EDI 8, EDI 9, - -EDI 10, EDI 11, EDI 12, EDI 13, GPE 4, GSE 1, GSE 7, - -GSE 8, MIT 3, MIT 23, MIT 26, MIT 27, MIT 28, MIT 29, - -MIT 30, MIT 31, MIT 32, NED 1, NED 3, NEP 6, NEP 7, - -NEP 12, NEP 18, NEP 19, REG 7, REG 9, RME 7, SEI 1, - -SEI 3, SEI 5, WAQ 13, WAQ 14, WAQ 15 - -Thorson, Scott 2097 ALT 4, NED 2, NED 3, NEP 11 - -International - -Association of - -Geophysical - -Contractors - -Tsoflias, Sarah - -3766 ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 5, ALT 7, ALT 9, ALT 14, ALT 15, - -ALT 16, ALT 25, ALT 26, ALT 27, ALT 28, CEF 5, CEF 6, - -DATA 14, DATA 15, DATA 16, EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI - -4, MIT 3, MIT 10, MIT 23, MIT 24, MIT 28, MIT 32, MIT - -35, MIT 43, MIT 46, MIT 60, MIT 61, MIT 62, MIT 63, - -MIT 64, MIT 65, MIT 66, MIT 67, MIT 68, MIT 69, MIT - -70, MIT 71, MIT 72, MIT 76, MMI 1, MMI 10, MMI 16, - -MMI 17, MMI 18, MMI 19, MMI 20, NED 1, NEP 5, NEP - -11, NEP 16, NEP 20, NEP 21, NEP 22, NEP 23, NEP 24, - -NEP 25, NEP 26, NEP 27, NEP 28, NEP 30, NEP 53, REG - -7, REG 12, REG 13, REG 14, RME 10, SEI 1, SEI 2 - -World Society - -for the Protection - -of Animals - -Vale, Karen - -3749 ALT 2, MMI 4, MMI 11, MMI 12, MMI 13, NEP 14, OSR - -1, OSR 5, REG 3 - -Vishanoff, - -Jonathan - -84 OSR 4, SRP 9 - -Wainwright - -Public Meeting - -13143 ACK 1, GSE 5, MIT 135, NEP 50, SEI 5 - -Walker, Willie 2049 CEF 9, MIT 1, OSR 5, REG 3, RME 1 - -Defenders of - -Wildlife - -Weaver, Sierra - -3780 ALT 2, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 17, ALT 19, - -ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 23, ALT 34, ALT 35, CEF 4, CEF 5, - -CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, CEF 12, COR 17, DATA 1, DATA - -2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, - -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, - -DATA 27, DATA 28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, - -DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, EDI 11, GPE 3, GPE 4, - -GSE 4, GSE 9, HAB 3, MIT 21, MIT 54, MIT 57, MMI 1, - -MMI 2, MIT 103, MMI 6, MMI 8, MMI 10, MMI 11, MIT - -116, MIT 118, MIT 119, MIT 120, MIT 121, MIT 122, MIT - -123, MIT 124, MIT 125, MMI 25, MIT 126, MIT 127, MMI - -27, MIT 128, MIT 129, MIT 130, MMI 30, MMI 31, MMI - -32, MMI 33, MMI 34, MMI 35, MMI 36, MMI 37, MMI 41, - -NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 27, NEP 35, NEP 37, NEP - -38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, NEP 43, NEP 44, - -NEP 45, NEP 46, OSR 1, OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 21, REG - -23, REG 26, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 12, RME 19, - -RME 23, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME 31, - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-13 - -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter -Submission - -ID -Comments - -RME 32, RME 33, RME 34, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 12, WAQ - -2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -The Wilderness - -Society - -Whittington- - -Evans, Nicole - -3780 ALT 2, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 12, ALT 14, ALT 17, ALT 19, - -ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 23, ALT 34, ALT 35, CEF 4, CEF 5, - -CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, CEF 12, COR 17, DATA 1, DATA - -2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, - -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, - -DATA 27, DATA 28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, - -DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, EDI 11, GPE 3, GPE 4, - -GSE 4, GSE 9, HAB 3, MIT 21, MIT 54, MIT 57, MMI 1, - -MMI 2, MIT 103, MMI 6, MMI 8, MMI 10, MMI 11, MIT - -116, MIT 118, MIT 119, MIT 120, MIT 121, MIT 122, MIT - -123, MIT 124, MIT 125, MMI 25, MIT 126, MIT 127, MMI - -27, MIT 128, MIT 129, MIT 130, MMI 30, MMI 31, MMI - -32, MMI 33, MMI 34, MMI 35, MMI 36, MMI 37, MMI 41, - -NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 27, NEP 35, NEP 37, NEP - -38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, NEP 43, NEP 44, - -NEP 45, NEP 46, OSR 1, OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 21, REG - -23, REG 26, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 12, RME 19, - -RME 23, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME 31, - -RME 32, RME 33, RME 34, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 12, WAQ - -2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -AEWC - -Winter, Chris - -3778 ALT 22, ALT 23, ALT 33, CEF 2, CEF 5, CEF 7, CEF 8, - -CEF 12, COR 7, COR 14, COR 18, DATA 2, DATA 5, EDI - -3, MIT 21, MIT 57, MIT 105, MIT 106, MIT 107, MIT 108, - -MIT 109, MIT 110, MIT 111, MIT 112, MMI 13, MMI 34, - -NEP 1, NEP 11, NEP 35, NEP 52, REG 2, REG 3, REG 4, - -REG 6, REG 19, REG 20, REG 21, REG 22, RME 6, UTK 4 - -Wittmaack, - -Christiana - -85 ALT 2, MMI 2, MMI 3, OSR 1, OSR 6, SRP 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -APPENDIX B - -PLACEHOLDER - -Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - - - - - - - -DRAFT - -March 29, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS B-1 - -Comment Analysis Report - -[ Appendix B to be placed here ] - - - - - - diff --git a/test_docs/090004d280249876/record.json b/test_docs/090004d280249876/record.json deleted file mode 100644 index a37720d..0000000 --- a/test_docs/090004d280249876/record.json +++ /dev/null @@ -1,18 +0,0 @@ -{ - "agency": "DOC", - "author": null, - "download_url": "https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/getContent?objectId=TsEHS3_H-TTMvk6iAcxL_Q16yjupRKwG", - "exemptions": null, - "file_size": "1.039663314819336", - "file_type": "pdf", - "landing_id": "090004d280249876", - "landing_url": "https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/view/record?objectId=090004d280249876", - "released_on": "2014-04-24", - "released_original": "Thu Apr 24 12:29:17 EDT 2014", - "request_id": "DOC-NOAA-2012-000993", - "retention": "6 year", - "title": "2012 0410 Rosenthal email to Nachman Submittal - Final CAR", - "type": "record", - "unreleased": false, - "year": "2012" -} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/test_docs/090004d280249876/record.pdf b/test_docs/090004d280249876/record.pdf deleted file mode 100644 index 713b320..0000000 Binary files a/test_docs/090004d280249876/record.pdf and /dev/null differ diff --git a/test_docs/090004d280249876/record.txt b/test_docs/090004d280249876/record.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 72da399..0000000 --- a/test_docs/090004d280249876/record.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,7583 +0,0 @@ - -"Bellion, Tara" - -04/11/2012 10:13 AM - -To ArcticAR - -cc - -bcc - -Subject FW: Submittal - Final Comment Analysis Report - -  -  -Tara Bellion ‐ Environmental Planner -URS Corporation -3504 Industrial Avenue, Suite 126 -Fairbanks, AK 99701 -  -Tel: 907.374.0303 ext 15 -Fax: 907.374‐0309 -tara.bellion@urs.com -www.urs.com  -  -From: Rosenthal, Amy -Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 3:47 PM -To: Candace Nachman (Candace.Nachman@noaa.gov); jolie.harrison@noaa.gov; -Michael.Payne@noaa.gov -Cc: Isaacs, Jon; Fuchs, Kim; Bellion, Tara; Kluwe, Joan -Subject: Submittal - Final Comment Analysis Report -Importance: High -  -Hello all – -  -Attached please find the deliverable of the Final Comment Analysis Report for the Arctic EIS in both  -Word and PDF formats. -  -You’ll be happy to know that between draft and final, the number of SOCs for NMFS to respond to went  -from 540 to 463.   -  -Please let me know if you have any questions. -Thanks, -Amy -  -  -**** Please note my new email address:   amy.rosenthal@urs.com  **** -  -Amy C. Rosenthal -Environmental Planner -URS Corporation -  -503‐948‐7223 (direct phone) -503‐222‐4292 (fax) -  - - - - -This e-mail and any attachments contain URS Corporation confidential information that may be proprietary or privileged. If you -receive this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this -information and you should destroy the e-mail and any attachments or copies. - - - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas -Activities in the Arctic Ocean - -Final Comment Analysis Report - - - - - - -United States Department of Commerce -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -National Marine Fisheries Service -Office of Protected Resources - -April 10, 2012 - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS i -Comment Analysis Report - -TABLE OF CONTENTS - -TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................ i - -LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... i - -LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... i - -LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. i - -ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... ii - - - -1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 1 - -2.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 1 - -3.0 THE ROLE OF PUBLIC COMMENT ....................................................................................... 1 - -4.0 ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS .................................................................................. 3 - -5.0 STATEMENTS OF CONCERN .................................................................................................. 7 - - - -APPENDIX - - - - - - - -LIST OF TABLES - -Table 1 Public Meetings, Locations and Dates ....................................................................... Page 2 - -Table 2 Issue Categories for DEIS Comments ....................................................................... Page 4 - - - -LIST OF FIGURES - -Figure 1 Comments by Issue .................................................................................................... Page 6 - - - -LIST OF APPENDICES - -Appendix A Submission and Comment Index - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS ii -Comment Analysis Report - -ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS - -AEWC Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission - -APA Administrative Procedure Act - -BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management - -CAA Conflict Avoidance Agreement - -CAR Comment Analysis Report - -CASy Comment Analysis System database - -DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement - -ESA Endangered Species Act - -IEA Important Ecological Area - -IHA Incidental Harassment Authorization - -ITAs Incidental Take Authorizations - -ITRs Incidental Take Regulations - -MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act - -NEPA National Environmental Policy Act - -NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service - -OCS Outer Continental Shelf - -OCSLA Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act - -PAM Passive Acoustic Monitoring - -SOC Statement of Concern - -TK Traditional Knowledge - -USC United States Code - -USGS U.S. Geological Survey - -VLOS Very Large Oil Spill - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 1 -Comment Analysis Report - -1.0 INTRODUCTION -The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and -the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) have prepared and -released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that analyzes the effects of offshore geophysical -seismic surveys and exploratory drilling in the federal and state waters of the U.S. Beaufort and Chukchi -seas. - -The proposed actions considered in the DEIS are: - -• NMFS’ issuance of incidental take authorizations (ITAs) under Section 101(a)(5) of the Marine -Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), for the taking of marine mammals incidental to conducting -seismic surveys, ancillary activities, and exploratory drilling; and - -• BOEM’s issuance of permits and authorizations under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act for -seismic surveys and ancillary activities. - -2.0 BACKGROUND -NMFS is serving as the lead agency for this EIS. BOEM (formerly called the U.S. Minerals Management -Service) and the North Slope Borough are cooperating agencies on this EIS. The U.S. Environmental -Protection Agency is serving as a consulting agency. NMFS is also coordinating with the Alaska Eskimo -Whaling Commission pursuant to our co-management agreement under the MMPA. - -The Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2010 (75 FR -6175). On December 30, 2011, Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register (76 FR -82275) that NMFS had released for public comment the ‘‘Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean.” The original deadline to submit comments was -February 13, 2012. Based on several written requests received by NMFS, the public comment period for -this DEIS was extended by 15 days. Notice of extension of the comment period and notice of public -meetings was published January 18, 2012, in the Federal Register (77 FR 2513). The comment period -concluded on February 28, 2012, making the entire comment period 60 days. - -NMFS intends to use this EIS to: 1) evaluate the potential effects of different levels of offshore seismic -surveys and exploratory drilling activities occurring in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas; 2) take a -comprehensive look at potential cumulative impacts in the EIS project area; and 3) evaluate the -effectiveness of various mitigation measures. NMFS will use the findings of the EIS when reviewing -individual applications for ITAs associated with seismic surveys, ancillary activities, and exploratory -drilling in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. - -3.0 THE ROLE OF PUBLIC COMMENT -During the public comment period, public meetings were held to inform and to solicit comments from the -public on the DEIS. The meetings consisted of an open house, a brief presentation, and then a public -comment opportunity. Transcripts of each public meeting are available on the project website -(http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/eis/arctic.htm). Meetings were cancelled in the communities of -Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Point Lay due to extreme weather conditions. The six public meetings that were -held are described in Table 1. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 2 -Comment Analysis Report - -Table 1. Public Meetings, Locations and Dates - -Meeting Date Location - -Wainwright January 30, 2012 Wainwright Community Center, -Wainwright, AK - -Barrow January 31, 2012 Iñupiat Heritage Center, -Barrow, AK - -Kivalina February 6, 2012 McQueen School, -Kivalina - -Kotzebue February 7, 2012 Northwest Arctic Borough Assembly Chambers, -Kotzebue, AK - -Point Hope February 8, 2012 Point Hope Community Center, -Point Hope, AK - -Anchorage February 13, 2012 - - -Loussac Library – Wilda Marston Theatre -Anchorage, Anchorage, AK - - - -These meetings were attended by a variety of stakeholders, including Federal agencies, Tribal -governments, state agencies, local governments, Alaska Native organizations, businesses, special interest -groups/non-governmental organizations, and individuals. - -In a separate, but parallel process for government to government consultation, Tribal governments in each -community, with the exception of Anchorage, were notified of the availability of the DEIS and invited to -give comments. The first contact was via letter that was faxed, dated December 22, 2011; follow-up calls -and emails were made with the potentially affected Tribal governments, and in the communities listed -above, each government was visited during the comment period. Because NMFS was not able to make it -to the communities of Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Point Lay on the originally scheduled dates, a follow-up -letter was sent on February 29, 2012, requesting a teleconference meeting for government to government -consultation. Nuiqsut and Point Lay rescheduled with teleconferences. However, the Native Village of -Nuiqsut did not call-in to the rescheduled teleconference. The comments received during government to -government consultation between NMFS, BOEM, and the Tribal governments are included in a separate -Comment Analysis Report (CAR). - -NMFS and the cooperating agencies will review all comments, determine how the comments should be -addressed, and make appropriate revisions in preparing the Final EIS. The Final EIS will contain the -comments submitted and a summary of comment responses. - -The Final EIS will include public notice of document availability, the distribution of the document, and a -30-day comment/waiting period on the final document. NMFS and BOEM are expected to each issue a -separate Record of Decision (ROD), which will then conclude the EIS process in early 2013. The -selected alternative will be identified in each ROD, as well as the agency’s rationale for their conclusions -regarding the environmental effects and appropriate mitigation measures for the proposed project. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 3 -Comment Analysis Report - -4.0 ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS -The body of this report provides a brief summary of the comment analysis process and the comments that -were received during the public comment period. Two appendices follow this narrative, including the -Submission and Comment Index and the Government to Government CAR. - -Comments were received on the DEIS in several ways: - -• Oral discussion or testimony from the public meeting transcripts; - -• Written comments received by mail or fax; and - -• Written comments submitted electronically by email or through the project website. - -NMFS received a total of 67 unique submissions on the DEIS. There were 49,436 form letters received -and reviewed. One submission as a form letter from the Natural Resources Defense Council contained -36,445 signatures, and another submission as a form letter from the Sierra Club contained 12,991 -signatures. Group affiliations of those that submitted comments include: Federal agencies, Tribal -governments, state agencies, local governments, Alaska Native organizations, businesses, special interest -groups/non-governmental organizations, and individuals. The complete text of public comments received -will be included in the Administrative Record for the EIS. - -This CAR provides an analytical summary of these submissions. It presents the methodology used by -NMFS in reviewing, sorting, and synthesizing substantive comments within each submission into -common themes. As described in the following sections of this report, a careful and deliberate approach -has been undertaken to ensure that all substantive public comments were captured. - -The coding phase was used to divide each submission into a series of substantive comments (herein -referred to as ‘comments’). All submissions on the DEIS were read, reviewed, and logged into the -Comment Analysis System database (CASy) where they were assigned an automatic tracking number -(Submission ID). These comments were recorded into the CASy and given a unique Comment ID -number (with reference to the Submission ID) for tracking and synthesis. The goal of this process was to -ensure that each sentence and paragraph in a submission containing a substantive comment pertinent to -the DEIS was entered into the CASy. Substantive content constituted assertions, suggested actions, data, -background information, or clarifications relating to the content of the DEIS. - -Comments were assigned subject issue categories to describe the content of the comment (see Table 2). -The issues were grouped by general topics, including effects, available information, regulatory -compliance, and Iñupiat culture. The relative distribution of comments by issue is shown in Figure 1. - -A total of 25 issue categories were developed for coding during the first step of the analysis process as -shown in Table 2. These categories evolved from common themes found throughout the submissions. -Some categories correspond directly to sections of the DEIS, while others focus on more procedural -topics. Several submissions included attachments of scientific studies or reports or requested specific -edits to the DEIS text. - -The public comment submissions generated 1,874 substantive comments, which were then grouped into -Statements of Concern (SOCs). SOCs are summary statements intended to capture the different themes -identified in the substantive comments. SOCs are frequently supported by additional text to further -explain the concern, or alternatively to capture the specific comment variations within that grouping. -SOCs are not intended to replace actual comments. Rather, they summarize for the reader the range of -comments on a specific topic. - -Every substantive comment was assigned to an SOC; a total of 463 SOCs were developed. Each SOC is -represented by an issue category code followed by a number. NMFS will use the SOCs to respond to -substantive comments on the DEIS, as appropriate. Each issue category may have more than one SOC. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 4 -Comment Analysis Report - -For example, there are 12 SOCs under the issue category “Cumulative Effects” (CEF 1, CEF 2, CEF 3, -etc.). Each comment was assigned to one SOC. The complete list of SOCs can be found in Section 5.0. - -Table 2. Issue Categories for DEIS Comments - -GROUP Issue Category Code Summary - -Effects Cumulative Effects CEF Comments related to cumulative impacts in -general, or for a specific resource - -Physical Environment -(General) - -GPE Comments related to impacts on resources within -the physical environment (Physical -Oceanography, Climate, Acoustics, and -Environmental Contaminants & Ecosystem -Functions) - -Social Environment -(General) - -GSE Comments related to impacts on resources within -the social environment (Public Health, Cultural, -Land Ownership/Use/Management, -Transportation, Recreation and Tourism, Visual -Resources, and Environmental Justice) - -Habitat HAB Comments associated with habitat requirements, -or potential habitat impacts from seismic -activities and exploratory drilling. Comment -focus is habitat, not animals. - -Marine Mammal and other -Wildlife Impacts - -MMI General comments related to potential impacts to -marine mammals or other wildlife, unrelated to -subsistence resource concepts. - -National Energy Demand and -Supply - -NED Comments related to meeting national energy -demands, supply of energy. - -Oil Spill Risks OSR Concerns about potential for oil spill, ability to -clean up spills in various conditions, potential -impacts to resources or environment from spills. - -Socioeconomic Impacts SEI Comments on economic impacts to local -communities, regional economy, and national -economy, can include changes in the social or -economic environments. - -Subsistence Resource -Protection - -SRP Comments on need to protect subsistence -resources and potential impacts to these -resources. Can include ocean resources as our -garden, contamination. - -Water and Air Quality WAQ Comments regarding water and air quality, -including potential to impact or degrade these -resources. - -Info -Available - -Data DATA Comments referencing scientific studies that -should be considered. - -Research, Monitoring, -Evaluation Needs - -RME Comments on baseline research, monitoring, and -evaluation needs - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 5 -Comment Analysis Report - -GROUP Issue Category Code Summary - -Process: -NEPA, -Permits, the -DEIS - -Alternatives ALT Comments related to alternatives or alternative -development. - -Coordination and -Compatibility - -COR Comments on compliance with statues, laws or -regulations and Executive Orders that should be -considered; coordinating with federal, state, or -local agencies, organizations, or potential -applicants; permitting requirements. - -Discharge DCH Comments regarding discharge levels, including -requests for zero discharge requirements, and -deep waste injection wells; does not include -contamination of subsistence resources. - -Mitigation Measures MIT Comments related to suggestions for or -implementation of mitigation measures. - -NEPA NEP Comments on aspects of the NEPA process -(purpose and need, scoping, public involvement, -etc.), issues with the impact criteria (Chapter 4), -or issues with the impact analysis. - -Peer Review PER Suggestions for peer review of permits, activities, -proposals. - -Regulatory Compliance REG Comments associated with compliance with -existing regulations, laws, and statutes. - -General Editorial EDI Comments associated with specific text edits to -the document. - -Comment Acknowledged ACK Entire submission determined not to be -substantive and warranted only a “comment -acknowledged” response. - -Iñupiat -Culture - -Iñupiat Culture and Way of -Life - -ICL Comments related to potential cultural impacts or -desire to maintain traditional practices -(PEOPLE). - -Use of Traditional -Knowledge - -UTK Comments regarding how traditional knowledge -(TK) is used in the document or decision making -process, need to incorporate TK, or processes for -documenting TK. - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 6 -Comment Analysis Report - -Figure 1: Comments by Issue - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 7 -Comment Analysis Report - -5.0 STATEMENTS OF CONCERN -This section presents the SOCs developed to help summarize comments received on the DEIS. To assist -in finding which SOCs were contained in each submission, a Submission and Comment Index -(Appendix A) was created. The index is a list of all submissions received, presented alphabetically by the -last name of the commenter, as well as the Submission ID associated with the submission, and which -SOCs responds to their specific comments. To identify the specific issues that are contained in an -individual submission: 1) search for the submission of interest in Appendix A; 2) note which SOC codes -are listed under the submissions; 3) locate the SOC within Section 5.0; and 4) read the text next to that -SOC. Each substantive comment contained in a submission was assigned to one SOC. - - - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 8 -Comment Analysis Report - -Comment Acknowledged (ACK) -ACK Entire submission determined not to be substantive and warranted only a “comment - -acknowledged” response. - -ACK 1 Comment Acknowledged. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 9 -Comment Analysis Report - -Alternatives (ALT) -ALT Comments related to alternatives or alternative development. - -ALT 1 NMFS should adopt the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) as the preferred alternative, -which represents a precautionary, ecosystem-based approach. There is a considerable amount -of public support for this alternative. It is the only reliable way to prevent a potential -catastrophic oil spill from occurring in the Arctic Ocean, and provides the greatest protections -from negative impacts to marine mammals from noise and vessel strikes. Alternative 1 is the -only alternative that makes sense given the state of missing scientific baseline, as well as -long-term, data on impacts to marine mammals and subsistence activities resulting from oil -and gas exploration. - -ALT 2 NMFS should edit the No Action Alternative to describe the present agency decision-making -procedures. The No Action Alternative should be rewritten to include NMFS’ issuance of -IHAs and preparing project-specific EAs for exploration activities as they do currently. If -NMFS wishes to consider an alternative in which they stop issuing authorizations, it should -be considered as an additional alternative, no the No Action alternative. - -ALT 3 Limiting the extent of activity to two exploration programs annually in the Beaufort and -Chukchi seas is unreasonable and will shut out leaseholders. The restrictions and mitigation -measures outlined in the five alternatives of the DEIS would likely make future development -improbable and uneconomic. Because the DEIS does not present any alternative that would -cover the anticipated level of industry activity, it would cap industry activity in a way that (a) -positions the DEIS as a decisional document in violation of NEPA standards, and (b) would -constitute an economic taking. NMFS should revise the levels of activity within the action -alternatives to address these concerns. - -ALT 4 The “range” of action alternatives only considers two levels of activity. The narrow range of -alternatives presented in the DEIS and the lack of specificity regarding the source levels, -timing, duration, and location of the activities being considered do not provide a sufficient -basis for determining whether other options might exist for oil and gas development with -significantly less environmental impact, including reduced effects on marine mammals. -NMFS and BOEM should expand the range of alternatives to ensure that oil and gas -exploration activities have no more than a negligible impact on marine mammal species and -stocks, and will not have adverse impacts on the Alaska Native communities that depend on -the availability of marine mammals for subsistence, as required under the Marine Mammal -Protection Act. - -ALT 5 The range of alternatives presented in the DEIS do not assist decision-makers in determining -what measures can be taken to reduce impacts and what choices may be preferential from an -environmental standpoint. There is no indication in the analysis as to which alternative would -be cause for greater concern, from either an activity level or location standpoint. NMFS needs -to revise the alternatives and their assessment of effects to reflect these concerns. - -ALT 6 An EIS must evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives in order to fully comply with NEPA. -The DEIS does not provide a reasonable range of alternatives. The No Action Alternative is -inaccurately stated (does not reflect current conditions), and Alternative 5 is infeasible -because those technologies are not available. Multiple alternatives with indistinguishable - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 10 -Comment Analysis Report - -outcomes do not represent a “range” and do not assist in determining preferential options. -NMFS needs to revise the EIS to present a reasonable range of alternatives for analysis. - -ALT 7 NMFS should consider additional alternatives (or components of alternatives) including: - -• A phased, adaptive approach for increasing oil and gas activities -• Avoidance of redundant seismic surveys -• Development of a soundscape approach and consideration of caps on noise or activity - -levels for managing sound sources during the open water period, and -• A clear basis for judging whether the impacts of industry activities are negligible as - -required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. - -ALT 8 The levels of oil and gas exploration activity identified in Alternatives 2 and 3 are not -accurate. In particular, the DEIS significantly over estimates the amount of seismic -exploration that is reasonably foreseeable in the next five years, while underestimating the -amount of exploration drilling that could occur. The alternatives are legally flawed because -none of the alternatives address scenarios that are currently being contemplated and which are -most likely to occur. For example: - -• Level 1 activity assumes as many as three site clearance and shallow hazard survey -programs in the Chukchi Sea, while Level 2 activity assumes as many as 5 such -programs. By comparison, the ITR petition recently submitted by AOGA to USFWS for -polar bear and walrus projects as many as seven (and as few as zero) shallow hazard -surveys and as many as two (and as few as one) other G&G surveys annually in the -Chukchi Sea over the next five years. - -• The assumption for the number of source vessels and concurrent activity is unlikely. -• By 2014, ConocoPhillips intends to conduct exploration drilling in the Chukchi Sea. It is - -also probable that Statoil will be conducting exploration drilling on their prospects in the -Chukchi Sea beginning in 2014. Accordingly, in 2014, and perhaps later years depending -upon results, there may be as many as three exploration drilling programs occurring in -the Chukchi Sea. - -The alternatives scenarios should be adjusted by NMFS to account for realistic levels of -seismic and exploratory drilling activities, and the subsequent impact analyses should be -substantially revised. The DEIS does not explain why alternatives that would more accurately -represent likely levels of activity were omitted from inclusion in the DEIS as required under -40 C.F.R. Sections 1500.1 and Section 1502.14. - -ALT 9 NMFS should include, as part of the assumptions associated with the alternatives, an analysis -examining how many different lessees there are, where their respective leases are in each -planning area (Beaufort vs. Chukchi seas), when their leases expire, and when they anticipate -exploring (by activity) their leases for hydrocarbons. This will help frame the levels of -activity that are considered in the EIS. - -ALT 10 There is a 2016 lease sale in Chukchi Sea and a 2015 lease sale in Beaufort Sea within the -Proposed 5 Year Plan. Alternatives should include some seismic, shallow hazard and possibly -drilling to account for these lease sales. - -ALT 11 In every impact category but one, the draft impact findings for Alternative 4 are identical to -the draft impact findings for Alternative 3 (Level 2 activity with standard mitigation -measures). Given that the impacts with and without additional mitigation are the same, - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 11 -Comment Analysis Report - -Alternative 4 neither advances thoughtful decision-making nor provides a rational -justification under the MMPA for NMFS to impose any additional conditions beyond -standard mitigation measures. Alternative 4 provides no useful analysis because the context is -entirely abstract (i.e., independent from a specific proposal). The need and effectiveness of -any given mitigation measure, standard or otherwise, can only be assessed in the context of a -specific activity proposed for a given location and time, under then-existing circumstances. -Finally, the identified time/area closures, and the use of a 120 dB and 160 dB buffer zones, -have no sound scientific or other factual basis. Alternative 4 should be changed to allow for -specific mitigations and time constraints designed to match proposed projects as they occur. - -ALT 12 Camden Bay, Barrow Canyon, Hanna Shoal, and Kasegaluk Lagoon are not currently listed -as critical habitat and do not maintain special protective status. NMFS should remove -Alternative 4 from further consideration until such time that these areas are officially -designated by law to warrant special protective measures. In addition, these temporal/spatial -limitations should be removed from Section 2.4.10(b). - -ALT 13 Alternative 5 should be deleted. The alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the -exception that it includes "alternative technologies" as possible mitigation measures. -However, virtually none of the technologies discussed are currently commercially available -nor will they be during the time frame of this EIS, which makes the analysis useless for -NEPA purposes. Because the majority of these technologies have not yet been built and/or -tested, it is difficult to fully analyze the level of impacts from these devices. Therefore, -additional NEPA analyses (i.e., tiering) will likely be required if applications are received -requesting to use these technologies during seismic surveys. - -ALT 14 The alternative technologies identified in Alternative 5 should not be viewed as a replacement -for airgun-based seismic surveys in all cases. - -ALT 15 The DEIS fails to include any actionable alternatives to require, incentivize, or test the use of -new technologies in the Arctic. Such alternatives include: - -• Mandating the use of marine vibroseis or other technologies in pilot areas, with an -obligation to accrue data on environmental impacts; - -• Creating an adaptive process by which marine vibroseis or other technologies can be -required as they become available; - -• Deferring the permitting of surveys in particular areas or for particular applications where -effective mitigative technologies, such as marine vibroseis, could reasonably be expected -to become available within the life of the EIS; - -• Providing incentives for use of these technologies as was done for passive acoustic -monitoring systems in NTL 2007-G02; and - -• Exacting funds from applicants to support accelerated mitigation research in this area. - -NMFS must include these alternatives in the Final EIS analysis. - -ALT 16 The reasons to NOT evaluate specific program numbers in the 2007 DPEIS would apply to -the current DEIS. This is a fundamental shift in reasoning of how alternatives are evaluated. -NMFS should: - -• Address why a previously rejected alternative (limiting number of surveys) has become -the basis for ALL alternatives currently under consideration; and - -• Explain the reasoning behind the change in analysis method. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 12 -Comment Analysis Report - -If NMFS cannot adequately address this discrepancy, they should consider withdrawing the -current DEIS and initiating a new analysis that does not focus on limiting program numbers -as a means of reducing impacts. - -ALT 17 The DEIS improperly dismisses the alternative “Caps on Levels of Activities and/or Noise.” -As NMFS has recognized, oil and gas-related disturbances in the marine environment can -result in biologically significant impacts depending upon the timing, location, and number of -the activities. Yet the DEIS declines even to consider an alternative limiting the amount of -activity that can be conducted in the Arctic, or part of the Arctic, over a given period. The -“soundscape” of the Arctic should be relatively easy to describe and manage compared to the -soundscapes of other regions, and should be included in the EIS. - -The agencies base their rejection of this alternative not on the grounds that it exceeds their -legal authority, but that it does not meet the purpose and need of the EIS. Instead of -developing an activity cap alternative for the EIS, the agencies propose, in effect, to consider -overall limits on activities when evaluating individual applications under OCSLA and the -MMPA. It would, however, be much more difficult for NMFS or BOEM to undertake that -kind of analysis in an individual IHA application or OCSLA exploration plan because the -agencies often lack sufficient information before the open water season to take an -overarching view of the activities occurring that year. Determining limits at the outset would -also presumably reduce uncertainty for industry. In short, excluding any consideration of -activity caps from the alternatives analysis in this EIS frustrates the purpose of programmatic -review, contrary to NEPA. NMFS claims that there is inadequate data to quantify impacts to -support a cumulative noise cap should serve to limit authorizations rather than preventing a -limit on activity. - -ALT 18 The DEIS improperly dismisses the alternative “Permanent Closures of Areas.” BOEM’s -relegation of this alternative to the leasing process is not consistent with its obligation, at the -exploration and permit approval stage, to reject applications that would cause serious harm or -undue harm. It is reasonable here for BOEM to define areas whose exploration would exceed -these legal thresholds regardless of time of year, just as it defines areas for seasonal -avoidance pursuant to other OCSLA and MMPA standards. Regardless, the lease sale stage is -not a proper vehicle for considering permanent exclusions for strictly off-lease activities, such -as off-lease seismic surveys. At the very least, the DEIS should consider establishing -permanent exclusion areas, or deferring activity within certain areas, outside the boundaries -of existing lease areas. - -ALT 19 The DEIS improperly dismisses the alternative “Duplicative Surveys.” NMFS’ Open Water -Panel has twice called for the elimination of unnecessary, duplicative surveys, whether -through data sharing or some other means. Yet the DEIS pleads that BOEM cannot adopt this -measure, on the grounds that the agency cannot “require companies to share proprietary data, -combine seismic programs, change lease terms, or prevent companies from acquiring data in -the same geographic area.” This analysis overlooks BOEM’s statutory duty under OCSLA to -approve only those permits whose exploration activities are not unduly harmful to marine -life. While OCSLA does not define the standard, it is difficult to imagine an activity more -expressive of undue harm than a duplicative survey, which obtains data that the government -and industry already possess and therefore is not necessary to the expeditious and orderly -development, subject to environmental safeguards, of the outer continental shelf. There is -nothing in OCSLA that bars BOEM from incentivizing the use of common surveyors or data -sharing, as already occurs in the Gulf of Mexico, to reduce total survey effort. It is thus -within BOEM’s authority to decline to approve individual permit applications in whole or - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 13 -Comment Analysis Report - -part that it finds are unnecessarily duplicative of existing or proposed surveys or data. NMFS -and BOEM should consider various strategies for avoiding unnecessarily redundant seismic -surveys as a way of ensuring the least practicable impact on marine mammals and the -environment. Companies that conduct geophysical surveys for the purpose of selling the data -could make those data available to multiple companies, avoiding the need for each company -to commission separate surveys. - -ALT 20 NMFS should include a community-based alternative that establishes direct reliance on the -Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA), and the collaborative process that has been used to -implement it. The alternative would include a fully developed suite of mitigation measures -similar to what is included in each annual CAA. This alternative would also include: - -• A communications scheme to manage industry and hunter vessel traffic during whale -hunting; - -• Time-area closures that provide a westward-moving buffer ahead of the bowhead -migration in areas important for fall hunting by our villages; - -• Vessel movement restrictions and speed limitations for industry vessels moving in the -vicinity of migrating whales; - -• Limitations on levels of specific activities; -• Limitations on discharges in near-shore areas where food is taken and eaten directly from - -the water; -• Other measures to facilitate stakeholder involvement; and -• An annual adaptive decision making process where the oil industry and Native groups - -come together to discuss new information and potential amendments to the mitigation -measures and/or levels of activity. - -NMFS should also include a more thorough discussion of the 20-year history of the CAA to -provide better context for assessing the potential benefits of this community-based -alternative. - -ALT 21 NMFS should include an alternative in the Final EIS that blends the following components of -the existing DEIS alternatives, which is designed to benefit subsistence hunting: - -• Alternative 2 activity levels; -• Mandatory time/area closures of Alternative 4; -• Alternative technologies from Alternative 5; -• Zero discharge in the Beaufort Sea; -• Limitation on vessel transit into the Chukchi Sea; -• Protections for the subsistence hunt in Wainwright, Point Hope, and Point Lay; -• Sound source verification; -• Expanded exclusion zones for seismic activities; and -• Limitations on limited visibility operation of seismic equipment. - -ALT 22 NMFS should include an alternative in the Final EIS that is based on the amount of -anthropogenic sounds that marine mammals might be exposed to, rather than using numbers -of activities as a proxy for sound. This alternative, based on accumulation of sound exposure -level, could evaluate: - -• Different types and numbers of industrial activities; -• Different frequencies produced by each activity; - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 14 -Comment Analysis Report - -• Location of activities; -• Timing of activities; -• Overlap in time and space with marine mammals; and -• Knowledge about how marine mammals respond to anthropogenic activities. - -Threshold levels could be based on simulation modeling using the above information. This -approach would use a valid scientific approach, one that is at least as robust, and probably -more, than the current approach of simply assessing numbers of activities. - -ALT 23 NMFS has defined a seismic "program" as limited to no more than two source vessels -working in tandem. This would expand the duration required to complete a program, which -could increase the potential for environmental impacts, without decreasing the amount of -sound in the water at any one time. NMFS should not limit the number of source vessels used -in a program in this manner as it could limit exploration efficiencies inherent in existing -industry practice. - -ALT 24 NMFS should not limit the number of on ice surveys that can be acquired in any year, in -either the Beaufort or Chukchi seas, as it could limit exploration efficiencies inherent in -existing industry practice. - -ALT 25 The DEIS alternatives also limit the number of drilling operations each year regardless of the -type of drilling. Given that there are many different approaches to drilling, each with its own -unique acoustic footprint and clear difference in its potential to generate other environmental -effects, a pre-established limit on the number of drilling operations each year is not based on -a scientific assessment and therefore is unreasonable. NMFS should not limit the number of -drilling operations. - -ALT 26 By grouping 2D / 3D seismic surveys and Controlled Source Electro-Magnetic (CSEM) -surveys together, the DEIS suggests that these two survey types are interchangeable, produce -similar types of data and/or have similar environmental impact characteristics. This is -incorrect and the DEIS should be corrected to separate them and, if the alternatives propose -limits, then each survey type should be dealt with separately. - -ALT 27 NMFS should consider a phased, adaptive approach to increasing the number of surveys in -the region because the cumulative effects of seismic surveys are not clear. Such an approach -would provide an opportunity to monitor and manage effects before they become significant -and also would help prevent situations where the industry has over-committed its resources to -activities that may cause unacceptable harm. - -ALT 28 In the Final EIS, NMFS should identify its preferred alternative, including the rationale for its -selection. - -ALT 29 NMFS must consider alternatives that do not contain the Additional Mitigation Measures -currently associated with every action alternative in the DEIS. These measures are not -warranted, are not scientifically supported, and are onerous, prohibiting exploration activities -over extensive areas for significant portions of the open water season. - -ALT 30 Alternatives 2 and 3 identify different assumed levels of annual oil and gas activity. Varying -ranges of oil and gas activity are not alternatives to proposal for incidental take -authorizations. NMFS should revise the alternatives to more accurately reflect the Purpose -and Need of the EIS. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 15 -Comment Analysis Report - -ALT 31 The levels of activity identified in Alternatives 2 and 3 go far above and beyond anything that -has been seen in the Arctic to date. The DEIS as written preemptively approves specific -levels of industrial activity. This action is beyond NMFS’ jurisdiction, and the alternatives -should be revised to reflect these concerns. - -ALT 32 The analysis in the DEIS avoids proposing a beneficial conservation alternative and -consistently dilutes the advantages of mitigation measures that could be used as part of such -an alternative. NEPA requires that agencies explore alternatives that “will avoid or minimize -adverse effects of these actions upon the quality of the human environment.” Such an -alternative could require all standard and additional mitigation measures, while adding limits -such as late-season drilling prohibitions to protect migrating bowhead whales and reduce the -harm from an oil spill. NMFS should consider analyzing such an alternative in the Final EIS. - -ALT 33 NMFS should pair the additional mitigation measures with the Level 1 exploration of -Alternative 2 and not support higher levels of exploration of Alternatives 3-5. - -ALT 34 NMFS should create an alternative modeled off of the adaptive management process of the -CAA. Without doing so, the agency cannot fully analyze and consider the benefits provided -by this community based, collaborative approach to managing multiple uses on the Outer -Continental Shelf. - -ALT 35 Allowing only one or two drilling programs per sea to proceed: Since six operators hold -leases in the Chukchi and 18 in the Beaufort, the DEIS effectively declares as worthless -leases associated with four Chukchi operators and 16 Beaufort operators. How NMFS expects -to choose which operators can work is not clear, nor is it clear how it would compensate -those operators not chosen for the value of their lease and resources expenditures to date. - -ALT 36 While it is reasonable to assume that many outstanding leases will not ultimately result in -development (or even exploration), NMFS should have truth-tested with its cooperating -agency whether the maximum level of activity it assumed was, in fact, a reasonable -assumption of the upper limit on anticipated activity. BOEM would have been able to provide -NMFS with guidance on one of these leases. Use of a properly constructed scenario would -have provided NMFS with a more realistic understanding of the level of activity necessary to -allow current leaseholders an opportunity to develop their leases within the lease terms. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 16 -Comment Analysis Report - -Cumulative Effects (CEF) -CEF Comments related to cumulative impacts in general or for a specific resource. - -CEF 1 NMFS should review cumulative effects section; many “minor” and “negligible” impacts can -combine to be more than “minor” or “negligible”. - -CEF 2 Adverse cumulative effects need to be considered in more depth for: - -• Fisheries and prey species for marine mammals; -• Marine mammals and habitat; -• Wildlife in general; -• North Slope communities; -• Migratory pathways of marine mammals; -• Subsistence resources and traditional livelihoods. - -CEF 3 A narrow focus on oil and gas activities is likely to underestimate the overall level of impact -on the bowhead whale. Bowhead whales are long-lived and travel great distances during their -annual migration, leaving them potentially exposed to a wide range of potential -anthropogenic impacts and cumulative effects over broad geographical and temporal scales. -An Ecosystem Based Management approach would better regulate the totality of potential -impacts to wildlife habitat and ecosystem services in the Arctic. - -CEF 4 NMFS should include more in its cumulative effects analysis regarding the impacts caused -by: - -• Climate change; -• Oil Spills; -• Ocean noise; -• Planes; -• Transportation in general; -• Discharge; -• Assessments/research/monitoring; -• Dispersants; -• Invasive species. - -CEF 5 The cumulative effects analysis overall in the DEIS is inadequate. Specific comments -include: - -• The DEIS fails to develop a coherent analytical framework by which impacts are -assessed and how decisions are made; - -• The cumulative impact section does not provide details about what specific methodology -was used; - -• The cumulative effects analysis does not adequately assess the impacts from noise, -air/water quality, subsistence, and marine mammals; - -• The list of activities is incomplete; -• The assessment of impacts to employment/socioeconomics/income are not considered in - -assessment of cumulative impacts for any alternative other than the no action alternative; - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 17 -Comment Analysis Report - -• The industry has not shown that their activities will have no cumulative, adverse and -unhealthy effects upon the animals, the air, the waters nor the peoples of the Coastal -Communities in the Arctic; - -• The analysis on seals and other pinnipeds is inadequate and is not clear on whether -potential listings were considered; - -• Recent major mortality events involving both walrus and ice seals must be considered -when determining impacts. A negligible impact determination cannot be made without -more information about these disease events. - -CEF 6 The cumulative effects analyzed are overestimated. Specific comments include: - -• There is no evidence from over 60 years of industry activities that injurious cumulative -sound levels occur; - -• Given that the seismic vessel is moving in and out of a localized area and the fact that -animals are believed to avoid vessel traffic and seismic sounds, cumulative sound -exposure is again likely being overestimated in the DEIS; - -• Cumulative impacts from oil and gas activities are generally prescriptive, written to limit -exploration activities during the short open water season. - -CEF 7 There is a lack of studies on the adverse and cumulative effects on communities, ecosystems, -air/water quality, subsistence resources, economy, and culture. NMFS should not authorize -Incidental Harassment Authorizations without adequate scientific data. - -CEF 8 Adverse cumulative effects need to be considered in more depth for marine mammals and -habitat, specifically regarding: - -• Oil and gas activities in the Canadian Beaufort and the Russian Chukchi Sea; -• Entanglement with fishing gear; -• Increased vessel traffic; -• Discharge; -• Water/Air pollution; -• Sources of underwater noise; -• Climate change; -• Ocean acidification; -• Production structures and pipelines. - -CEF 9 The DEIS does not adequately analyze the cumulative and synergistic effects of exploration -noise impacts to marine mammals. Specific comments include: - -• The DEIS only addresses single impacts to individual animals. In reality a whale does not -experience a single noise in a stationary area as the DEIS concludes but is faced with a -dynamic acoustic environment which all must be factored into estimating exposure not -only to individuals but also to populations; - -• While each individual vessel or platform can be considered a single, periodic or transient -source of noise, all components are required to successfully complete the operation. As a -result, the entire operation around a drilling ship or drilling platform will need to be -quieter than 120 dB in order to be below NMFS disturbance criteria for continuous noise -exposure; - -• A full characterization of risk to marine mammals from the impacts of noise will be a -function of the sources of noise in the marine and also the cumulative effects of multiple -sources of noise and the interaction of other risk factors; - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 18 -Comment Analysis Report - -• The DEIS does not incorporate chronic stress into its cumulative impact analysis, such as -by using other species as proxies for lower life expectancies; - -• The DEIS fails to consider the impacts of noise on foraging and energetics; -• Because the acoustic footprint of seismic operations is so large, it is quite conceivable - -that bowhead whales could be exposed to seismic operations in the Canadian Beaufort, -the Alaskan Beaufort, and the Chukchi Sea; and - -• An Arctic sound budget should include any noise that could contribute to a potential take, -not simply seismic surveying, oil and gas drilling, and ice management activities. - -CEF 10 The DEIS does not adequately analyze the combined effects of multiple surveying and -drilling operations taking place in the Arctic Ocean year after year. - -CEF 11 NMFS should include the following in the cumulative effects analysis: - -• Current and future activities including deep water port construction by the military, the -opening of the Northwest Passage, and production at BP’s Liberty prospect; - -• Past activities including past activities in the Arctic for which NMFS has issued IHAs; -commercial shipping and potential deep water port construction; production of offshore -oil and gas resources or production related activities; and commercial fishing; - -• A baseline for analysis of current activities and past IHAs; -• Recent studies: a passive acoustic monitoring study conducted by Scripps, and NOAA’s - -working group on cumulative noise mapping; -• Ecosystem mapping of the entire project. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 19 -Comment Analysis Report - -Coordination and Compatibility (COR) -COR Comments on compliance with statues, laws or regulations and Executive Orders that should - -be considered; coordinating with federal, state, or local agencies, organizations, or potential -applicants; permitting requirements. - -COR 1 Continued government to government consultation needs to include: - -• Increased focus on how NMFS and other federal agencies are required to protect natural -resources and minimize the impact of hydrocarbon development to adversely affect -subsistence hunting. - -• More consultations are needed with the tribes to incorporate their traditional knowledge -into the DEIS decision making process. - -• Direct contact between NMFS and Kotzebue IRA, Iñupiat Community of the Arctic -Slope (ICAS) and Native Village of Barrow should be initiated by NMFS. - -• Tribal organizations should be included in meeting with stakeholders and cooperating -agencies. - -• Consultation should be initiated early and from NOAA/NMFS, not through their -contractor. Meetings should be in person. - -COR 2 Data and results that are gathered should be shared throughout the impacted communities. -Often, adequate data are not shared and therefore perceived inaccurate. Before and after an -IHA is authorized, communities should receive feedback from industry, NMFS, and marine -observers. - -COR 3 There needs to be a permanent system of enforcement and reporting for marine mammal -impacts to ensure that oil companies are complying with the terms of the IHA and threatened -and endangered species authorizations. This system needs to be developed and implemented -in collaboration with the North Slope Borough and the ICAS and should be based on the -CAAs. - -COR 4 The U.S. and Canada needs to adopt an integrated and cooperative approach to impact -assessment of hydrocarbon development in the Arctic. NMFS should coordinate with the -Toktoyaktuk and the Canadian government because of the transboundary impacts of -exploratory activities and the U.S. non-binding co-management agreements with indigenous -peoples in Canada (Alaska Beluga Whale Committee and Nunavut Wildlife Management -Board). - -COR 5 The State of Alaska should be consulted and asked to join the DEIS team as a Cooperating -Agency because the DEIS addresses the potential environmental impacts of oil and gas -exploration in State water and because operators on state lands must comply with the MMPA. - -COR 6 NMFS should develop a mechanism to ensure that there is a coordinated effort by federal and -state agencies, industry, affected communities, and non-governmental organizations and -stakeholders to improve the integration of scientific data and develop a comprehensive, long- -term monitoring program for the Arctic ecosystem. - -COR 7 Effort should be put towards enhancing interagency coordination for managing noise. -Improved communication among federal agencies involved in noise impact assessment would -enhance compliance with the US National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 20 -Comment Analysis Report - -(NTTAA). The NTTAA promotes the use of consensus-based standards rather than agency- -specific standards whenever possible and/or appropriate. - -COR 8 It is recommended that BOEM have more than a cooperating agency role since the proposed -action includes BOEM issuance of G&G permits. NMFS coordinate with BOEM on the -following activities: - -• To conduct supplemental activity-specific environmental analyses under NEPA that -provides detailed information on proposed seismic surveys and drilling activities and the -associated environmental effects. - -• Ensure that the necessary information is available to estimate the number of takes as -accurately as possible given current methods and data. - -• Make activity-specific analyses available for public review and comment rather than -issuing memoranda to the file or categorical exclusions that do not allow for public -review/comment. - -• Encourage BOEM to make those analyses available for public review and comment -before the Service makes its final determination regarding applications for incidental take -authorizations. - -COR 9 NMFS should integrate its planning and permitting decisions with coastal and marine spatial -planning efforts for the Arctic region. - -COR 10 NMFS needs to coordinate with the oil and gas industry to identify the time period that the -assessment will cover, determine how the information will be utilized, and request a range of -activity levels that companies / operators might undertake in the next five years. - -COR 11 It is requested that the DEIS clarify how in the DEIS the appropriate mechanism for -considering exclusion areas from leasing can be during the BOEM request for public -comments on its Five Year OCS Leasing Plan when the recent BOEM Draft EIS Five Year -Plan refused to consider additional deferral areas. In that document, BOEM eliminated -additional details from further analysis by stating that it would consider the issue further as -part of lease sale decisions. - -COR 12 The DEIS needs to be revised to comply with Executive Order 13580, "Interagency Working -Group on Coordination of Domestic Energy Development and Permitting in Alaska," issued -on July 12, 2011 by President Obama. It is felt that the current DEIS is in noncompliance -because it does not assess a particular project, is duplicative, creates the need for additional -OCS EIS documents, and is based upon questionable authority. - -COR 13 Consultation with USGS would help NMFS make a more informed prediction regarding the -likelihood and extent of successful exploration and development in the project area and thus -affect the maximum level of activity it analyzed. - -COR 14 NMFS must consider the comments that BOEM received on the five-year plan draft EIS as -well as the plan itself before extensively relying on the analysis, specifically for its oil spill -analysis. - -COR 15 NMFS should consult with the AEWC about how to integrate the timing of the adaptive -management process with the decisions to be made by both NMFS and BOEM regarding -annual activities. This would avoid the current situation where agencies often ask for input -from local communities on appropriate mitigation measures before the offshore operators and -AEWC have conducted annual negotiations. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 21 -Comment Analysis Report - -COR 16 NMFS should adopt an ecosystem based management approach consistent with the policy -objectives of the MMPA and the policy objectives of the Executive Branch and President -Obama's Administration. - -COR 17 The EIS should have better clarification that a Very Large Oil Spill (VLOS) are violations of -the Clean Water Act and illegal under a MMPA permit. - -COR 18 NMFS should include consultation with other groups of subsistence hunters in the affected -area, including the Village of Noatak and indigenous peoples in Canada. - -COR 19 NMFS should contract with smaller village corporation in regards to biological studies and -work to help communities feel their local expertise is being utilized. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 22 -Comment Analysis Report - -Data (DAT) -DATA Comments referencing scientific studies that should be considered. - -DATA 1 NMFS should consider these additional references regarding effects to beluga whales: - -[Effects of noise] Christine Erbe and David M. Farmer, Zones of impact around icebreakers -affecting beluga whales in the Beaufort Sea. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 108 (3), Pt. 1 p.1332 - -[avoidance] Findley, K.J., Miller, G.W., Davis, R.A., and Greene, C.R., Jr., Reactions of -belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, and narwhals, Monodon monoceros, to ice-breaking ships in -the Canadian high Arctic, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 224: 97-117 (1990); see also Cosens, S.E., -and Dueck, L.P., Ice breaker noise in Lancaster Sound, NWT, Canada: implications for -marine mammal behavior, Mar. Mamm. Sci. 9: 285-300 (1993). - -[beluga displacement]See, e.g., Fraker, M.A., The 1976 white whale monitoring program, -MacKenzie estuary, report for Imperial Oil, Ltd., Calgary (1977); Fraker, M.A., The 1977 -white whale monitoring program, MacKenzie estuary, report for Imperial Oil, Ltd., Calgary -(1977); Fraker, M.A., The 1978 white whale monitoring program, MacKenzie estuary, report -for Imperial Oil, Ltd., Calgary (1978); Stewart, B.S., Evans, W.E., and Awbrey, F.T., Effects -of man-made water-borne noise on the behaviour of beluga whales, Delphinapterus leucas, in -Bristol Bay, Alaska, Hubbs Sea World (1982) (report 82-145 to NOAA); Stewart, B.S., -Awbrey, F.T., and Evans, W.E., Belukha whale (Delphinapterus leucas) responses to -industrial noise in Nushagak Bay, Alaska: 1983 (1983); Edds, P.L., and MacFarlane, J.A.F., -Occurrence and general behavior of balaenopterid cetaceans summering in the St. Lawrence -estuary, Canada, Can. J. Zoo. 65: 1363-1376 (1987). - -[beluga displacement] Miller, G.W., Moulton, V.D., Davis, R.A., Holst, M., Millman, P., -MacGillivray, A., and Hannay. D., Monitoring seismic effects on marine mammals - -southeastern Beaufort Sea, 2001-2002, in Armsworthy, S.L., et al. (eds.),Offshore oil and gas -environmental effects monitoring/Approaches and technologies, at 511-542 (2005). - -DATA 2 NMFS should consider these additional references regarding the general effects of noise, -monitoring during seismic surveys and noise management as related to marine mammals: - -[effects of noise] Jochens, A., D. Biggs, K. Benoit-Bird, D. Engelhaupt, J. Gordon, C. Hu, N. -Jaquet, M. Johnson, R. Leben, B. Mate, P. Miller, J. Ortega-Ortiz, A. Thode, P. Tyack, and B. -Würsig. 2008. Sperm whale seismic study in the Gulf of Mexico: Synthesis report. U.S. -Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New -Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2008-006. 341 pp. SWSS final report was centered on the -apparent lack of large-scale effects of airguns (distribution of sperm whales on scales of 5- -100km were no different when airguns were active than when they were silent), but a key -observation was that one D-tagged whale exposed to sound levels of 164dB re:1µPa ceased -feeding and remained at the surface for the entire four hours that the survey vessel was -nearby, then dove to feed as soon as the airguns were turned off. - -[effects of noise] Miller, G.W., R.E. Elliott, W.R. Koski, V.D. Moulton, and W.J. -Richardson. 1999. Whales. p. 5-1 – 5- 109 In W.J. Richardson, (ed.), Marine mammal and -acoustical monitoring of Western Geophysical's openwater seismic program in the Alaskan -Beaufort Sea, 1998. LGL Report TA2230-3. Prepared by LGL Ltd., King City, ONT, and - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 23 -Comment Analysis Report - -Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Western Geophysical, Houston, TX, and -NMFS, Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. 390 p. - -[effects of noise] Richardson, W.J., Greene Jr, C.R., Malme, C.I. and Thomson, D.H. 1995. -Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego. 576pp. - -[effects of noise] Holst, M., M.A. Smultea, W.R. Koski, and B. Haley. 2005. Marine mammal -and sea turtle monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory’s marine seismic -program off the Northern Yucatan Peninsula in the Southern Gulf of Mexico, January -February 2005. LGL Report TA2822-31. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research -associates, King City, ONT, for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, -Palisades, NY, and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. June. 96 p. - -[marine mammals and noise] Balcomb III, KC, Claridge DE. 2001. A mass stranding of -cetaceans caused by naval sonar in the Bahamas. Bahamas J. Sci. 8(2):2-12. - -[noise from O&G activities] Richardson, W.J., Greene Jr, C.R., Malme, C.I. and Thomson, -D.H. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego. 576pp. - -A study on ship noise and marine mammal stress was recently issued. Rolland, R.M., Parks, -S.E., Hunt, K.E., Castellote, M., Corkeron, P.J., Nowacek, D.P., Wasser, S.K., and Kraus, -S.D., Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right whales, Proceedings of the Royal -Society B: Biological Sciences doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.2429 (2012). - -Lucke, K., Siebert, U., Lepper, P.A., and Blanchet, M.-A., Temporary shift in masked hearing -thresholds in a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) after exposure to seismic airgun stimuli, -Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125: 4060-4070 (2009). - -Gedamke, J., Gales, N., and Frydman, S., Assessing risk of baleen whale hearing loss from -seismic surveys: The effect of uncertainty and individual variation, Journal of the Acoustical -Society of America 129:496-506 (2011). - -[re. relationship between TTS and PTS] Kastak, D., Mulsow, J., Ghoul, A., Reichmuth, C., -Noise-induced permanent threshold shift in a harbor seal [abstract], Journal of the Acoustical -Society of America 123: 2986 (2008) (sudden, non-linear induction of permanent threshold -shift in harbor seal during TTS experiment); Kujawa, S.G., and Liberman, M.C., Adding -insult to injury: Cochlear nerve degeneration after ‘temporary’ noise-induced hearing loss, -Journal of Neuroscience 29: 14077-14085 (2009) (mechanism linking temporary to -permanent threshold shift). - -[exclusion zones around foraging habitat] See Miller, G.W., Moulton, V.D., Davis, R.A., -Holst, M., Millman, P., MacGillivray, A., and Hannay. D. Monitoring seismic effects on -marine mammals in the southeastern Beaufort Sea, 2001-2002, in Armsworthy, S.L., et -al.(eds.), Offshore oil and gas environmental effects monitoring/Approaches and -technologies, at 511-542 (2005). - -[passive acoustic monitoring limitations] See also Gillespie, D., Gordon, J., Mchugh, R., -Mclaren, D., Mellinger, D.K., Redmond, P., Thode, A., Trinder, P., and Deng, X.Y., -PAMGUARD: semiautomated, open source software for real-time acoustic detection and -localization of ceteaceans, Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics 30(5) (2008). - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 24 -Comment Analysis Report - -BOEM, Site-specific environmental assessment of geological and geophysical survey -application no. L11-007for TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Company, at 22 (2011) (imposing -separation distance in Gulf of Mexico, noting that purpose is to “allow for a corridor for -marine mammal movement”). - -[harbor porpoise avoidance] Bain, D.E., and Williams, R., Long-range effects of airgun noise -on marine mammals: responses as a function of received sound level and distance (2006) -(IWC Sci. Comm. Doc. IWC/SC/58/E35); Kastelein, R.A., Verboom, W.C., Jennings, N., and -de Haan, D., Behavioral avoidance threshold level of a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) -for a continuous 50 kHz pure tone, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123: 1858- -1861 (2008); Kastelein, R.A., Verboom, W.C., Muijsers, M., Jennings, N.V., and van der -Heul, S., The influence of acoustic emissions for underwater data transmission on the -behavior of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in a floating pen, Mar. Enviro. Res. 59: -287-307 (2005); Olesiuk, P.F., Nichol, L.M., Sowden, M.J., and Ford, J.K.B., Effect of the -sound generated by an acoustic harassment device on the relative abundance and distribution -of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in Retreat Passage, British Columbia, Mar. Mamm. -Sci. 18: 843-862 (2002). - -A special issue of the International Journal of Comparative Psychology (20:2-3) is devoted to -the problem of noise-related stress response in marine mammals. For an overview published -as part of that volume, see, e.g., A.J. Wright, N. Aguilar Soto, A.L. Baldwin, M. Bateson, -C.M. Beale, C. Clark, T. Deak, E.F. Edwards, A. Fernandez, A. Godinho, L. Hatch, A. -Kakuschke, D. Lusseau, D. Martineau, L.M. Romero, L. Weilgart, B. Wintle, G. Notarbartolo -di Sciara, and V. Martin, Do marine mammals experience stress related to anthropogenic -noise? (2007). - -[methods to address data gaps] Bejder, L., Samuels, A., Whitehead, H., Finn, H., and Allen, -S., Impact assessment research: use and misuse of habituation, sensitization and tolerance in -describing wildlife responses to anthropogenic stimuli, Marine Ecology Progress Series -395:177-185 (2009). - -[strandings] Brownell, R.L., Jr., Nowacek, D.P., and Ralls, K., Hunting cetaceans with sound: -a worldwide review, Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 10: 81-88 (2008); -Hildebrand, J.A., Impacts of anthropogenic sound, in Reynolds, J.E. III, Perrin, W.F., Reeves, -R.R., Montgomery, S., and Ragen, T.J., eds., Marine Mammal Research: Conservation -beyond Crisis (2006). - -[effects of noise] Harris, R.E., T. Elliot, and R.A. Davis. 2007. Results of mitigation and -monitoring program, Beaufort Span 2-D marine seismic program, open-water season 2006. -LGL Rep. TA4319-1. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., for GX Technology Corp., -Houston, TX. 48 p. - -Hutchinson and Ferrero (2011) noted that there were on-going studies that could help provide -a basis for a sound budget. - -[refs regarding real-time passive acoustic monitoring to reduce ship strike] Abramson, L., -Polefka, S., Hastings, S., and Bor, K., Reducing the Threat of Ship Strikes on Large -Cetaceans in the Santa Barbara Channel Region and Channel Islands National Marine -Sanctuary: Recommendations and Case Studies (2009) (Marine Sanctuaries Conservation -Series ONMS-11-01); Silber, G.K., S. Bettridge, and D. Cottingham, ?Report of a workshop -to identify and assess technologies to reduce ship strikes of large whales.? Providence, Rhode -Island, July 8-10, 2008 (2009) (NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-OPR-42). - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 25 -Comment Analysis Report - -[time/place restrictions] See, e.g., Letter from Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Undersecretary of -Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, to Nancy Sutley, Chair, Council on Environmental -Quality at 2 (Jan. 19, 2010); Agardy, T., et al., A Global Scientific Workshop on Spatio- -Temporal Management of Noise (October 2007). - -[seismic and ambient noise] Roth, E.H., Hildebrand, J.A., Wiggins, S.M., and Ross, D., -Underwater ambient noise on the Chukchi Sea continental slope, Journal of the Acoustical -Society of America 131:104-110 (2012). - -Expert Panel Review of Monitoring and Mitigation and Protocols in Applications for -Incidental Take Authorizations Related to Oil and Gas Exploration, including Seismic -Surveys in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Anchorage, Alaska 22-26 March 2010. - -[refs regarding monitoring and safety zone best practices] Weir, C.R., and Dolman, S.J., -Comparative review of the regional marine mammal mitigation guidelines implemented -during industrial seismic surveys, and guidance towards a worldwide standard, Journal of -International Wildlife Law and Policy 10: 1-27 (2007); Parsons, E.C.M., Dolman, S.J., Jasny, -M., Rose, N.A., Simmonds, M.P., and Wright, A.J., A critique of the UK’s JNCC seismic -survey guidelines for minimising acoustic disturbance to marine mammals: Best practice? -Marine Pollution Bulletin 58: 643-651 (2009). - -[marine mammals and noise - aircraft] Ljungblad, D.K., Moore, S.E. and Van Schoik, D.R. -1983. Aerial surveys of endangered whales in the Beaufort, eastern Chukchi and northern -Bering Seas, 1982. NOSC Technical Document 605 to the US Minerals Management Service, -Anchorage, AK. NTIS AD-A134 772/3. 382pp - -[marine mammals and noise - aircraft] Southwest Research Associates. 1988. Results of the -1986-1987 gray whale migration and landing craft, air cushion interaction study program. -USN Contract No. PO N62474-86-M-0942. Final Report to Nav. Fac. Eng. Comm., San -Bruno, CA. Southwest Research Associates, Cardiff by the Sea, CA. 31pp. - -DATA 3 NMFS should consider these additional references regarding fish and the general effects of -noise on fish: - -[effects of noise] Arill Engays, Svein Lakkeborg, Egil Ona, and Aud Vold Soldal. Effects of -seismic shooting on local abundance and catch rates of cod (Gadus morhua) and haddock -(Melanogrammus aeglefinus) Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 2238 “2249 (1996). - -[animal adaptations to extreme environments- may not be relevant to EIS] Michael Tobler, -Ingo Schlupp, Katja U. Heubel, Radiger Riesch, Francisco J. Garca de Leon, Olav Giere and -Martin Plath. Life on the edge: hydrogen sulfide and the fish communities of a Mexican cave -and surrounding waters 2006 Extremophiles Journal, Volume 10, Number 6, Pages 577-585 - -[response to noise] Knudsen, F.R., P.S. Enger, and O. Sand. 1994. Avoidance responses to -low frequency sound in downstream migrating Atlantic salmon smolt, Salmo salar. Journal of -Fish Biology 45:227-233. - -See also Fish Fauna in nearshore water of a barrier island in the western Beaufort Sea, -Alaska. SW Johnson, JF Thedinga, AD Neff, and CA Hoffman. US Dept of Commerce, -NOAA. Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-210. July 2010. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 26 -Comment Analysis Report - -[airgun impacts and fish] McCauley, R.D., Fewtrell, J., Duncan, A.J., Jenner, C., Jenner, M.- -N., Penrose, J.D., Prince, R.I.T., Adhitya, A., Murdoch, J., and McCabe, K., Marine seismic -surveys: Analysis and propagation of air-gun signals; and effects of air-gun exposure on -humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and squid (2000) (industry-sponsored study undertaken -by researchers at the Curtin University of Technology, Australia). Lakkeborg, S., Ona, E., -Vold, A., Pena, H., Salthaug, A., Totland, B., Ãvredal, J.T., Dalen, J. and Handegard, N.O., -Effects of seismic surveys on fish distribution and catch rates of gillnets and longlines in -Vesterlen in summer 2009 (2010) (Institute of Marine Research Report for Norwegian -Petroleum Directorate). Slotte, A., Hansen, K., Dalen, J., and Ona, E., Acoustic mapping of -pelagic fish distribution and abundance in relation to a seismic shooting area off the -Norwegian west coast, Fisheries Research 67:143-150 (2004). Skalski, J.R., Pearson, W.H., -and Malme, C.I., Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device on catch-perunit-effort -in a hook-and-line fishery for rockfish (Sebastes ssp.), Canadian Journal of Fisheries and -Aquatic Sciences 49: 1357-1365 (1992). McCauley et al., Marine seismic surveys: analysis -and propagation of air-gun signals, and effects of air-gun exposure; McCauley, R., Fewtrell, -J., and Popper, A.N., High intensity anthropogenic sound damages fish ears, Journal of the -Acoustical Society of America 113: 638-642 (2003); see also Scholik, A.R., and Yan, H.Y., -Effects of boat engine noise on the auditory sensitivity of the fathead minnow, Pimephales -promelas, Environmental Biology of Fishes 63: 203-209 (2002). Purser, J., and Radford, -A.N., Acoustic noise induces attention shifts and reduces foraging performance in -threespined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus), PLoS One, 28 Feb. 2011, DOI: -10.1371/journal.pone.0017478 (2011). Dalen, J., and Knutsen, G.M., Scaring effects on fish -and harmful effects on eggs, larvae and fry by offshore seismic explorations, in Merklinger, -H.M., Progress in Underwater Acoustics 93-102 (1987); Banner, A., and Hyatt, M., Effects of -noise on eggs and larvae of two estuarine fishes, Transactions of the American Fisheries -Society 1:134-36 (1973); L.P. Kostyuchenko, Effect of elastic waves generated in marine -seismic prospecting on fish eggs on the Black Sea, Hydrobiology Journal 9:45-48 (1973). - -Recent work performed by Dr. Brenda Norcross (UAF) for MMS/BOEM. There are -extensive data deficiencies for most marine and coastal fish population abundance and trends -over time. I know because I conducted such an exercise for the MMS in the mid 2000s and -the report is archived as part of lease sale administrative record. Contact Kate Wedermeyer -(BOEM) or myself for a copy if it cannot be located in the administrative record. - -DATA 4 NMFS should consider these additional references on the effects of noise on lower trophic -level organisms: - -[effects of noise] Michel Andra, Marta Sola, Marc Lenoir, Merca¨ Durfort, Carme Quero, -Alex Mas, Antoni Lombarte, Mike van der Schaar1, Manel Lpez-Bejar, Maria Morell, Serge -Zaugg, and Ludwig Hougnigan. Low frequency sounds induce acoustic trauma in -cephalopods. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. Nov. 2011V9 Iss.9 - -[impacts of seismic surveys and other activities on invertebrates] See, e.g., McCauley, R.D., -Fewtrell, J., Duncan, A.J., Jenner, C., Jenner, M.-N., Penrose, J.D., Prince, R.I.T., Adhitya, -A., Murdoch, J., and McCabe, K., Marine seismic surveys: Analysis and propagation of air- -gun signals; and effects of air-gun exposure on humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and -squid (2000); Andra, M., Sola, M., Lenoir, M., Durfort, M., Quero, C., Mas, A., Lombarte, -A., van der Schaar, M., Lapez-Bejar, M., Morell, M., Zaugg, S., and Hougnigan, L., Low- -frequency sounds induce acoustic trauma in cephalopods, Frontiers in Ecology and the -Environment doi:10.1890/100124 (2011); Guerra, A., and Gonzales, A.F., Severe injuries in -the giant squid Architeuthis dux stranded after seismic explorations, in German Federal - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 27 -Comment Analysis Report - -Environment Agency, International Workshop on the Impacts of Seismic Survey Activities -on Whales and Other Marine Biota at 32-38 (2006) - -DATA 5 NMFS should consider these additional references on effects of noise on bowhead whales: - -[effects of noise] Richardson WJ, Miller GW, Greene Jr. CR 1999. Displacement of -Migrating Bowhead Whales by Sounds from Seismic Surveys in Shallow Waters of the -Beaufort Sea. J. of Acoust. Soc. of America. 106:2281. - -NMFS cites information from Richardson et al. (1995) which suggested that migrating -bowhead whales may react at sound levels as low as 120 dB (RMS) re 1 uPa but fails to cite -newer work by Christie et al. 2010 and Koski et al. 2009, cited elsewhere in the document, -showing that migrating whales entered and moved through areas ensonified to 120-150 dB -(RMS) deflecting only at levels of ~150 dB. Distances at which whales deflected were similar -in both studies suggesting that factors other than just sound are important in determining -avoidance of an area by migrating bowhead whales. This is a general problem with the EIS in -that it consistently uses outdated information as part of the impact analysis, relying on -previous analyses from other NMFS or MMS EIS documents conducted without the benefit -of the new data. - -Additionally, we ask NMFS to respond to the results of a recent study of the impacts of noise -on Atlantic Right whales, which found "a decrease in baseline concentrations of fGCs in right -whales in association with decreased overall noise levels (6 dB) and significant reductions in -noise at all frequencies between 50 and 150 Hz as a consequence of reduced large vessel -traffic in the Bay of Fundy following the events of 9/11/01."68 This study of another baleen -whale that is closely related to the bowhead whale supports traditional knowledge regarding -the skittishness and sensitivity of bowhead whales to noise and documents that these -reactions to noise are accompanied by a physiological stress response that could have broader -implications for repeated exposures to noise as contemplated in the DEIS. 68 Rolland, R.M., -et al. Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right whales. Proc. R. Soc. B (2012) -(doi:lO.1098/rspb.2011.2429). Exhibit G. - -Bowhead Whale Aerial Survey Project (or BWASP) sightings show that whales are found -feeding in many years on both sides of the Bay.158 Id. at 24, 67 (Brownlow Point); see also -Ferguson et al., A Tale of Two Seas: Lessons from Multi-decadal Aerial Surveys for -Cetaceans in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas (2011 PowerPoint) (slide 15), attached as Exh. 1. -A larger version of the map from the PowerPoint is attached as Exh. 2 Industry surveys have -also confirmed whales feeding west of Camden Bay in both 2007 and 2008.159 Shell, -Revised Outer Continental Shelf Lease Exploration Plan, Camden Bay, Beaufort Sea, Alaska, -Appendix F 3-79 (May 2011) (Beaufort EIA), available at http://boem.gov/Oil-and-Gas- -Energy-Program/Plans/Regional-Plans/Alaska-Exploration-Plans/2012-Shell-Beaufort- -EP/Index.aspx. - -[bowhead displacement] Miller, G.W., Elliot, R.E., Koski, W.R., Moulton, V.D., and -Richardson W.J., Whales, in Richardson, W.J. (ed.),Marine Mammal and Acoustical -Monitoring of Western Geophysical’s Open-Water Seismic Program in the Alaskan Beaufort -Sea, 1998 (1999); Richardson, W.J., Miller, G.W., and Greene Jr., C.R., Displacement of -migrating bowhead whales by sounds from seismic surveys in shallow waters of the Beaufort -Sea, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106:2281 (1999). - -Clark, C.W., and Gagnon, G.C., Considering the temporal and spatial scales of noise -exposures from seismic surveys on baleen whales (2006) (IWC Sci. Comm. Doc. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 28 -Comment Analysis Report - -IWC/SC/58/E9); Clark, C.W., pers. comm. with M. Jasny, NRDC (Apr. 2010); see also -MacLeod, K., Simmonds, M.P., and Murray, E., Abundance of fin (Balaenoptera physalus) -and sei whales (B. Borealis) amid oil exploration and development off northwest Scotland, -Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 8: 247-254 (2006). - -DATA 6 NMFS should review and incorporate these additional recent BOEM documents into the -Final EIS: - -BOEM recently issued a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Gulf of -Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale: 2012; Central Planning Area Lease Sale 216/222; -Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale: 2012; Central Planning Area Lease Sale 216/222 -(SEIS). This final SEIS for the GOM correctly concluded that, despite more than 50 years of -oil and gas seismic and other activities, “there are no data to suggest that activities from the -preexisting OCS Program are significantly impacting marine mammal populations.” - -DATA 7 The DEIS should be revised to discuss any and all NMFS or BOEM Information Quality Act -(IQA) requirements/guidance that apply to oil and gas activities in the Arctic Ocean. The -final EIS should discuss IQA requirements, and should state that these IQA requirements also -apply to any third-party information that the agencies use or rely on to regulate oil and gas -operations. The DEIS should be revised to discuss: - -• NMFS Instruction on NMFS Data Documentation, which states at pages 11-12 that all -NMFS data disseminations must meet IQA guidelines. - -• NMFS Directive on Data and Information Management, which states at page 3: General -Policy and Requirements A. Data are among the most valuable public assets that NMFS -controls, and are an essential enabler of the NMFS mission. The data will be visible, -accessible, and understandable to authorized users to support mission objectives, in -compliance with OMB guidelines for implementing the Information Quality Act. - -• NMFS Instruction on Section 515 Pre-Dissemination Review and Documentation Form. -• NMFS Instruction on Guidelines for Agency Administrative Records, which states at - -pages 2-3 that: The AR [Administrative Record] first must document the process the -agency used in reaching its final decision in order to show that the agency followed -required procedures. For NOAA actions, procedural requirements include The -Information Quality Act. - -DATA 8 Information in the EIS should be updated and include information on PAMGUARD that has -been developed by the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers Joint Industry -Project. PAMGUARD is a software package that can interpret and display calls of vocalizing -marine mammals, locate them by azimuth and range and identify some of them by species. -These abilities are critical for detecting animals within safety zones and enabling shut-down. - -DATA 9 NMFS should utilize some of the new predictive modeling techniques that are becoming -available to better describe and analyze the links between impacts experienced at the -individual level to the population level. One example is the tool for sound and marine -mammals; Acoustic Integration Models (AIMs) that estimate how many animals might be -exposed to specific levels of sound. Furthermore, Ellison et al. (2011)34 suggest a three- -pronged approach that uses marine mammal behaviors to examine sound exposure and help -with planning of offshore activities. Additionally, scenario-modeling tools such as EcoPath -and EcoSim might help with modeling potential outcomes from different anthropogenic -activities. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 29 -Comment Analysis Report - -DATA 10 NMFS should acknowledge that despite some advances in oil spill response technology, there -is still a significant gap in the ability to either remove or burn oil in 30 to 70 percent ice -cover. NMFS should review this gap which is documented in recent oil in ice field studies -completed by SINTEF. - -DATA 11 NMFS should consider review and incorporation of the following document related to energy -development: - -Energy [r]evolution: A Sustainable Energy Outlook: 2010 USA Energy Scenario. -http://www.energyblueprint.info/1239.0.html -http://www.energyblueprint.info/fileadmin/media/documents/national/2010/0910_gpi_E_R__ -usa_report_10_lr.pdf?PHPSESSID=a403f5196a8bfe3a8eaf375d5c936a69 (PDF document, -9.7 MB). - -DATA 12 NMFS should review their previous testimony and comments that the agency has provided on -oil and gas exploration or similarly-related activities to ensure that they are not conflicting -with what is presented in the DEIS. - -• [NMFS should review previous comments on data gaps they have provided] NMFS, -Comments on Minerals Management Service (MMS) Draft EIS for the Chukchi Sea -Planning Area “Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 and Seismic Surveying Activities in the -Chukchi Sea at 2 (Jan. 30, 2007) (NMFS LS 193 Cmts); NMFS, Comments on MMS -Draft EIS for the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas” Oil and Gas Lease -Sales 209, 212, 217, and 221 at 3-5 (March 27, 2009) (NMFS Multi-Sale Cmts). - -• NMFS should review past comment submissions on data gaps, National Oceanic and -Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Comments on the U.S. Department of the -Interior/MMS Draft Proposed Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing -Program for 2010-2015 at 9 (Sept. 9, 2009). - -• Past NEPA documents have concluded that oil and gas exploration in the Chukchi Sea -and Beaufort Sea OCS in conjunction with existing mitigation measures (which do not -include any of the Additional Mitigation Measures) are sufficient to minimize potential -impacts to insignificant levels. - -DATA 13 NMFS should review past comment submissions on data gaps regarding: - -The DPEIS appears not to address or acknowledge the findings of the U.S. Geological Survey -(USGS) June 2011 report “Evaluation of the Science Needs to Inform Decisions on Outer -Continental Shelf Energy Development in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Alaska.” USGS -reinforced that information and data in the Arctic are emerging rapidly, but most studies -focus on subjects with small spatial and temporal extent and are independently conducted -with limited synthesis. USGS recommended that refined regional understanding of climate -change is required to help clarify development scenarios. - -This report found that basic data for many marine mammal species in the Arctic are still -needed, including information on current abundance, seasonal distribution, movements, -population dynamics, foraging areas, sea-ice habitat relationships, and age-specific vital rates. -The need for such fundamental information is apparent even for bowhead whales, one of the -better studied species in the Arctic. The report confirms that more research is also necessary -to accurately assess marine mammal reactions to different types of noise and that more work -is needed to characterize the seasonal and spatial levels of ambient noise in both the Beaufort -and Chukchi seas. Recognizing the scope and importance of the data gaps, the report states - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 30 -Comment Analysis Report - -that missing information serves as a major constraint to a defensible science framework for -critical Arctic decision making. - -Regarding data gaps on Arctic species see, e.g., Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science & -Technology, Addressing the Effects of Human-Generated Sound on Marine Life: An -Integrated Research Plan for U.S. Federal Agencies at 3 (Jan. 13, 2009), available at -http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/oceans-mmnoise-IATF.pdf, -(stating that the current status of science as to noise effects ?often results in estimates of -potential adverse impacts that contain a high degree of uncertainty?); id. at 62-63 (noting the -need for baseline information, particularly for Arctic marine species); - -National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling (Nat’l -Commission), Deep Water: The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling, Report -to the President at vii (Jan. 2011),available at -http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/sites/default/files/documents/DEEPWATER_Reporttothe -President_FINAL.pdf (finding that “[s]cientific understanding of environmental conditions in -sensitive environments . . . in areas proposed for more drilling, such as the Arctic, is -inadequate”); - -National Commission, Offshore Drilling in the Arctic: Background and Issues for the Future -Consideration of Oil and Gas Activities, Staff Working Paper No. 13 at 19,available at -http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Offshore%20Drilling%20in -%20the%20Arctic_Bac -kground%20and%20Issues%20for%20the%20Future%20Consideration%20of%20Oil%20an -d%20Gas%20Activitie s_0.pdf (listing acoustics research on impacts to marine mammals as a -?high priority?) - -DATA 14 NMFS should include further information on the environmental impacts of EM -[Electromagnetic] surveys. Refer to the recently completed environmental impact assessment -of Electromagnetic (EM) Techniques used for oil and gas exploration and production, -available at http://www.iagc.org/EM-EIA. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) -concluded that EM sources as presently used have no potential for significant effects on -animal groups such as fish, seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals. - -DATA 15 NMFS and BOEM risk assessors should consider the National Academy of Sciences report -"Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society." for guidance. There are -other ecological risk assessment experiences and approaches with NOAA, EPA, OMB and -other agencies that would inform development of an improved assessment methodology. -(National Research Council. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic -Society. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1996). - -DATA 16 The following references should be reviewed by NMFS regarding takes and sound level -exposures for marine mammals: - -Richardson et al. (2011) provides a review of potential impacts on marine mammals that -concludes injury (permanent hearing damage) from airguns is extremely unlikely and -behavioral responses are both highly variable and short-term. - -The growing scientific consensus is that seismic sources pose little risk of Level A takes -(Southall, 2010; Richardson et al. 2011). Southall and Richardson recommended a Level A -threshold, 230 dB re: 1 µPa (peak) (flat) (or 198 dB re 1 µPa2-s, sound exposure level) - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 31 -Comment Analysis Report - -The NRC’s expert panel assessment (NRC 2005) and further review as discussed by -Richardson et al (2011) also support this position. - -The level of sound exposure that will induce behavioral responses may not directly equate to -biologically significant disturbance; therefore additional consideration must be directed at -response and significance (NRC 2005; Richardson et al. 2011; Ellison et al. 2011). To further -complicate a determination of an acoustic Level B take, the animal’s surroundings and/or the -activity (feeding, migrating, etc.) being conducted at the time they receive the sound rather -than solely intensity levels may be as important for behavioral responses (Richardson et al -2011). - -DATA 17 Reports regarding estimated reserves of oil and gas and impacts to socioeconomics that -NMFS should consider including in the EIS include: - -NMFS should have consulted with the USGS, which recently issued a report on anticipated -Arctic oil and gas resources (Bird et al. 2008) The USGS estimates that oil and gas reserves -in the Arctic may be significant. This report was not referenced in the DEIS. - -Two studies by Northern Economics and the Institute for Social and Economic Research at -the University of Alaska provide estimation of this magnitude (NE & ISER 2009; NE & -ISER 2011). As a result, socioeconomic benefits are essentially not considered in assessment -of cumulative impacts for any alternative other than the no-action alternative. This material -deficiency in the DEIS must be corrected. - -Stephen R. Braund and Associates. 2009. Impacts and benefits of oil and gas development to -Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Atqasuk Harvesters. Report to the North Slope Borough -Department of Wildlife Management, PAGEO. Box 69, Barrow, AK.) - -DATA 18 NMFS should consider citing newer work by work by Christie et al. 2010 and Koski et al. -2009 related to bowhead reactions to sound: - -NMFS cites information from Richardson et al. (1995) that suggested that migrating bowhead -whales may react at sound levels as low as 120 dB (rms) re 1 uPa but fails to cite newer work -by Christie et al. 2010 and Koski et al. 2009, cited elsewhere in the document, showing that -migrating whales entered and moved through areas ensonified to 120-150 dB (rms) deflecting -only at levels of ~150-160dB. - -For example, on Page 43 Section 4.5.1.4.2 the DEIS cites information from Richardson et al. -(1995) that suggested that migrating bowhead whales may react to sound levels as low as 120 -dB (rms) re 1 uPa, but fails to cite newer work by Christie et al. (2010) and Koski et al. -(2009), cited elsewhere in the document, showing that migrating whales entered and moved -through areas ensonified to 120-150 dB (rms). In these studies bowhead whales deflected -only at levels of ~150 dB (rms). - -As described earlier in this document, the flawed analysis on Page 43 Section 4.5.1.4.2 of the -DEIS cites information from Richardson et al. (1995), but fails to cite newer work (Christie et -al. 2010, Koski et al. 2009) that increases our perspective on the role of sound and its -influences on marine mammals, specifically bowhead whales. - -The first full paragraph of Page 100 indicates that it is not known whether impulsive sounds -affect reproductive rate or distribution and habitat use over periods of days or years. All -evidence indicates that bowhead whale reproductive rates have remained strong despite - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 32 -Comment Analysis Report - -seismic programs being conducted in these waters for several decades (Gerber et al. 2007. -Whales return to these habitat areas each year and continue to use the areas in similar ways. -There has been no documented shift in distribution or use (Blackwell et al. 2010). The data -that have been collected suggest that the impacts are short term and on the scale of hours -rather than days or years (MMS 2007, MMS 2008a). - -DATA 19 The DEIS consistently fails to use new information as part of the impact analysis instead -relying on previous analyses from other NMFS or MMS EIS documents conducted without -the benefit of the new data. This implies a pre-disposition toward acceptance of supposition -formed from overly conservative views without the benefit of robust review and toward -rejection of any data not consistent with these views. - -DATA 20 NMFS should consider the incorporation of marine mammal concentration area maps -provided as comments to the DEIS (by Oceana) as strong evidence for robust time and area -closures should NMFS decide to move forward with approval of industrial activities in the -Arctic. While the maps in the DEIS share some of the same sources as the enclosed maps, the -concentration areas presented in the above referenced maps reflect additional new -information, corrections, and discussions with primary researchers. These maps are based in -part on the Arctic Marine Synthesis developed previously, but include some new areas and -significant changes to others. - -DATA 21 NMFS should consider an updated literature search for the pack ice and ice gouges section of -the EIS: - -Pages 3-6 to 3-7, Section 3.1.2.4 Pack Ice and Ice Gouges: An updated literature search -should be completed for this section. In particular additional data regarding ice gouging -published by MMS and Weeks et. al should be noted. The DEIS emphasizes ice gouging in -20-30 meter water depth: "A study of ice gouging in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea showed that -the maximum number of gouges occur in the 20 to 30m (66 to 99 ft) water-depth range -(Machemehl and Jo 1989)." However, an OCS study commissioned by MMS (2006-059) -noted that Leidersdorf, et al., (2001) examined ice gouges in shallower waters: 48 ice gouges -exceeding the minimum measurement threshold of 0.1 m [that were] detected in the Northstar -pipeline corridor. These were all in shallower waters (< 12 m) and the maximum incision -depth was 0.4 m. "In all four years, however, measurable gouges were confined to water -depths exceeding 5 m." These results are consistent with the earlier work, and these results -are limited to shallow water. Thus, this study will rely on the earlier work by Weeks et al. -which includes deeper gouges and deeper water depths. (Alternative Oil Spill Occurrence -Estimators for the Beaufort/Chukchi Sea OCS (Statistical Approach) MMS Contract Number -1435 - 01 - 00 - PO - 17141 September 5, 2006 TGE Consulting: Ted G. Eschenbach and -William V. Harper). The DEIS should also reference the work by Weeks, including: Weeks, -W.F., P.W. Barnes, D.M. Rearic, and E. Reimnitz, 1984, "Some Probabilistic Aspects of Ice -Gouging on the Alaskan Shelf of the Beaufort Sea," The Alaskan Beaufort Sea: Ecosystems -and Environments, Academic Press. Weeks, W.F., P.W. Barnes, D.M. Rearic, and E. -Reimnitz, June 1983, "Some Probabilistic Aspects of Ice Gouging on the Alaskan Shelf of the -Beaufort Sea," US Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. - -DATA 22 NMFS should consider revisions to the EIS based on data provided below regarding ice seals: - -Page 4-387, Pinnipeds: Ringed seals and some bearded seals spend a fair amount of time -foraging in the open ocean during maximum ice retreat (NSB unpublished data, -http://www.north¬ -slope.org/departments/wildlife/Walrus%201ce%20Seals.php#RingedSeal, Crawford et al. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 33 -Comment Analysis Report - -2011, ADF&G unpublished data). Bearded seals are not restricted to foraging only in shallow -areas on a benthic diet. Consumption of pelagic prey items does occur (ADF&G unpublished -data, Lentfer 1988). - -Pages 4-388 Pinnipeds, and 4-392, Ringed Seal: Ringed seals are known to persist in the -offshore pack ice during all times of the year (Crawford et al. 2011, NSB unpublished data, -Lenter 1988). It has actually been suggested that there are two ecotypes, those that make a -living in the pack ice and shore fast ice animals. This should be stated in one of these -sections. - -NOAA, 2011 Arctic Seal Disease Outbreak Fact Sheet (updated Nov. 22, 2011) (Arctic Seal -Outbreak Fact Sheet), available at -http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/seals/ice/diseased/ume022012.pdf. NMFS -has officially declared an “unusual mortality event” for ringed seals. - -DATA 23 NMFS should consider incorporation of the following references regarding vessel impacts on -marine mammals: - -Renilson, M., Reducing underwater noise pollution from large commercial vessels (2009) -available at www.ifaw.org/oceannoise/reports; Southall, B.L., and Scholik-Schlomer, A. eds. -Final Report of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) International -Symposium: Potential Application of Vessel Quieting Technology on Large Commercial -Vessels, 1-2 May 2007, at Silver Springs, Maryland (2008) available at -http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/acoustics/vessel_symposium_report.pdf. - -[refs regarding vessel speed limits] Laist, D.W., Knowlton, A.R., Mead, J.G., Collet, A.S., -and Podesta, M., Collisions between ships and whales, Marine Mammal Science 17:35-75 -(2001); Pace, R.M., and Silber, G.K., Simple analyses of ship and large whale collisions: -Does speed kill? Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, December 2005, -San Diego, CA. (2005) (abstract); Vanderlaan, A.S.M., and Taggart, C.T., Vessel collisions -with whales: The probability of lethal injury based on vessel speed. Marine Mammal Science -23:144-156 (2007); Renilson, M., Reducing underwater noise pollution from large -commercial vessels (2009) available at www.ifaw.org/oceannoise/reports; Southall, B.L., and -Scholik-Schlomer, A. eds. Final Report of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric -Administration (NOAA) International Symposium: Potential Application of Vessel-Quieting -Technology on Large Commercial Vessels, 1-2 May 2007, at Silver Springs, Maryland -(2008), available at -http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/acoustics/vessel_symposium_report.pdf; Thompson, -M.A., Cabe, B., Pace III, R.M., Levenson, J., and Wiley, D., Vessel compliance and -commitment with speed regulations in the US Cape Cod Bay and off Race Point Right Whale -Seasonal Management Areas. Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, -November-December 2011, Tampa, FL (2011) (abstract); National Marine Fisheries Service, -NOAA. 2010 Large Whale Ship Strikes Relative to Vessel Speed. Prepared within NOAA -Fisheries to support the Ship Strike Reduction Program (2010), available at -http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/shipstrike/ss_speed.pdf. - -[aerial monitoring and/or fixed hydrophone arrays] Id.; Hatch, L., Clark, C., Merrick, R., Van -Parijs, S., Ponirakis, D., Schwehr, K., Thompson, M., and Wiley, D., Characterizing the -relative contributions of large vessels to total ocean noise fields: a case study using the Gerry -E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, Environmental Management 42:735- -752 (2008). - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 34 -Comment Analysis Report - -DATA 24 NMFS should review the references below regarding alternative technologies: - -Among the [alternative] technologies discussed in the 2009 [Okeanos] workshop report are -engineering modifications to airguns, which can cut emissions at frequencies not needed for -exploration; controlled sources, such as marine vibroseis, which can dramatically lower the -peak sound currently generated by airguns by spreading it over time; various non-acoustic -sources, such as electromagnetic and passive seismic devices, which in certain contexts can -eliminate the need for sound entirely; and fiber-optic receivers, which can reduce the need for -intense sound at the source by improving acquisition at the receiver. An industry-sponsored -report by Noise Control Engineering made similar findings about the availability of greener -alternatives to seismic airguns, as well as alternatives to a variety of other noise sources used -in oil and gas exploration. - -Spence, J., Fischer, R., Bahtiarian, M., Boroditsky, L., Jones, N., and Dempsey, R., Review -of existing and future potential treatments for reducing underwater sound from oil and gas -industry activities (2007) (NCE Report 07-001) (prepared by Noise Control Engineering for -Joint Industry Programme on E&P Sound and Marine Life). Despite the promise indicated in -the 2007 and 2010 reports, neither NMFS nor BOEM has attempted to develop noise- -reduction technology for seismic or any other noise source, aside from BOEM’s failed -investigation of mobile bubble curtains. - -[alternative technologies] Tenghamn, R., An electrical marine vibrator with a flextensional -shell, Exploration Geophysics 37:286-291 (2006); LGL and Marine Acoustics, -Environmental assessment of marine vibroseis (2011) (Joint Industry Programme contract 22 -07-12). - -DATA 25 NMFS should review the references below regarding masking: - -Clark, C.W., Ellison, W.T., Southall, B.L., Hatch, L., van Parijs, S., Frankel, A., and -Ponirakis, D., Acoustic masking in marine ecosystems as a function of anthropogenic sound -sources (2009) (IWC Sci. Comm. Doc.SC/61/E10); Clark, C.W., Ellison, W.T., Southall, -B.L., Hatch, L., Van Parijs, S.M., Frankel, A., and Ponirakis, D., Acoustic masking in marine -ecosystems: intuitions, analysis, and implication, Marine Ecology Progress Series 395: 201- -222 (2009); Williams, R., Ashe, E., Clark, C.W., Hammond, P.S., Lusseau, D., and Ponirakis, -D., Inextricably linked: boats, noise, Chinook salmon and killer whale recovery in the -northeast Pacific, presentation given at the Society for Marine Mammalogy Biennial -Conference, Tampa, Florida, Nov. 29, 2011 (2011). - -DATA 26 NMFS should review the references below regarding acoustic thresholds: - -[criticism of threshold’s basis in RMS]Madsen, P.T., Marine mammals and noise: Problems -with root-mean-squared sound pressure level for transients, Journal of the Acoustical Society -of America 117:3952-57 (2005). - -Tyack, P.L., Zimmer, W.M.X., Moretti, D., Southall, B.L., Claridge, D.E., Durban, J.W., -Clark, C.W., D’Amico, A., DiMarzio, N., Jarvis, S., McCarthy, E., Morrissey, R., Ward, J., -and Boyd, I.L., Beaked whales respond to simulated and actual Navy sonar, PLoS ONE -6(3):e17009.doi:10.13371/journal.pone.0017009 (2011)(beaked whales); Miller, P.J., -Kvadsheim, P., Lam., F.-P.A., Tyack, P.L., Kuningas, S., Wensveen, P.J., Antunes, R.N., -Alves, A.C., Kleivane, L., Ainslie, M.A., and Thomas, L., Developing dose-response -relationships for the onset of avoidance of sonar by free-ranging killer whales (Orcinus orca), -presentation given at the Society for Marine Mammalogy Biennial Conference, Tampa, - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 35 -Comment Analysis Report - -Florida, Dec. 2, 2011 (killer whales); Miller, P., Antunes, R., Alves, A.C., Wensveen, P., -Kvadsheim, P., Kleivane, L., Nordlund, N., Lam, F.-P., van Ijsselmuide, S., Visser, F., and -Tyack, P., The 3S experiments: studying the behavioural effects of navy sonar on killer -whales (Orcinus orca), sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus), and long-finned pilot whales -(Globicephala melas) in Norwegian waters, Scottish Oceans Institute Tech. Rep. SOI-2011- -001, available at soi.st-andrews.ac.uk (killer whales). See also, e.g., Fernandez, A., Edwards, -J.F., Rodriguez, F., Espinosa de los Monteros, A., Herrez, P., Castro, P., Jaber, J.R., Martin, -V., and Arbelo, M., Gas and Fat Embolic Syndrome - Involving a Mass Stranding of Beaked -Whales (Family Ziphiidae) Exposed to Anthropogenic Sonar Signals, Veterinary Pathology -42:446 (2005); Jepson, P.D., Arbelo, M., Deaville, R., Patterson, I.A.P., Castro, P., Baker, -J.R., Degollada, E., Ross, H.M., Herrez, P., Pocknell, A.M., Rodriguez, F., Howie, F.E., -Espinosa, A., Reid, R.J., Jaber, J.R., Martin, V., Cunningham, A.A., and Fernandez, A., Gas- -Bubble Lesions in Stranded Cetaceans, 425 Nature 575-576 (2003); Evans, P.G.H., and -Miller, L.A., eds., Proceedings of the Workshop on Active Sonar and Cetaceans (2004) -(European Cetacean Society publication); Southall, B.L., Braun, R., Gulland, F.M.D., Heard, -A.D., Baird, R.W., Wilkin, S.M., and Rowles, T.K., Hawaiian Melon-Headed Whale -(Peponacephala electra) Mass Stranding Event of July 3-4, 2004 (2006) (NOAA Tech. -Memo. NMFS-OPR-31). - -DATA 27 NMFS should review the references below regarding real-time passive acoustic monitoring to -reduce ship strike: - -Abramson, L., Polefka, S., Hastings, S., and Bor, K., Reducing the Threat of Ship Strikes on -Large Cetaceans in the Santa Barbara Channel Region and Channel Islands National Marine -Sanctuary: Recommendations and Case Studies (2009) (Marine Sanctuaries Conservation -Series ONMS-11-01); Silber, G.K., S. Bettridge, and D. Cottingham, Report of a workshop to -identify and assess technologies to reduce ship strikes of large whales. Providence, Rhode -Island, July 8-10, 2008 (2009) (NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-OPR-42). - -Lusseau, D., Bain, D.E., Williams, R., and Smith, J.C., Vessel traffic disrupts the foraging -behavior of southern resident killer whales Orcinus orca, Endangered Species Research 6: -211-221 (2009); Williams, R., Lusseau, D. and Hammond, P.S., Estimating relative energetic -costs of human disturbance to killer whales (Orcinus orca), Biological Conservation 133: -301-311 (2006); Miller, P.J.O., Johnson, M.P., Madsen, P.T., Biassoni, N., Quero, -[energetics] M., and Tyack, P.L., Using at-sea experiments to study the effects of airguns on -the foraging behavior of sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico, Deep-Sea Research I 56: 1168- -1181 (2009). See also Mayo, C.S., Page, M., Osterberg, D., and Pershing, A., On the path to -starvation: the effects of anthropogenic noise on right whale foraging success, North Atlantic -Right Whale Consortium: Abstracts of the Annual Meeting (2008) (finding that decrements -in North Atlantic right whale sensory range due to shipping noise have a larger impact on -food intake than patch-density distribution and are likely to compromise fitness). - -[mid-frequency, ship strike] Nowacek, D.P., Johnson, M.P., and Tyack, P.L., North Atlantic -right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) ignore ships but respond to alerting stimuli, Proceedings of -the Royal Society of London, Part B: Biological Sciences 271:227 (2004). - -DATA 28 NMFS should review the references below regarding terrestrial mammals and stress response: - -Chang, E.F., and Merzenich, M.M., Environmental Noise Retards Auditory Cortical -Development, 300 Science 498 (2003) (rats); Willich, S.N., Wegscheider, K., Stallmann, M., -and Keil, T., Noise Burden and the Risk of Myocardial Infarction, European Heart Journal -(2005) (Nov. 24, 2005) (humans); Harrington, F.H., and Veitch, A.M., Calving Success of - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 36 -Comment Analysis Report - -Woodland Caribou Exposed to Low-Level Jet Fighter Overflights, Arctic 45:213 (1992) -(caribou). - -DATA 29 NMFS should review the references below regarding the inappropriate reliance on adaptive -management: - -Taylor, B.L., Martinez, M., Gerrodette, T., Barlow, J., and Hrovat, Y.N., Lessons from -monitoring trends in abundance of marine mammals, Marine Mammal Science 23:157-175 -(2007). - -DATA 30 NMFS should review the references below regarding climate change and polar bears: - -Durner, G. M., et al., Predicting 21st-century polar bear habitat distribution from global -climate models. Ecological Monographs, 79(1):25-58 (2009). - -R. F. Rockwell, L. J. Gormezano, The early bear gets the goose: climate change, polar bears -and lesser snow geese in western Hudson Bay, Polar Biology, 32:539-547 (2009). - -DATA 31 NMFS should review the references below regarding climate change and the impacts of black -carbon: - -Anne E. Gore & Pamela A. Miller, Broken Promises: The Reality of Oil Development in -America’s Arctic at 41 (Sep. 2009) (Broken Promises). - -EPA, Report to Congress on Black Carbon External Peer Review Draft at 12-1 (March 2011) -(Black Carbon Report), available at -http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/05011472499C2FB28525774A0074DADE/$Fil -e/BC%20RTC%20Ext ernal%20Peer%20Review%20Draft-opt.pdf. See D. Hirdman et al., -Source Identification of Short-Lived Air Pollutants in the Arctic Using Statistical Analysis of -Measurement Data and Particle Dispersion Model Output, 10 Atmos. Chem. Phys. 669 -(2010). - -DATA 32 NMFS should review the references below regarding air pollution: - -Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10, Supplemental Statement of Basis for -Proposed OCS Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits Noble Discoverer Drillship, -Shell Offshore Inc., Beaufort Sea Exploration Drilling Program, Permit No. R10OCS/PSD- -AK-2010-01, Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc., Chukchi Sea Exploration Drilling Program, Permit -No. R10OCS/PSD-AK-09-01 at 65 (July 6, 2011) (Discoverer Suppl. Statement of Basis -2011), available at http://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/permits/shell/discoverer_supplemental_ -statement_of_basis_chukchi_and_beaufort_air_permits_070111.pdf. 393 EPA Region 10, -Technical Support Document, Review of Shell’s Supplemental Ambient Air Quality Impact -Analysis for the Discoverer OCS Permit Applications in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas at 8 -(Jun. 24, 2011)(Discoverer Technical Support Document), available at -http://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/permits/shell/discoverer_ambient_air_quality_impact_anal -ysis_06242011.pdf. 394 EPA, An Introduction to Indoor Air Quality: Nitrogen Dioxide, -available at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/no2.html#Health Effects Associated with Nitrogen -Dioxide 396 EPA, Particulate Matter: Health, available at -http://www.epa.gov/oar/particlepollution/health.html - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 37 -Comment Analysis Report - -DATA 33 NMFS should review the references below regarding introduction of non-native species: - -S. Gollasch, The importance of ship hull fouling as a vector of species introductions into the -North Sea, Biofouling 18(2):105-121 (2002); National Research Council, Stemming the Tide: -Controlling Introductions of Nonindigenous Species by Ships Ballast Water (1996) -(recognizing that the spread of invasive species through ballast water is a serious problem). - -DATA 34 In the Final EIS, NMFS should consider new information regarding the EPA Region 10's -Beaufort (AKG-28-2100) and Chukchi (AKG-28-8100) General Permits. Although not final, -EPA is in the process of soliciting public comment on the fact sheets and draft permits and -this information may be useful depending on the timing of the issuance of the final EIS. Links -to the fact sheets, draft permits, and other related documents can be found at: -http://yosemite.epa.gov/r I 0/water.nsl/nodes+public+notices/arctic-gp-pn-2012. - -DATA 35 NMFS should review the reference below regarding characterization of subsistence -areas/activities for Kotzebue: - -Whiting, A., D. Griffith, S. Jewett, L. Clough, W. Ambrose, and J. Johnson. 2011. -Combining Inupiaq and Scientific Knowledge: Ecology in Northern Kotzebue Sound, Alaska. -Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks, SG-ED-72, Fairbanks. 71 pp, for a more -accurate representation, especially for Kotzebue Sound uses. - -Crawford, J. A., K. J. Frost, L. T. Quakenbush, and A. Whiting. 201.2. Different habitat use -strategies by subadult and adult ringed seals (Phoca hispida} in the Bering and Chukchi seas. -Polar Biology 35{2):241-255. - -DATA 36 NMFS should review the references below regarding Ecosystem-Based Management: - -Environmental Law Institute. Intergrated Ecosystem-Based Management of the US. Arctic -Marine Environment- Assessing the Feasibility of Program and Development and -Implementation (2008) - -Siron, Robert et al. Ecosystem-Based Management in the Arctic Ocean: A Multi¬ Level -Spatial Approach, Arctic Vol. 61, Suppl 1 (2008) (pp 86-102)2 - -Norwegian Polar Institute. Best Practices in Ecosystem-based Oceans Management in the -Arctic, Report Series No. 129 (2009) - -The Aspen Institute Energy and Environment Program. The Shared Future: A Report of the -Aspen Institute Commission on Arctic Climate Change (2011) - -DATA 37 NMFS should consider the following information regarding the use of a multi-pulse standard -for behavioral harassment, since it does not take into account the spreading of seismic pulses -over time beyond a certain distance from the array. NMFS‘ own Open Water Panel for the -Arctic has twice characterized the seismic airgun array as a mixed impulsive/continuous -noise source and has stated that NMFS should evaluate its impacts on that basis. That -analysis is supported by the masking effects model referenced above, in which several NMFS -scientists have participated; by a Scripps study, showing that seismic exploration in the Arctic -has raised ambient noise levels on the Chukchi Sea continental slope (see infra); and, we -expect, by the modeling efforts of NOAA Sound Mapping working group, whose work will -be completed this April or May. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 38 -Comment Analysis Report - -DATA 38 NMFS is asked to review the use of the reference Richardson 1995, on page 4-86, as support -for its statements. NMFS should revise the document to account for Southall et al's 2007 -paper on Effects of Noise on Marine Mammals. - -DATA 39 The Final EIS should include updated data sources including: - -• Preliminary results from the Kotzebue Air Toxics Monitoring Study which should be -available from the DEC shortly. - -• Data collected from the Red Dog Mine lead monitoring program in Noatak and Kivalina. - -DATA 40 Page 4-21, paragraph three should reference the recently issued Ocean Discharge Criteria -Evaluation (ODCE) that accompanies the draft Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea NPDES -General Permits, which has more recent dispersal modeling. They should also be referenced -in the Final EIS to clarify the “increased concentration” language used on page 4-56. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 39 -Comment Analysis Report - -Discharge (DCH) -DCH Comments regarding discharge levels, including requests for zero discharge requirements, - -and deep waste injection wells. Does not include contamination of subsistence resources. - -DCH 1 It is not clear how NMFS and BOEM can address the persistence of pollutants, -bioaccumulation, and vulnerability of biological communities without the benefit of EPA -evaluation. The proposed zero discharge mandate described in the Arctic DEIS may be -lacking EPA's critical input on the matter, possibly contradicting EPA's direction based on the -pending ODCE evaluation. - -DCH 2 The DEIS should not use the term “zero discharge” as there will be some discharges under -any exploration scenario. The use of this term can be confusing to the public. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 40 -Comment Analysis Report - -Editorial (EDI) -EDI Comments associated with specific text edits to the document. - -EDI 1 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into the Executive Summary. - -EDI 2 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 1. - -EDI 3 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 2. - -EDI 4 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 3 – Physical -Environment. - -EDI 5 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 3 – Biological -Environment. - -EDI 6 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 3 – Social -Environment. - -EDI 7 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Methodology. - -EDI 8 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Physical -Environment. - -EDI 9 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Biological -Environment. - -EDI 10 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Social -Environment. - -EDI 11 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Oil Spill Analysis. - -EDI 12 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Cumulative Effects -Analysis. - -EDI 13 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 5 – Mitigation. - -EDI 14 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into the figures in the EIS. - -EDI 15 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into the tables in the EIS. - -EDI 16 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Appendix A of the EIS. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 41 -Comment Analysis Report - -Physical Environment – General (GPE) -GPE Comments related to impacts on resources within the physical environment (Physical - -Oceanography, Climate, Acoustics, and Environmental Contaminants & Ecosystem -Functions ) - -GPE 1 The EIS should include an analysis of impacts associated with climate change and ocean -acidification including: - -• Addressing threats to species and associated impacts for the bowhead whale, pacific -walrus, and other Arctic species. - -• Effects of loss of sea ice cover, seasonally ice-free conditions on the availability of -subsistence resources to Arctic communities. - -• Increased community stress, including loss of subsistence resources and impacts to ice -cellars. - -GPE 2 Oil and gas activities can release numerous pollutants into the atmosphere. Greater emissions -of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide could triple ozone levels in the Arctic, and increased -black carbon emissions would result in reduced ice reflectivity that could exacerbate the -decline of sea ice. The emission of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5), including black carbon, is -a human health threat. Cumulative impacts will need to be assessed. - -GPE 3 A more detailed analysis should be conducted to assess how interactions between high ice -and low ice years and oil and gas activities, would impact various resources (sea ice, lower -trophic levels, fish/EFH, or marine mammals). - -GPE 4 Recommendations should be made to industry engineering and risk analysts to ensure that -well design is deep enough to withstand storms and harsh environment based on past -experience of workers. - -GPE 5 The NMFS needs to revise the Environmental Consequences analysis presented in the DEIS -since it overstates the potential for impacts from sounds introduced into the water by oil and -gas exploration activity on marine mammals. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 42 -Comment Analysis Report - -Social Environment – General (GSE) -GSE Comments related to impacts on resources within the social environment (Public Health, - -Cultural, Land Ownership/Use/Management, Transportation, Recreation and Tourism, Visual -Resources, and Environmental Justice) - -GSE 1 The potential short- and long-term benefits from oil and gas development have been -understated in the DEIS and do not take into account the indirect jobs and business generated -by increased oil and gas activity. By removing restrictions on seismic surveys and oil and gas -drilling, there will be an increase in short- and long-term employment and economic stability. - -GSE 2 The current environmental justice analysis is inadequate, and NMFS has downplayed the -overall threat to the Iñupiat people. The agency does not adequately address the following: - -• The combined impacts of air pollution, water pollution, sociocultural impacts -(disturbance of subsistence practices), and economic impacts on Iñupiat people; - -• The baseline health conditions of local communities and how it may be impacted by the -proposed oil and gas activities; - -• Potential exposure to toxic chemicals and diminished air quality; -• The unequal burden and risks imposed on Iñupiat communities; and -• The analysis fails to include all Iñupiat communities. - -GSE 3 Current and up to date health information should be evaluated and presented in the human -health assessments. Affected communities have a predisposition and high susceptibility to -health problems that need to be evaluated and considered when NMFS develops alternatives -and mitigation measures to address impacts. - -GSE 4 When developing alternatives and mitigation measures, NMFS needs to consider the length -of the work season since a shorter period will increase the risks to workers. - -GSE 5 The DEIS does not address how the proceeds from offshore oil and gas drilling will be shared -with affected communities through revenue sharing, royalties, and taxes. - -GSE 6 The DEIS should broaden the evaluation of impacts of land and water resources beyond -subsistence. There are many diverse water and land uses that will be restricted or prevented -because of specific requirements in the proposed alternatives. - -GSE 7 The conclusion of negligible or minor cumulative impacts on transportation for Alternative 4 -was not substantiated in the DEIS. The impacts to access, restrictions on vessel traffic, -seismic survey, exploration drilling and ancillary services transportation are severely -restricted both in time and in areal/geographic extent. (page 4-551, paragraph 1). - -GSE 8 The Draft EIS should not assume that any delay in exploration activity compromises property -rights or immediately triggers compensation from the government. Offshore leases do not -convey a fee simple interest with a guarantee that exploration activities will take place. As the -Supreme Court recognized, OCSLA‘s plain language indicates that the purchase of a lease -entails no right to proceed with full exploration, development, or production. - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 43 -Comment Analysis Report - -Habitat (HAB) -HAB Comments associated with habitat requirements, or potential habitat impacts from seismic - -activities and exploratory drilling. Comment focus is habitat, not animals. - -HAB 1 NMFS should consider an ecosystem-based management plan to protect habitat for the -bowhead whale and other important wildlife subsistence species of the Arctic. - -HAB 2 The DEIS should include a rigorous and comprehensive analysis of the increased risk of -introducing aquatic invasive species to the Beaufort and Chukchi seas through increased oil -and gas activities. NMFS should consider: - -• Invasive species could be released in ballast water, carried on ship's hulls, or on drill rigs. -• Invasive species could compete with or prey on Arctic marine fish or shellfish species, - -which may disrupt the ecosystem and predators that depend on indigenous species for -food. - -• Invasive species could impact the biological structure of bottom habitat or change habitat -diversity. - -• Invasive species, such as rats, could prey upon seabirds or their eggs. -• Establishment of a harmful invasive species could threaten Alaska’s economic well- - -being. -• The analysis of impacts resulting from the introduction of invasive species is ambiguous - -as to how the resulting impact conclusion would be “moderate” instead of “major.” The -EIS should be revised to reflect these concerns. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 44 -Comment Analysis Report - -Iñupiat Culture and Way of Life (ICL) -ICL Comments related to potential cultural impacts or desire to maintain traditional practices - -(PEOPLE). - -ICL 1 Industrial activities (such as oil and gas exploration and production) jeopardize the long-term -health and culture of native communities. Specific concerns include: - -• Impacts to Arctic ecosystems and the associated subsistence resources from pollutants, -noise, and vessel traffic; - -• Community and family level cultural impacts related to the subsistence way of life; -• Preserving resources for future generations. - -ICL 2 Native communities would be heavily impacted if a spill occurs, depriving them of -subsistence resources. NMFS should consider the impact of an oil spill when deciding upon -an alternative. - -ICL 3 Native communities are at risk for changes from multiple threats, including climate change, -increased industrialization, access to the North Slope, melting ice, and stressed wildlife. -These threats are affecting Inupiat traditional and cultural uses and NMFS should stop -authorizing offshore oil and gas related activities until these threats to Iñupiat culture are -addressed. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 45 -Comment Analysis Report - -Mitigation Measures (MIT) -MIT Comments related to suggestions for or implementation of mitigation measures. - -MIT 1 Mitigation measures should be mandatory for all activities, rather than on a case-by-case -basis. Currently identified areas with high wildlife and subsistence values should also receive -permanent deferrals, including Camden Bay, Barrow Canyon/Western Beaufort Sea, Hanna -Shoal, shelf break at the Beaufort Sea, and Kasegaluk Lagoon/Ledyard Bay Critical Habitat -Unit. - -MIT 2 The proposed mitigation measures will severely compromise the economic feasibility of -developing oil and gas in the Alaska OCS: - -• Limiting activity to only two exploration drilling programs in each the Chukchi and -Beaufort seas during a single season would lock out other lease holders and prevent them -from pursuing development of their leases. - -• Arbitrary end dates for prospective operations effectively restrict exploration in Camden -Bay by removing 54 percent of the drilling season. - -• Acoustic restrictions extend exclusion zones and curtail lease block access (e.g., studies -by JASCO Applied Sciences Ltd in 2010 showed a 120 dB safety zone with Hanna Shoal -as the center would prevent Statoil from exercising its lease rights because the buffer -zone would encompass virtually all of the leases. A 180 dB buffer zone could still have a -significant negative impact on lease rights depending on how the buffer zone was -calculated). - -• Special Habitat Areas arbitrarily restrict lease block access. -• Arbitrary seasonal closures would effectively reduce the brief open water season by up to - -50 percent in some areas of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. -• The realistic drilling window for offshore operations in the Arctic is typically 70 - 150 - -days. Any infringement on this could result in insufficient time to complete drilling -operations. - -• Timing restrictions associated with Additional Mitigation Measures (e.g., D1, B1) would -significantly reduce the operational season. - -MIT 3 Many mitigation measures are unclear or left open to agency interpretation, expanding -uncertainties for future exploration or development. - -MIT 4 The DEIS includes mitigation measures which would mandate portions of CAAs with broad -impacts to operations. Such a requirement supersedes the authority of NMFS. - -MIT 5 Limiting access to our natural resources is not an appropriate measure and should not be -considered. - -MIT 6 A specially equipped, oceangoing platform(s) is needed to carry out the prevention, -diagnosis, and treatment of disease in marine animals, including advanced action to promote -population recovery of threatened and endangered species, to restore marine ecosystems -health, and to enhance marine animal welfare. Activities could include: - -• Response to marine environmental disasters and incidents; in particular oil spills by -rescue and decontamination of oil-fouled birds, pinnipeds, otters, and other sea life. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 46 -Comment Analysis Report - -• Rescue, treatment and freeing of sea turtles, pinnipeds, cetaceans, and otters that become -entangled in sport fishing lines, commercial fishing gear, and/or marine debris. - -• General pathobiological research on marine animals to advance basic knowledge of their -diseases and to identify promising avenues for treatment. Specialized pathobiological -research on those marine animals known to provide useful sentinels for toxicological and -other hazards to human health. - -• Evaluation of the safety of treatment modalities for marine animals, including in -particular large balaenopterids. This will have as its ultimate aim countering problems of -climate change and ecosystems deterioration by therapeutic enhancement of the -ecosystems services contributed by now depleted populations of Earth’s largest and most -powerful mammals. - -• Pending demonstration of safety, offshore deployment of fast boats and expert personnel -for the treatment of a known endemic parasitic disease threatening the health and -population recovery of certain large balaenopterids. - -• Rapid transfer by helicopter of technical experts in disentanglement of large whales to -offshore sites not immediately accessible from land-based facilities. Rapid transfer by -helicopter of diseased and injured marine animals to land-based veterinary hospitals. - -• Coordination with U.S. Coast Guard’s OCEAN STEWARD mission to reduce the burden -on government in this area and to implement more fully the policy of the United States -promulgated by Executive Order 13547. - -MIT 7 Considering current and ongoing oil and gas exploration disasters, how can the public be -assured of the safety and effectiveness of Arctic environmental safety and mitigation -strategies? - -MIT 8 Mitigation distances and thresholds for seismic surveys are inadequate as they fall far short of -where significant marine mammal disturbances are known to occur. More stringent -mitigation measures are needed to keep oil and gas activities in the Arctic from having more -than a negligible impact. - -MIT 9 There is no need for additional mitigation measures: - -• The DEIS seeks to impose mitigation measures on activities that are already proven to be -adequately mitigated and shown to pose little to no risk to either individual animals or -populations. - -• Many of these mitigation measures are of questionable effectiveness and/or benefit, some -are simply not feasible, virtually all fall outside the bounds of any reasonable cost-benefit -consideration, most are inadequately evaluated. - -• The additional mitigation measures are too restrictive and could result in serving as the -No Action alternative. - -• These additional mitigation measures far exceed the scope of NMFS' authority. - -MIT 10 The EIS should reflect that Active Acoustic Monitoring should be further studied, but it is not -yet ready to be imposed as a mitigation measure. - -MIT 11 Because NMFS is already requiring Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) as a monitoring or -mitigation requirement during the NMFS’ regulation of offshore seismic and sonar, and in -conjunction with Navy sonar, we recommend that the NMFS emphasize the availability and -encourage the use of PAMGUARD in all NMFS’ actions requiring or recommending the use -of PAM. PAMGUARD is an open source, highly tested, and well documented version of -PAM that is an acceptable method of meeting any PAM requirements or recommendations. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 47 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 12 If Kotzebue is included in the EIS area because it is an eligible area for exploration activities, -then the DEIS needs to include recommendations for mitigating impacts through exclusion -areas, or timing issues, including: - -• Remove the Hope Basin from the EIS area; and -• Develop and include additional area/time closures/restrictions for nearshore Kotzebue - -Sound and for Point Hope and Kivalina in the Final EIS. - -MIT 13 There should be no on-ice discharge of drilling muds due to the concentrated nature of waste -and some likely probability of directly contacting marine mammals or other wildlife like -arctic foxes and birds. Even if the muds are considered non-toxic, the potential for fouling fur -and feathers and impeding thermal regulation properties seems a reasonable concern. - -MIT 14 There should be communication centers in the villages during bowhead and beluga hunting if -subsistence hunters find this useful and desirable. - -MIT 15 The benefits of concurrent ensonification areas need to be given more consideration in -regards to 15 mile vs. 90 mile separation distances. It is not entirely clear what the -cost/benefit result is on this issue, including: - -• Multiple simultaneous surveys in several areas across the migratory corridor could result -in a broader regional biological and subsistence impact -deflection could occur across a -large area of feeding habitat. - -• Potential benefit would depend on the trajectory of migrating animals in relation to the -activity and total area ensonified. - -• Consideration needs to be given to whether mitigation is more effective if operations are -grouped together or spread across a large area. - -MIT 16 Use mitigation measures that are practicable and produce real world improvement on the -level and amount of negative impacts. Do not use those that theoretically sound good or look -good or feel good, but that actually result in an improved situation. Encourage trials of new -avoidance mechanisms. - -MIT 17 Trained dogs are the most effective means of finding ringed seal dens and breathing holes in -Kotzebue Sound so should be used to clear path for on-ice roads or other on-ice activities. - -MIT 18 The potential increased risk associated with the timing that vessels can enter exploration areas -needs to be considered: - -• A delayed start could increase the risk of losing control of a VLOS that will more likely -occur at the end of the season when environmental conditions (ice and freezing -temperatures) rapidly become more challenging and hazardous. - -• Operators could stage at leasing areas but hold off on exploration activity until July l5 or -until Point Lay beluga hunt is completed. - -MIT 19 The proposed time/area closures are insufficient to protect areas of ecological and cultural -significance. Alternatives in the final EIS that consider any level of industrial activity should -include permanent subsistence and ecological deferral areas in addition to time and place -restrictions, including: - -• Hanna and Herald shoals, Barrow Canyon, and the Chukchi Sea ice lead system - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 48 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 20 The DEIS should definitively establish the full suite of mandatory mitigation measures for -each alternative that will be required for any given site-specific activity, instead of listing a -series of mitigation measures that may or may not apply to site-specific actions. - -• NMFS should ensure that mitigation measures are in place prior to starting any activity -rather than considering mitigation measures on a case by case basis later in the process -when it is more difficult as activities have advanced in planning. - -• Make additional mitigation measures standard and include both for any level of activity -that includes, at a minimum, those activities described in Section 2.4.9 and 2.4.10 of the -DEIS. - -• Mitigation measures required previously by IHAs (e.g., a 160dB vessel monitoring zone -for whales during shallow hazard surveys) show it is feasible for operators to perform -these measures. - -• NMFS should require a full suite of standard mitigation measures for every take -authorization issued by the agency and they should also be included under the terms and -conditions for the BOEM’s issuance of geological and geophysical permits and ancillary -activity and exploratory drilling approvals. - -• A number of detection-based measures should be standardized (e.g., sound source -verification, PAM). - -• Routing vessels around important habitat should be standard. - -MIT 21 NMFS could mitigate the risk ice poses by including seasonal operating restrictions in the -Final EIS and preferred alternative. - -MIT 22 The identified time/area closures (Alternative 4 and Additional Mitigation Measure B1) are -unwarranted, arbitrary measures in search of an adverse impact that does not exist. These -closures would severely negatively impact seismic and exploration program activities: - -• The DEIS does not identify any data or other scientific information establishing that past, -present, or reasonably anticipated oil and gas activity in these areas has had, or is likely to -have, either more than a negligible impact on marine mammals or any unmitigable -adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence activities. - -• There is no information about what levels of oil and gas activity are foreseeably expected -to occur in the identified areas in the absence of time/area closures, or what the -anticipated adverse impacts from such activities would be. Without this information, the -time/area closure mitigation measures are arbitrary because there is an insufficient basis -to evaluate and compare the effects with and without time/area closures except through -speculation. - -• The time/area closures are for mitigation of an anticipated large number of 2D/3D -seismic surveys, but few 2D/3D seismic surveys are anticipated in the next five years. -There is no scientific evidence that these seismic surveys, individually or collectively, -resulted in more than a negligible impact. - -• The designation of geographic boundaries by NMFS and BOEM should be removed, and -projects should be evaluated based upon specific project requirements, as there is not -sufficient evidence presented that supports that arbitrary area boundary determinations -will provide protection to marine mammal species. - -• There is a lack of scientific evidence around actual importance level and definition of -these closure areas. The descriptions of these areas do not meet the required standard of -using the best available science. - -• With no significant purpose, they should be removed from consideration. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 49 -Comment Analysis Report - -• If the closures intended to reduce disturbances of migrating, feeding, and resting whales -are not reducing the level of impact they should not be considered effective mitigation -measures. - -• Placing the time closures chronologically in sequence, results in closures from mid-July -through at least mid-September, and in some cases through mid-October. This leaves less -than half of the non-ice season available for activity in those areas, with no resulting -resource and species protection realized. - -• The arbitrary limits to the duration of programs will cause high intensity, short and long -term adverse effects and restrictions to oil and gas land and water uses. - -MIT 23 The time/area closure for Camden Bay (Alternative 4 and Additional Mitigation Measure B1) -is both arbitrary and impracticable because there is no demonstrated need. It needs to be -clarified, modified, or removed: - -• BOEM’s analysis of Shell’s exploration drilling program in Camden Bay found -anticipated impacts to marine mammals and subsistence are minimal and fully mitigated. - -• The proposed September 1 to October 15 closure effectively eliminates over 54 percent -of the open water exploration drilling season in Camden Bay and would likely render -exploration drilling in Camden Bay economically and logistically impracticable, thereby -effectively imposing a full closure of the area under the guise of mitigation. - -• The conclusion that Camden Bay is of particular importance to bowhead whales is not -supported by the available data (e.g., Huntington and Quakenbush 2009, Koski and -Miller 2009, and Quakenbush et al. 2010). Occasional feeding in the area and sightings of -some cow/calf pairs in some years does not make it a uniquely important area. - -• Occasional feeding by bowhead whales is insufficient justification for a Special Habitat -Area designation for Camden Bay. Under this reasoning, the entire length of the Alaska -Beaufort Sea coast would also have to be designed. - -• A standard mitigation measure already precludes all activities until the close of the -Kaktovik and Nuiqsut fall bowhead hunts. Furthermore, in the last 10 years no bowhead -whales have been taken after the third week of September in either the Nuiqsut or -Kaktovik hunts so proposing closure to extend well into October is unjustified. - -• This Additional Mitigation Measure (B-1) should be deleted for the reasons outlined -above. If not, then start and end dates of the closure period must be clarified; hard dates -should be provided for the start and end of the closure or the closure should be tied to -actual hunts. - -• How boundaries and timing were determined needs to be described. - -MIT 24 Restrictions intended to prevent sound levels above 120 dB or 160 dB are arbitrary, -unwarranted, and impractical. - -• Restrictions at the 120 dB level, are impracticable to monitor because the resulting -exclusion zones are enormous, and the Arctic Ocean is an extremely remote area that -experiences frequent poor weather. - -• The best scientific evidence does not support a need for imposition of restrictions at 120 -dB or 160 dB levels. One of the most compelling demonstrations of this point comes -from the sustained period of robust growth and recovery experienced by the Western -Arctic stock of bowhead whales, while exposed to decades of seismic surveys and other -activities without restrictions at the 120 dB or 160 dB levels. - -MIT 25 The DEIS should not limit the maximum number of programs per year. Implementing -multiple programs per year is the preferred option for the Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5, as there - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 50 -Comment Analysis Report - -is not just cause in the DEIS to validate that acoustic and non-acoustic impacts from these -programs are severe enough to cause long-term acute or cumulative negative impacts or -adverse modifications to marine mammals throughout the planning area. The appropriate -mitigations can be determined and implemented for each program at the time of ITA and -G&G permit approvals. - -MIT 26 Additional Mitigation Measure C2 should be discussed in more detail, clarified, or deleted in -the final EIS: - -• Shipping routes or shipping lanes of this sort are established and enforced under the -regulatory authority of the U.S. Coast Guard. While NOAA or BOEM could establish -restricted areas, they could not regulate shipping routes. - -• With this mitigation measure in place, successful exploration cannot be conducted in the -Chukchi Sea. - -• Not only would lease holders be unable to conduct seismic and shallow hazard surveys -on some leases, but essential geophysical surveys for pipelines to shore, such as ice -gouge surveys, strudel scour surveys, and bathymetric surveys could not be conducted. - -MIT 27 There is no scientific justification for Additional Mitigation Measure C3 (ensuring reduced, -limited, or zero discharge). NMFS needs to explain in the final EIS how NOAA's -recommendations can justify being more stringent than EPA's permit conditions, limitations, -and requirements. There are no scientific reports that indicate any of these discharges have -any effect on marine mammals and anything beyond a negligible effect on habitat. - -MIT 28 The purpose, intent, and description of Additional Mitigation Measure C4 need to be clarified -(see page 4-67). In Section 2.5.4 of the DEIS it was stated that NPDES permitting effectively -regulates/handles discharges from operations. Zero discharge was removed from further -analysis. The Additional Mitigation Measure focusing on zero discharge should also be -removed. - -MIT 29 Additional Mitigation Measure D1 needs to be clarified as to what areas will be -impacted/closed and justified and/or modified accordingly: - -• It is not clear if this restriction is focused on the nearshore Chukchi Sea or on all areas. -• The logic of restrictions on vessels due to whales avoiding those areas may justify - -restrictions in the nearshore areas, but it is not clear how this logic would justify closing -the entire Chukchi offshore areas to vessel traffic if open water exists. - -• If a more specific exclusion area (e.g., within 30 miles of the coast) would be protective -of beluga whale migration routes, it should be considered instead of closing the Chukchi -Sea to transiting vessels. - -• It is not scientifically supported to close the entire Chukchi Sea to vessel traffic when the -stated intent is to avoid disrupting the subsistence hunt of beluga whales during their -migration along or near the coast near Point Lay. - -• Transits should be allowed provided that they do not interfere with the hunt. -• Transits far offshore should be allowed, and transits that are done within the conditions - -established through a CAA should be allowed. -• Prohibiting movement of drilling vessels and equipment outside of the barrier islands - -would unreasonably limit the entire drilling season to less than two months. -• Movement of drilling vessels and related equipment in a manner that avoids impacts to - -subsistence users should be allowed on a case-by-case basis and as determined through -mechanisms such as the CAA not through inflexible DEIS mitigation requirements. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 51 -Comment Analysis Report - -• BOEM (2011b) has previously concluded that oil and gas activities in the Chukchi Sea -would not overlap in space with Point Lay beluga hunting activities, and therefore would -have no effect on Point Lay beluga subsistence resources. Given that the entire Lease -Sale 193 area does not overlap geographically with Point Lay subsistence activities, it is -reasonable to draw the same conclusion for activities of other lease holders in the -Chukchi Sea as well. - -• This measure also prohibits all geophysical activity within 60 mi of the Chukchi -coastline. No reason is offered. The mitigation measure would prohibit lease holders from -conducting shallow hazards surveys and other geophysical surveys on and between -leases. Such surveys are needed for design and engineering. - -MIT 30 The time/area closure of Hanna Shoal is difficult to assess and to justify and should be -removed from Alternative 4 and Additional Mitigation Measure B1: - -• There needs to be information as to how and why the boundaries of the Hanna Shoal -were drawn; it is otherwise not possible to meaningfully comment on whether the -protection itself is justified and whether it should be further protected by a buffer zone. - -• The closure cannot be justified on the basis of mitigating potential impacts to subsistence -hunters during the fall bowhead whale hunt as the DEIS acknowledges that the actual -hunting grounds are well inshore of Hanna Shoal, and there is no evidence that industry -activities in that area could impact the hunts. - -• Current science does not support closure of the area for protection of the walrus. -• Closure of the area for gray whales on an annual basis is not supported, as recent aerial - -survey data suggests that it has not been used by gray whales in recent years, and the -historic data do not suggest that it was important for gray whales on a routine (annual) -basis. - -• The October 15 end date for the closure is too late in the season to be responsive to -concerns regarding walrus and gray whales. As indicated in the description in the DEIS -of the measure by NMFS and USGS walrus tracking data, the area is used little after -August. Similarly, few gray whales are found in the area after September. - -MIT 31 Plans of Cooperation (POCs) and CAAs are effective tools to ensure that meaningful -consultations continue to take place. NMFS should ensure that POCs and CAAs continue to -be available to facilitate interaction between the oil and gas industry and local communities. -NMFS should be explicit in how the CAA process is integrated into the process of reviewing -site specific industry proposals and should require offshore operators to enter into a CAA -with AEWC for the following reasons: - -• Affected communities depend on the CAA process to provide a voice in management of -offshore activities. - -• Through the CAA process, whaling captains use their traditional knowledge to determine -whether and how oil and gas activities can be conducted consistent with our subsistence -activities. - -• Promotes a community-based, collaborative model for making decisions, which is much -more likely to result in consensus and reduce conflict. - -• Promotes the objectives of OCSLA, which provides for the "expeditious and orderly -development [of the OCS], subject to environmental safeguards ...” - -• Serves the objectives of the MMPA, which states that the primary objective of -management of marine mammals "should be to maintain the health and stability of the -marine ecosystem. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 52 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 32 The number of mitigation measures that are necessary or appropriate should be analyzed -case-by-case in the context of issuing ITA/IHA/permit/approval, the nature and extent of the -risk or effect they are mitigating, and cost and effectiveness. The scope of necessary -measures should be dictated by specific activity for which approval or a permit is being -sought. - -MIT 33 NMFS cannot reasonably mandate use of the technologies to be used under Alternative 5, -since they are not commercially available, not fully tested, unproven and should not be -considered reasonably foreseeable. - -MIT 34 For open water and in-ice marine surveys, include the standard mitigation measure of a -mitigation airgun during turns between survey lines and during nighttime activities. - -MIT 35 Include shutdown of activities in specific areas corresponding to start and conclusion of -bowhead whale hunts for all communities that hunt bowhead whales, not just Nuiqsut (Cross -Island) and Kaktovik (as stated on p. 2-41). - -MIT 36 Evaluate the necessity of including dates within the DEIS. Communication with members of -village Whaling Captains Associations indicate that the dates of hunts may shift due to -changing weather patterns, resulting in a shift in blackout dates. - -MIT 37 Additional Mitigation Measure B3 should not be established, particularly at these distances, -because it is both unwarranted from an environmental protection perspective and unnecessary -given how seismic companies already have an incentive for separation. It should also not be -considered as an EIS project area-wide measure. - -• The basis for the distances is premised on use of sound exposure levels that are indicative -of harm. Use of the 160 dB standard would establish a propagation distance of 9-13 -kilometers. The distance in the mitigation measure therefore seems excessive and no -scientific basis was provided. - -• NMFS has justified the 120 dB threshold based on concerns of continuous noise sources, -not impulsive sound sources such as seismic surveys. - -• The argument that overlapping sound fields could mask cetacean communication has -already been judged to be a minor concern. NMFS has noted, "in general, NMFS expects -the masking effects of seismic pulses to be minor, given the normally intermittent nature -of seismic pulses." (76 Fed. Reg. at 6438, February 4, 2011). - -• The mitigation measure is prohibitively restrictive, and it is unclear what, if any, -mitigation of impacts this measure would result. - -• NMFS should only impose limitations of the proximity of seismic surveys to each other -(or to specific habitat areas) when and where they are applicable to known locations -where biologically significant impacts might occur. There is no evidence that such -important feeding areas occur within the EIS area other than just east of Point Barrow. - -• It should only be used at specific times and locations and after a full evaluation of the -likelihood of overlap of seismic sound and/or disturbance impacts has actually taken -place. Simply assuming that seismic sound might overlap and be additive in nature is -incorrect. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 53 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 38 Additional Mitigation Measure A5 provisions are unclear, unjustified, and impractical: - -• The justification for believing that biologically significant effects to individuals or the -bowhead population would occur from exposure of four or more bowhead cow/calf pairs -to >120 dB pulsed sounds is not provided or referenced. - -• The amount of time and effort required to monitoring for four or more bowhead cow/calf -pairs within the 120 dB seismic sound level area take away from better defining the -distances and/or sound level thresholds at which more substantial impacts may be -occurring - -• Would the referenced 4 or more cow/calf pairs have to be actually observed within the -area to trigger mitigation actions or would mitigation be required if survey data corrected -for sightability biases using standard line-transect protocols suggested 4 or more were -present? - -• If a mitigation measure for aggregations of 12 or more whales were to be included there -needs to be scientific justification for the number of animals required to trigger the -mitigation action. - -MIT 39 Additional Mitigation Measure C1 needs to be more clearly defined (or deleted), as it is -redundant and nearly impossible and impractical for industry to implement. - -• Steering around a loosely aggregated group of animals is nearly impossible as PSOs often -do not notice such a group until a number of sightings have occurred and the vessel is -already within the higher density patch. At that point it likely does more harm than good -trying to steer away from each individual or small group of animals as it will only take -the vessel towards another individual or small group. - -• This measure contains requirements that are already requirements, such as Standard -Mitigation Measures B1 and D3, such as a minimum altitude of 457 m. - -• The mitigation measure requires the operator to adhere to USFWS mitigation measures. -Why is a measure needed to have operators follow another agency’s mitigation measures -which already would have the force of law. - -• The measure states that there is a buffer zone around polar bear sea ice critical habitat -which is false. - -MIT 40 NMFS’ conclusion that implementation of time closures does not reduce the spatial -distribution of sound levels is not entirely correct (Page 4- 283 Section 4.7.1.4.2). The -closures of Hanna Shoal would effectively eliminate any industrial activities in or near the -area, thereby reducing the spatial distribution of industrial activities and associated sound. - -MIT 41 The time/area closure for the Beaufort Sea shelf needs to be justified by more than -speculation of feeding there by belugas. - -• There is no evidence cited in the EIS stating that the whales are feeding there at that time -and that it is an especially important location - -• Most belugas sighted along the shelf break during aerial surveys are observed traveling or -migrating, not feeding. - -• Placing restrictions on the shelf break area of the Beaufort Sea is arbitrary especially -when beluga whale impact analyses generally find only low level impacts under current -standard mitigation measures. - -MIT 42 Quiet buffer areas should be established to protect areas of biological and ecological -significance, such as Hanna Shoal and Barrow Canyon. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 54 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 43 Quieter alternative technologies should be required in areas newly opened to oil and gas -activities. - -MIT 44 Noise reduction measures should be implemented by industry within US waters and by US -companies internationally but especially in areas of the Arctic which have not yet been -subjected to high levels of man-made noise. - -MIT 45 Vessel restrictions and other measures need to be implemented to mitigate ship strikes, -including: - -• Vessels should be prohibited from sensitive areas with high levels of wildlife presence -that are determined to be key habitat for feeding, breeding, or calving. - -• Ship routes should be clearly defined, including a process for annual review to update -and re-route shipping around these sensitive areas. - -• Speed restrictions may also need to be considered if re-routing is not possible. -• NMFS should require use of real-time PAM in migratory corridors and other sensitive - -areas to alert ships to the presence of whales, primarily to reduce ship-strike risk. - -MIT 46 The DEIS should clearly identify areas where activities will be prohibited to avoid any take -of marine mammals. It should also establish a framework for calculating potential take and -appropriate offsets - -MIT 47 Time/area closures should be included in any alternative as standard avoidance measures and -should be expanded to include other deferral areas, including: - -• North of Dease Inlet to Smith Bay. -• Northeast of Smith Bay. -• Northeast of Cape Halkett where bowhead whales feed. -• Boulder patch communities. -• Particular caution should be taken in early fall throughout the region, when peak use of - -the Arctic by marine mammals takes place. -• Add the Coastal Band of the Chukchi Sea (~50 miles wide) [Commenting on the original - -Lease Sale 193 draft EIS, NMFS strongly endorse[d] an alternative that would have -avoided any federal leases out to 60 miles and specifically argued that a 25-mile buffer -[around deferral areas] is inadequate]. - -• Expand Barrow Canyon time/area closure area to the head of Barrow Canyon (off the -coast between Point Barrow and Point Franklin), as well as the mouth of Barrow Canyon -along the shelf break. - -• Areas to the south of Hanna Shoal are important to walrus, bowhead whales, and gray -whales. - -• Encourage NMFS to consider a time/area closure during the winter and spring in the -Beaufort Sea that captures the ice fracture zone between landfast ice and the pack ice -where ringed seal densities are the highest. - -• Nuiqsut has long asked federal agencies to create a deferral area in the 20 miles to the -east of Cross Island. This area holds special importance for bowhead whale hunters and -the whales. - -• NMFS should consider designing larger exclusion zones (detection-dependent or - -independent) around river mouths with anadromous fish runs to protect beluga whale -foraging habitat, insofar as these areas are not encompassed by seasonal closures. - -• Final EIS must consider including additional (special habitat) areas and developing a -mechanism for new areas to be added over the life of the EIS. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 55 -Comment Analysis Report - -• Any protections for Camden Bay should extend beyond the dimensions of the Bay itself -to include areas located to the west and east, recently identified by NMFS as having -special significance to bowhead whales. - -• Additional analysis is required related to deferral areas specific to subsistence hunting. -Any Final EIS must confront the potential need for added coastal protections in the -Chukchi Sea. - -• There should be a buffer zone between Burger and the coast during migration of walrus -and other marine mammals. - -• Future measures should include time/area closures for IEAs (Important Ecological Areas) -of the Arctic. - -MIT 48 The mitigation measures need to include clear avoidance measures and a description of -offsets that will be used to protect and/or restore marine mammal habitat if take occurs. - -• The sensitivity of the resource (e.g., the resource is irreplaceable and where take would -either cause irreversible impact to the species or its population or where mitigation of the -take would have a low probability of success) and not the level of activity should dictate -the location of avoidance areas. - -• NMFS should consider adding an Avoidance Measures section to Appendix A. - -MIT 49 The DEIS fails to address the third step in the mitigation hierarchy which is to compensate -for unavoidable and incidental take. NMFS should provide a clear framework for -compensatory mitigation activities. - -MIT 50 Many of the mitigation measures suggested throughout the DEIS are not applicable to in-ice -towed streamer 2D seismic surveys and should not be required during these surveys. - -MIT 51 NMFS needs to clarify the use of adaptive management: - -• In the DEIS the term is positioned toward the use of adaptive management to further -restrict activities and it does not leave room for adaptive management to reduce -restrictions - -• If monitoring shows undetectable or limited impacts, an adaptive management strategy -should allow for decreased restrictions on oil and gas exploration. The conditions under -which decreased restrictions will occur should be plainly stated in the discussion of -adaptive management. - -MIT 52 Aerial overflights are infeasible and risky and should not be required as a monitoring tool: - -• Such mitigation requirements are put forward only in an effort to support the 120dB -observation zones, which are both scientifically unjustified and infeasible to implement. - -• Such over flights pose a serious safety risk. Requiring them as a condition of operating in -the Arctic conflicts with the statutory requirements of OCSLA, which mandates safe -operations. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 56 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 53 The purpose of Mitigation Measure A6 needs to be clarified: - -• If the purpose is to establish a shutdown zone, it is unwarranted because the nature of -drilling operations is such that they cannot sporadically be shut down or ramped up and -down. - -• If the purpose is the collection of research data, then it should be handled as part of the -BOEM research program. - -MIT 54 Mitigation Measure D2: There should be no requirement for communications center -operations during periods when industry is not allowed to operate and by definition there is -not possibility for industry impact on the hunt. - -MIT 55 Additional Mitigation Measure A1 is problematic and should not be required: - -• Sound source verification tests take time, are expensive, and can expose people to risks. -• Modeling should eventually be able to produce a reliable estimate of the seismic source - -emissions and propagation, so sound source verification tests should not be required -before the start of every seismic survey in the Arctic - -• This should be eliminated unless NMFS is planning to require the same measurements -for all vessels operating in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. - -• Sound source verification for vessels has no value because there are no criteria for shut -down or other mitigation associated with vessel sounds - -MIT 56 NMFS should not require monitoring measures to be designed to accomplish or contribute to -what are in fact research goals. NMFS and others should work together to develop a research -program targeting key research goals in a prioritized manner following appropriate scientific -method, rather than attempting to meet these goals through monitoring associated with -activities. - -MIT 57 Additional Mitigation Measure A3 lacks a basic description of the measure and must be -deleted or clarified as: - -• NMFS provides no further information in the DEIS with regard to what conditions or -situations would meet or fail to meet visibility requirements. - -• NMFS also does not indicate what exploration activities would be affected by such -limitations. - -• Operators cannot assess the potential effects of such mitigation on their operations and -lease obligations, or its practicability, without these specifics. - -• NMFS certainly cannot evaluate the need or efficacy of the mitigation measure without -these details. - -• It is neither practicable nor reasonable to require observers on all support vessels, -especially on Ocean Bottom Cable seismic operations, where support vessels often -include small boats without adequate space for observers. - -• Cetaceans are not at significantly greater risk of harm when a soft-start is initiated in poor -visibility conditions. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 57 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 58 Additional Mitigation Measure A4: There are limitations to current PAM technology, but its -use may improve monitoring results in some situations and should be used during certain -conditions, with these caveats: - -• A period of confidence in the current PAM capabilities, understanding of limitations, and -experienced operator capacity-building is needed before requiring PAM as a mandatory -monitoring tool during seismic operations. - -• Basic training criteria, such as that specified by many countries for PSOs, should be -developed and required for PAM operators. - -• Minimum requirements for PAM equipment (including capabilities of software and -hardware) should be considered. - -MIT 59 Proposed restrictions under Additional Mitigation Measure B2 are unnecessary, impractical -and must be deleted or clarified: - -• The likelihood of redundant or duplicative surveys is small to non-existent. A new survey -is conducted only if the value of the additional information to be provided will exceed the -cost of acquisition. - -• The restriction is based on the false premise that surveys, which occur in similar places -and times, are the same. A new survey may be warranted by its use of new technology, a -better image, a different target zone, or a host of other considerations. - -• Implementing such a requirement poses several large problems. First, who would decide -what is redundant and by what criteria? Second, recognizing the intellectual property and -commercial property values, how will the agencies protect that information? Any -proposal that the companies would somehow be able to self-regulate is infeasible and -potentially illegal given the various anti-trust statutes. A government agency would likely -find it impossible to set appropriate governing technical and commercial criteria, and -would end up stifling the free market competition that has led to technological -innovations and success in risk reduction. - -• This already done by industry in some cases, but as a regulatory requirement it is very -vague and needs clarification. - -MIT 60 Additional Mitigation Measures D3, D4, D5, D6, and D8 need clarification about how the -real-time reporting would be handled: - -• If there is the expectation that industry operations could be shutdown quickly and -restarted quickly, the proposal is not feasible. - -• Who would conduct the monitoring for whales? -• How and to whom would reporting be conducted? -• How whale presence would be determined and who would make the determination must - -be elucidated in this measure? This is vague and impracticable. -• Additional Mitigation Measure D4 should be consistent with surrounding mitigation - -measures that consider start dates of bowhead whale hunting closed areas based on real- -time reporting of whale presence and hunting activity rather than a fixed date. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 58 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 61 NMFS should work with BOEM to incorporate a broader list of mitigation measures that -would be standard for all oil and gas-related incidental take authorizations in the Arctic -region, including: - -a) Detection-based measures intended to reduce near-source acoustic impacts on marine -mammals - -• require operators to use operational- and activity-specific information to estimate -exclusion and buffer zones for all sound sources (including seismic surveys, subbottom -profilers, vertical seismic profiling, vertical cable surveys, drilling, icebreaking, support -aircraft and vessels, etc.) and, just prior to or as the activity begins, verify and (as needed) -modify those zones using sound measurements collected at each site for each sound -source; - -• assess the efficacy of mitigation and monitoring measures and improve detection -capabilities in low visibility situations using tools such as forward-looking infrared or -360o thermal imaging; - -• require the use of passive acoustic monitoring to increase detection probability for real- -time mitigation and monitoring of exclusion zones; and - -• require operators to cease operations when the exclusion zone is obscured by poor -sighting conditions; - -b) Non-detection-based measures intended to lessen the severity of acoustic impacts on -marine mammals or reduce overall numbers taken by acoustic sources - -• limit aircraft overflights to an altitude of 457 m or higher and a horizontal distance of 305 -m or greater when marine mammals are present (except during takeoff, landing, or an -emergency situation); - -• require temporal/spatial limitations to minimize impacts in particularly important habitats -or migratory areas, including but not limited to those identified for time-area closures -under Alternative 4 (i.e., Camden Bay, Barrow Canyon/Western Beaufort Sea, Hanna -Shoal, the Beaufort Sea shelf break, and Kasegaluk Lagoon/Ledy Bay critical habitat); - -• prevent concurrent, geographically overlapping surveys and surveys that would provide -the same information as previous surveys; and - -• restrict 2D/3D surveys from operating within 145 km of one another; - -c) Measures intended to reduce/lessen non-acoustic impacts on marine mammals reduce -vessel speed to 9 knots or less when transiting the Beaufort Sea - -• reduce vessel speed to 9 knots or less within 274 m of whales; -• avoid changes in vessel direction and speed within 274 m of whales; -• reduce speed to 9 knots or less in inclement weather or reduced visibility conditions; -• use shipping or transit routes that avoid areas where marine mammals may occur in high - -densities, such as offshore ice leads; -• establish and monitor a 160-dB re 1 µPa zone for large whales around all sound sources - -and do not initiate or continue an activity if an aggregation of bowhead whales or gray -whales (12 or more whales of any age/sex class that appear to be engaged in a non- -migratory, significant biological behavior (e.g., feeding, socializing)) is observed within -that zone; - -• require operators to cease drilling operations in mid- to late-September to reduce the -possibility of having to respond to a large oil spill in ice conditions; - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 59 -Comment Analysis Report - -• require operators to develop and implement a detailed, comprehensive, and coordinated -Wildlife Protection Plan that includes strategies and sufficient resources for minimizing -contamination of sensitive marine mammal habitats and that provides a realistic -description of the actions that operators can take, if any, to deter animals from spill areas -or respond to oiled or otherwise affected marine mammals the plan should be developed -in consultation with Alaska Native communities (including marine mammal co- -management organizations), state and federal resource agencies, and experienced non- -governmental organizations; and - -• require operators to collect all new and used drilling muds and cuttings and either reinject -them or transport them to an EPA-licensed treatment/disposal site outside the Arctic; - -d) Measures intended to ensure no unmitigable adverse impact to subsistence users - -• require the use of Subsistence Advisors; and -• facilitate development of more comprehensive plans of cooperation/conflict avoidance - -agreements that involve all potentially affected communities and comanagement -organizations and account for potential adverse impacts on all marine mammal species -taken for subsistence purposes. - -MIT 62 NMFS should include additional mitigation measures to verify compliance with mitigation -measures and work with BOEM and industry to improve the quality and usefulness of -mitigation and monitoring measures: - -• Track and enforce each operator’s implementation of mitigation and monitoring measures -to ensure that they are executed as expected; provide guidance to operators regarding the -estimation of the number of takes during the course of an activity (e.g., seismic survey) -that guidance should be sufficiently specific to ensure that take estimates are accurate and -include realistic estimates of precision and bias; - -• Provide additional justification for the determination that the mitigation and monitoring -measures that depend on visual observations would be sufficient to detect, with a high -level of confidence, all marine mammals within or entering identified mitigation zones; - -• Work with protected species observers, observer service providers, the Fish and Wildlife -Service, and other stakeholders to establish and implement standards for protected -species observers to improve the quality and usefulness of information collected during -exploration activities; - -• Establish requirements for analysis of data collected by protected species observers to -ensure that those data are used both to estimate potential effects on marine mammals and -to inform the continuing development of mitigation and monitoring measures; - -• Require operators to make the data associated with monitoring programs publicly -available for evaluation by independent researchers; - -• Require operators to gather the necessary data and work with the Bureau and the Service -to assess the effectiveness of soft-starts as a mitigation measure; and - -• Require operators to suspend operations immediately if a dead or seriously injured -marine mammal is found in the vicinity of the operations and the death or injury could be -attributed to the applicant’s activities any suspension should remain in place until the -Service has reviewed the situation and determined that further deaths or serious injuries -are unlikely or has issued regulations authorizing such takes under section 101(a)(5)(A) -of the Act. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 60 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 63 There is no need for the Additional Mitigation Measures in the DEIS and they should be -removed: - -• Potential impacts of oil and gas exploration activities under the Standard Mitigation -Measures, BOEM lease stipulations (MMS 2008c), and existing industry practices, are -already negligible. - -• Analysis of the effectiveness of the Additional Mitigation Measures in reducing any -impacts (especially for marine mammals and subsistence) was not established in the -DEIS so there is no justification for their implementation. - -• The negative impacts these measures would have on industry and on the expeditious -development of resources in the OCS as mandated by OCSLA are significant, and were -not described, quantified, or seriously considered in the DEIS. - -• Any Additional Mitigation Measure carried forward must be clarified and made -practicable, and further analysis must be conducted and presented in the FEIS to explain -why they are needed, how they were developed (including a scientific basis), what -conditions would trigger their implementation and how they would affect industry and -the ability of BOEM to meet its OCSLA mandate of making resources available for -expeditious development. - -• NMFS failed to demonstrate the need for most if not all of the Additional Mitigation -Measures identified in the DEIS, especially Additional Mitigation Measures A4, B1 -(time/area closures), C3, D1, D5, D6, and D8. - -• NMFS has failed to fully evaluate and document the costs associated with their -implementation. - -MIT 64 The time/area closure for Barrow Canyon needs to be clarified or removed: - -• A time area closure is indicated from September 1 to the close of Barrow’s fall bowhead -hunt, but dates are also provided for bowhead whales (late August to early October) and -beluga whales (mid-July to late August), which are both vague and outside the limits of -the closure. - -• It is also not clear if Barrow Canyon and the Western Beaufort Sea Special Habitat Areas -are one and the same. Only Barrow Canyon (not the Western Beaufort) is referenced in -most places, including the only map (Figure 3.2-25) of the area. - -MIT 65 Additional Mitigation Measure D7 must be deleted or clarified: - -• The transit restrictions are not identified, nor are the conditions under which the transit -might be allowed. - -• Some hunting of marine mammals in the Chukchi Sea occurs year round making this -measure impracticable. - -MIT 66 NMFS should not automatically add Additional Mitigation Measures to an alternative without -first assessing the impact without Additional Mitigation Measures to determine whether they -are needed. - -MIT 67 The requirement to recycle drilling muds should not become mandatory as it is not -appropriate for all programs. Drilling mud discharges are already regulated by the EPA -NPDES program and are not harmful to marine mammals or the availability of marine -mammals for subsistence. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 61 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 68 [Page 4-68] For exploratory drilling operations in the Beaufort Sea west of Cross Island, no -drilling equipment or related vessels used for at-sea oil and gas operations shall be moved -onsite at any location outside the barrier islands west of Cross Island until the close of the -bowhead whale hunt in Barrow. This measure would prevent exploration of offshore leases -west of Cross Island during the open water season and would require refunding of lease -purchase and investment by companies that are no longer allowed to explore their leases. - -MIT 69 The statement that eliminating exploration activities through the time/area closures on Hanna -Shoal would benefit all assemblages of marine fish, with some anticipated benefit to -migratory fish, is incorrect. Most migratory fish would not be found in offshore waters. - -MIT 70 Standard Mitigation Measure A5 should be deleted as it is essentially the same as Standard -Mitigation Measure A4. - -MIT 71 Standard Mitigation Measures B1 and D3 have identical requirements regarding aircraft -operations and appear to apply to the same activities, so they should be deleted from one or -the other. - -MIT 72 Under conditions when exploitation is determined to be acceptable, monitoring and -mitigation plans on a wide range of temporal scales should become both a standard -requirement and industry practice. These must be designed in a manner specific to the nature -of the operation and the environment to minimize the risks of both acute impacts (i.e., direct, -short-term, small-scale harm as predicted from estimates of noise exposure on individuals) -and to measure/minimize chronic effects (i.e., cumulative, long-term, large-scale adverse -effects on populations as predicted from contextually mediated behavioral responses or the -loss of acoustic habitat). - -MIT 73 To date, standard practices for individual seismic surveys and other activities have been of -questionable efficacy for monitoring or mitigating direct physical impacts (i.e., acute impacts -on injury or hearing) and have essentially failed to address chronic, population level impacts -from masking and other long-term, large-scale effects, which most likely are the greatest risk -to long-term population health and viability. - -MIT 74 More meaningful monitoring and mitigation measures that should be more fully considered -and implemented in the programmatic plans for the Arctic include: - -1) Considerations of time and area restrictions based on known sensitive periods/areas; - -2) Sustained acoustic monitoring, both autonomous and real-time, of key habitat areas to -assess species presence and cumulative noise exposure with direct federal involvement -and oversight; - -3) Support or incentives for research to develop and apply metrics for a population’s health, -such as measures of vital rates, prey availability, ranging patterns, and body condition; - -4) Specified spatial-temporal separation zones between intense acoustic events; and - -5) Requirements or incentives for the reduction of acoustic footprints of intense noise -sources. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 62 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 75 Time/area closures represent progress, but NMFS’s analysis that the closures provide limited -benefits is faulty and needs further evaluation - -• The current analysis does not well reflect the higher densities of marine mammals in -concentration areas and other IEAs. - -• The analysis also does not fully recognize the importance of those areas to the overall -health of the species being impacted, and thus underestimates the likely disproportionate -effects of activities in those areas. - -• The analysis concludes no benefit as a result of mitigating impacts. This, along with a -lack of information to assess the size of the benefit beyond unclear and ill-defined levels, -mistakenly results in analysts concluding there is no benefit. - -• The inability to quantitatively estimate the potential impacts of oil and gas activities, or -express the benefits of time and area closures of important habitats, likely has much more -to do with incomplete information than with a perceived lack of benefits from the time -and area closures. - -MIT 76 A precautionary approach should be taken in the selection of a preferred alternative: - -• Faulty analysis, along with the clear gaps in good data for a number of species, only -serves to bolster the need for precaution in the region. - -• While there is good information on the existence of some IEAs, the lack of information -about why some concentration areas occur and what portion of a population of marine -mammals uses each area hampers the ability of NMFS to determine the benefits of -protecting the area. This lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for -postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. - -MIT 77 Ledyard Bay and Kasegaluk Lagoon merit special protection through time/area closures. -Walrus also utilize these areas from June through September, with large haulouts on the -barrier islands of Kasegaluk Lagoon in late August and September. - -MIT 78 Hanna Shoal merits special protection through time/area closures. It is also a migration area -for bowhead whales in the fall and used by polar bears. - -MIT 79 Barrow Canyon merits considerable protection through time/area closures. In the spring, a -number of marine mammals use this area, including bowhead whales, beluga whales, bearded -seals, ringed seals, and polar bears. In the summer and fall this area is also important for gray -whales, walrus, and bearded seals. - -MIT 80 NMFS should create a system where as new and better information becomes available there -is opportunity to add and adjust areas to protect important habitat. - -MIT 81 There is no point to analyzing hypothetical additional mitigation measures in a DEIS that is a -theoretical analysis of potential measures undertaken in the absence of a specific activity, -location or time. If these measures were ever potentially relevant, reanalysis in a project- -specific NEPA document would be required. - -MIT 82 NMFS needs to expand and update its list of mitigation measures to include: - -• Zero discharge requirement to protect water quality and subsistence resources. -• Require oil and gas companies who are engaging in exploration operations to obtain EPA - -issued air permits. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 63 -Comment Analysis Report - -• More stringent regulation of marine vessel discharge for both exploratory drilling -operations, support vessels, and other operations to eliminate possible environmental -contamination through the introduction of pathogens and foreign organisms through -ballast water, waste water, sewage, and other discharge streams - -• The requirement that industry signs a Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA) with the -relevant marine mammal co-management organizations - -• Another Standard Mitigation Measure should be developed with regards to marine -mammal monitoring during darkness and inclement weather. This should require more -efficient and appropriate protocols. If more appropriate monitoring methods cannot be -developed, NMFS should not allow for seismic surveys during times when monitoring is -severely limited. - -• NMFS should consider for mitigation a requirement that seismic survey vessels use the -lowest practicable source levels, minimize horizontal propagation of the sound signal, -and/or minimize the density of track lines consistent with the purposes of the survey. -Accordingly, the agencies should consider establishing a review panel, potentially -overseen by both NMFS and BOEM, to review survey designs with the aim of reducing -their wildlife impacts - -• A requirement that all vessels undergo measurement for their underwater noise output per -American National Standards Institute/Acoustical Society of America standards (S12.64); -that all vessels undergo regular maintenance to minimize propeller cavitation, which is -the primary contributor to underwater ship noise; and/or that all new vessels be required -to employ the best ship quieting designs and technologies available for their class of ship - -• NMFS should consider requiring aerial monitoring and/or fixed hydrophone arrays to -reduce the risk of near-source injury and monitor for impacts - -• Make MMOs (PSOs) mandatory on the vessels. -• Unmanned flights should also be investigated for monitoring, as recommended by - -NMFS’s Open Water Panel. -• Mitigation and monitoring measures concerning the introduction of non-native species - -need to be identified and analyzed - -MIT 83 Both the section on water quality and subsistence require a discussion of mitigation measures -and how NMFS intends to address local community concerns about contamination of -subsistence food from sanitary waste and drilling muds and cuttings. - -MIT 84 NMFS must discuss the efficacy of mitigation measures: - -• Including safety zones, start-up and shut-down procedures, use of Marine Mammal -Observers during periods of limited visibility for preventing impacts to bowhead whales -and the subsistence hunt. - -• Include discussion of the significant scientific debate regarding the effectiveness of many -mitigation measures that are included in the DEIS and that have been previously used by -industry as a means of complying with the MMPA. - -• We strongly encourage NMFS to include in either Chapter 3 or Chapter 4 a separate -section devoted exclusively to assessing whether and to what extent each individual -mitigation measure is effective at reducing impacts to marine mammals and the -subsistence hunt. NMFS should use these revised portions of the DEIS to discuss and -analyze compliance with the "least practicable adverse impact" standard of the MMPA. - -• NMFS must discuss to what extent visual monitoring is effective as a means of triggering -mitigation measures, and, if so, how specifically visual monitoring can be structured or -supplemented with acoustic monitoring to improve performance. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 64 -Comment Analysis Report - -• NMFS should clearly analyze whether poor visibility restrictions are appropriate and -whether those restrictions are necessary to comply with the "least practicable impact" -standard of the MMPA. - -• NMFS should disclose in the EIS uncertainties as to the efficacy of ramp up procedures -and then discuss and analyze how that uncertainty relates to an estimate of impacts to -marine mammals and, in particular, bowhead whales. - -• This EIS is an important opportunity for NMFS to assess the efficacy of these proposed -measures with the full input of the scientific community before making a decision on -overall levels of industrial activity in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. NMFS should, -therefore, amend the DEIS to include such an analysis, which can then be subject to -further public review and input pursuant to a renewed public comment period. - -MIT 85 NMFS must include in a revised DEIS a discussion of additional deferral areas and a -reasoned analysis of whether and to what extent those deferral areas would benefit our -subsistence practices and habitat for the bowhead whale. - -MIT 86 NMFS needs to revise the DEIS to include a more complete description of the proposed -mitigation measures, eliminate the concept of "additional mitigation measures," and then -decide in the Record of Decision on a final suite of applicable mitigation measures. - -MIT 87 The peer review panel states that "a single sound source pressure level or other single -descriptive parameter is likely a poor predictor of the effects of introduced anthropogenic -sound on marine life." The panel recommends that NMFS develop a "soundscape" approach -to management, and it was understood that the NSB Department of Wildlife suggested such -an alternative, which was rejected by NMFS. If NMFS moves forward with using simple -measures, it is recommended that these measures "should be based on the more -comprehensive ecosystem assessments and they should be precautionary to compensate for -remaining uncertainty in potential effects." NMFS should clarify how these concerns are -reflected in the mitigation measures set forth in the DEIS and whether the simple sound -pressure level measures are precautionary as suggested by the peer review panel. - -MIT 88 NMFS needs to clarify why it is using 160 dB re 1 Pa rms as the threshold for level B take. -Clarification is needed on whether exposure of feeding whales to sounds up to 160 dB re 1 -µPa rms could cause adverse effects, and, if so, why the threshold for level B harassment is -not lower. - -MIT 89 NMFS should consider implementing mitigation measures designed to avoid exposing -migrating bowhead whales to received sound levels of 120dB or greater given the best -available science, which demonstrates that such noise levels cause behavioral changes in -bowhead whales. - -MIT 90 The DEIS does not list aerial surveys as a standard or additional mitigation measure for either -the Beaufort or Chukchi Sea. There is no reasonable scientific basis for this. NMFS should -include aerial surveys as a possible mitigation measure along with a discussion of the peer -review panel's concerns regarding this issue. - -MIT 91 Standard mitigation measures are needed to protect autumn bowhead hunting at Barrow, -Wainwright, and possibly at Point Lay and Point Hope and subsistence hunting of beluga -whales at Point Lay and Wainwright and seal and walrus hunting along the Chukchi Sea -coasts. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 65 -Comment Analysis Report - -• One approach for protecting beluga hunting at Point Lay would be to implement adaptive -management; whereby, ships and drill rigs would not come within 60 miles of the -community of Point Lay until the beluga hunt is completed. - -• These types of mitigation measures should be standard and should be applied to any ITA. - -MIT 92 The mitigation measure related to discharge of drilling muds does not address the current -industry plan of recycling muds and then discharging any unused or remaining muds at the -end of the season. At the very least, no drilling muds should be discharged. - -• Furthermore, using the best management practice of near- zero discharge, as is being -implemented by Shell in Camden Bay in the Beaufort Sea, would be the best method for -mitigating impacts to marine mammals and ensuring that habitat is kept as clean and -healthy as possible. - -MIT 93 Reduction levels associated with Additional Mitigation Measure C3 should be specified and -applied to marine vessel traffic supporting operations as well as drill ships. - -MIT 94 NMFS should consider using an independent panel to review survey designs. For example, an -independent peer review panel has been established to evaluate survey design of the Central -Coastal California Seismic Imaging Project, which is aimed at studying fault systems near the -Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. See California Public Utilities Commission, Application -of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Approval of Ratepayer Funding to Perform -Additional Seismic Studies Recommended by the California Energy Commission: Decision -Granting the Application, available at -docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/FINAL_DECISION/122059-09.htm. - -MIT 95 Use additional best practices for monitoring and maintaining safety zones around active -airgun arrays and other high-intensity underwater noise sources as set forth in Weir and -Dolman (2007) and Parsons et al. (2009) - -MIT 96 The existing draft EIS makes numerous errors regarding mitigation: - -• Mischaracterizing the effectiveness and practicability of particular measures -• Failing to analyze variations of measures that may be more effective than the ones - -proposed -• Failing to standardize measures that are plainly effective. - -MIT 97 Language regarding whether or not standard mitigation measures are required is confusing, -and NMFS should make clear that this mitigation is indeed mandatory. - -MIT 98 The rationale for not including mitigation limiting activities in low-visibility conditions, -which can reduce the risk of ship-strikes and near-field noise exposures, as standard -mitigation is flawed, and this measure needs to be included: - -• First, it suggests that the restriction could extend the duration of a survey and thus the -potential for cumulative disturbance of wildlife; but this concern would not apply to -activities in migratory corridors, since target species like bowhead whales are transient. - -• Second, while it suggests that the requirement would be expensive to implement, it does -not consider the need to reduce ship-strike risk in heavily-used migratory corridors in -order to justify authorization of an activity under the IHA process. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 66 -Comment Analysis Report - -• This requirement should be standardized for all activities involving moving vessels that -occur in bowhead whale migratory corridors during the latter parts of the open-water -season (i.e., September-October); and for all transits of support vessels in all areas at all -times. - -MIT 99 NMFS fails to consider a number of recent studies on temporary threshold shift in -establishing its 180/190 dB safety zone standard. NMFS should conservatively recalculate its -safety zone distances in light of these studies, which indicate the need for larger safety zones, -especially for the harbor porpoise: - -1) A controlled exposure experiment demonstrating that harbor porpoises are substantially -more susceptible to temporary threshold shift than the two species, bottlenose dolphins -and beluga whales, that have previously been tested; - -2) A modeling effort indicating that, when uncertainties and individual variation are -accounted for, a significant number of whales could suffer temporary threshold shift -beyond 1 km from a seismic source; - -3) Studies suggesting that the relationship between temporary and permanent threshold shift -may not be as predictable as previously believed; and - -4) The oft-cited Southall et al. (2007), which suggests use of a cumulative exposure metric -for temporary threshold shift in addition to the present RMS metric, given the potential -occurrence of multiple surveys within reasonably close proximity. - -MIT 100 The DEIS improperly rejects the 120 dB safety zone for bowhead whales and the 160 dB -safety zone for bowhead and gray whales that have been used in IHAs over the past five -seasons: - -• It claims that the measure is ineffective because it has never yet been triggered, but does -not consider whether a less stringent, more easily triggered threshold might be more -appropriate given the existing data. For example, the DEIS fails to consider whether -requiring observers to identify at least 12 whales within the 160 dB safety zone, and then -to determine that the animals are engaged in a nonmigratory, biologically significant -behavior, might not constitute too high a bar, and whether a different standard would -provide a greater conservation benefit while enabling survey activity. - -MIT 101 The assertion by industry regarding the overall safety of conducting fixed-wing aircraft -monitoring flights in the Arctic, especially in the Chukchi Sea, should be reviewed in light of -the multiple aerial surveys that are now being conducted there (e.g., COMIDA and Shell is -planning to implement an aerial monitoring program extending 37 kilometers from the shore, -as it has for a number of years) - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 67 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 102 The DEIS implies that requiring airgun surveys to maintain a 90-mile separation distance -would reduce impacts in some circumstances but not in others, depending on the area of -operation, season, and whether whales are feeding or migrating. - -• NMFS does not provide any biological basis for this finding. -• This analysis fails to consider that the measure would affect only the timing, not the - -spatial extent of the survey effort: the overall area of ensonification would remain the -same over the course of a season since survey activities would only be separated, not -curtailed. - -• If NMFS believes that surveys should not be separated in all cases, it should consider a -measure that defines the conditions in which greater separation would be required. - -MIT 103 The DEIS should also consider to what degree the time/place restrictions could protect -marine mammals from some of the harmful effects from an oil spill. Avoiding exploration -drilling during times when marine mammals may be concentrated nearby could help to -ameliorate the more severe impacts discussed in the DEIS. - -MIT 104 Avoiding exploratory drilling proximate to the spring lead system and avoiding late season -drilling would help to reduce the risk of oil contaminating the spring lead. At a minimum, -NMFS should consider timing restrictions in the Chukchi Sea to avoid activities taking place -too early in the open water season. - -MIT 105 The DEIS’ reliance on future mitigation measures required by the FWS and undertaken by -industry is unjustified. It refers to measures typically required through the MMPA and -considers that it is in industry’s self-interest to avoid harming bears. The draft EIS cannot -simply assume that claimed protections resulting from the independent efforts of others will -mitigate for potential harm. - -MIT 106 Adaptive management should be used, instead of arbitrary closure dates. To set firm dates for -closures does not take into account what is actually happening. An area should not be closed -if there are no animals there. - -MIT 107 The stipulations that are put in or the mitigations that are put in in the Beaufort should not -affect activity in the Chukchi. They are two different worlds, if you think about it, the depth -of the ocean, the movement of the ice, the distance away from our subsistence activity. Don't -take the Beaufort restrictions and make it harder for the Chukchi to do good work. - -MIT 108 Only grant permits and allow work when whaling is not occurring. - -MIT 109 Specific dates are listed for the time/area closures proposed in the alternatives, but dates for -closures need to be flexible to adjust for changes in migration; fixed dates are very difficult to -change. - -MIT 110 The MMO (PSO) program is not very effective: - -• Only MMOs who are ethical and work hard see marine mammals -• There is no oversight to make sure the MMO was actually working - -MIT 111 The most effective means of creating mitigation that works is to start small and focused and -reassess after a couple of seasons to determine what works and what doesn’t work. Mitigation -measures could then be adjusted to match reality. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 68 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 112 There should be a mechanism by which the public can be apprised of and provide input on -the efficacy of mitigation efforts. Suggestions include: - -• Something similar to the Open Water meetings -• Put out a document about the assumptions upon which all these NEPA documents and - -permits are based and assess mitigation: Are they working, how did they work, what were -the problems and challenges, where do we need to focus attention. - -• Include dates if something unusual happened that season that would provide an -opportunity to contact NOAA or BOEM or whoever and say, hey, by the way, during this -thing we noticed this or whatever. - -• This would just help us to again refine our mitigation recommendations in the future. - -MIT 113 If explosives are used, there needs to be mitigation to ensure that the explosives are -accounted for. - -MIT 114 NMFS should require that zero discharge technology be implemented for all drilling -proposals. - -MIT 115 Standard Mitigation Measure C4 should be deleted. All exploration drilling programs are -required by regulation to have oil spill response plans. Stating regulatory requirements is not -a mitigation measure. - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 69 -Comment Analysis Report - -Marine Mammal and other Wildlife Impacts (MMI) -MMI General comments related to potential impacts to marine mammals or wildlife, unrelated to - -subsistence resource concepts. - -MMI 1 The DEIS improperly dismisses the risk of mortality and serious injury from acoustic -impacts: - -• The DEIS fails to consider the adverse synergistic effect that at least some types of -anthropogenic noise can have on ship-strike risk (for example mid-frequency sounds with -frequencies in the range of some sub-bottom profilers have been shown to cause North -Atlantic right whales to break off their foraging dives and lie just below the surface, -increasing the risk of vessel strike). - -• Recent studies indicate that anthropogenic sound can induce permanent threshold shift at -lower levels than anticipated. - -• Hearing loss remains a significant risk where, as here, the agency has not required aerial -or passive acoustic monitoring as standard mitigation, appears unwilling to restrict -operations in low-visibility conditions, and has not firmly established seasonal exclusion -areas for biologically important habitat. - -• The DEIS discounts the potential for marine mammal strandings, even though at least one -stranding event of beaked whales in the Gulf of California correlated with geophysical -survey activity. - -• The DEIS makes no attempt to assess the long-term effects of chronic noise and noise- -related stress on life expectancy and survival, although terrestrial animals could serve as a -proxy. - -• The agencies’ reliance on monitoring for adaptive management, and their assurance that -activities will be reassessed if serious injury or mortality occurs, is inappropriate given -the probability that even catastrophic declines in Arctic populations would go -unobserved. - -• The DEIS fails to address the wide-ranging impacts that repeated, high-intensity airgun -surveys will have on wildlife. - -• We know far too little about these vulnerable [endangered] species to ensure that the -industry's constant pounding does not significantly impact their populations or jeopardize -their survival. - -MMI 2 Loss of sea-ice habitat due to climate change may make polar bears, ice seals, and walrus -more vulnerable to impacts from oil and gas activities, which needs to be considered in the -EIS. The DEIS needs to adequately consider impacts in the context of climate change: - -• The added stress of habitat loss due to climate change should form a greater part of the -DEIS analysis. - -• Both polar bears and ringed seals may be affected by multiple-year impacts from -activities associated with drilling (including an associated increase in vessel traffic) given -their dependence on sea-ice and its projected decline. - -• Shifts in distribution and habitat use by polar bears and walrus in the Beaufort and -Chukchi seas attributable to loss of sea ice habitat is insufficiently incorporated into the -DEIS analysis. The DEIS only asserts that possible harm to subsistence and to polar bear -habitat from oil and gas operations would be negligible compared to the potential for -dramatic sea ice loss due to climate change and changes in ecosystems due to ocean - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 70 -Comment Analysis Report - -acidification. For walrus and ice seals, the DEIS simply notes potentially catastrophic -climate effects without adequately considering how oil and gas activities might leave -species more vulnerable to that outcome. - -• Sub-adult polar bears that return to land in summer because of sea-ice loss are more -likely to be impacted by activities in the water, onshore support of open water activities, -and oil spills; this could represent potentially major impacts to polar bear populations and -should be considered in any final EIS. - -• Walrus feeding grounds are being transformed and walrus are hauling out on land in large -numbers, leaving them vulnerable to land-based disturbances. - -MMI 3 In addition to noise, drilling wastes, air pollution, habitat degradation, shipping, and oil spills -would also adversely affect marine mammals. These adverse effects are ethical issues that -need to be considered. - -MMI 4 Seismic airgun surveys are more disruptive to marine mammals than suggested by the -“unlikely impacts” evaluation peppered throughout the DEIS: - -• They are known to disrupt foraging behavior at distances greater than the typical 1000 -meter observation/mitigation threshold. - -• Beluga whales are known to avoid seismic surveys at distances greater than 10 km. -• Behavioral disturbance of bowhead whales have been observed at distances of 7km to - -35km. -• Marine mammals are seen in significantly lower numbers during seismic surveys - -indicating impacts beyond the standard 1000 meter mitigation set-back. -• Impacts may vary depending on circumstances and conditions and should not be - -dismissed just because of a few studies that indicate only “negligible” impacts. - -MMI 5 The high probability for disruption or “take” of marine mammals in the water by helicopters -and other heavy load aircraft during the spring and summer months is not adequately -addressed in the DEIS. - -MMI 6 Impacts on Arctic fish species, fish habitat, and fisheries are poorly understood and -inadequately presented in the DEIS. NMFS should consider the following: - -• The DEIS substantially understates the scale of impact on Arctic fish species, and fails to -consider any measures to mitigate their effects. - -• Airgun surveys are known to significantly affect the distribution of some fish species, -which can impact fisheries and displace or reduce the foraging success of marine -mammals that rely on them for prey. - -• Airguns have been shown experimentally to dramatically depress catch rates of some -commercial fish species, by 40 to 80 percent depending on catch method, over thousands -of square kilometers around a single array. - -• While migratory fish may evade threats by swimming away, many fish, especially -sedentary fish, will “entrench” into their safe zone when threatened, and prolong -exposure to potentially damaging stimulus. Assuming that fish will “move out harm’s -way” is an irresponsible management assumption and needs to be verified prior to stating -that “enough information exists to perform a full analysis.” - -• Impacts on fisheries were found to last for some time beyond the survey period, not fully -recovering within 5 days of post-survey monitoring. - -• The DEIS appears to assume without support that effects on both fish and fisheries would -be localized. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 71 -Comment Analysis Report - -• Fish use sound for communication, homing, and other important purposes, and can -experience temporary or permanent hearing loss on exposure to intense sound. - -• Other impacts on commercially harvested fish include reduced reproductive performance -and mortality or decreased viability of fish eggs and larvae. - -• A rigorous analysis is necessary to assess direct and indirect impacts of industry activities -on rare fish populations. - -• The DEIS lacks a rigorous analysis of noise impacts to fish, particularly relating to the -interaction of two or more acoustic sources (e.g., two seismic surveys). - -• A rigorous analysis is needed that investigates how two or more noise generating -activities interact to displace fish moving/feeding along the coast, as acoustic barriers -may interrupt natural processes important to the life cycle and reproductive success of -some fish species/populations. - -MMI 7 Impacts of seismic airgun surveys on squid, sea turtles, cephalopods, and other invertebrates -need to be included and considered in terms of the particular species and their role as prey of -marine mammals and commercial and protected fish. - -MMI 8 Oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development in the Arctic Ocean has had no known -adverse impact on marine mammal species and stocks, and the reasonably anticipated impacts -to marine mammals from OCS exploration activities occurring in the next five years are, at -most, negligible. - -• There is no evidence that serious injury, death, or stranding by marine mammals can -occur from exposure to airgun pulses, even in the case of large airgun arrays. - -• No whales or other marine mammals have been killed or injured by past seismic -operations. - -• The western Arctic bowhead whale population has been increasing for over 20 years, -suggesting impacts of oil and gas industry on individual survival and reproduction in the -past have likely been minor. - -• These activities are unlikely to have any effect on the other four stocks of bowhead -whales. - -• Only the western North Pacific stock of humpback whales and the Northeast Pacific -stock of fin whales would be potentially affected by oil and gas leasing and exploration -activities in the Chukchi Sea. There would be no effect on the remaining worldwide -stocks of humpback or fin whales. - -• Most impacts would be due to harassment of whales, which may lead to behavioral -reactions from which recovery is fairly rapid. - -• There is no evidence of any biologically significant impacts at the individual or -population level. - -MMI 9 Noise impacts on key habitats and important biological behaviors of marine mammals (e.g., -breeding, feeding, communicating) could cause detrimental effects at the population level. -Consider the following: - -• According to an IWC Scientific Committee report, repeated and persistent exposure of -noise across a large area could cause detrimental impacts to marine mammal populations - -• A recent study associated reduced underwater noise with a reduction in stress hormones, -providing evidence that noise may contribute to long-term stress (negatively affecting -growth, immune response to diseases, and reproduction) for individuals and populations - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 72 -Comment Analysis Report - -MMI 10 Most marine mammals primarily rely on their acoustic sense, and they would likely suffer -more from noise exposure than other species. While marine mammals have seemingly -developed strategies to deal with noise and related shipping traffic (e.g., changing -vocalizations, shifting migration paths, etc.), the fact that some species have been exposed to -anthropogenic changes for only one generation (e.g., bowhead whales) makes it unlikely that -they have developed coping mechanisms appropriate to meet novel environmental pressures, -such as noise. Marine mammals living in relatively pristine environments, such as the Arctic -Ocean, and have less experience with noise and shipping traffic may experience magnified -impacts. - -MMI 11 Impacts from ship-strikes (fatal and non-fatal) need to be given greater consideration, -especially with increased ship traffic and the development of Arctic shipping routes. - -• Potential impacts on beluga whales and other resources in Kotzebue Sound needs to be -considered with vessels traveling past this area. - -• There is great concern for ship strikes of bowhead and other whales and these significant -impacts must be addressed in conjunction with the project alternatives. - -MMI 12 Walrus could also be affected by operations in the Bering Sea. For instance, the winter range -and the summer range for male and subadult walrus could place them within the Bering Sea, -potentially overlapping with bottom trawling. - -MMI 13 Surveys recently conducted during the open water season documented upwards of a thousand -walrus in a proposed exploratory drilling (study) area, potentially exposing a large number of -walrus to stresses associated with oil and gas activity, including drilling and vessel activity. -Since a large proportion of these animals in the Chukchi Sea are comprised of females and -calves, it is possible that the production of the population could be differentially affected. - -MMI 14 The DEIS analysis does not adequately consider the fact that many animals avoid vessels -regardless of whether they are emitting loud sounds and may increase that avoidance distance -during seismic operations (Richardson et al. 2011). Therefore, it should be a reasonable -assumption that natural avoidance serves to provide another level of protection to the -animals. - -The 120 dB threshold may represent a lower level at which some individual marine mammals -will exhibit minor avoidance responses. While this avoidance might, in some but not all -circumstances, be meaningful to a native hunter, scientific research does not indicate -dramatic responses in most animals. In fact, the detailed statistical analyses often needed to -confirm subtle changes in direction are not available. The significance of a limited avoidance -response (to the animal) likely is minor (Richardson et al. 2011). - -MMI 15 Seismic operations are most often in timescales of weeks and reduce the possibility of -significant displacement since they do not persist in an area for an extended period of time. -However, little evidence of area-wide displacement exists or has been demonstrated. - -MMI 16 Bowhead Cows Do NOT Abandon or Separate from Their Calves in Response to Seismic -Exploration or Other Human Activities. There is no scientific support whatsoever for any -assumption or speculation that seismic operations have such impacts or could result in the -loss or injury of a whale. To the contrary, all of the scientific evidence shows that seismic and -other anthropogenic activities, including commercial whaling, have not been shown to cause -the separation or abandonment of cow/calf pairs. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 73 -Comment Analysis Report - -MMI 17 Bowhead Whales Do Not Routinely Deflect 20 Kilometers From Seismic Operations. The -DEIS asserts that bowhead whales have rarely been observed within 20 kilometers of active -seismic operations but fails to utilize other information that challenge the validity of this -assertion. - -MMI 18 In the Arctic, sound levels follow a highly distinct seasonal pattern dominated in winter by -ice-related sound and then altered by sound from wind, waves, vessels, seismic surveys, and -drilling in the open-water period. The sound signatures (i.e., frequency, intensity, duration, -variability) of the various sources are either well known or easily described and, for any -given region, they should be relatively predictable. The primary source of anthropogenic -sound in the Arctic during the open-water season is oil and gas-related seismic activity, and -those activities can elevate sound levels by 2-8 dB (Roth et al. 2012). NMFS and BOEM -should be able to compare seasonal variations in the Arctic soundscape to the movement -patterns and natural histories of marine mammals and to subsistence hunting patterns. - -MMI 19 The lack of observed avoidance is not necessarily indicative of a lack of impact (e.g., animals -that have a learned tolerance of sound and remain in biologically important areas may still -incur physiological [stress] costs from exposure or suffer significant communication -masking). NMFS should exhibit caution when interpreting these cases. - -MMI 20 Marine mammal concentration areas are one potential example of IEAs that require robust -management measures to ensure the health of the ecosystem as a whole. Impacts to marine -mammal concentration areas, especially those areas where multiple marine mammal species -are concentrated in a particular place and time, are more likely to cascade throughout -populations and ecosystems. - -• Displacement from a high-density feeding area, in the absence of alternate feeding areas, -may be energetically stressful. - -MMI 21 NMFS should include a discussion of the recent disease outbreak affecting seals and walrus, -include this outbreak as part of the baseline, and discuss how potential similar future events -(of unknown origin) are likely to increase in the future. - -MMI 22 Short-term displacement that occurs during a critical and stressful portion on the animals -annual life cycle (e.g., molt in seals) could further increase stress to displaced individuals and -needs to be considered. - -• Disturbance to ringed and bearded seals from spill clean-up activities during the early -summer molt period would greatly increase stress to these species. - -MMI 23 The DEIS must further explore a threat of biologically significant effects, since as much as 25 -percent of the EIS project area could be exposed to 120 dB sound levels known to provoke -significant behavioral reactions in migrating bowhead whales, multiple activities could result -in large numbers of bowhead whales potentially excluded from feeding habitat, exploration -activities would occur annually over the life of the EIS, and there is a high likelihood of -drilling around Camden Bay. - -MMI 24 The DEIS should compare the extent of past activities and the amount of noise produced to -what is projected with the proposed activities under the alternatives, and the DEIS must also -consider the fact that the bowhead population may be approaching carrying capacity, -potentially altering the degree to which it can withstand repeated disturbances. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 74 -Comment Analysis Report - -MMI 25 Impacts to beluga whales needs to be more thoroughly considered: - -• Beluga whales’ strong reactions to higher frequencies illustrate the failure of the DEIS to -calculate ensonified zones for sub-bottom profilers, side scan sonar, and echosounders - -• The DEIS does not discuss beluga whales’ well-documented reaction to ships and ice -breakers in the context of surveying with ice breaker support or exploratory drilling. Ice -management activity has the potential to disturb significant numbers of beluga whale - -• The DEIS makes very little effort to estimate where and when beluga whales might be -affected by oil and gas activities. If noise disrupts important behaviors (mating, nursing, -or feeding), or if animals are displaced from important habitat over long periods of time, -then impacts of noise and disturbance could affect the long-term survival of the -population. - -MMI 26 NMFS should consider whether ice management or ice breaking have the potential to -seriously injure or kill ice seals resting on pack ice, including in the area of Hanna Shoal that -is an important habitat for bearded seals. - -MMI 27 NMFS should consider that on-ice surveys may directly disrupt nursing polar bears in their -dens and ringed seals in their lairs, potentially causing abandonment, or mortality if the dens -or lairs are crushed by machinery. - -MMI 28 The DEIS’ analysis for gray whales is faulty: - -• Gray whales were grouped with other cetaceans, so more attention specific to gray -whales is needed. - -• Contrary to what the DEIS claims (without support), gray whale feeding and migration -patterns do not closely mimic those of bowhead whales: gray whales migrate south to -Mexico and typically no farther north than the Chukchi Sea, and are primarily benthic -feeders. - -• Analysis of the effects for Alternatives 2 and 3 does not discuss either the gray whale’s -reliance on the Chukchi Sea for its feeding or its documented preference for Hanna -Shoal. - -• In another comparisons to bowhead whales, the DEIS states that both populations -increased despite previous exploration activities. Gray whale numbers, however, have -declined since Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections were removed in 1994, and -there is speculation that the population is responding to environmental limitations. - -• Gray whales can be disturbed by very low levels of industrial noise, with feeding -disruptions occurring at noise levels of 110 dB. - -• The DEIS needs to more adequately consider effects of activities and possible closure -areas in the Chukchi Sea (e.g., Hanna Shoal) on gray whales. When discussing the -possibility that area closures could concentrate effects elsewhere, the DEIS focuses on -the Beaufort Sea, such as on the Beaufort shelf between Harrison Bay and Camden Bay -during those time periods. - -MMI 29 There needs to be more analysis of noise and other disturbance effects specific to harbor -porpoise; the DEIS acknowledges that harbor porpoise have higher relative abundance in the -Chukchi Sea than other marine mammals. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 75 -Comment Analysis Report - -MMI 30 NMFS should conduct more rigorous analysis for birds and mammals, including: - -• How do multiple seismic surveys in the same region modify the foraging of marine birds -(e.g., where forage fish have been displaced to deeper water or away from nesting areas) - -• How do multiple surveys interact to modify marine mammal foraging? - -MMI 31 NMFS should analyze the impacts to invertebrate and fish resources of introducing artificial -structures (i.e., drilling platform and catenaries; seafloor structures) into the water column or -the seafloor. - -MMI 32 The DEIS should address that sometimes the best geological prospects happen to conflict -with some of the marine mammal productivity areas, calving areas, or birthing areas. - -MMI 33 It is important for NMFS to look at the possibility of affecting a global population of marine -mammals; just not what's existing here, but a global population. - -MMI 34 NMFS should reexamine the DEIS’s analysis of sockeye and coho salmon. Comments -include: - -• The known northern distribution of coho salmon from southern Alaska ends at about -Point Hope (Mecklenburg et al. 2002). - -• Sockeye salmon’s (O. nerka) North Pacific range ends at Point Hope (Mecklenburg et al. -2002). - -• Both sockeye and coho salmon are considered extremely rare in the Beaufort Sea, -representing no more than isolated migrants from populations in southern Alaska or -Russian (Mecklenburg et al. 2002). - -• The discussion of coho salmon and sockeye salmon EFH on pages 3-74 to 3-75 is -unnecessary and should be deleted. - -MMI 35 NMFS should reconsider the DEIS’ analysis of Chinook salmon and possibly include the -species based on the small but significant numbers of the species that are harvested in the -Barrow domestic fishery. - -MMI 36 Given that the time/area closures are for marine mammals, Alternative 4 would be irrelevant -and generally benign in terms of fish and EFH, so it is wrong to state that the closures would -further reduce impact. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 76 -Comment Analysis Report - -National Energy Demand and Supply (NED) -NED Comments related to meeting national energy demands, supply of energy. - -NED 1 The DEIS, as written, would preclude future development by limiting the number of activities -and make development uneconomical, which undermines the Obama Administration’s -priority of developing oil and gas deposits in the Arctic. Allowing safe and responsible -development of oil and gas resources in the Alaska OCS is critical for the U.S. energy policy, -and for the Alaskan economy. Alaska needs to be able to develop its natural resources. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 77 -Comment Analysis Report - -NEPA (NEP) -NEP Comments on aspects of the NEPA process (purpose and need, scoping, public involvement, - -etc.), issues with the impact criteria (Chapter 4), or issues with the impact analysis. - -NEP 1 The scope of the DEIS is flawed, and misaligned with any incidental take action that NMFS -might take under authority of the MMPA. MMPA ITAs may only be issued if the anticipated -incidental take is found to have no more than a negligible impact. There can never be a -purpose or need to prepare an EIS to evaluate the impact of actions that must have no more -than a negligible impact. Accordingly, there is no need now, nor can there ever be a need, for -NMFS to prepare an EIS in order to issue an MMPA ITA. NMFS' decision to prepare an EIS -reflects a serious disconnect between its authority under the MMPA and its NEPA analysis. - -NEP 2 The EIS should be limited exclusively to exploration activities. Any additional complexities -associated with proposed future extraction should be reviewed in their own contexts. - -NEP 3 The ‘need’ for the EIS presupposes the extraction of hydrocarbons from the Arctic and makes -the extraction of discovered hydrocarbons inevitable by stating that NMFS and BOEM will -tier from this EIS to support future permitting decisions if such activities fall outside the -scope of the EIS. - -NEP 4 The purpose and need of this DEIS is described and structured as though NMFS intends to -issue five-year Incidental Take Regulations (ITRs) for all oil and gas activities in the Arctic -Ocean regarding all marine mammal species. However, there is no such pending proposal -with NMFS for any ITRs for any oil and gas activity in the Arctic Ocean affecting any marine -mammal stock or population. The DEIS is not a programmatic NEPA analysis. Accordingly, -were NMFS to complete this NEPA process, there would be no five-year ITR decision for it -to make and no Record of Decision (ROD) to issue. Because the IHA process is working -adequately, and there is no basis for NMFS to initiate an ITR process, this DEIS is -disconnected from any factual basis that would provide a supporting purpose and need. - -NEP 5 The scope of NEPA analysis directed to issuance of any form of MMPA ITA should be -necessarily limited to the impacts of the anticipated take on the affected marine mammal -stocks, and there is no purpose or need for NMFS to broadly analyze the impacts of future oil -and gas activities in general. Impacts on, for example, terrestrial mammals, birds, fish, land -use, and air quality are irrelevant in this context because in issuing IHAs (or, were one -proposed, an ITR), NMFS is only authorizing take of marine mammals. The scope of the -current DEIS is vastly overbroad and does not address any specific ITA under the MMPA. - -NEP 6 The stated purpose of the DEIS has expanded significantly to include the evaluation of -potential effects of a Very Large Oil Spill, as well as the potential effects of seismic activity -and alternate approaches for BOEM to issue G&G permit decisions. Neither of these topics -were considered in the original 2007 DEIS. The original assumption was that the DEIS would -include an evaluation of the effects of OCS activities as they relate to authorizing the take of -marine mammals incidental to oil and gas activities pursuant to the MMPA. Per NEPA -requirements, the public should have been informed about the expansion of the original EIS -scope at a minimum, and the lead federal agency should have offered additional scoping -opportunities to gather comments from the public, affected State and local agencies, and other -interested stakeholders. This is a significant oversight of the NEPA process. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 78 -Comment Analysis Report - -NEP 7 It is troubling that the DEIS has failed to describe which specific action has triggered the -NEPA process, explaining only that conceptual ideas of seismic effects from possible OCS -oil and gas activities are being evaluated. The analysis is not based on reasonably foreseeable -levels of activity in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. This vague understanding of conceptual -ideas would complicate and limit the ability to properly assess environmental impacts and -provide suitable mitigation. There is no purpose or need for NMFS to prepare a non- -programmatic EIS for future MMPA ITAs that have not been requested. NEPA does not give -agencies the authority to engage in non-programmatic impact analyses in the absence of a -proposed action, which is what NMFS has done. - -NEP 8 Although NMFS has stated that the new 2011 DEIS is based on new information becoming -available, the 2011 DEIS does not appear to define what new information became available -requiring a change in the scope, set of alternatives, and analysis, as stated in the 2009 NOI to -withdraw the DPEIS. Although Section 1.7 of the 2011 DEIS lists several NEPA documents -(most resulting in a finding of no significant impact) prepared subsequent to the withdrawal -of the DPEIS, NMFS has not clearly defined what new information would drive such a -significant change to the proposed action and require the radical alternatives analysis -presented in the 2011 DEIS. - -NEP 9 The NOI for the 2011 DEIS did not specify that the intent of the document was to evaluate -finite numbers of exploration activities. As stated in the NOI, NMFS prepared the DEIS to -update the previous 2007 DPEIS based on new information and to include drilling. -Additionally, the NOI indicated that NMFS’ analysis would rely on evaluating a range of -impacts resulting from an unrestricted number of programs to no programs. NMFS did not -analyze an unrestricted range of programs in any of the alternatives. The original scope -proposed in the NOI does not match what was produced in the DEIS; therefore NMFS has -performed an incomplete analysis. - -NEP 10 It is discordant that the proposed action for the DEIS would include BOEM actions along -with NMFS’ issuance of ITAs. Geological and geophysical activities are, by definition, -limited in scope, duration and impact. These activities do not have the potential to -significantly affect the environment, and therefore do not require an EIS. - -NEP 11 The structural issues with the DEIS are so significant that NMFS should: - -• Abandon the DEIS and start a new NEPA process, including a new round of scoping, -development of a new proposed action, development of new alternatives that comply -with the MMPA, and a revised environmental consequences analysis.; - -• Abandon the DEIS and work in collaboration with BOEM to initiate a new NEPA -process, and conduct a workshop with industry to develop and analyze a feasible set of -alternatives; - -• Abandon the EIS process entirely and continue with its past practice of evaluating impact -of oil and gas activities in the Arctic through project-specific NEPA analyses; or - -• Abandon the EIS and restart the NEPA process when a project has been identified and -there is need for such analysis. - -NEP 12 The current DEIS process is unnecessary and replicates NEPA analyses that have already -been performed on Arctic oil and gas exploration activities. There has already been both a -final and supplemental EIS for Chukchi Sea Lease Sale 193, which adequately addressed -seismic exploration and other lease activities to which this DEIS is intended to assess. In -addition, BOEM has prepared NEPA analyses for Shell’s exploration drilling programs and - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 79 -Comment Analysis Report - -will prepare a project specific analysis for all other Arctic OCS exploration programs. As a -result, the DEIS duplicates and complicates the NEPA process by introducing a competing -impact assessment to BOEM’s work. - -NEP 13 NMFS should add Cook Inlet to the project area for the EIS, as Cook Inlet is tied into the five -year OCS Plan. - -NEP 14 As the ultimate measure of potential effects, the impact criteria provided in the DEIS are -problematic. They do not inform the relevant agencies as to how impacts relate to their -substantive statutory responsibilities, and they do not provide adequate information as to their -relationship to the NEPA significance threshold, the MMPA, or OCSLA. The DEIS should -be revised to reflect these concerns: - -• The DEIS does not articulate thresholds for “significance,” the point at which NEPA -requires the preparation of an EIS. This is important given the programmatic nature of the -document, and because there have been conflicting definitions of significance in recent -NEPA documents related to the Arctic; - -• The DEIS does not provide the necessary information to determine whether any of the -proposed alternatives will have more than a negligible impact on any marine mammal -stock, no unmitigable adverse impacts on subsistence uses, and whether there may be -undue harm to aquatic life. NMFS has previously recommended such an approach to -BOEM for the Draft Supplemental EIS for lease sale 193. Any impact conclusion in the -DEIS greater than “negligible” would be in conflict with the MMPA “negligible impact” -finding. Future site-specific activities will require additional NEPA analysis. - -NEP 15 NMFS should characterize this analysis as a programmatic EIS, and should make clear that -additional site-specific NEPA analysis must be performed in conjunction to assess individual -proposed projects and activities. A programmatic EIS, such as the one NMFS has proposed -here, cannot provide the detailed information required to ensure that specific projects will -avoid serious environmental harm and will satisfy the standards established by the MMPA. -For example, it may be necessary to identify with specificity the locations of sensitive -habitats that may be affected by individual projects in order to develop and implement -appropriate mitigation measures. The DEIS, as written, cannot achieve this level of detail. - -NEP 16 The DEIS presents an environmental consequences analysis that is inadequate and does not -provide a basis for assessing the relative merits of the alternatives. - -• The criteria for characterizing impact levels are not clear and do not provide adequate, -distinct differences between categories. Ratings are given by agency officials, which -could vary from person to person and yield inconsistent assessments. This methodology -is in contradiction to the NEPA requirements and guidelines that require objective -decision-making procedures. - -• A basis for comparison across alternatives, such as a cost-benefit analysis or other -assessment of relative value between human economic activity and physical/biological -impacts, is not included. From the existing evaluation system, a “minor” biological effect -and a “minor” social environment effect would be equivalent. - -• Minor and short-term behavioral effects appear to be judged more consequential than -known causes of animal mortality. - -• Available technical information on numerous issues does not appear to have been -evaluated or included in the impact analysis. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 80 -Comment Analysis Report - -• The assumptions for analysis are flawed and substantially underestimates industry -activities. - -• There is no attention to the probability of impacts. -• There is little attention paid to the severity of effects discussed. -• Many conclusions lack supporting data, and findings are not incorporated into a - -biologically meaningful analysis. - -NEP 17 There is no purpose and need for the scope of any NEPA analysis prepared by NMFS to -address the impacts of incidental take of polar bears and walrus by the oil and gas industry. -There are existing ITRs and NEPA analyses that cover these species. The scope of the DEIS -should be revised to exclude polar bears and walrus. - -NEP 18 NMFS should extend the public comment period to accommodate the postponed public -meetings in Kaktovik and Nuiqsut. It seems appropriate to keep the public comment period -open for all public entities until public meetings have been completed. NMFS should ensure -that adherence to the public process and NEPA compliance has occurred. - -NEP 19 The DEIS should define the potential future uses of tiering from the NEPA document, -specifically related to land and water management and uses. This future management intent -may extend the regulatory jurisdiction beyond the original scope of the DEIS. - -NEP 20 There are no regulations defining the term “potential effects,” which is used quite frequently -in the DEIS. Many of these potential effects are questionable due the lack of scientific -certainty, and in some critical areas, the virtual absence of knowledge. The DEIS confuses -agency decision-making by presenting an extensive list of “potential effects” as if they are -certainties -- and then demands they be mitigated. Thus, it is impossible for the DEIS to -inform, guide or instruct agency managers to differentiate between activities that have no -effect, minor or major effect to a few animals or to an entire population. - -NEP 21 The DEIS analysis provides inconsistent conclusions between resources and should be -revised. For example: - -• The analysis appears to give equivalent weight to potential risks for which there is no -indication of past effect and little to no scientific basis beyond the hypothesis of concern. -The analysis focuses on de minimus low-level industry acoustic behavioral effects well -below either NMFS’ existing and precautionary acoustic thresholds and well below levels -that recent science indicates are legitimate thresholds of harm. These insupportably low -behavioral effect levels are then labeled as a greater risk ("moderate") than non-industry -activities involving mortality to marine mammals of concern, which are labeled as -"minor" environmental effects. - -• Beneficial socioeconomic impacts are characterized as “minor” while environmental -impacts are characterized as “major.” This level of impact characterization implies an -inherent judgment of relative value, not supported by environmental economic analysis or -valuation. - -• The DEIS concedes that because exploration activities can continue for several years, the -duration of effects on the acoustic environment should be considered “long term,” but -this overview is absent from the bowhead assessment. - -• In discussing effects to subsistence hunting from permitted discharges, the DEIS refers to -the section on public health. The summary for the public health effects, however, refers -to the entirety of the cumulative effects discussion. That section appears to contain no -more than a passing reference to the issue. The examination of the mitigation measure - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 81 -Comment Analysis Report - -that would require recycling of drilling muds fares no better. The section simply -reinforces the fact that residents are very concerned about contamination without -considering the benefits that could come from significantly reducing the volume of toxic -discharges. - -• The only category with differently rated impacts between Alternatives 3 and 4 is "cultural -resources." Although authorization of marine mammal incidental take would have no -impact on cultural resources, for Alternatives 2 and 3, impacts to cultural resources are -rated as "negligible" rather than none. With imposition of additional mitigation measures -in Alternative 4, NMFS inexplicably increased the impact to "minor." - -NEP 22 The DEIS fails to explain how the environmental consequences analysis relates single animal -risk effect to the population level effect analysis and whether the analysis is premised on a -deterministic versus a probabilistic risk assessment approach. The DEIS apparently relies on -some type of "hybrid" risk assessment protocol and therefore is condemned to an unscientific -assessment that leads to an arbitrary and unreasonable conclusion that potential low-level -behavioral effects on few individual animals would lead to a biologically significant -population level effect. - -NEP 23 As written, the DEIS impact criteria provide no objective or reproducible scientific basis for -agency personnel to make decisions. The DEIS process would inherently require agency -decision makers to make arbitrary decisions not based upon objective boundaries. The DEIS -impact criteria are hard to differentiate between and should be revised to address the -following concerns: - -• The distinction made among these categories raises the following questions: What is -"perceptible" under Low Impact? What does "noticeably alter" mean? How does -"perceptible" under Low Impact differ from "detectable" under Moderate Impact? What -separates an "observable change in resource condition" under Moderate Intensity from an -"observable change in resource condition" under High Impact? Is it proper to establish an -"observable change" without assessment of the size of the change or more importantly the -effect as the basis to judge whether an action should be allowable? - -• There is no reproducible scientific process to determine relative judgment about intensity, -duration, extent, and context. - -NEP 24 The projection of risk in the DEIS is inconsistent with reality of effect. The characterizations -of risk are highly subjective and fully dependent upon the selection of the evaluator who -would be authorized to use his/her own, individual scientific understanding, views and biases. -The assessments cannot be replicated. The DEIS itself acknowledges the inconsistency from -assessment to assessment. This creates a situation in which the DEIS determines that -otherwise minor effects from industry operations (ranging from non-detectable to short-term -behavioral effects with no demonstrated population-level effects) are judged to be a higher -rated risk to the species than known causes of mortality. - -NEP 25 NMFS and BOEM should examine this process to handle uncertainty and should include in a -revised DEIS the assumptions and precautionary factors applied that are associated with each -step of this process such as: - -• estimates of seismic activity; -• source sizes and characterizations; -• underwater sound propagation; -• population estimates and densities of marine mammals; - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 82 -Comment Analysis Report - -• noise exposure criteria; and -• marine mammal behavior. - -Until the agencies document and communicate these underlying decisions in a transparent -fashion, neither the industry nor agency resource managers can know and understand how -such decisions are made and therefore the range and rate of error. The DEIS as presently -written presents an "on the one hand; on the other" approach which does not inform the issue -for agency resource managers. - -NEP 26 It is necessary for the DEIS to clearly define what constitutes a “take” and why, and what -thresholds will be utilized in the rulemaking. If there is reason for differing thresholds, those -differences should be clearly communicated and their rationale thoroughly explained. The -DEIS should: - -• NMFS needs to quantify the number of marine mammals that it expects to be taken each -year under all of the activities under review in the DEIS and provide an overall -quantification. This is critical to NMFS ensuring that its approval of IHAs will comport -with the MMPA. - -• Assert that exposure to sound does not equal an incidental taking. -• Communicate that the 120/160/180 dB thresholds used as the basis of the DEIS analysis - -are inappropriate and not scientifically supportable. -• Adopt the Southall Criteria (Southall, et al. 2007), which would establish the following - -thresholds: Level A at 198 dB re 1 µPa-rms; Level B at the lowest level of TTS-onset as -a proxy until better data is developed. - -NEP 27 The DEIS analysis should consider the frequency component, nature of the sound source, -cetacean hearing sensitivities, and biological significance when determining what constitutes -Level B incidental take. The working assumption that impulsive noise never disrupts marine -mammal behavior at levels below 160 dB (RMS), and disrupts behavior with 100 percent -probability at higher levels has been repeatedly demonstrated to be incorrect, including in -cases involving the sources and areas being considered in the DEIS. The reliance on the 160 -dB guideline for Level B take estimation is antiquated and should be revised by NMFS. The -criteria should be replaced by a combination of Sound Exposure Level limits and Peak (not -RMS) Sound Pressure Levels or other metric being considered. - -NEP 28 The DEIS fails to: - -• Adequately reflect prior research contradicting the Richardson et al. (1999) findings; -• Address deficiencies in the Richardson et al. (1999) study; and -• Present and give adequate consideration to newer scientific studies that challenge the - -assertion that bowhead whales commonly deflect around industry sound sources. - -NEP 29 Fundamental legal violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), NEPA, and -OCSLA may have occurred during the review process and appear throughout the DEIS -document. There are significant NEPA failures in the scoping process, in the consultation -process with agency experts, in the development and assessment of action alternatives, and in -the development and assessment of mitigation measures. There are also many assumptions -and conclusions in the DEIS that are clearly outside of NMFS’ jurisdiction, raise anti- -competitiveness concerns, and are likely in violation of the contract requirements and -property rights established through the OCSLA. In total, these legal violations create the -impression that NMFS pre-judged the results of their NEPA analysis. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 83 -Comment Analysis Report - -• NMFS did not evaluate different numbers per sea/alternative of drilling programs, as was -requested in public comments listed as COR 38 in Appendix C [of the EIS scoping -report]. - -• The DEIS contains little or no assessment of the impact of alternatives on BOEM’s -ability to meet the OCSLA requirements for exploration and development, as all of the -alternatives would slow the pace of exploration and development so much that lease -terms may be violated and development may not be economically viable. - -• The arbitrary ceiling on exploration and development activities chosen by NMFS raises -anti-competitiveness concerns. NMFS will be put in the position of picking and choosing -which lessees will get the opportunity to explore their leases. - -• NMFS’s actions under both NEPA and OCSLA need to be reviewed under the arbitrary -and capricious standard of the APA. An agency’s decision is arbitrary and capricious -under the APA where the agency (i) relies on factors Congress did not intend it to -consider, (ii) entirely fails to consider an important aspect of the problem, or (iii) offers -an explanation that runs counter to the evidence before the agency or is so implausible -that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise. -Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The current DEIS -errs in all three ways. - -NEP 30 The various stages of oil and gas exploration and development are connected actions that -should have been analyzed in the DEIS. The DEIS analyzes activities independently, but fails -to account for the temporal progression of exploration toward development on a given -prospect. By analyzing only a “snapshot” of activity in a given year, the DEIS fails to account -for the potential bottleneck caused by its forced cap on the activity allowed under its NEPA -analysis. NMFS should have considered a level of activity that reflected reasonably -foreseeable lessee demand for authorization to conduct oil and gas exploration and -development, and because it did not, the DEIS is legally defective and does not meet the -requirement to provide a reasonably accurate estimate of future activities necessary for the -DEIS to support subsequent decision-making under OCSLA. - -NEP 31 The DEIS should also include consideration of the additional time required to strike first oil -under each alternative and mitigation measure, since the delay between exploration -investment and production revenue has a direct impact on economic viability and, by -extension, the cumulative socioeconomic impacts of an alternative. - -NEP 32 NMFS should consider writing five-year ITRs for oil and gas exploration activities rather -than using this DEIS as the NEPA document. - -NEP 33 In order to designate “special habitat areas,” NMFS must go through the proper channels, -including a full review process. No such process was undertaken prior to designating these -“special habitat areas” in the DEIS. - -NEP 34 NMFS should consider basing its analysis of bowhead whales on the potential biological -removal (PBR) – a concept that reflects the best scientific information available and a -concept that is defined within the MMPA. NMFS could use information from the stock -assessments, current subsistence harvest quotas, and natural mortality to assess PBR. If -NMFS does not include PBR as an analysis technique in the DEIS, it should be stated why it -was not included. - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 84 -Comment Analysis Report - -NEP 35 The impact criteria that were used for the magnitude or intensity of impacts for marine -mammals are not appropriate. For a high intensity activity, whales and other marine -mammals would have to entirely leave the EIS project area. This criterion is arbitrary and has -no basis in biology. Instead, the intensity of the impact should relate to animals missing -feeding opportunities, being deflected from migratory routes, the potential for stress related -impacts, or other risk factors. - -NEP 36 The DEIS repeatedly asserts, without support, that time and place limitations may not result -in fewer exploration activities. The DEIS must do more to justify its position. It cannot -simply assume that desirable locations for exploration activities are fungible enough that a -restriction on activities in Camden Bay, for example, will lead to more exploration between -Camden Bay and Harrison Bay. - -NEP 37 NMFS must revise the thresholds and methodology used to estimate take from airgun use to -incorporate the following parameters: - -• Employ a combination of specific thresholds for which sufficient species-specific data -are available and generalized thresholds for all other species. These thresholds should be -expressed as linear risk functions where appropriate. If a risk function is used, the 50% -take parameter for all the baleen whales (bowhead, fin, humpback, and gray whales) and -odontocetes occurring in the area (beluga whales, narwhals, killer whales, harbor -porpoises) should not exceed 140 dB (RMS). Indeed, at least for bowhead whales, beluga -whales, and harbor porpoises, NMFS should use a threshold well below that number, -reflecting the high levels of disturbance seen in these species at 120 dB (RMS) and -below. - -• Data on species for which specific thresholds are developed should be included in -deriving generalized thresholds for species for which less data are available. - -• In deriving its take thresholds, NMFS should treat airgun arrays as a mixed acoustic type, -behaving as a multi-pulse source closer to the array and, in effect, as a continuous noise -source further from the array, per the findings of the 2011 Open Water Panel cited above. -Take thresholds for the impulsive component of airgun noise should be based on peak -pressure rather than on RMS. - -• Masking thresholds should be derived from Clark et al. (2009), recognizing that masking -begins when received levels rise above ambient noise. - -NEP 38 The DEIS fails to consider masking effects in establishing a 120 dB threshold for continuous -noise sources. Some biologists have analogized the increasing levels of noise from human -activities as a rising tide of “fog” that is already shrinking the sensory range of marine -animals by orders of magnitude from pre-industrial levels. As noted above, masking of -natural sounds begins when received levels rise above ambient noise at relevant frequencies. -Accordingly, NMFS must evaluate the loss of communication space, and consider the extent -of acoustic propagation, at far lower received levels than the DEIS currently employs. - -NEP 39 The DEIS fails to consider the impacts of sub-bottom profilers and other active acoustic -sources commonly featured in deep-penetration seismic and shallow hazard surveys and -should be included in the final analysis, regardless of the risk function NMFS ultimately uses. - -NEP 40 As the Ninth Circuit has found, “the considerations made relevant by the substantive statute -during the proposed action must be addressed in NEPA analysis.” Here, in assessing their -MMPA obligations, the agencies presuppose that industry will apply for IHAs rather than -five-year take authorizations and that BOEM will not apply to NMFS for programmatic - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 85 -Comment Analysis Report - -rulemaking. But the potential for mortality and serious injury bars industry from using the -incidental harassment process to obtain take authorizations under the MMPA. - -In 1994, Congress amended the MMPA to add provisions that allow for the incidental -harassment of marine mammals through IHAs, but only for activities that result the “taking -by harassment” of marine mammals. For those activities that could result in ‘taking” other -than harassment, interested parties must continue to use the pre-existing procedures for -authorization through specific regulations, often referred to as “five-year regulations.” -Accordingly, NMFS’ implementing regulations state that an IHA in the Arctic cannot be used -for “activities that have the potential to result in serious injury or mortality.” In the preamble -to the proposed regulations, NMFS explained that if there is a potential for serious injury or -death, it must either be “negated” through mitigation requirements or the applicant must -instead seek approval through five-year regulations. - -Given the clear potential for serious injury and mortality, few if any seismic operators in the -Arctic can legally obtain their MMPA authorizations through the IHAs process. BOEM -should consider applying to NMFS for a programmatic take authorization, and NMFS should -revise its impact and alternatives analyses in the EIS on the assumption that rulemaking is -required. - -NEP 41 The DEIS contains very little discussion of the combined effects of drilling and ice -management. Ice management can significantly expand the extent of a disturbance zone. It is -unclear as to how the disturbance zones for exploratory drilling in the Chukchi Sea were -determined as well. - -NEP 42 The analysis of impacts under Alternative 3 is insufficient and superficial and shows little -change from the analysis of impacts under Alternative 2 despite adding four additional -seismic surveys, four shallow hazard surveys, and two drilling programs. The analysis in -Alternative 3 highlights the general failure to consider the collective impact of different -activities. For example, the DEIS notes the minimum separation distance for seismic surveys, -but no such impediment exists for separating surveying and exploration drilling, along with -its accompanying ice breaking activities. - -NEP 43 The DEIS references the “limited geographic extent” of ice breaking activities, but it does not -consistently recognize that multiple ice breakers could operate as a result of the exploration -drilling programs. - -NEP 44 NEPA regulations make clear that agencies should not proceed with authorizations for -individual projects until an ongoing programmatic EIS is complete. That limitation is relevant -to the IHAs application currently before NMFS, including Shell’s plan for exploration -drilling beginning in 2012. It would be unlawful for NMFS to approve the marine mammal -harassment associated with Shell’s proposal without completing the EIS. - -NEP 45 The DEIS states that the final document may be used as the “sole” NEPA compliance -document for future activities. Such an approach is unwarranted. The EIS, as written, does -not provide sufficient information about the effects of specific activities taking place in any -particular location in the Arctic. The Ninth Circuit has criticized attempts to rely on a -programmatic overview to justify projects when there is a lack of “any specific information” -about cumulative effects. That specificity is missing here as well. For example, Shell’s -proposed a multi-year exploration drilling program in both seas beginning in 2012 will -involve ten wells, four ice management vessels, and dozens of support ships. The EIS simply -does not provide an adequate analysis that captures the effects of the entire enterprise, - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 86 -Comment Analysis Report - -including: 1) the Kulluk’s considerable disturbance zone; 2) the proximity of the drill sites to -bowhead feeding locations and the number of potentially harassed whales; or 3) the total -combined effects of drilling, ice management, and vessel traffic. - -NEP 46 The DEIS fails to incorporate impacts consistently and accurately through all layers of the -food web. A flow chart showing cause-and-effect relationships through each biological layer -may help correct truncation of analyses between resource groups. The resource -specialists/authors should coordinate on the analyses, particularly for prey resources or -habitat parameters. - -NEP 47 NMFS should come back to the communities after comments have been received on the -DEIS and provide a presentation or summary document that shows how communities' -comments were incorporated. - -NEP 48 The communities are feeling overwhelmed with the amount of documents they are being -asked to review related to various aspects of oil and gas exploration and development -activities. The system of commenting on EIS documents needs to be revised. However, the -forums of public meetings are important to people in the communities so their concerns can -be heard before they are implemented in the EIS. - -NEP 49 NMFS should consider making EIS documents (such as the public meeting powerpoint, -project maps, the mitigation measures, and/or the Executive Summary) available in hard copy -form to the communities. Even though these documents are on the project website, access to -the internet is very slow, and not always available and/or reliable. Having information -available in libraries or repositories would be much better for rural Alaskan residents. - -NEP 50 Deferring the selection of mitigation measures to a later date, where the public may not be -involved, fails to comport with NEPA’s requirements. “An essential component of a -reasonably complete mitigation discussion is an assessment of whether the proposed -mitigation measures can be effective." In reviewing NEPA documents, courts require this -level of disclosure, because "without at least some evaluation of effectiveness," the -discussion of mitigation measures is "useless" for "evaluating whether the anticipated -environmental impacts can be avoided." A "mere listing of mitigation measures is insufficient -to qualify as the reasoned discussion required by NEPA." The EIS should identify which -mitigation measures will be used. - -NEP 51 The DEIS provides extensive information regarding potential impacts of industry activities on -marine life. However, it gives insufficient attention to the impacts the alternatives and -mitigation measures would have on development of OCS resources. This should include -information on lost opportunity costs and the effect of time and area closures given the -already very short open water and weather windows available for Arctic industry operations. - -NEP 52 Positive environmental consequences of some industry activities and technologies are not -adequately considered, especially alternative technologies and consideration of what the -benefits of better imaging of the subsurface provides in terms of potentially reducing the -number of wells to maximize safe production. - -NEP 53 Local city councils within the affected area need to be informed of public involvement -meetings, since they are the elected representatives for the community. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 87 -Comment Analysis Report - -NEP 54 Either the proposed action for the EIS needs to be changed or the analysis is too broad for the -proposed action stated. NMFS should not limit the number of activities allowed: - -• As long as the number of takes has no more than a negligible impact on species or stock. -• Limiting the level of activities also limits the amount of data that can be collected. - -Industry will not be able to collect the best data in the time allotted. - -NEP 55 The exploration drilling season is largely limited by ice. Ice distribution in recent years -indicates drilling at some lease holdings could possibly occur June-November. NMFS should, -therefore, extend the temporal extent of the exploration drilling season. - -NEP 56 The planning area boundary south of Point Hope should be removed from the EIS project -area. This area serves as the primary transportation route from the Bering Straits to the -Beaufort and Chukchi sea lease holdings. By including this portion of the Chukchi Sea in the -EIS project area, NMFS appears to be attempting to restrict access to travel corridors during -key periods. Vessel transit to a lease holding or exploration area is not included in current -NMFS or BOEM regulatory jurisdiction; therefore, the requirement included in the DEIS -provides unwarranted restrictions. Transit areas should not be included in the EIS project area -since ITAs are not required for vessel transit. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 88 -Comment Analysis Report - -Oil Spill Risks (OSR) -OSR Concerns about potential for oil spill, ability to clean up spills in various conditions, potential - -impacts to resources or environment from spills. - -OSR 1 A large oil spill in the extreme conditions present in Arctic waters would be extremely -difficult or impossible to clean up. Current cleanup methods are unsuitable and ineffective. -Oil spill responses need to be developed in advance of offshore development. NMFS and -BOEM need to consider the following: - -• Current technology only allows rescue and repair attempts during ice free parts of the -year. If an oil spill occurs near or into freeze-up, the oil will remain trapped there until -spring. These spring lead systems and melt pools are important areas where wildlife -collect. - -• How would oil be skimmed with sea ice present? -• How would rough waters affect oil spill response effectiveness and time, and could rough - -seas and sea ice, in combination, churn the surface oil? - -OSR 2 An oil spill being a low probability event is optimistic and would only apply to the -exploration phase. Once full development or production goes into effect, an oil spill is more -likely. Are there any data suggesting this is a low probability? NMFS should assume a spill -will occur and plan accordingly. - -OSR 3 An oil spill in the arctic environment would be devastating to numerous biological systems, -habitats, communities and people. There is too little known about Arctic marine wildlife to -know what the population effects would be. Black (oiled) ice would expedite ice melt. The -analysis section needs to be updated. Not only would the Arctic be affected but the waters -surrounding the Arctic as well. - -OSR 4 An Oil Spill Response Gap Analysis needs to be developed for existing Arctic Oil and Gas -Operations. - -OSR 5 The effects of an oil spill on indigenous peoples located on the Canadian side of the border -needs to be assessed. - -OSR 6 The use of dispersants could have more unknown effects in the cold and often ice covered -seas of the Arctic. People are reported to be sick or dead from past use of these dispersants, -but yet they are still mentioned as methods of cleanup. - -OSR 7 There are many physical effects a spill can have on marine mammals. Thoroughly consider -the impact of routine spills on marine mammals. The marine mammal commissions briefing -on the Deepwater Horizon spill listed many. - -OSR 8 Mitigation measures need to reflect the possibility of an oil spill and lead to a least likely -impact. Identify areas to be protected first in case a spill does occur. - -OSR 9 Pinnipeds and walruses are said to have only minor to moderate impacts with a very large oil -spill. The conclusion is peculiar since NMFS is considering ringed and bearded seals and -USFWS is considering walruses to be listed under the ESA. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 89 -Comment Analysis Report - -OSR 10 Proven technology that could operate outside the open-water season should be specified. The -EIS needs to determine if certain vessels like the drillship Discoverer can actually complete a -relief-well late in the operating season when ice may be present, since it is not a true ice class -vessel. - -OSR 11 Hypothetical spill real time constraints and how parameters for past VLOS events need to be -explained and identified. A range of representative oils should be used for scenarios not just -for a light-weight oil. Percentages of trajectories need to be explained and identified. - -OSR 12 The oil spill section needs to be reworked. NMFS should consider also working the -discussion of oil spills in the discussion the alternatives. No overall risks to the environment -are stated, or severity of spills in different areas, shoreline oiling is inadequate, impacts to -whales may be of higher magnitude due to important feeding areas and spring lead systems. -Recovery rates should be reevaluated for spilled oil. There are no site-specific details. The -trajectory model needs to be more precise. - -OSR 13 The DEIS confirms our [the affected communities] worst fears about both potential negative -impacts from offshore drilling and the fact that the federal government appears ready to place -on our communities a completely unacceptable risk at the behest of the international oil -companies. Native people in Alaska depend on the region for food and economical support. -An oil spill would negatively impact the local economies and the livelihoods of Native -people. - -OSR 14 To the extent that a VLOS is not part of the proposed action covered in the DEIS, it is -inappropriate to include an evaluation of the impacts of such an event in this document - -OSR 15 NMFS should recommend an interagency research program on oil spill response in the Arctic -and seek appropriations from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the program as -soon as possible. - -OSR 16 This DEIS should explain how non-Arctic analogs of oil spills are related to the Arctic and -what criteria are used as well as highlight the USGS Data-Gap Report that recommends for -continuous updating of estimates. - -OSR 17 Consider that effects of an oil spill would be long-lasting. Petroleum products cause -malformation in fish, death in marine mammals and birds, and remain in the benthos for at -least 25 years, so would impact the ecosystem for at least a quarter of a century. - -OSR 18 The effects that a very large oil spill could have on seal populations are understated in the -analyses. - -• Based on animal behavior and results from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) it is much -more likely that seals would be attracted to a spill area particularly cleanup operations, -leading to a higher chance of oiling (Nelson 1969, Herreman 2011 personal observation). - -• The oil spill would not have to reach polynya or lead systems to affect seals. Ringed seals -feed under the pack ice in the water column layer where oil would likely be entrained and -bearded seals travel through this water layer. - -• Numerous individuals are likely to become oiled no matter where such a spill is likely to -occur. - -• Food sources for all seal species would be heavily impacted in spill areas. -• More than one "subpopulation" could likely be affected by a very large oil spill. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 90 -Comment Analysis Report - -OSR 19 Analysis should include the high probability for polar bears to be impacted if an oil spill -reached the lead edge between the shorefast and pack ice zones, which is critical foraging -habitat especially during spring after den emergence by females with cubs. - -OSR 20 It is recommended that NMFS take into account the safety and environmental concerns -highlighted in the Gulf of Mexico incident and how these factors will be exacerbated in the -more physically challenging Arctic environment. Specifically, NMFS is asked to consider the -systematic safety problems with the oil and gas industry, the current lack of regulatory -oversight, and the lax enforcement of violations. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 91 -Comment Analysis Report - -Peer Review (PER) -PER Suggestions for peer review of permits, activities, proposals. - -PER 1 A higher-quality survey effort needs to be conducted by an independent and trusted third -party. - -PER 2 An open-ended permit should not move into production without proper review of the -extensive processes, technologies, and infrastructure required for commercial hydrocarbon -exploitation. - -PER 3 Research and monitoring cannot just be industry controlled; it needs to be a transparent -process with peer review. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 92 -Comment Analysis Report - -Regulatory Compliance (REG) -REG Comments associated with compliance with existing regulations, laws and statutes. - -REG 1 NMFS should reconsider the use of the word “taking” in reference to the impacts to marine -mammals since these animals are not going to be taken, they are going to be killed and -wasted. - -REG 2 Permitted activity level should not exceed what is absolutely essential for the industry to -conduct seismic survey activities. NMFS needs to be sure that activities are indeed, negligible -and at the least practicable level for purposes of the MMPA. - -REG 3 NMFS is encouraged to amend the DEIS to include a more complete description of the -applicable statute and implementing regulations and analyze whether the proposed levels of -industrial activity will comply with the substantive standards of the MMPA. - -REG 4 NMFS should revise the DEIS to encompass only those areas that are within the agency’s -jurisdiction and remove provisions and sections that conflicts with other federal and state -agency jurisdictions (BOEM, USFWS, EPA, Coast Guard, and State of Alaska). The current -DEIS is felt to constitute a broad reassessment and expansion of regulatory oversight. -Comments include: - -• The EIS mandates portions of CAAs, which are voluntary and beyond NMFS -jurisdiction. - -• The EIS proposes polar bear mitigations measures that could contradict those issued by -USFWS under the MMPA and ESA. - -• Potential requirements for zero discharge encroach on EPA’s jurisdiction under the Clean -Water Act regarding whether and how to authorize discharges. - -• Proposed mitigation measures, acoustic restrictions, and “Special Habitat” area -effectively extend exclusion zones and curtail lease block access, in effect “capping” -exploration activities. These measures encroach on the Department of the Interior’s -jurisdiction to identify areas open for leasing and approve exploration plans, as -designated under OCSLA. - -• The proposed requirement for an Oil Spill Response Plan conflicts with BOEM, Bureau -of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and the Coast Guard’s jurisdiction, as -established in OPA-90, which requires spill response planning. - -• NMFS does not have the authority to restrict vessel transit, which is under the jurisdiction -of the Coast Guard. - -• Proposed restrictions, outcomes, and mitigation measures duplicate and contradict -existing State lease stipulations and mitigation measures. - -REG 5 NMFS should take a precautionary approach in its analysis of impacts of oil and gas activities -and in the selection of a preferred alternative. NMFS should not permit any more oil and gas -exploration within the U.S. Beaufort and Chukchi seas unless and until there is a plan in place -that shows those activities can be conducted without harming the health of the ecosystem or -opportunities for the subsistence way of life. - -REG 6 The EIS needs to be revised to ensure compliance with Article 18 of the Vienna Convention -of the Law on Treaties and the Espoo Convention, which states that a country engaging in -offshore oil and gas development must take all appropriate and effective measures to prevent, - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 93 -Comment Analysis Report - -reduce and control significant adverse transboundary environmental impacts from proposed -activities and must notify and provide information to a potentially affected country. - -REG 7 The DEIS needs to identify and properly address the importance of balancing the -requirements of the OCSLA, the MMPA and ESA. Currently, the DEIS substantially gives -undue weight to considerations involving incidental taking of marine mammals under the -MMPA and virtually ignores the requirements of OCSLA. Comments include: - -• The DEIS contains little or no assessment of the impact of alternatives on BOEM’s -ability to meet the OCSLA requirements for exploration and development. - -• A forced limitation in industry activity by offering only alternatives that constrain -industry activities would logically result in violating the expeditious development -provisions of OCSLA. - -• All of the alternatives would slow the pace of exploration and development so much that -lease terms may be violated and development may not be economically viable. - -REG 8 NMFS’s explicit limitations imposed on future exploration and development on existing -leases in the DEIS undermine the contractual agreement between lessees and the Federal -government in violation of the Supreme Court’s instruction in Mobil Oil Exploration & -Producing Southeast v. United States, 530 U.S. 604 (2000). - -REG 9 The DEIS needs to be changed to reflect the omnibus bill signed by President Obama on -December 23, 2011 that transfers Clean Air Act permitting authority from the EPA -Administrator to the Secretary of Interior (BOEM) in Alaska Arctic OCS. - -REG 10 Until there an indication that BOEM intends to adopt new air permitting regulations for the -Arctic or otherwise adopt regulations that will ensure compliance with the requirements of -the Clean Air Act, it is important that NMFS address the worst case scenario- offshore oil and -gas activities proceeding under BOEM's current regulations. - -REG 11 The DEIS needs to discuss threatened violations of substantive environmental laws. In -analyzing the effects "and their significance" pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16, CEQ -regulations require the agency to consider "whether the action threatens a violation of -Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment." - -REG 12 The current DEIS impact criteria need to be adjusted to reflect MMPA standards, specifically -in relation to temporal duration and the geographical extent of impacts. In assessing whether -the proposed alternatives would comply with the MMPA standards, NMFS must analyze -impacts to each individual hunt to identify accurately the potential threats to each individual -community. MMPA standards focuses on each individual harvest for each season and do not -allow NMFS to expand the geographic and temporal scope of its analysis. MMPA regulations -define an unmitigable adverse impact as one that is "likely to reduce the availability of the -species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs." Within the DEIS, the -current impact criteria would tend to mask impacts to local communities over shorter -durations of time. - -REG 13 Language needs to be changed throughout the conclusion of impacts to subsistence, where -NMFS repeatedly discusses the impacts using qualified language; however, the MMPA -requires a specific finding that the proposed activities "will not" have an adverse impact to -our subsistence practices. It is asked that NMFS implement the will of Congress and disclose -whether it has adequate information to reach these required findings before issuing ITAs. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 94 -Comment Analysis Report - -REG 14 It is suggested that NMFS include in the DEIS an explicit discussion of whether and to what -extent the options available for mitigation comply with the "lease practicable adverse impact" -standard of the MMPA. This is particularly important for the "additional mitigation -measures" that NMFS has, to this point, deferred for future consideration. By focusing its -analysis on the requirements of MMPA, we believe that NMFS will recognize its obligation -to make an upfront determination of whether these additional mitigation measures are -necessary to comply with the law. Deferring the selection of mitigation measures to a later -date, where the public may not be involved, fails to comport with NEPA's requirements. - -REG 15 The DEIS needs to consistently apply section 1502.22 and consider NMFS and BOEM’s -previous conclusions as to their inability to make informed decisions as to potential effects. -NMFS acknowledges information gaps without applying the CEQ framework and disregards -multiple sources that highlight additional fundamental data gaps concerning the Arctic and -the effects of oil and gas disturbance. - -REG 16 NMFS needs to reassess the legal uncertainty and risks associated with issuing marine -mammal take authorizations under the MMPA based upon a scope as broad as the Arctic -Ocean. - -REG 17 NMFS needs to assess the impact of offshore coastal development in light of the fact that -Alaska lacks a coastal management program, since the State lacks the program infrastructure -to effectively work on coastal development issues. - -REG 18 NMFS needs to ensure that it is in compliance with the Ninth Circuit court ruling that when -an action is taken pursuant to a specific statute, not only do the statutory objectives of the -project serve as a guide by which to determine the reasonableness of objectives outlined in an -EIS, but the statutory objectives underlying the agency’s action work significantly to define -its analytic obligations. As a result, NMFS is required by NEPA to explain how alternatives -in an EIS will meet requirements of other environmental laws and policies. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 95 -Comment Analysis Report - -Research, Monitoring, Evaluation Needs (RME) -RME Comments on baseline research, monitoring, and evaluation needs - -RME 1 The USGS identified important gaps in existing information related to the Beaufort and -Chukchi seas, including gaps on the effects of noise on marine mammals. This report -highlighted that the type of information needed to make decisions about the impact of -offshore activity (e.g., seismic noise) on marine mammals remains largely lacking. A -significant unknown is the degree to which sound impacts marine mammals, from the -individual level to the population level. - -The degree of uncertainty regarding impacts to marine mammals greatly handicaps the -agencies' efforts to fully evaluate the impacts of the permitted activities, and NMFS' ability to -determine whether the activity is in compliance with the terms of the MMPA. The agency -should acknowledge these data-gaps required by applicable NEPA regulations (40 C.F.R. -§1502.22), and gather the missing information. - -While research and monitoring for marine mammals in the Arctic has increased, NMFS still -lacks basic information on abundance, trends, and stock structure of most Arctic marine -mammal species. This information is needed to gauge whether observed local or regional -effects on individuals or groups of marine mammals are likely to have a cumulative or -population level effect. - -The lack of information about marine mammals in the Arctic and potential impacts of -anthropogenic noise, oil spills, pollution and other impacts on those marine mammals -undercuts NMFS ability to determine the overall effects of such activities. - -RME 2 The DEIS does not address or acknowledge the increasingly well-documented gaps in -knowledge of baseline environmental conditions and data that is incomplete in the Beaufort -and Chukchi seas for marine mammals and fish, nor how baseline conditions and marine -mammal populations are being affected by climate change. Information regarding -information regarding the composition, distribution, status, ecology of the living marine -resources and sensitive habitats in these ecosystems needs to be better known. Baseline data -are also critical to developing appropriate mitigation measures and evaluating their -effectiveness. It is unclear what decisions over what period of time would be covered under -the DEIS or how information gaps would be addressed and new information incorporated into -future decisions. The information gaps in many areas with relatively new and expanding -exploration activities are extensive and severe enough that it may be too difficult for -regulators to reach scientifically reliable conclusions about the risks to marine mammals from -oil and gas activities. - -To complicate matters, much of the baseline data about individual species (e.g., population -dynamics) remains a noteworthy gap. It is this incomplete baseline that NMFS uses as their -basis for comparing the potential impacts of each alternative. - -RME 3 Prior to installation and erection, noises from industry equipment need to be tested: - -• Jack-up drilling platforms have not been evaluated in peer reviewed literature and will -need to be evaluated prior to authorizing the use of this technology under this EIS. The -DEIS states that it is assumed that the first time a jack-up rig is in operation in the Arctic, -detailed measurements will be conducted to determine the acoustic characteristics. This - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 96 -Comment Analysis Report - -statement implies an assumption that the noise levels found on erecting the jack-up rig -will be below levels required for mitigation. The DEIS needs to explain what would be -the procedure if the noise exposure threshold was exceeded. It is suggest that the noises -of erecting a jack-up rig be characterized in a trial basis before deployment to a remote -location where the environment is more sensitive to disruption and where the phrase -“practical mitigation” can be applied. - -• Noise from the erection and deployment of jack-up rigs and other stationary platforms -need to be quantified and qualified prior to introducing them into the Arctic. - -• Noise from thruster-driven dynamic positioning systems on drilling platforms and drill -ships need to be quantified and qualified prior to introducing them into the Arctic. - -RME 4 Propagation of airgun noise from in-ice seismic surveys is not accurately known, -complicating mitigation threshold distances and procedures. - -RME 5 Noise impacts of heavy transport aircraft and helicopters needs to be evaluated and -incorporated into the DEIS. - -RME 6 Protection of acoustic environments relies upon accurate reference conditions and that -requires the development of procedures for measuring the source contributions of noise as -well as analyses of historical patterns of noise exposure in a particular region. Even studies -implemented at this very moment will not be entirely accurate since shipping traffic has -already begun taking advantage of newly ice-free routes. The Arctic is likely the last place on -the planet where acoustic habitat baseline information can be gathered and doing so is -imperative to understanding the resulting habitat loss from these activities. A comprehensive -inventory of acoustical conditions would be the first step towards documenting the extent of -current noise conditions, and estimating the pristine historic and desired future conditions. - -Analysis of potential impacts at this stage is speculative at best because of the lack of -definitive information regarding sound source levels, the type and duration of proposed -exploration activities, and the mitigation measures that each operator would be required to -meet. However, before an ITA can be issued, NMFS will need such information to make the -findings required under the MMPA. - -RME 7 Information on Page 4-355, Section 4.9.4.9 Volume of Oil Reaching Shore includes some -older references to research work that was done in the 1980's and 1990's. More recent -research or reports based on the Deepwater Horizon incident could be referenced here. In -addition NMFS and BOEM should consider a deferral on exploration drilling until the -concerns detailed by the U.S. Oil Spill Commission are adequately addressed. - -RME 8 The DEIS does not explain why obtaining data quality or environmental information on -alternative technologies would have been exorbitant. - -RME 9 It was recommended that agencies and industry involved in Arctic oil and gas exploration -establish a research fund to reduce source levels in seismic surveys. New techniques -including vibroseis should be considered particularly in areas where there have not been -previous surveys and so comparability with earlier data is not an issue. Likewise, similar to -their vessel-quieting technology workshops, NOAA is encouraged to fund and facilitate -expanded research and development in noise reduction measures for seismic surveys. - -RME 10 NMFS has provided only conceptual examples of the temporal and spatial distribution of -proposed activities under each alternative, and the maps and figures provided do not include -all possible activities considered for each alternative or how these activities might overlap - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 97 -Comment Analysis Report - -spatially and temporally. The lack of specific information precludes a full assessment of the -potential effects of the combined activities, including such things as an estimation of the -number of takes for species that transit through the action area during the timeframe being -considered. Similarly, the range of airgun volumes, source levels, and distances to the 190-, -180-, 160-, and 120-dB re 1 µPa harassment thresholds (Table 4.5- 10, which are based on -measurements from past surveys) vary markedly and cannot be used to determine with any -confidence the full extent of harassment of marine mammals. Such assessment requires -modeling of site-specific operational and environmental parameters, which is simply not -possible based on the information in this programmatic assessment. - -To assess the effects of the proposed oil and gas exploration activities under the MMPA, -NMFS should work with BOEM estimate the site-specific acoustic footprints for each sound -threshold (i.e., 190, 180, 160, and 120 dB re 1 µPa) and the expected number of marine -mammal takes, accounting for all types of sound sources and their cumulative impacts. - -Any analysis of potential impacts at this stage is speculative at best because of the lack of -definitive information regarding sound source levels, the type and duration of proposed -exploration activities, and the mitigation measures that each operator would be required to -meet. However, before an ITA can be issued, NMFS will need such information to make the -findings required under the MMPA. - -RME 11 There is missing information regarding: - -• Whether enough is known about beluga whales and their habitat use to accurately predict -the degree of harm expected from multiple years of exploration activity. - -• Issues relevant to effects on walrus regarding the extent of the missing information are -vast, as well summarized in the USGS Report. Information gaps include: population size; -stock structure; foraging ecology in relation to prey distributions and oceanography; -relationship of changes in sea ice to distribution, movements, reproduction, and survival; -models to predict the effects of climate change and anthropogenic impacts; and improved -estimates of harvest. Impacts to walrus of changes in Arctic and subarctic ice dynamics -are not well understood. - -RME 12 To predict the expected effects of oil and gas and other activities more accurately, a broader -synthesis and integration of available information on bowhead whales and other marine -mammals is needed. That synthesis should incorporate such factors as ambient sound levels, -natural and anthropogenic sound sources, abundance, movement patterns, the oceanographic -features that influence feeding and reproductive behavior, and traditional knowledge -(Hutchinson and Ferrero 2011). - -RME 13 An ecosystem-wide, integrated synthesis of available information would help identify -important data gaps that exist for Arctic marine mammals, particularly for lesser-studied -species such as beluga whales, walruses, and ice seals. It also would help the agencies better -understand and predict the long-term, cumulative effects of the proposed activities, in light of -increasing human activities in the Arctic and changing climatic conditions. It is recommended -that NMFS work with BOEM and other entities as appropriate to establish and fully support -programs designed to collect and synthesize the relevant scientific information and traditional -knowledge necessary to evaluate and predict the long-term and cumulative effects of oil and -gas activities on Arctic marine mammals and their environment. - -Robust monitoring plans for authorized activities could be a key component to filling some of -these gaps. Not only do these monitoring plans need to be implemented, but all data collected - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 98 -Comment Analysis Report - -should be publically available for peer review and analysis. In the current system, there is no -choice but to accept industries' interpretation of results. This is not appropriate when we are -talking about impacts to the public and its resources. Since industry is exploring for oil and -gas that belongs to the people of the US and they are potentially impacting other resources -that also belong to the people of the US, data from monitoring programs should be available -to the public. - -RME 14 Page 4-516 Section 4.10.5.4.4 the DEIS suggests that marine mammals may have trouble -navigating between seismic surveys and drill operations because of overlapping sound -signatures, but the analysis does not provide any distances or data to support this conclusion. - -RME 15 Page 4-98 Bowhead Whales, Direct and Indirect Effects [Behavioral Disturbance]. This -section on bowhead whales does not include more recent data in the actual analysis of the -impacts though it does occasionally mention some of the work. Rather it falls back to -previous analyses that did not have this work to draw upon and makes similar conclusions. -NMFS makes statements that are conjectural to justify its conclusions and not based on most -recent available data. - -RME 16 It has become painfully obvious that the use of received level alone is seriously limited in -terms of reliably predicting impacts of sound exposure. However, if NMFS intends to -continue to define takes accordingly, a more representative probabilistic approach would be -more defensible. A risk function with a 50 percent midpoint at 140 dB (RMS) that accounts, -even qualitatively, for contextual issues likely affecting response probability, comes much -closer to reflecting the existing data for marine mammals, including those in the Arctic, than -the 160 dB (RMS) step-function that has previously been used and is again relied upon in the -Arctic DEIS. - -RME 17 Page 3-68, Section 3.2.2.3.2 - The Cryopelagic Assemblage: The sentence "The arctic cod is -abundant in the region, and their enormous autumn-winter pre spawning swarms are well -known" is misleading. What is the referenced region? There are no well-known pre-spawning -swarms for the Beaufort and Chukchi seas oil and gas leasing areas. Furthermore large -aggregations of Arctic Cod have not been common in the most recent fish surveys conducted -in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas (same references used in this EIS). - -RME 18 Page 400, 3rd paragraph Section 4.5.2.4.9.1. The middle of this paragraph states that -"behavioral responses of bowhead whales to activities are expected to be temporary." There -are no data to support this conclusion. The duration of impacts from industrial activities to -bowhead whales is unknown. This statement should clearly state the limitations in data. If a -conclusion is made without data, more information is needed about how NMFS reached this -conclusion. - -RME 19 Page 4-102, 2nd paragraph, Section 4.5.2.4.9.1. Direct and Indirect Effects, Site Clearance -and High Resolution Shallow Hazards Survey Programs: A discussion about how bowhead -whales respond to site clearance/shallow hazard surveys occurs in this paragraph but -references only Richardson et al. (1985). Given the number of recent site clearance/shallow -hazard surveys, there should be additional information to be available from surveys -conducted since 2007. If there are not more recent data, this raises questions regarding the -failure of monitoring programs to examine effects to bowhead whales from site -clearance/shallow hazard surveys. - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 99 -Comment Analysis Report - -RME 20 Page 4-104, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence, Section 4.5.2.4.9.1 Direct and Indirect Effects, -Exploratory Drilling: The conclusions based on the impact criteria are not supported by data. -For example, there are no data on the duration of impacts to bowhead whales from -exploratory drilling. If NMFS is going to make conclusions, they should highlight that -conclusions are not based on data but on supposition. - -RME 21 Page 4-104, Section 4.5.2.4.9.1 Direct and Indirect Effects, Associated Vessels and Aircraft: -This section does not use the best available science. A considerable effort has occurred to -evaluate impacts from activities associated with BP's Northstar production island. Those -studies showed that resupply vessels were one of the noisiest activities at Northstar and that -anthropogenic sounds caused bowhead whales to deflect north of the island or to change -calling behavior. This EIS should provide that best available information about how bowhead -whales respond to vessel traffic to the public and decision makers. - -RME 22 Page 4-107, Section 4.5.2.4.9.1 Direct and Indirect Effects, Hearing Impairment, Injury, and -Mortality: The sentence states that hearing impairment, injury or mortality is "highly -unlikely." Please confirm if there are data to support this statement. It is understood that there -are no data about hearing impairment in bowhead or beluga whales. Again, if speculation or -supposition is used to make conclusions, this should be clearly stated. - -RME 23 The DEIS contains a number of instances in which it acknowledges major information gaps -related to marine mammals but insists that there is an adequate basis for making an -assessment of impacts. For example, the DEIS finds that it is not known whether impulsive -sounds affect reproductive rate or distribution and habitat use [of bowhead whales] over -periods of days or years. Moreover, the potential for increased stress, and the long-term -effects of stress, are unknown, as research on stress effects in marine mammals is limited. -Nevertheless, the DEIS concludes that for bowhead whales the level of available information -is sufficient to support sound scientific judgments and reasoned managerial decisions, even in -the absence of additional data of this type. The DEIS also maintains that sufficient -information exists to evaluate impacts on walrus and polar bear despite uncertainties about -their populations. - -RME 24 Although the DEIS takes note of some of the missing information related to the effects of -noise on fish, it maintains that what does exist is sufficient to make an informed decision. -BOEM’s original draft supplemental EIS for Lease Sale 193, however, observed that -experiments conducted to date have not contained adequate controls to allow us to predict the -nature of the change or that any change would occur. NOAA subsequently submitted -comments noting that BOEM’s admission indicated that the next step would be to address -whether the cost to obtain the information is exorbitant, or the means of doing so unclear. - -The DEIS also acknowledges that robust population estimates and treads for marine fish are -unavailable and detailed information concerning their distribution is lacking. Yet the DEIS -asserts that [g]eneral population trends and life histories are sufficiently understood to -conclude that impacts on fish resources would be negligible. As recently as 2007, BOEM -expressed stronger concerns when assessing the effects of a specific proposal for two -drillships operating in the Beaufort Sea. It found that it could not concur that the effects on all -fish species would be short term or that these potential effects are insignificant, nor would -they be limited to the localized displacement of fish, because they could persist for up to five -months each year for three consecutive years and they could occur during critical times in the -life cycle of important fish species. The agencies’ prior conclusions are equally applicable in -the context of this DEIS. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 100 -Comment Analysis Report - -Fish and EFH Impacts Analysis (Direct and Indirect; Alternatives 2 through 5) is -substantively incomplete and considered to be unsupported analysis lacking analytical rigor -and depth; conclusions are often not rationally and effectively supported by data; some -statements are simply false and can be demonstrated so with further analysis of available -data, studies, and a plethora of broad data gaps that include data gaps concerning the -distribution, population abundance, and life history statistics for the various arctic fish -species. - -RME 25 Significant threshold discussion should be expanded based on MMS, Shell Offshore Inc. -Beaufort Sea Exploration Plan, Environmental Assessment, OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-009 at -50-51 (Feb. 2007) (2007 Drilling EA), available at -http://www.alaska.boemre.gov/ref/EIS%20EA/ShellOffshoreInc_EA/SOI_ea.pdf. - -BOEM avoided looking more closely at the issue by resting on a significance threshold that -required effects to extend beyond multiple generations. The issue of an appropriate -significance threshold in the DEIS is discussed in the text. A panel of the Ninth Circuit -determined that the uncertainty required BOEM to obtain the missing information or provide -a convincing statement of its conclusion of no significant impacts notwithstanding the -uncertainty. Alaska Wilderness League v. Salazar, 548 F.3d 815, 831 (9th Cir. 2008), opinion -withdrawn, 559 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. Mar 06, 2009), vacated as moot, 571 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. -2009). - -RME 26 The DEIS reveals in many instances that studies are in fact already underway, indicating that -the necessary information gathering is not cost prohibitive. - -• A study undertaken by BP, the North Slope Borough, and the University of California -will help better understand masking and the effects of masking on marine mammals[.] It -will also address ways to overcome the inherent uncertainty of where and when animals -may be exposed to anthropogenic noise by developing a model for migrating bowhead -whales. - -• NOAA has convened working groups on Underwater Sound mapping and Cetacean -Mapping in the Arctic. - -• BOEM has an Environmental Studies Program that includes a number of ongoing and -proposed studies in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas that are intended to address a wide- -variety of issues relevant to the DEIS. - -• NMFS’s habitat mapping workshop is scheduled to release information this year, and the -Chukchi Sea Acoustics, Oceanography, and Zooplankton study is well underway. - -These and other studies emphasize the evolving nature of information available concerning -the Arctic. As part of the EIS, NMFS should establish a plan for continuing to gather -information. As these and other future studies identify new areas that merit special -management, the EIS should have a clearly defined process that would allow for their -addition. - -RME 27 The DEIS’ use of the Conoco permit is also improper because the DEIS failed to -acknowledge all of Conoco’s emissions and potential impacts. The DEIS purports to include -a list of typical equipment for an Arctic oil and gas survey or exploratory drilling. The list set -forth in the DEIS is conspicuously incomplete, however, as it assumes that exploratory -drilling can be conducted using only a single icebreaker. Conoco’s proposed operations were -expected to necessitate two icebreakers. Indeed, the three other OCS air permits issued in -2011 also indicate the need for two icebreakers. The failure of the DEIS to account for the - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 101 -Comment Analysis Report - -use of two icebreakers in each exploratory drilling operations is significant because the -icebreakers are the largest source of air pollution associated with an exploratory drilling -operation in the Arctic. - -RME 28 Recent regulatory decisions cutting the annual exploratory drilling window by one third, -purportedly to temporally expand the oil spill response window during the open water season. -At the least, the agencies should collect the necessary data by canvassing lessees as to what -their exploration schedules are, instead of guessing or erroneously assuming what that level -of activity might be over the five years covered by the EIS. This is an outstanding example of -not having basic information (e.g., lessee planned activity schedules) necessary even though -such information is available (upon request) to assess environmental impacts. Such -information can be and should be obtained (at negligible cost) by the federal government, and -used to generate accurate assumptions for analysis. Sharing activity plans/schedules are also -the best of interest of lessees so as to expedite the completion of the EIS and subsequent -issuance of permits. NMFS and BOEM should also canvas seismic survey companies to -gather information concerning their interest and schedules of conducting procured or -speculative seismic surveys in the region and include such data in the generation of their -assumptions for analysis. - -RME 29 Throughout the DEIS, there are additional acknowledgements of missing information, but -without any specific findings as to the importance to the agencies’ decision making, as -required by Section 1502.22, including: - -• Foraging movements of pack-ice breeding seals are not known. -• There are limited data as to the effects of masking. The greatest limiting factor in - -estimating impacts of masking is a lack of understanding of the spatial and temporal -scales over which marine mammals actually communicate. - -• It is not known whether impulsive noises affect marine mammal reproductive rate or -distribution. - -• It is not currently possible to predict which behavioral responses to anthropogenic noise -might result in significant population consequences for marine mammals, such as -bowhead whales, in the future. - -• The potential long-term effects on beluga whales from repeated disturbance are unknown. -Moreover, the current population trend of the Beaufort Sea stock of beluga whales is -unknown. - -• The degree to which ramp-up protects marine mammals from exposure to intense noises -is unknown. - -• Chemical response techniques to address an oil spill, such as dispersants could result in -additional degradation of water quality, which may or may not offset the benefits of -dispersant use. - -• There is no way to tell what may or may not affect marine mammals in Russian, U.S., or -in Canadian waters. - -RME 30 As noted throughout these comments, the extent of missing information in the Arctic is -daunting, and this holds equally true for bowhead whales, including: - -• The long-term effects of disturbance on bowhead whales are unknown. -• The potential for increased stress is unknown, and it is unknown whether impulsive - -sounds affect the reproductive rate or distribution and habitat use over a period of days or -years. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 102 -Comment Analysis Report - -• Although there are some data indicting specific habitat use in the Beaufort Sea, -information is especially lacking to determine where bowhead aggregations occur in the -Chukchi Sea. - -• What is known about the sensitivity of bowhead whales to sound and disturbance -indicates that the zones of influence for a single year that included as many as twenty-one -surveys, four drillships, and dozens of support vessels “including ice management -vessels” would be considerable and almost certainly include important habitat areas. The -assumption that the resulting effects over five years would be no more than moderate is -unsupported. - -RME 31 There is too little information known about the existing biological conditions in the Arctic, -especially in light of changes wrought by climate change, to be able to reasonably -understand, evaluate and address the cumulative, adverse impacts of oil and gas activities on -those arctic ice environments including: - -• Scientific literature emphasizes the need to ensure that the resiliency of ecosystems is -maintained in light of the changing environmental conditions associated with climate -change. Uncertainties exist on topics for which more science focus is required, including -physical parameters, such as storm frequency and intensity, and circulation patterns, and -species response to environmental changes. - -• There is little information on the potential for additional stresses brought by oil and gas -activity and increased shipping and tourism and how these potential stressors may -magnify the impacts associated with changing climate and shrinking sea ice habitats. -There are more studies that need to be done on invasive species, black carbon, aggregate -noise. - -• It was noted that a majority of the studies available have been conducted during the -summer and there is limited data about the wintertime when there is seven to eight -months of ice on the oceans. - -RME 32 Oil and gas activities in the Arctic Ocean should not be expanded until there is adequate -information available both from western science and local and traditional knowledge to -adequately assess potential impacts and make informed decisions. - -RME 33 The DEIS consistently fails to use new information as part of the impact analysis instead -relying on previous analyses from other NMFS or MMS EIS documents conducted without -the benefit of the new data. There are a number of instances in this DEIS where NMFS -recognizes the lack of relevant data or instances where conclusions are drawn without -supporting data. - -RME 34 In the case of seismic surveys, improvements to analysis and processing methods would -allow for the use of less powerful survey sources reducing the number of air-gun blasts. -Better planning and coordination of surveys along with data sharing will help to reduce the -number and lengths of surveys by avoiding duplication and minimizing survey noise. -Requirements should be set in place for data collection, presence of adequate marine mammal -observers, and use of PAM to avoid surveys when and where marine mammals are present. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 103 -Comment Analysis Report - -RME 35 NMFS should make full use of the best scientific information and assessment methodologies, -and rigorously analyze impacts to the physical, biological, and subsistence resources -identified in the DEIS. Steps should be taken to: - -• Move away from arbitrary economic, political or geographic boundaries and instead -incorporate the latest science to address how changes in one area or species affect -another. - -• Develop long-term, precautionary, science-based planning that acknowledges the -complexity, importance, remoteness and fragility of America’s Arctic region. The -interconnected nature of Arctic marine ecosystems demands a more holistic approach to -examining the overall health of the Arctic and assessing the risks and impacts associated -with offshore oil and gas activities in the region. - -• NMFS should carefully scrutinize the impacts analysis for data deficiencies, as well as -statements conflicting with available scientific studies. - -It is impossible to know what the effects would be on species without more information or to -determine mitigation measures on species without any effectiveness of said measures without -first knowing what the impacts would be. - -RME 36 There is not enough information known about the marine habitat on the Chukchi Sea side of -the EIS project area. Modeling that takes places only has a small census of data, which does -not provide adequate results of what impacts could be. The EIS should reflect this difference -between the Beaufort Sea and the Chukchi Sea. - -RME 37 At present the ambient noise budgets are not very well known in the Arctic, but the USGS -indicated that this type of data were needed for scientists to understand the magnitude and -significance of potential effects of anthropogenic sound on marine mammals. Noise impacts -on marine mammals from underwater acoustic communication systems needs to be evaluated -and incorporated into the DEIS. - -The USGS' recommendation to develop an inventory/database of seismic sound sources used -in the Arctic would be a good first step toward a better understanding of long-term, -population-level effects of seismic and drilling activities. Two recent projects that will help -further such an integrated approach are NOAA’s recently launched Synthesis of Arctic -Research (SOAR) and the North Pacific Marine Research Institute’s industry-supported -synthesis of existing scientific and traditional knowledge of Bering Strait and Arctic Ocean -marine ecosystem information. - -RME 38 G&G activities in the Arctic must be accompanied by a parallel research effort that improves -understanding of ecosystem dynamics and the key ecological attributes that support polar -bears, walrus, ice seals and other ice-dependent species. NMFS, as the agency with principal -responsibility for marine mammals, should acknowledge that any understanding of -cumulative effects is hampered by the need for better information. NMFS should -acknowledge the need for additional research and monitoring coupled with long-term species -monitoring programs supported by industry funding, and research must be incorporated into a -rapid review process for management on an ongoing basis. By allowing the science and -technology to develop, more concrete feasible and effective mitigation strategies can be -provided which in turn would benefit energy security and proper wildlife protections. - -Identification of important ecological areas should be an ongoing part of an integrated, long- -term scientific research and monitoring program for the Arctic, not a static, one-time event. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 104 -Comment Analysis Report - -As an Arctic research and monitoring program gives us a greater understanding of the -ecological functioning of Arctic waters, it may reveal additional important ecological areas -that BOEM and NMFS should exclude from future lease sales and other oil and gas activities. - -RME 39 Over the last several years, the scientific community has identified a number of pathways by -which anthropogenic noise can affect vital rates and populations of animals. These efforts -include the 2005 National Research Council study, which produced a model for the -Population Consequences of Acoustic Disturbance; an ongoing Office of Naval Research -program whose first phase has advanced the NRC model; and the 2009 Okeanos workshop on -cumulative impacts. The DEIS employs none of these methods, and hardly refers to any -biological pathway of impact. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 105 -Comment Analysis Report - -Socioeconomic Impacts (SEI) -SEI Comments on economic impacts to local communities, regional economy, and national - -economy, can include changes in the social or economic environments. - -SEI 1 The analysis of socioeconomic impacts in the DEIS is inadequate. Comments include: - -• The analysis claims inaccurately many impacts are unknown or cannot be predicted and -fails to consider the full potential of unrealized employment, payroll, government -revenue, and other benefits of exploration and development, as well as the effectiveness -of local hire efforts. - -• The analysis is inappropriately limited in a manner not consistent with the analysis of -other impacts in the DEIS. Potential beneficial impacts from development should not be -considered “temporary” and economic impacts should not be considered “minor”. This -characterization is inconsistent with the use of these same terms for environmental -impacts analysis. - -• NMFS did not provide a complete evaluation of the socioeconomic impacts of instituting -the additional mitigation measures. - -• The projected increase in employment appears to be low; -• The forecasts for future activity in the DEIS scope of alternatives, if based on historical - -activity, appear to ignore the impact of economic forces, especially resource value as -impacted by current and future market prices. Historical exploration activity in the -Chukchi and Beaufort OCS in the 1980s and early 1990s declined and ceased due to low -oil price rather than absence of resource; - -• Positive benefits were not captured adequately. - -SEI 2 The DEIS will compromise the economic feasibility of developing oil and gas in the Alaska -OCS. Specific issues include: - -• It would also adversely impact the ability of regional corporations to meet the obligations -imposed upon them by Congress with regard to their shareholders; - -• Development will not go forward if exploration is not allowed or is rendered impractical -and investors may dismiss Alaska’s future potential for offshore oil and gas exploration, -further limiting the state’s economic future; - -• The limited alternatives considered would significantly increase the length of time -required to explore and appraise hydrocarbon resources. - -SEI 3 The federal leaseholders, the State of Alaska, the NSB, the northern Alaskan communities, -and onshore and offshore operators will experience greatly reduced economic and resources -exploration and development opportunities as a result of the restricted number of programs -identified in the DEIS. The resulting long-term effects of restricting exploration and -subsequent development will negatively impact the economy of Alaska. - -SEI 4 An Economic Impact Study should be conducted on the subsistence economies, the human -health adverse and cumulative and aggregate impacts, and climate change impacts to the -economies of the coastal communities of Alaska. - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 106 -Comment Analysis Report - -SEI 5 The potential long-term benefits of exploration outweigh any adverse impacts. These short -and long-term positive impacts of increased revenue, business opportunity, and oil and gas -availability are not fully considered in the DEIS, and represents a biased interpretation. The -characterization of potential beneficial impacts from development over 50 years should not -be considered “temporary” and 55,000 jobs with a $145 billion payroll should not be -considered “minor.” - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 107 -Comment Analysis Report - -Subsistence Resource Protection (SRP) -SRP Comments on need to protect subsistence resources and potential impacts to these resources. - -SRP 1 The DEIS is lacking in an in-depth analysis of impacts to subsistence. NMFS should analyze -the following in more detail: - -• Effects of oil and gas activities on subsistence resources and how climate change could -make species even more vulnerable to those effects; - -• The discussion of subsistence in the section on oil spills; -• Long-term impacts to communities from loss of our whale hunting tradition; -• Impacts on subsistence hunting that occur outside the project area, for example, in the - -Canadian portion of the Beaufort Sea; -• Impacts associated with multiple authorizations taking place over multiple years. - -SRP 2 Subsistence hunters are affected by industrial activities in ways that do not strictly correlate -to the health of marine mammal populations, such as when marine mammals deflect away -from exploration activities, hunting opportunities may be lost regardless of whether or not the -deflection harms the species as a whole. - -SRP 3 Many people depend on the Beaufort and Chukchi seas for subsistence resources. Protection -of these resources is important to sustaining food sources, nutrition, athletics, and the culture -of Alaskan Natives for future generations. The EIS needs to consider not only subsistence -resources, but the food, prey, and habitat of those resources in its analysis of impacts. - -SRP 4 Industrial activities adversely affect subsistence resources, resulting in negative impacts that -could decrease food security and encourage consumption of store-bought foods with less -nutritional value. - -SRP 5 NMFS should use the information acquired on subsistence hunting grounds and provide real -information about what will happen in these areas and when, and then disclose what the -impacts will be to coastal villages. - -SRP 6 Exploratory activities occurring during September and October could potentially clash with -the migratory period of the beluga and bowhead whales perhaps requiring hunters to travel -further to hunt and potentially reducing the feasibility of the hunt. Even minor disruptions to -the whale's migration pathway can seriously affect subsistence hunts. - -SRP 7 NMFS must ensure oil and gas activities do not reduce the availability of any affected -population or species to a level insufficient to meet subsistence needs. - -SRP 8 Subsistence resources could be negatively impacted by exploratory activities. Specific -comments include: - -• Concerns about the health and welfare of the animals, with results such as that the -blubber is getting too hard, as a result of seismic activity; - -• Reduction of animals; -• Noise from seismic operations, exploration drilling, and/or development and production - -activities may make bowhead whales skittish and more difficult to hunt; - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 108 -Comment Analysis Report - -• Aircraft associated with oil and gas operations may negatively affect other subsistence -resources, including polar bears, walrus, seals, caribou, and coastal and marine birds, -making it more difficult for Alaska Native hunters to obtain these resources; - -• Water pollution could release toxins that bioaccumulate in top predators, including -humans; - -• Increased shipping traffic (including the potential for ship strikes) and the associated -noise are going to impact whaling and other marine mammal subsistence activities. - -SRP 9 The DEIS must also do more to address the potential for harm to coastal communities due to -the perceived contamination of subsistence resources. The DEIS cites to studies -demonstrating that perceived contamination is a very real issue for local residents, and -industrialization at the levels contemplated by the DEIS would undoubtedly contribute to that -belief. - -SRP 10 Bowhead whales and seals are not the only subsistence resource that Native Alaskan -communities rely upon. Fishing is also an important resource and different species are hunted -throughout the year. Subsistence users have expressed concern that activities to support -offshore exploration will change migratory patterns of fish and krill that occur along the -coastlines. The DEIS analysis should reflect these concerns. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 109 -Comment Analysis Report - -Use of Traditional Knowledge (UTK) -UTK Comments regarding how traditional knowledge (TK) is used in the document or decision - -making process, need to incorporate TK, or processes for documenting TK. - -UTK 1 Applying the TK is not only observing the animals, but also seeing the big picture of the -Arctic environment. - -UTK 2 It is important that both Western Science and TK be applied in the EIS. There needs to be a -clear definition of what TK is, and that it protects traditional ways of life but also provides -valuable information. TK that is used in NEPA documents should be used with consent. - -UTK 3 Specific examples of TK that NMFS should include in the DEIS are as follows: - -• The selection of specific deferral areas should be informed by the TK of our whaling -captains and should be developed with specific input of each community; - -• The TK of our whaling captains about bowhead whales. Their ability to smell, their -sensitivity to water pollution, and the potential interference with our subsistence activity -and/or tainting of our food; and - -• Primary hunting season is usually from April until about August, for all animals. It starts -in January for seals. Most times it is also year-round, too, with climate change, depending -on the migration of the animals. Bowhead whale hunts start in April, and beluga hunts are -whenever they migrate; usually starting in April and continuing until the end of summer. - -UTK 4 To be meaningful, NMFS must obtain and incorporate TK before it commits to management -decisions that may adversely affect subsistence resources. - -UTK 5 Based on TK, there are not enough data to really determine season closures or times of use -because subsistence users do not know where so many of these animals go when they are not -near the coast. - - - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 110 -Comment Analysis Report - -Water and Air Quality (WAQ) -WAQ Comments regarding water and air quality, including potential to impact or degrade these - -resources. - -WAQ 1 The effects of greenhouse gases are of concern, with regards to sea level rise and ocean -acidification that occurs with fossil fuel combustion - -WAQ 2 Increases in oil and gas exploration would inevitably bring higher levels of pollution and -emissions. Discharges, oil spills, increases in air traffic and drill cuttings could all cause both -water and air damage causing potential effects on human health and the overall environment. - -WAQ 3 The air quality analysis on impacts is flawed and needs more information. Reliance on recent -draft air permits is not accurate especially for the increases in vessel traffic due to oil and gas -exploration. All emissions associated with oil and gas development need to be considered not -just those that are subject to direct regulation or permit conditions. Emissions calculations -need to include vessels outside the 25 mile radius not just inside. Actual icebreaker emissions -need to be included also. This will allow more accurate emissions calculations. The use of -stack testing results and other emissions calculations for Arctic operations are recommended. - -WAQ 4 Many operators have agreed to use ultra-low sulfur fuel or low sulfur fuel in their operations, -but those that do not agree have to be accounted for. The use of projected air emissions for -NOx and SOz need to be included to account for those that do not use the lower fuel grades. - -WAQ 5 Since air permits have not yet been applied for by oil companies engaging in seismic or -geological and geophysical surveys, control factors should not be applied to them without -knowing the actual information. - -WAQ 6 Concerns about the potential for diversion of bowhead whales and other subsistence species -due to water and air discharges. The location of these discharges, and waste streams, and -where they will overlap between the air and water needs to be compared to the whale -migrations and discern the potential areas of impact. - -WAQ 7 The evaluation of potential air impacts is now outdated. The air quality in Alaska is no longer -regulated by EPA and the Alaska DEC, and is no longer subject to EPA's OCS regulations -and air permitting requirements. The new regulatory authority is the Department of the -Interior. This shows that at least some sources will not be subject to EPA regulations or air -permitting - -WAQ 8 Other pollutants are a cause of concern besides just CO and PM. What about Nox, and PM2.5 -emissions? All of these are of concern in the Alaska OCS. - -WAQ 9 The use of exclusion zones around oil and gas activities will not prevent pollutant levels -above regulatory standards. Air pollution is expected to be the highest within the exclusion -zones and likely to exceed applicable standards. A full and transparent accounting of these -impacts needs to be assessed. - -WAQ 10 The DEIS needs to analyze the full size of the emissions potential of the equipment that the -oil companies are intending to operate in the EIS project area. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 111 -Comment Analysis Report - -WAQ 11 Identify the total number of oil and gas projects that may be expected to operate during a -single season in each sea, the potential proximity of such operations, and the impacts of -multiple and/or clustered operations upon local and regional air quality. - -WAQ 12 Native Alaskans expressed concerned about the long term effects of dispersants, air pollution, -and water pollution. All emissions must be considered including drilling ships, vessels, -aircraft, and secondary pollution like ozone and secondary particulate matters. Impacts of -water quality and discharges tainting subsistence foods are considered likely to occur. - - - - - - - - - - -APPENDIX A -Submission and Comment Index - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-1 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -Abramaitis, Loretta 2827 CEF 9, OSR 3 - -AEWC -Aiken, Johnny - -3778 ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 31, ALT 34, CEF 2, CEF 5, CEF 7, CEF 8, CEF -11, COR 11, COR 15, DATA 2, DATA 5, EDI 3, MIT 20, MIT 31, MIT -47, MIT 84, MIT 85, MIT 86, MIT 87, MIT 88, MIT 89, MIT 90, MMI -11, MMI 27, NEP 1, NEP 11, NEP 14, NEP 26, NEP 50, REG 11, REG -12, REG 13, REG 14, REG 3, RME 6, UTK 3 - -Anchorage, Public -Meeting - -13142 ALT 1, ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 8, ALT 13, ALT 35, CEF 2, -CEF 5, CEF 6, CEF 7, CEF 8, CEF 9, CEF 10, COR 6, COR 8, GSE 1, -GSE 4, MIT 2, MIT 3, MIT 9, MIT 20, MIT 22, MIT 23, MIT 27, MIT 63, -MIT 106, MMI 6, NED 1, NEP 1, NEP 4, NEP 5, NEP 7, NEP 10, NEP -11, NEP 13, NEP 14, NEP 15, NEP 16, NEP 17, NEP 49, OSR 1, OSR 3, -REG 16, REG 4, RME 1, RME 20, RME 29, RME 31, RME 35, SEI 1, -SRP 3, SRP 6, SRP 8, UTK 4, WAQ 12 - -Barrow, Public Meeting 13144 ACK 1, CEF 4, CEF 7, CEF 8, CEF 10, COR 1, COR 3, GPE 4, GSE 2, -ICL 1, ICL 3, MIT 20, MIT 31, MIT 47, MIT 82, MIT 108, MIT 114, NEP -14, NEP 26, NEP 47, OSR 1, OSR 3, OSR 6, OSR 13, PER 3, RME 2, -RME 31, RME 36, SRP 3, UTK 1, UTK 2, UTK 3, UTK 4, WAQ 12 - -Bednar, Marek 3002 ACK 1 - -Black, Lester (Skeet) 2095 MIT 5, NED 1, SEI 3 - -Boone, James 2394 CEF 9, MIT 1, NEP 14, OSR 1 - -Bouwmeester, Hanneke 82 MMI 1, REG 1 - -North Slope Borough -Brower, Charlotte - -3779 ALT 17, ALT 21, ALT 22, CEF 5, CEF 9, DATA 3, DATA 17, DATA 21, -DATA 22, EDI 1, EDI 4, EDI 5, EDI 9, EDI 11, EDI 12, EDI 14, GSE 3, -MIT 20, MIT 82, MIT 91, MIT 92, MIT 93, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI 4, MMI -22, MMI 25, NEP 29, NEP 35, OSR 1, OSR 7, OSR 9, OSR 10, OSR 11, -OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 19, RME 1, RME 12, RME 13, RME 17, RME 18, -RME 19, RME 20, RME 21, RME 22, RME 33, RME 35 - -Conocophillips -Brown, David - -3775 ALT 4, ALT 6, ALT 8, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 30, COR 8, MIT 2, MIT 3, -MIT 9, MIT 22, MIT 23, MIT 24, MIT 63, MIT 81, MMI 1, MMI 8, NEP -1, NEP 4, NEP 5, NEP 7, NEP 11, NEP 12, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 17, -NEP 21, REG 4 - -Burnell Gutsell, Anneke- -Reeve - -1964 CEF 9, MIT 1, NEP 14, OSR 3, RME 1 - -Cagle, Andy 81 OSR 3, REG 5, WAQ 1 - -Alaska Inter-Tribal -Council -Calcote, Delice - -2093 ALT 1, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 7, COR 1, EDI 3, ICL 2, MIT 1, NEP 2, NEP -13, OSR 4, REG 5, RME 2, RME 31, SEI 4 - -Cathy Giessel, Sen. 2090 NEP 7, REG 4 - -Childs, Jefferson 3781 ALT 9, COR 12, DATA 3, EDI 15, GPE 3, HAB 2, MIT 82, MMI 6, MMI -30, MMI 31, NEP 13, NEP 16, NEP 46, RME 8, RME 24, RME 28, RME -35 - -Christiansen, Shane B. 80 ACK 1 - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-2 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -Cornell University -Clark, Christopher - -3772 CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, DATA 2, MIT 72, MIT 73, MIT 74, MMI 19, -NEP 27, RME 2, RME 16 - -Clarke, Chris 76 NED 1, REG 5 - -Cummings, Terry 87 MMI 35, OSR 1, OSR 15, REG 5, SRP 3 - -Danger, Nick 77 NED 1 - -Davis, William 2884 CEF 9, MIT 1, NEP 14, OSR 3, RME 1 - -International Fund for -Animal Welfare -Flocken, Jeffrey - -3762 ALT 1, ALT 33, CEF 4, CEF 9, COR 7, MIT 20, MIT 42, MIT 43, MIT -44, MIT 45, MIT 8, OSR 1, OSR 7, RME 34, RME 39, RME 6, RME 9 - -Foster, Dolly 89 COR 18 - -ION Geophysical -Corporation -Gagliardi, Joe - -3761 ALT 6, ALT 12, ALT 16, CEF 6, COR 8, EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI 8, -EDI 9, EDI 13, MIT 9, MMI 8, MIT 22, MIT 23, MIT 29, MIT 30, MIT -33, MIT 34, MIT 35, MIT 36, MIT 37, MIT 38, MIT 39, MIT 40, MIT 41, -MIT 60, NEP 8, NEP 9, NEP 11, REG 4, SEI 1 - -Giessel, Sen., Cathy 2090 NEP 7, REG 4 - -Arctic Slope Regional -Corporation -Glenn, Richard - -3760 CEF 5, EDI 10, EDI 12, MIT 31, MIT 32, MIT 61, NED 1, NEP 7, NEP -11, NEP 12, OSR 3, OSR 14, SEI 2, SEI 3 - -Harbour, Dave 3773 REG 4, SEI 2 - -Ocean Conservancy -Hartsig, Andrew - -3752 ALT 4, ALT 21, CEF 1, CEF 2, CEF 8, CEF 9, CEF 11, DATA 2, DATA -9, DATA 10, EDI 3, EDI 4, EDI 7, EDI 10, MIT 19, MIT 20, MIT 21, -MIT 47, MMI 2, MMI 12, MMI 13, NEP 14, NEP 15, OSR 1, REG 5, -RME 1, RME 2, RME 9, RME 31, RME 37, SRP 4, SRP 7, SRP 8, UTK -2, UTK 4 - -The Pew Environmental -Group -Heiman, Marilyn - -3752 ALT 4, ALT 21, CEF 1, CEF 2, CEF 8, CEF 9, CEF 11, DATA 2, DATA -9, DATA 10, EDI 3, EDI 4, EDI 7, EDI 10, MIT 19, MIT 20, MIT 21, -MIT 47, MMI 2, MMI 12, MMI 13, NEP 14, NEP 15, OSR 1, REG 5, -RME 1, RME 2, RME 9, RME 31, RME 37, SRP 4, SRP 7, SRP 8, UTK -2, UTK 4 - -Hicks, Katherine 2261 COR 10, NED 1, NEP 11 - -Hof, Justin 83 ALT 1 - -Greenpeace -Howells, Dan - -3753 ALT 1, ALT 4, ALT 6, CEF 2, COR 4, DATA 11, EDI 1, GSE 1, GSE 5, -GSE 7, GSE 8, NEP 14, OSR 3, OSR 5, REG 6, SRP 1, SRP 6 - -World Wildlife Fund -Hughes, Layla - -3780 ALT 1, ALT 5, ALT 6, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 15, ALT 17, ALT 18, ALT -19, ALT 21, ALT 32, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, COR 14, -DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, DATA 27, DATA -28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, -EDI 11, GPE 1, GPE 2, GSE 3, GSE 8, HAB 2, MIT 20, MIT 45, MIT 47, -MIT 82, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT 99, MIT 100, -MIT 101, MIT 102, MIT 103, MIT 104, MIT 105, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI -6, MMI 7, MMI 8, MMI 9, MMI 21, MMI 22, MMI 23, MMI 24, MMI 25, -MMI 26, MMI 27, MMI 28, MMI 29, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-3 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -NEP 27, NEP 36, NEP 37, NEP 38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, -NEP 43, NEP 44, NEP 45, OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 14, REG 15, -REG 18, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 11, RME 16, RME 20, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME -39, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 9, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, -WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Natural Resources -Defense Council -Jasny, Michael - -3780 ALT 1, ALT 5, ALT 6, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 15, ALT 17, ALT 18, ALT -19, ALT 21, ALT 32, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, COR 14, -DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, DATA 27, DATA -28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, -EDI 11, GPE 1, GPE 2, GSE 3, GSE 8, HAB 2, MIT 20, MIT 45, MIT 47, -MIT 82, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT 99, MIT 100, -MIT 101, MIT 102, MIT 103, MIT 104, MIT 105, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI -6, MMI 7, MMI 8, MMI 9, MMI 21, MMI 22, MMI 23, MMI 24, MMI 25, -MMI 26, MMI 27, MMI 28, MMI 29, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, -NEP 27, NEP 36, NEP 37, NEP 38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, -NEP 43, NEP 44, NEP 45, OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 14, REG 15, -REG 18, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 11, RME 16, RME 20, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME -39, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 9, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, -WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -National Ocean -Industries Association -Johnson, Luke - -3766 ALT 2, ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 6, ALT 8, ALT 13, ALT 14, ALT 23, ALT -24, ALT 25, ALT 26, CEF 5, CEF 6, DATA 14, DATA 15, DATA 16, -EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI 4, MIT 2, MIT 9, MIT 22, MIT 23, MIT 29, -MIT 31, MIT 32, MIT 37, MIT 38, MIT 50, MIT 51, MIT 52, MIT 53, -MIT 54, MIT 55, MIT 56, MIT 57, MIT 58, MIT 59, MIT 60, MIT 61, -MMI 1, MMI 8, MMI 14, MMI 15, MMI 16, MMI 17, NED 1, NEP 5, -NEP 11, NEP 16, NEP 20, NEP 21, NEP 22, NEP 23, NEP 24, NEP 25, -NEP 26, NEP 27, NEP 28, NEP 29, NEP 30, NEP 51, NEP 52, REG 4, -REG 7, SEI 1, SEI 2, SEI 5 - -Friends of the Earth -Kaltenstein, John - -3780 ALT 1, ALT 5, ALT 6, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 15, ALT 17, ALT 18, ALT -19, ALT 21, ALT 32, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, COR 14, -DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, DATA 27, DATA -28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, -EDI 11, GPE 1, GPE 2, GSE 3, GSE 8, HAB 2, MIT 20, MIT 45, MIT 47, -MIT 82, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT 99, MIT 100, -MIT 101, MIT 102, MIT 103, MIT 104, MIT 105, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI -6, MMI 7, MMI 8, MMI 9, MMI 21, MMI 22, MMI 23, MMI 24, MMI 25, -MMI 26, MMI 27, MMI 28, MMI 29, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, -NEP 27, NEP 36, NEP 37, NEP 38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, -NEP 43, NEP 44, NEP 45, OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 14, REG 15, -REG 18, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 11, RME 16, RME 20, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME -39, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 9, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, -WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Kivalina Public Meeting - - -13146 COR 1, NEP 48, NEP 53, OSR 3, OSR 7 - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-4 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -Kotzebue Public Meeting - - -13145 CEF 9, EDI 14, ICL 1, MIT 109, MIT 110, MMI 32, MMI 33, REG 17, -RME 2, SRP 3, UTK 5 - -U.S. Chamber of -Commerce -Kovacs, William L. - -3766 ALT 2, ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 6, ALT 8, ALT 13, ALT 14, ALT 23, ALT -24, ALT 25, ALT 26, CEF 5, CEF 6, DATA 14, DATA 15, DATA 16, -EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI 4, MIT 2, MIT 9, MIT 22, MIT 23, MIT 29, -MIT 31, MIT 32, MIT 37, MIT 38, MIT 50, MIT 51, MIT 52, MIT 53, -MIT 54, MIT 55, MIT 56, MIT 57, MIT 58, MIT 59, MIT 60, MIT 61, -MMI 1, MMI 8, MMI 14, MMI 15, MMI 16, MMI 17, NED 1, NEP 5, -NEP 11, NEP 16, NEP 20, NEP 21, NEP 22, NEP 23, NEP 24, NEP 25, -NEP 26, NEP 27, NEP 28, NEP 29, NEP 30, NEP 51, NEP 52, REG 4, -REG 7, SEI 1, SEI 2, SEI 5 - -Krause, Danielle 3625 CEF 9, MIT 1, NEP 14, OSR 3, RME 1 - -Lambertsen, Richard 2096 MIT 6 - -Pacific Environment -Larson, Shawna - -3780 ALT 1, ALT 5, ALT 6, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 15, ALT 17, ALT 18, ALT -19, ALT 21, ALT 32, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, COR 14, -DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, DATA 27, DATA -28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, -EDI 11, GPE 1, GPE 2, GSE 3, GSE 8, HAB 2, MIT 20, MIT 45, MIT 47, -MIT 82, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT 99, MIT 100, -MIT 101, MIT 102, MIT 103, MIT 104, MIT 105, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI -6, MMI 7, MMI 8, MMI 9, MMI 21, MMI 22, MMI 23, MMI 24, MMI 25, -MMI 26, MMI 27, MMI 28, MMI 29, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, -NEP 27, NEP 36, NEP 37, NEP 38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, -NEP 43, NEP 44, NEP 45, OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 14, REG 15, -REG 18, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 11, RME 16, RME 20, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME -39, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 9, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, -WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Lish, Chris 3763 ALT 1, CEF 9, MIT 1, NEP 14, NEP 16, OSR 3, RME 1 - -Locascio, Julie 86 ACK 1 - -Lopez, Irene 88 ALT 1 - -Shell Alaska Venture -Macrander, Michael - -3768 ALT 2, ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 6, ALT 8, ALT 10, ALT 13, ALT 16, ALT -17, ALT 29, ALT 36, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 11, COR 5, COR 6, COR 8, -COR 10, COR 13, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 17, DATA 18, DATA 19, -DCH 2, EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI 4, EDI 5, EDI 7, EDI 8, EDI 9, EDI 10, -EDI 11, EDI 12, EDI 13, EDI 16, GPE 1, GPE 5, GSE 1, GSE 6, MIT 2, -MIT 20, MIT 22, MIT 23, MIT 26, MIT 27, MIT 28, MIT 29, MIT 30, -MIT 33, MIT 37, MIT 38, MIT 39, MIT 40, MIT 41, MIT 57, MIT 59, -MIT 60, MIT 62, MIT 63, MIT 64, MIT 65, MIT 66, MIT 67, MIT 68, -MIT 69, MIT 70, MIT 71, MIT 9, MIT 115, MMI 8, MMI 34, MMI 35, -NEP 8, NEP 9, NEP 10, NEP 11, NEP 12, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, NEP -29, NEP 30, NEP 31, NEP 32, NEP 33, NEP 54, NEP 55, NEP 56, OSR -14, REG 4, REG 8, REG 9, RME 14, RME 15, RME 33, SEI 1, SEI 2, SEI -5 - -Loggerhead Instruments -Mann, David - -3772 CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, DATA 2, MIT 72, MIT 73, MIT 74, MMI 19, -NEP 27, RME 2, RME 16 - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-5 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -Earthjustice -Mayer, Michael - -3780 ALT 1, ALT 5, ALT 6, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 15, ALT 17, ALT 18, ALT -19, ALT 21, ALT 32, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, COR 14, -DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, DATA 27, DATA -28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, -EDI 11, GPE 1, GPE 2, GSE 3, GSE 8, HAB 2, MIT 20, MIT 45, MIT 47, -MIT 82, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT 99, MIT 100, -MIT 101, MIT 102, MIT 103, MIT 104, MIT 105, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI -6, MMI 7, MMI 8, MMI 9, MMI 21, MMI 22, MMI 23, MMI 24, MMI 25, -MMI 26, MMI 27, MMI 28, MMI 29, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, -NEP 27, NEP 36, NEP 37, NEP 38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, -NEP 43, NEP 44, NEP 45, OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 14, REG 15, -REG 18, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 11, RME 16, RME 20, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME -39, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 9, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, -WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Oceana -Mecum, Brianne - -3774 ALT 1, CEF 5, COR 9, DATA 20, EDI 5, EDI 14, MIT 31, MIT 47, MIT -75, MIT 76, MIT 77, MIT 78, MIT 79, MIT 80, MIT 85, MMI 9, MMI 20, -OSR 1, REG 5, RME 4, RME 23, RME 32, RME 35, WAQ 2 - -Northern Alaska -Environmental Center -Miller, Pamela A. - -3780 ALT 1, ALT 5, ALT 6, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 15, ALT 17, ALT 18, ALT -19, ALT 21, ALT 32, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, COR 14, -DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, DATA 27, DATA -28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, -EDI 11, GPE 1, GPE 2, GSE 3, GSE 8, HAB 2, MIT 20, MIT 45, MIT 47, -MIT 82, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT 99, MIT 100, -MIT 101, MIT 102, MIT 103, MIT 104, MIT 105, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI -6, MMI 7, MMI 8, MMI 9, MMI 21, MMI 22, MMI 23, MMI 24, MMI 25, -MMI 26, MMI 27, MMI 28, MMI 29, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, -NEP 27, NEP 36, NEP 37, NEP 38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, -NEP 43, NEP 44, NEP 45, OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 14, REG 15, -REG 18, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 11, RME 16, RME 20, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME -39, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 9, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, -WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -University of St. -Andrews -Miller, Patrick - -3772 CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, DATA 2, MIT 72, MIT 73, MIT 74, MMI 19, -NEP 27, RME 2, RME 16 - -Miller, Peter 2151 CEF 9, MIT 1, NEP 14, OSR 3, RME 1 - -U.S. Oil & Gas -Association -Modiano, Alby - -3766 ALT 2, ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 6, ALT 8, ALT 13, ALT 14, ALT 23, ALT -24, ALT 25, ALT 26, CEF 5, CEF 6, DATA 14, DATA 15, DATA 16, -EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI 4, MIT 2, MIT 9, MIT 22, MIT 23, MIT 29, -MIT 31, MIT 32, MIT 37, MIT 38, MIT 50, MIT 51, MIT 52, MIT 53, -MIT 54, MIT 55, MIT 56, MIT 57, MIT 58, MIT 59, MIT 60, MIT 61, -MMI 1, MMI 8, MMI 14, MMI 15, MMI 16, MMI 17, NED 1, NEP 5, -NEP 11, NEP 16, NEP 20, NEP 21, NEP 22, NEP 23, NEP 24, NEP 25, -NEP 26, NEP 27, NEP 28, NEP 29, NEP 30, NEP 51, NEP 52, REG 4, -REG 7, SEI 1, SEI 2, SEI 5 - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-6 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -Statoil USA E&P Inc. -Moore, Bill - -3758 ALT 8, ALT 13, DATA 38, EDI 3, EDI 4, EDI 5, EDI 8, EDI 9, MIT 2, -MIT 30, MMI 2, NEP 4, NEP 7, NEP 11, NEP 12, NEP 14 - -Alaska Oil and Gas -Association -Moriarty, Kara - -3754 ALT 3, ALT 8, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 30, EDI 7, MIT 9, MIT 22, MIT -23, MIT 24, MMI 1, MMI 8, NEP 1, NEP 4, NEP 5, NEP 7, NEP 11, NEP -12, NEP 14, NEP 17, REG 4 - -Mottishaw, Petra 3782 CEF 7, NED 1, NEP 14, RME 1 - -Oceana -Murray, Susan - -3780 ALT 1, ALT 5, ALT 6, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 15, ALT 17, ALT 18, ALT -19, ALT 21, ALT 32, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, COR 14, -DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, DATA 27, DATA -28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, -EDI 11, GPE 1, GPE 2, GSE 3, GSE 8, HAB 2, MIT 20, MIT 45, MIT 47, -MIT 82, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT 99, MIT 100, -MIT 101, MIT 102, MIT 103, MIT 104, MIT 105, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI -6, MMI 7, MMI 8, MMI 9, MMI 21, MMI 22, MMI 23, MMI 24, MMI 25, -MMI 26, MMI 27, MMI 28, MMI 29, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, -NEP 27, NEP 36, NEP 37, NEP 38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, -NEP 43, NEP 44, NEP 45, OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 14, REG 15, -REG 18, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 11, RME 16, RME 20, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME -39, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 9, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, -WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Audubon Alaska -Myers, Eric F. - -3780 ALT 1, ALT 5, ALT 6, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 15, ALT 17, ALT 18, ALT -19, ALT 21, ALT 32, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, COR 14, -DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, DATA 27, DATA -28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, -EDI 11, GPE 1, GPE 2, GSE 3, GSE 8, HAB 2, MIT 20, MIT 45, MIT 47, -MIT 82, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT 99, MIT 100, -MIT 101, MIT 102, MIT 103, MIT 104, MIT 105, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI -6, MMI 7, MMI 8, MMI 9, MMI 21, MMI 22, MMI 23, MMI 24, MMI 25, -MMI 26, MMI 27, MMI 28, MMI 29, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, -NEP 27, NEP 36, NEP 37, NEP 38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, -NEP 43, NEP 44, NEP 45, OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 14, REG 15, -REG 18, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 11, RME 16, RME 20, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME -39, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 9, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, -WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -National Resources -Defense Council (form -letter containing 36,445 -signatures) - -3784 MMI 1, OSR 3, REG 5 - -Center for Biological -Diversity -Noblin, Rebecca - -3780 ALT 1, ALT 5, ALT 6, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 15, ALT 17, ALT 18, ALT -19, ALT 21, ALT 32, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, COR 14, -DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, DATA 27, DATA -28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, -EDI 11, GPE 1, GPE 2, GSE 3, GSE 8, HAB 2, MIT 20, MIT 45, MIT 47, -MIT 82, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT 99, MIT 100, - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-7 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -MIT 101, MIT 102, MIT 103, MIT 104, MIT 105, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI -6, MMI 7, MMI 8, MMI 9, MMI 21, MMI 22, MMI 23, MMI 24, MMI 25, -MMI 26, MMI 27, MMI 28, MMI 29, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, -NEP 27, NEP 36, NEP 37, NEP 38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, -NEP 43, NEP 44, NEP 45, OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 14, REG 15, -REG 18, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 11, RME 16, RME 20, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME -39, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 9, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, -WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Duke University -Nowacek, Douglas P. - -3772 CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, DATA 2, MIT 72, MIT 73, MIT 74, MMI 19, -NEP 27, RME 2, RME 16 - -International Association -of Drilling Contractors -Petty, Brian - -3766 ALT 2, ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 6, ALT 8, ALT 13, ALT 14, ALT 23, ALT -24, ALT 25, ALT 26, CEF 5, CEF 6, DATA 14, DATA 15, DATA 16, -EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI 4, MIT 2, MIT 9, MIT 22, MIT 23, MIT 29, -MIT 31, MIT 32, MIT 37, MIT 38, MIT 50, MIT 51, MIT 52, MIT 53, -MIT 54, MIT 55, MIT 56, MIT 57, MIT 58, MIT 59, MIT 60, MIT 61, -MMI 1, MMI 8, MMI 14, MMI 15, MMI 16, MMI 17, NED 1, NEP 5, -NEP 11, NEP 16, NEP 20, NEP 21, NEP 22, NEP 23, NEP 24, NEP 25, -NEP 26, NEP 27, NEP 28, NEP 29, NEP 30, NEP 51, NEP 52, REG 4, -REG 7, SEI 1, SEI 2, SEI 5 - -World Wildlife Fund -Pintabutr, America May - -3765 ALT 1 - -Point Hope Public -Meeting - - -13147 COR 19, COR 8, GSE 5, ICL 1, MIT 84, NEP 49, OSR 1, RME 1, SRP -10, SRP 3, SRP 8 - -Resource Development -Council -Portman, Carl - -2303 ALT 3, ALT 6, MIT 2, MIT 9, MIT 27, NED 1, NEP 1, NEP 10, NEP 11, -NEP 12, REG 4, SEI 3 - -American Petroleum -Institute -Radford, Andy - -3766 ALT 2, ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 6, ALT 8, ALT 13, ALT 14, ALT 23, ALT -24, ALT 25, ALT 26, CEF 5, CEF 6, DATA 14, DATA 15, DATA 16, -EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI 4, MIT 2, MIT 9, MIT 22, MIT 23, MIT 29, -MIT 31, MIT 32, MIT 37, MIT 38, MIT 50, MIT 51, MIT 52, MIT 53, -MIT 54, MIT 55, MIT 56, MIT 57, MIT 58, MIT 59, MIT 60, MIT 61, -MMI 1, MMI 8, MMI 14, MMI 15, MMI 16, MMI 17, NED 1, NEP 5, -NEP 11, NEP 16, NEP 20, NEP 21, NEP 22, NEP 23, NEP 24, NEP 25, -NEP 26, NEP 27, NEP 28, NEP 29, NEP 30, NEP 51, NEP 52, REG 4, -REG 7, SEI 1, SEI 2, SEI 5 - -Marine Mammal -Commission -Ragen, Timothy J. - -3767 ALT 4, ALT 7, ALT 17, ALT 19, ALT 26, ALT 28, CEF 11, COR 6, COR -8, EDI 3, EDI 8, EDI 9, MIT 20, MIT 61, MIT 62, MMI 18, NEP 14, NEP -26, REG 2, RME 6, RME 10, RME 12, RME 13, RME 37 - -Randelia, Cyrus 78 ACK 1, CEF 5, OSR 1, OSR 2 - -The Nature Conservancy -Reed, Amanda - -3764 CEF 10, COR 17, COR 9, DATA 13, EDI 5, EDI 11, EDI 12, GPE 1, -MIT 46, MIT 47, MIT 48, MIT 49, NEP 15, OSR 1, OSR 15, OSR 7, OSR -8, RME 1, RME 2, RME 9, RME 31 - -US EPA, Region 10 -Reichgott, Christine - -3783 DATA 34 - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-8 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -Reiner, Erica 2098 NEP 16, PER 1, REG 6 - -Sierra Club -Ritzman, Dan - -3780 ALT 1, ALT 5, ALT 6, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 15, ALT 17, ALT 18, ALT -19, ALT 21, ALT 32, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, COR 14, -DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, DATA 27, DATA -28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, -EDI 11, GPE 1, GPE 2, GSE 3, GSE 8, HAB 2, MIT 20, MIT 45, MIT 47, -MIT 82, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT 99, MIT 100, -MIT 101, MIT 102, MIT 103, MIT 104, MIT 105, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI -6, MMI 7, MMI 8, MMI 9, MMI 21, MMI 22, MMI 23, MMI 24, MMI 25, -MMI 26, MMI 27, MMI 28, MMI 29, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, -NEP 27, NEP 36, NEP 37, NEP 38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, -NEP 43, NEP 44, NEP 45, OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 14, REG 15, -REG 18, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 11, RME 16, RME 20, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME -39, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 9, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, -WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Cultural REcyclists -Robinson, Tina - -3759 ALT 1, CEF 2, CEF 11, GPE 1, NEP 13, OSR 6 - -Rossin, Linda 3548 CEF 9, MIT 1, NEP 14, OSR 3, RME 1 - -Schalavin, Laurel 79 NED 1 - -Alaska Wilderness -League -Shogan, Cindy - -3780 ALT 1, ALT 5, ALT 6, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 15, ALT 17, ALT 18, ALT -19, ALT 21, ALT 32, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, COR 14, -DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, DATA 27, DATA -28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, -EDI 11, GPE 1, GPE 2, GSE 3, GSE 8, HAB 2, MIT 20, MIT 45, MIT 47, -MIT 82, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT 99, MIT 100, -MIT 101, MIT 102, MIT 103, MIT 104, MIT 105, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI -6, MMI 7, MMI 8, MMI 9, MMI 21, MMI 22, MMI 23, MMI 24, MMI 25, -MMI 26, MMI 27, MMI 28, MMI 29, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, -NEP 27, NEP 36, NEP 37, NEP 38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, -NEP 43, NEP 44, NEP 45, OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 14, REG 15, -REG 18, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 11, RME 16, RME 20, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME -39, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 9, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, -WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Sierra Club (form letter -containing 12,991 -signatures) - -90 CEF 9, MIT 1, NEP 14, OSR 3, REG 5, RME 1 - -Simon, Lorali 2094 MIT 2, MIT 3, MIT 4, REG 4 - -Center for Regulatory -Effectiveness -Slaughter, Scott - -2306 DATA 6, DATA 7, DATA 8, DATA 13, EDI 2, EDI 3, MIT 2, MIT 10, -MIT 11, MIT 27, MMI 8 - -SEA Inc. -Southall, Brandon - -3772 CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, DATA 2, MIT 72, MIT 73, MIT 74, MMI 19, -NEP 27, RME 2, RME 16 - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-9 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -Ocean Conservation -Research -Stocker, Michael - -2099 CEF 9, DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, MIT 7, MIT 8, -MMI 4, MMI 5, MMI 6, MMI 7, NEP 2, NEP 3, OSR 2, OSR 20, PER 2, -RME 3, RME 37, RME 4, RME 5 - -Ocean Conservation -Research -Stocker, Michael - -3780 ALT 1, ALT 5, ALT 6, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 15, ALT 17, ALT 18, ALT -19, ALT 21, ALT 32, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, COR 14, -DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, DATA 27, DATA -28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, -EDI 11, GPE 1, GPE 2, GSE 3, GSE 8, HAB 2, MIT 20, MIT 45, MIT 47, -MIT 82, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT 99, MIT 100, -MIT 101, MIT 102, MIT 103, MIT 104, MIT 105, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI -6, MMI 7, MMI 8, MMI 9, MMI 21, MMI 22, MMI 23, MMI 24, MMI 25, -MMI 26, MMI 27, MMI 28, MMI 29, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, -NEP 27, NEP 36, NEP 37, NEP 38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, -NEP 43, NEP 44, NEP 45, OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 14, REG 15, -REG 18, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 11, RME 16, RME 20, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME -39, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 9, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, -WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Stoutamyer, Carla 2465 CEF 9, MIT 1, NEP 14 - -AK Dept Natural -Resources -Sullivan, Daniel - -3756 ALT 3, ALT 8, ALT 11, ALT 13, COR 5, COR 6, COR 12, DATA 39, -DATA 40, DCH 1, EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI 4, EDI 7, EDI 8, EDI 9, EDI -10, EDI 11, EDI 12, EDI 13, GPE 2, GSE 1, GSE 6, GSE 7, MIT 2, MIT -22, MIT 26, MIT 27, MIT 28, MIT 29, MIT 31, NED 1, NEP 6, NEP 7, -NEP 12, NEP 18, NEP 19, REG 4, RME 7, SEI 1, SEI 3, SEI 5 - -Thorson, Scott 2097 ALT 3, NED 1, NEP 11 - -International Association -of Geophysical -Contractors -Tsoflias, Sarah - -3766 ALT 2, ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 6, ALT 8, ALT 13, ALT 14, ALT 23, ALT -24, ALT 25, ALT 26, CEF 5, CEF 6, DATA 14, DATA 15, DATA 16, -EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI 4, MIT 2, MIT 9, MIT 22, MIT 23, MIT 29, -MIT 31, MIT 32, MIT 37, MIT 38, MIT 50, MIT 51, MIT 52, MIT 53, -MIT 54, MIT 55, MIT 56, MIT 57, MIT 58, MIT 59, MIT 60, MIT 61, -MMI 1, MMI 8, MMI 14, MMI 15, MMI 16, MMI 17, NED 1, NEP 5, -NEP 11, NEP 16, NEP 20, NEP 21, NEP 22, NEP 23, NEP 24, NEP 25, -NEP 26, NEP 27, NEP 28, NEP 29, NEP 30, NEP 51, NEP 52, REG 4, -REG 7, SEI 1, SEI 2, SEI 5 - -World Society for the -Protection of Animals -Vale, Karen - -3749 ALT 1, MMI 3, MMI 9, MMI 10, MMI 11, NEP 14, OSR 1, OSR 3 - -Vishanoff, Jonathan 84 OSR 1, OSR 13 - -Wainwright Public -Meeting - - -13143 ACK 1, GSE 4, MIT 107, NED 1, NEP 48 - -Walker, Willie 2049 CEF 9, MIT 1, NEP 14, OSR 3, RME 1 - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-10 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -Defenders of Wildlife -Weaver, Sierra - -3780 ALT 1, ALT 5, ALT 6, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 15, ALT 17, ALT 18, ALT -19, ALT 21, ALT 32, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, COR 14, -DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, DATA 27, DATA -28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, -EDI 11, GPE 1, GPE 2, GSE 3, GSE 8, HAB 2, MIT 20, MIT 45, MIT 47, -MIT 82, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT 99, MIT 100, -MIT 101, MIT 102, MIT 103, MIT 104, MIT 105, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI -6, MMI 7, MMI 8, MMI 9, MMI 21, MMI 22, MMI 23, MMI 24, MMI 25, -MMI 26, MMI 27, MMI 28, MMI 29, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, -NEP 27, NEP 36, NEP 37, NEP 38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, -NEP 43, NEP 44, NEP 45, OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 14, REG 15, -REG 18, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 11, RME 16, RME 20, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME -39, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 9, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, -WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -The Wilderness Society -Whittington-Evans, -Nicole - -3780 ALT 1, ALT 5, ALT 6, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 15, ALT 17, ALT 18, ALT -19, ALT 21, ALT 32, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, COR 14, -DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, DATA 27, DATA -28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, -EDI 11, GPE 1, GPE 2, GSE 3, GSE 8, HAB 2, MIT 20, MIT 45, MIT 47, -MIT 82, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT 99, MIT 100, -MIT 101, MIT 102, MIT 103, MIT 104, MIT 105, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI -6, MMI 7, MMI 8, MMI 9, MMI 21, MMI 22, MMI 23, MMI 24, MMI 25, -MMI 26, MMI 27, MMI 28, MMI 29, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, -NEP 27, NEP 36, NEP 37, NEP 38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, -NEP 43, NEP 44, NEP 45, OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 14, REG 15, -REG 18, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 11, RME 16, RME 20, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME -39, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 9, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, -WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -AEWC -Winter, Chris - -3778 ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 31, ALT 34, CEF 2, CEF 5, CEF 7, CEF 8, CEF -11, COR 11, COR 15, DATA 2, DATA 5, EDI 3, MIT 20, MIT 31, MIT -47, MIT 84, MIT 85, MIT 86, MIT 87, MIT 88, MIT 89, MIT 90, MMI -11, MMI 27, NEP 1, NEP 11, NEP 14, NEP 26, NEP 50, REG 11, REG -12, REG 13, REG 14, REG 3, RME 6, UTK 3 - -Wittmaack, Christiana 85 ALT 1, MMI 2, OSR 1, OSR 13, OSR 17 - - - - - FINAL Comment Analysis Report_Arctic EIS (041012).pdf - Cover P age - TABLE OF CONTENTS - LIST OF TABLES - LIST OF FIGURES - LIST OF APPENDICES - ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS - 1.0 INTRODUCTION - 2.0 BACKGROUND - 3.0 THE ROLE OF PUBLIC COMMENT - Table 1. Public Meetings, Locations and Dates - - 4.0 ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS - Table 2. Issue Categories for DEIS Comments - Figure 1: Comments by Issue - - 5.0 STATEMENTS OF CONCERN - Comment Acknowledged (ACK) - Alternatives (ALT) - Cumulative Effects (CEF) - Coordination and Compatibility (COR) - Data (DAT) - Discharge (DCH) - Editorial (EDI) - Physical Environment – General (GPE) - Social Environment – General (GSE) - Habitat (HAB) - Iñupiat Culture and Way of Life (ICL) - Mitigation Measures (MIT) - Marine Mammal and other Wildlife Impacts (MMI) - National Energy Demand and Supply (NED) - NEPA (NEP) - Oil Spill Risks (OSR) - Peer Review (PER) - Regulatory Compliance (REG) - Research, Monitoring, Evaluation Needs (RME) - Socioeconomic Impacts (SEI) - Subsistence Resource Protection (SRP) - Use of Traditional Knowledge (UTK) - Water and Air Quality (WAQ) - - APPENDIX A - - diff --git a/test_docs/090004d280249882/record.json b/test_docs/090004d280249882/record.json deleted file mode 100644 index 889ae51..0000000 --- a/test_docs/090004d280249882/record.json +++ /dev/null @@ -1,18 +0,0 @@ -{ - "agency": "DOC", - "author": null, - "download_url": "https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/getContent?objectId=Zo5cl72cyGnMvk6iAcxL_aAW2E72aMib", - "exemptions": null, - "file_size": "0.43679046630859375", - "file_type": "pdf", - "landing_id": "090004d280249882", - "landing_url": "https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/view/record?objectId=090004d280249882", - "released_on": "2014-04-24", - "released_original": "Thu Apr 24 12:29:17 EDT 2014", - "request_id": "DOC-NOAA-2012-000993", - "retention": "6 year", - "title": "2012 0420 Rosenthal email to Nachman 1108 amRe Submittal - Draft G2G CAR", - "type": "record", - "unreleased": false, - "year": "2012" -} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/test_docs/090004d280249882/record.pdf b/test_docs/090004d280249882/record.pdf deleted file mode 100644 index c1513cf..0000000 Binary files a/test_docs/090004d280249882/record.pdf and /dev/null differ diff --git a/test_docs/090004d280249882/record.txt b/test_docs/090004d280249882/record.txt deleted file mode 100644 index a21e094..0000000 --- a/test_docs/090004d280249882/record.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1982 +0,0 @@ - -"Rosenthal, Amy" - - -11/06/2012 12:51 PM - -To ArcticAR - -cc - -bcc - -Subject FW: Submittal - Draft G2G CAR - -  -  -From: Rosenthal, Amy -Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 11:08 AM -To: Candace Nachman (Candace.Nachman@noaa.gov); jolie.harrison@noaa.gov; -Michael.Payne@noaa.gov -Cc: Isaacs, Jon; Bellion, Tara; Kluwe, Joan; Fuchs, Kim; ArcticAR -Subject: Submittal - Draft G2G CAR -  -Hi all – -  -Attached is the Draft government‐to‐government comment analysis report for your review.  While we  -do have a separate report for G2G comments, there is only one SOC that is new from the Public CAR that  -you, BOEM, and NSB are currently working from – NEP 3. -  -Please let me know if you have any questions. -Thanks, -Amy -  -  -**** Please note my new email address:   amy.rosenthal@urs.com  **** -  -Amy C. Rosenthal -Environmental Planner -URS Corporation -  -503‐948‐7223 (direct phone) -503‐222‐4292 (fax) -  - -This e-mail and any attachments contain URS Corporation confidential information that may be proprietary or privileged. If you -receive this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this -information and you should destroy the e-mail and any attachments or copies. - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas -Activities in the Arctic Ocean - -Draft -Government-to-Government -Comment Analysis Report - - - -United States Department of Commerce -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -National Marine Fisheries Service -Office of Protected Resources - -April 20, 2012 - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS i -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -TABLE OF CONTENTS - -TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................ i - -LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... i - -LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... i - -LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. i - -ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... ii - - - -1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 1 - -2.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 1 - -3.0 THE ROLE OF CONSULTATION WITH INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS ................ 1 - -4.0 ANALYSIS OF SUBMISSIONS .................................................................................................. 3 - -5.0 STATEMENTS OF CONCERN .................................................................................................. 7 - - - -APPENDIX - - - - - - - -LIST OF TABLES - -Table 1 Government to Government Meetings, Locations and Dates .................................... Page 2 - -Table 2 Issue Categories for DEIS Comments ....................................................................... Page 4 - - - -LIST OF FIGURES - -Figure 1 Comments by Issue .................................................................................................... Page 6 - - - -LIST OF APPENDICES - -Appendix A Submission and Comment Index - - - - - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS ii -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS - -AEWC Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission - -APA Administrative Procedure Act - -BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management - -CAA Conflict Avoidance Agreement - -CAR Comment Analysis Report - -CASy Comment Analysis System database - -DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement - -ESA Endangered Species Act - -IEA Important Ecological Area - -IHA Incidental Harassment Authorization - -ITAs Incidental Take Authorizations - -ITRs Incidental Take Regulations - -MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act - -NEPA National Environmental Policy Act - -NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service - -OCS Outer Continental Shelf - -OCSLA Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act - -PAM Passive Acoustic Monitoring - -SOC Statement of Concern - -TK Traditional Knowledge - -USC United States Code - -USGS U.S. Geological Survey - -VLOS Very Large Oil Spill - - - - - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 1 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -1.0 INTRODUCTION -The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and -the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) have prepared and -released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that analyzes the effects of offshore geophysical -seismic surveys and exploratory drilling in the federal and state waters of the U.S. Beaufort and Chukchi -seas. - -The proposed actions considered in the DEIS are: - -• NMFS’ issuance of incidental take authorizations (ITAs) under Section 101(a)(5) of the Marine -Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), for the taking of marine mammals incidental to conducting -seismic surveys, ancillary activities, and exploratory drilling; and - -• BOEM’s issuance of permits and authorizations under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act for -seismic surveys and ancillary activities. - -2.0 BACKGROUND -NMFS is serving as the lead agency for this EIS. BOEM (formerly called the U.S. Minerals Management -Service) and the North Slope Borough are cooperating agencies on this EIS. The U.S. Environmental -Protection Agency is serving as a consulting agency. NMFS is also coordinating with the Alaska Eskimo -Whaling Commission pursuant to our co-management agreement under the MMPA. - -The Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2010 (75 FR -6175). On December 30, 2011, Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register (76 FR -82275) that NMFS had released for public comment the ‘‘Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean.” The original deadline to submit comments was -February 13, 2012. Based on several written requests received by NMFS, the public comment period for -this DEIS was extended by 15 days. Notice of extension of the comment period and notice of public -meetings was published January 18, 2012, in the Federal Register (77 FR 2513). The comment period -concluded on February 28, 2012, making the entire comment period 60 days. - -NMFS intends to use this EIS to: 1) evaluate the potential effects of different levels of offshore seismic -surveys and exploratory drilling activities occurring in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas; 2) take a -comprehensive look at potential cumulative impacts in the EIS project area; and 3) evaluate the -effectiveness of various mitigation measures. NMFS will use the findings of the EIS when reviewing -individual applications for ITAs associated with seismic surveys, ancillary activities, and exploratory -drilling in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. - -3.0 THE ROLE OF CONSULTATION WITH INDIAN TRIBAL -GOVERNMENTS - -Executive Order 13175 is intended to establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration -between federal agencies and federally-recognized tribal governments in the development of federal -regulatory practices that significantly or uniquely affect their communities. The goal of government to -government collaboration for this DEIS is to work collaboratively with tribal governments within the EIS -project area in order to explore ways that the energy development in the Arctic can best co-exist with the -subsistence culture and way of life. - -Tribal governments in each community, with the exception of Anchorage, were notified of the availability -of the DEIS and invited to give comments. The first contact was via letter that was faxed, dated -December 22, 2011; follow-up calls and emails were made with the potentially affected Tribal -governments, and in the communities listed above, each government was visited during the comment - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 2 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -period. Because NMFS was not able to make it to the communities of Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Point Lay -on the originally scheduled dates, a follow-up letter was sent on February 29, 2012, requesting a -teleconference meeting for government to government consultation. Nuiqsut and Point Lay rescheduled -with teleconferences. However, the Native Village of Nuiqsut did not call-in to the rescheduled -teleconference. The comments received during government to government consultation between NMFS, -BOEM, and the Tribal governments are included in this Comment Analysis Report (CAR). - -A total of five government to government public meetings were held to inform and to solicit comments on -the DEIS. The meetings consisted of a brief presentation, and then a comment opportunity. Transcripts of -each public meeting are available on the project website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/eis/arctic.htm. -The five government to government meetings that were held are identified in Table 1. - -Table 1. Government to Government Meetings, Locations and Dates - -Meeting Date Location - -Iñupiat Community of -the Arctic Slope (ICAS) - -January 31, 2012 ICAS office, Barrow, AK - -Native Village of -Barrow - -January 31, 2012 Native Village of Barrow office, -Barrow, AK - -Native Village of -Kivalina - -February 6, 2012 Native Village of Kivalina office, -Kivalina, AK - -Native Village of -Kotzebue IRA - -February 7, 2012 IRA Council building, -Kotzebue, AK - -Native Village of Point -Lay - -April 3, 2012 Via teleconference -Point Lay, AK; Silver Spring, MD; Anchorage, AK - - - -NMFS and the cooperating agencies will review all comments, determine how the comments should be -addressed, and make appropriate revisions in preparing the Final EIS. The Final EIS will contain the -comments submitted and a summary of comment responses. - -The Final EIS will include public notice of document availability, the distribution of the document, and a -30-day comment/waiting period on the final document. NMFS and BOEM are expected to each issue a -separate Record of Decision (ROD), which will then conclude the EIS process in early 2013. The -selected alternative will be identified in each ROD, as well as the agency’s rationale for their conclusions -regarding the environmental effects and appropriate mitigation measures for the proposed project. - - - - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 3 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -4.0 ANALYSIS OF SUBMISSIONS -The body of this report provides a brief summary of the comment analysis process and the comments that -were received during the public comment period. Appendix A follows this narrative, and includes the -Comment Index. - -Comments were received on the DEIS in several ways: - -• Oral discussion or testimony from the government to government meeting transcripts; - -• Written comments submitted electronically by email or through the project website. - -NMFS received a total of seven unique submissions on the DEIS from tribal entities (five government to -government meeting transcripts and two written comment letters). The complete text of comments -received will be included in the Administrative Record for the EIS. - -This CAR provides an analytical summary of these submissions. It presents the methodology used by -NMFS in reviewing, sorting, and synthesizing substantive comments within each submission into -common themes. As described in the following sections of this report, a careful and deliberate approach -has been undertaken to ensure that all substantive public comments were captured. - -The coding phase was used to divide each submission into a series of substantive comments (herein -referred to as ‘comments’). All submissions on the DEIS were read, reviewed, and logged into the -Comment Analysis System database (CASy) where they were assigned an automatic tracking number -(Submission ID). These comments were recorded into the CASy and given a unique Comment ID -number (with reference to the Submission ID) for tracking and synthesis. The goal of this process was to -ensure that each sentence and paragraph in a submission containing a substantive comment pertinent to -the DEIS was entered into the CASy. Substantive content constituted assertions, suggested actions, data, -background information, or clarifications relating to the content of the DEIS. - -Comments were assigned subject issue categories to describe the content of the comment (see Table 2). -The issues were grouped by general topics, including effects, available information, regulatory -compliance, and Iñupiat culture. The relative distribution of comments by issue is shown in Figure 1. - -A total of 19 issue categories were developed for coding during the first step of the analysis process as -shown in Table 2. These categories evolved from common themes found throughout the submissions. -Some categories correspond directly to sections of the DEIS, while others focus on more procedural -topics. Several submissions included attachments of scientific studies or reports or requested specific -edits to the DEIS text. - -The public comment submissions generated 185 substantive comments, which were then grouped into -Statements of Concern (SOCs). SOCs are summary statements intended to capture the different themes -identified in the substantive comments. SOCs are frequently supported by additional text to further -explain the concern, or alternatively to capture the specific comment variations within that grouping. -SOCs are not intended to replace actual comments. Rather, they summarize for the reader the range of -comments on a specific topic. - -Every substantive comment was assigned to an SOC; a total of 82 SOCs were developed. Each SOC is -represented by an issue category code followed by a number. NMFS will use the SOCs to respond to -substantive comments on the DEIS, as appropriate. Each issue category may have more than one SOC. -For example, there are 6 SOCs under the issue category “Cumulative Effects” (CEF 1, CEF 2, CEF 3, -etc.). Each comment was assigned to one SOC. The complete list of SOCs can be found in Section 5.0. - - - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 4 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -Table 2. Issue Categories for DEIS Comments - -GROUP Issue Category Code Summary - -Effects Cumulative Effects CEF Comments related to cumulative impacts in -general, or for a specific resource - -Physical Environment -(General) - -GPE Comments related to impacts on resources within -the physical environment (Physical -Oceanography, Climate, Acoustics, and -Environmental Contaminants & Ecosystem -Functions) - -Social Environment -(General) - -GSE Comments related to impacts on resources within -the social environment (Public Health, Cultural, -Land Ownership/Use/Management, -Transportation, Recreation and Tourism, Visual -Resources, and Environmental Justice) - -Habitat HAB Comments associated with habitat requirements, -or potential habitat impacts from seismic -activities and exploratory drilling. Comment -focus is habitat, not animals. - -Marine Mammal and other -Wildlife Impacts - -MMI General comments related to potential impacts to -marine mammals or other wildlife, unrelated to -subsistence resource concepts. - -Oil Spill Risks OSR Concerns about potential for oil spill, ability to -clean up spills in various conditions, potential -impacts to resources or environment from spills. - -Socioeconomic Impacts SEI Comments on economic impacts to local -communities, regional economy, and national -economy, can include changes in the social or -economic environments. - -Subsistence Resource -Protection - -SRP Comments on need to protect subsistence -resources and potential impacts to these -resources. Can include ocean resources as our -garden, contamination. - -Water and Air Quality WAQ Comments regarding water and air quality, -including potential to impact or degrade these -resources. - -Info -Available - -Data DATA Comments referencing scientific studies that -should be considered. - -Research, Monitoring, -Evaluation Needs - -RME Comments on baseline research, monitoring, and -evaluation needs - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 5 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -GROUP Issue Category Code Summary - -Process: -NEPA, -Permits, the -DEIS - -Alternatives ALT Comments related to alternatives or alternative -development. - -Coordination and -Compatibility - -COR Comments on compliance with statues, laws or -regulations and Executive Orders that should be -considered; coordinating with federal, state, or -local agencies, organizations, or potential -applicants; permitting requirements. - -Mitigation Measures MIT Comments related to suggestions for or -implementation of mitigation measures. - -NEPA NEP Comments on aspects of the NEPA process -(purpose and need, scoping, public involvement, -etc.), issues with the impact criteria (Chapter 4), -or issues with the impact analysis. - -Regulatory Compliance REG Comments associated with compliance with -existing regulations, laws, and statutes. - -General Editorial EDI Comments associated with specific text edits to -the document. - -Iñupiat -Culture - -Iñupiat Culture and Way of -Life - -ICL Comments related to potential cultural impacts or -desire to maintain traditional practices -(PEOPLE). - -Use of Traditional -Knowledge - -UTK Comments regarding how traditional knowledge -(TK) is used in the document or decision making -process, need to incorporate TK, or processes for -documenting TK. - - - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 6 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -Figure 1: Comments by Issue - - - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 7 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -5.0 STATEMENTS OF CONCERN -This section presents the SOCs developed to help summarize comments received on the DEIS. To assist -in finding which SOCs were contained in each submission, a Submission and Comment Index -(Appendix A) was created. The index is a list of all submissions received, presented alphabetically by the -last name of the commenter, as well as the Submission ID associated with the submission, and which -SOCs responds to their specific comments. To identify the specific issues that are contained in an -individual submission: 1) search for the submission of interest in Appendix A; 2) note which SOC codes -are listed under the submissions; 3) locate the SOC within Section 5.0; and 4) read the text next to that -SOC. Each substantive comment contained in a submission was assigned to one SOC. - - - - - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 8 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -Alternatives (ALT) -ALT Comments related to alternatives or alternative development. - -ALT 1 NMFS should adopt the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) as the preferred alternative, -which represents a precautionary, ecosystem-based approach. There is a considerable amount -of public support for this alternative. It is the only reliable way to prevent a potential -catastrophic oil spill from occurring in the Arctic Ocean, and provides the greatest protections -from negative impacts to marine mammals from noise and vessel strikes. Alternative 1 is the -only alternative that makes sense given the state of missing scientific baseline, as well as -long-term, data on impacts to marine mammals and subsistence activities resulting from oil -and gas exploration. - -ALT 2 The “range” of action alternatives only considers two levels of activity. The narrow range of -alternatives presented in the DEIS and the lack of specificity regarding the source levels, -timing, duration, and location of the activities being considered do not provide a sufficient -basis for determining whether other options might exist for oil and gas development with -significantly less environmental impact, including reduced effects on marine mammals. -NMFS and BOEM should expand the range of alternatives to ensure that oil and gas -exploration activities have no more than a negligible impact on marine mammal species and -stocks, and will not have adverse impacts on the Alaska Native communities that depend on -the availability of marine mammals for subsistence, as required under the Marine Mammal -Protection Act. - -ALT 3 The levels of oil and gas exploration activity identified in Alternatives 2 and 3 are not -accurate. In particular, the DEIS significantly over estimates the amount of seismic -exploration that is reasonably foreseeable in the next five years, while underestimating the -amount of exploration drilling that could occur. The alternatives are legally flawed because -none of the alternatives address scenarios that are currently being contemplated and which are -most likely to occur. For example: - -• Level 1 activity assumes as many as three site clearance and shallow hazard survey -programs in the Chukchi Sea, while Level 2 activity assumes as many as 5 such -programs. By comparison, the ITR petition recently submitted by AOGA to USFWS for -polar bear and walrus projects as many as seven (and as few as zero) shallow hazard -surveys and as many as two (and as few as one) other G&G surveys annually in the -Chukchi Sea over the next five years. - -• The assumption for the number of source vessels and concurrent activity is unlikely. -• By 2014, ConocoPhillips intends to conduct exploration drilling in the Chukchi Sea. It is - -also probable that Statoil will be conducting exploration drilling on their prospects in the -Chukchi Sea beginning in 2014. Accordingly, in 2014, and perhaps later years depending -upon results, there may be as many as three exploration drilling programs occurring in -the Chukchi Sea. - -The alternatives scenarios should be adjusted by NMFS to account for realistic levels of -seismic and exploratory drilling activities, and the subsequent impact analyses should be -substantially revised. The DEIS does not explain why alternatives that would more accurately -represent likely levels of activity were omitted from inclusion in the DEIS as required under -40 C.F.R. Sections 1500.1 and Section 1502.14. - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 9 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -ALT 4 NMFS should include a community-based alternative that establishes direct reliance on the -Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA), and the collaborative process that has been used to -implement it. The alternative would include a fully developed suite of mitigation measures -similar to what is included in each annual CAA. This alternative would also include: - -• a communications scheme to manage industry and hunter vessel traffic during whale -hunting; - -• time-area closures that provide a westward-moving buffer ahead of the bowhead -migration in areas important for fall hunting by our villages; - -• vessel movement restrictions and speed limitations for industry vessels moving in the -vicinity of migrating whales; - -• limitations on levels of specific activities; -• limitations on discharges in near-shore areas where food is taken and eaten directly from - -the water; -• other measures to facilitate stakeholder involvement; and -• an annual adaptive decision making process where the oil industry and Native groups - -come together to discuss new information and potential amendments to the mitigation -measures and/or levels of activity. - -NMFS should also include a more thorough discussion of the 20-year history of the CAA to -provide better context for assessing the potential benefits of this community-based -alternative. - -ALT 5 NMFS should include an alternative in the Final EIS that blends the following components of -the existing DEIS alternatives, which is designed to benefit subsistence hunting: - -• Alternative 2 activity levels; -• Mandatory time/area closures of Alternative 4; -• Alternative technologies from Alternative 5; -• Zero discharge in the Beaufort Sea; -• Limitation on vessel transit into the Chukchi Sea; -• Protections for the subsistence hunt in Wainwright, Point Hope, and Point Lay; -• Sound source verification; -• Expanded exclusion zones for seismic activities; and -• Limitations on limited visibility operation of seismic equipment. - -ALT 6 The analysis in the DEIS avoids proposing a beneficial conservation alternative and -consistently dilutes the advantages of mitigation measures that could be used as part of such -an alternative. NEPA requires that agencies explore alternatives that “will avoid or minimize -adverse effects of these actions upon the quality of the human environment.” Such an -alternative could require all standard and additional mitigation measures, while adding limits -such as late-season drilling prohibitions to protect migrating bowhead whales and reduce the -harm from an oil spill. NMFS should consider analyzing such an alternative in the Final EIS. - - - - - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 10 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -Cumulative Effects (CEF) -CEF Comments related to cumulative impacts in general, or for a specific resource. - -CEF 1 NMFS should review the cumulative effects section; many “minor” and “negligible” impacts -can combine to be more than “minor” or “negligible.” - -CEF 2 A narrow focus on oil and gas activities is likely to underestimate the overall level of impact -on the bowhead whale. Bowhead whales are long-lived and travel great distances during their -annual migration, leaving them potentially exposed to a wide range of potential -anthropogenic impacts and cumulative effects over broad geographical and temporal scales. -An Ecosystem Based Management approach would better regulate the totality of potential -impacts to wildlife habitat and ecosystem services in the Arctic. - -CEF 3 NMFS should include more in its cumulative effects analysis regarding the impacts caused -by: - -• Climate change; -• Oil Spills; -• Ocean noise; -• Planes; -• Transportation in general; -• Discharge; -• Assessments/research/monitoring; -• Dispersants; and -• Invasive species. - -CEF 4 The cumulative effects analysis overall in the DEIS is inadequate. Specific comments -include: - -• The DEIS fails to develop a coherent analytical framework by which impacts are -assessed and how decisions are made; - -• The cumulative impact section does not provide details about what specific methodology -was used; - -• The cumulative effects analysis does not adequately assess the impacts from noise, -air/water quality, subsistence, and marine mammals; - -• The list of activities is incomplete; -• The assessment of impacts to employment/socioeconomics/income are not considered in - -assessment of cumulative impacts for any alternative other than the no action alternative; -• The industry has not shown that their activities will have no cumulative, adverse and - -unhealthy effects upon the animals, the air, the waters nor the peoples of the Coastal -Communities in the Arctic; - -• The analysis on seals and other pinnipeds is inadequate and is not clear on whether -potential listings were considered; - -• Recent major mortality events involving both walrus and ice seals must be considered -when determining impacts. A negligible impact determination cannot be made without -more information about these disease events. - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 11 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -CEF 5 Adverse cumulative effects need to be considered in more depth for marine mammals and -habitat, specifically regarding: - -• Oil and gas activities in the Canadian Beaufort and the Russian Chukchi Sea; -• Entanglement with fishing gear; -• Increased vessel traffic; -• Discharge; -• Water/Air pollution; -• Sources of underwater noise; -• Climate change; -• Ocean acidification; and -• Production structures and pipelines. - -CEF 6 NMFS should include the following in the cumulative effects analysis: - -• Current and future activities including deep water port construction by the military, the -opening of the Northwest Passage, and production at BP’s Liberty prospect; - -• Past activities including past activities in the Arctic for which NMFS has issued IHAs; -commercial shipping and potential deep water port construction; production of offshore -oil and gas resources or production related activities; and commercial fishing; - -• A baseline for analysis of current activities and past IHAs; -• Recent studies: a passive acoustic monitoring study conducted by Scripps, and NOAA’s - -working group on cumulative noise mapping; -• Ecosystem mapping of the entire project. - - - - - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 12 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -Coordination and Compatibility (COR) -COR Comments on compliance with statues, laws or regulations and Executive Orders that should - -be considered; coordinating with federal, state, or local agencies, organizations, or potential -applicants; permitting requirements. - -COR 1 Continued government to government consultation needs to include: - -• Increased focus on how NMFS and other federal agencies are required to protect natural -resources and minimize the impact of hydrocarbon development to adversely affect -subsistence hunting. - -• More consultations are needed with the tribes to incorporate their traditional knowledge -into the DEIS decision making process. - -• Direct contact between NMFS and Kotzebue IRA, Iñupiat Community of the Arctic -Slope (ICAS) and Native Village of Barrow should be initiated by NMFS. - -• Tribal organizations should be included in meeting with stakeholders and cooperating -agencies. - -• Consultation should be initiated early and from NOAA/NMFS, not through their -contractor. Meetings should be in person. - -COR 2 Data and results that are gathered should be shared throughout the impacted communities. -Often, adequate data are not shared and therefore perceived inaccurate. Before and after an -IHA is authorized, communities should receive feedback from industry, NMFS, and marine -observers. - -COR 3 There needs to be a permanent system of enforcement and reporting for marine mammal -impacts to ensure that oil companies are complying with the terms of the IHA and threatened -and endangered species authorizations. This system needs to be developed and implemented -in collaboration with the North Slope Borough and the ICAS and should be based on the -CAAs. - -COR 4 NMFS should adopt an ecosystem based management approach consistent with the policy -objectives of the MMPA and the policy objectives of the Executive Branch and President -Obama's Administration. - - - - - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 13 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -Data (DAT) -DATA Comments referencing scientific studies that should be considered. - -DATA 1 NMFS should review the references below regarding air pollution: - -Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10, Supplemental Statement of Basis for -Proposed OCS Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits Noble Discoverer Drillship, -Shell Offshore Inc., Beaufort Sea Exploration Drilling Program, Permit No. R10OCS/PSD- -AK-2010-01, Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc., Chukchi Sea Exploration Drilling Program, Permit -No. R10OCS/PSD-AK-09-01 at 65 (July 6, 2011) (Discoverer Suppl. Statement of Basis -2011), available at -http://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/permits/shell/discoverer_supplemental_statement_of_basis -_chukchi_and_beaufort_air_permits_070111.pdf. 393 EPA Region 10, Technical Support -Document, Review of Shell’s Supplemental Ambient Air Quality Impact Analysis for the -Discoverer OCS Permit Applications in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas at 8 (Jun. 24, -2011)(Discoverer Technical Support Document), available at -http://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/permits/shell/discoverer_ambient_air_quality_impact_anal -ysis_06242011.pdf. 394 EPA, An Introduction to Indoor Air Quality: Nitrogen Dioxide, -available at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/no2.html#Health Effects Associated with Nitrogen -Dioxide 396 EPA, Particulate Matter: Health, available at -http://www.epa.gov/oar/particlepollution/health.html - -DATA 2 NMFS should review the reference below regarding characterization of subsistence -areas/activities for Kotzebue: - -Whiting, A., D. Griffith, S. Jewett, L. Clough, W. Ambrose, and J. Johnson. 2011. -Combining Inupiaq and Scientific Knowledge: Ecology in Northern Kotzebue Sound, Alaska. -Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks, SG-ED-72, Fairbanks. 71 pp, for a more -accurate representation, especially for Kotzebue Sound uses. - -Crawford, J. A., K. J. Frost, L. T. Quakenbush, and A. Whiting. 201.2. Different habitat use -strategies by subadult and adult ringed seals (Phoca hispida} in the Bering and Chukchi seas. -Polar Biology 35{2):241-255. - -DATA 3 NMFS should review the references below regarding Ecosystem-Based Management: - -Environmental Law Institute. Intergrated Ecosystem-Based Management of the US. Arctic -Marine Environment- Assessing the Feasibility of Program and Development and -Implementation (2008) - -Siron, Robert et al. Ecosystem-Based Management in the Arctic Ocean: A Multi- Level -Spatial Approach, Arctic Vol. 61, Suppl 1 (2008) (pp 86-102)2 - -Norwegian Polar Institute. Best Practices in Ecosystem-based Oceans Management in the -Arctic, Report Series No. 129 (2009) - -The Aspen Institute Energy and Environment Program. The Shared Future: A Report of the -Aspen Institute Commission on Arctic Climate Change (2011) - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 14 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -Editorial (EDI) -EDI Comments associated with specific text edits to the document. - -EDI 1 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 1. - -EDI 2 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 2. - -EDI 3 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 3 – Physical -Environment. - -EDI 4 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 3 – Biological -Environment. - -EDI 5 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 3 – Social -Environment. - -EDI 6 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Physical -Environment. - -EDI 7 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Biological -Environment. - -EDI 8 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Social -Environment. - -EDI 9 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Oil Spill Analysis. - -EDI 10 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Cumulative Effects -Analysis. - - - - - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 15 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -Physical Environment – General (GPE) -GPE Comments related to impacts on resources within the physical environment (Physical - -Oceanography, Climate, Acoustics, and Environmental Contaminants & Ecosystem -Functions). - -GPE 1 The EIS should include an analysis of impacts associated with climate change and ocean -acidification including: - -• Addressing threats to species and associated impacts for the bowhead whale, pacific -walrus, and other Arctic species. - -• Effects of loss of sea ice cover, seasonally ice-free conditions on the availability of -subsistence resources to Arctic communities. - -• Increased community stress, including loss of subsistence resources and impacts to ice -cellars. - - - - - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 16 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -Social Environment – General (GSE) -GSE Comments related to impacts on resources within the social environment (Public Health, - -Cultural, Land Ownership/Use/Management, Transportation, Recreation and Tourism, Visual -Resources, and Environmental Justice). - -GSE 1 The current environmental justice analysis is inadequate, and NMFS has downplayed the -overall threat to the Iñupiat people. The agency does not adequately address the following: - -• The combined impacts of air pollution, water pollution, sociocultural impacts -(disturbance of subsistence practices), and economic impacts on Iñupiat people; - -• The baseline health conditions of local communities and how it may be impacted by the -proposed oil and gas activities; - -• Potential exposure to toxic chemicals and diminished air quality; -• The unequal burden and risks imposed on Iñupiat communities; and -• The analysis fails to include all Iñupiat communities. - -GSE 2 Current and up to date health information should be evaluated and presented in the human -health assessments. Affected communities have a predisposition and high susceptibility to -health problems that need to be evaluated and considered when NMFS develops alternatives -and mitigation measures to address impacts. - - - - - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 17 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -Habitat (HAB) -HAB Comments associated with habitat requirements, or potential habitat impacts from seismic - -activities and exploratory drilling. Comment focus is habitat, not animals. - -HAB 1 NMFS should consider an ecosystem-based management plan to protect habitat for the -bowhead whale and other important wildlife subsistence species of the Arctic. - - - - - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 18 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -Iñupiat Culture and Way of Life (ICL) -ICL Comments related to potential cultural impacts or desire to maintain traditional practices. - -ICL 1 Industrial activities (such as oil and gas exploration and production) jeopardize the long-term -health and culture of native communities. Specific concerns include: - -• Impacts to Arctic ecosystems and the associated subsistence resources from pollutants, -noise, and vessel traffic; - -• Community and family level cultural impacts related to the subsistence way of life; -• Preserving resources for future generations. - -ICL 2 Native communities would be heavily impacted if a spill occurs, depriving them of -subsistence resources. NMFS should consider the impact of an oil spill when deciding upon -an alternative. - -ICL 3 Native communities are at risk for changes from multiple threats, including climate change, -increased industrialization, access to the North Slope, melting ice, and stressed wildlife. -These threats are affecting Inupiat traditional and cultural uses and NMFS should stop -authorizing offshore oil and gas related activities until these threats to Iñupiat culture are -addressed. - - - - - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 19 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -Mitigation Measures (MIT) -MIT Comments related to suggestions for or implementation of mitigation measures. - -MIT 1 If Kotzebue is included in the EIS area because it is an eligible area for exploration activities, -then the DEIS needs to include recommendations for mitigating impacts through exclusion -areas, or timing issues, including: - -• remove the Hope Basin from the EIS area; and -• develop and include additional area/time closures/restrictions for nearshore Kotzebue - -Sound and for Point Hope and Kivalina in the Final EIS. - -MIT 2 There should be no on-ice discharge of drilling muds due to the concentrated nature of waste -and some likely probability of directly contacting marine mammals or other wildlife like -arctic foxes and birds. Even if the muds are considered non-toxic, the potential for fouling fur -and feathers and impeding thermal regulation properties seems a reasonable concern. - -MIT 3 There should be communication centers in the villages during bowhead and beluga hunting if -subsistence hunters find this useful and desirable. - -MIT 4 The benefits of concurrent ensonification areas need to be given more consideration in -regards to 15 mile vs. 90 mile separation distances. It is not entirely clear what the -cost/benefit result is on this issue, including: - -• Multiple simultaneous surveys in several areas across the migratory corridor could result -in a broader regional biological and subsistence impact -deflection could occur across a -large area of feeding habitat. - -• Potential benefit would depend on the trajectory of migrating animals in relation to the -activity and total area ensonified. - -• Consideration needs to be given to whether mitigation is more effective if operations are -grouped together or spread across a large area. - -MIT 5 Use mitigation measures that are practicable and produce real world improvement on the -level and amount of negative impacts. Do not use those that theoretically sound good or look -good or feel good, but that actually result in an improved situation. Encourage trials of new -avoidance mechanisms. - -MIT 6 Trained dogs are the most effective means of finding ringed seal dens and breathing holes in -Kotzebue Sound so should be used to clear path for on-ice roads or other on-ice activities. - -MIT 7 The potential increased risk associated with the timing that vessels can enter exploration areas -needs to be considered: - -• A delayed start could increase the risk of losing control of a VLOS that will more likely -occur at the end of the season when environmental conditions (ice and freezing -temperatures) rapidly become more challenging and hazardous. - -• Operators could stage at leasing areas but hold off on exploration activity until July l5 or -until Point Lay beluga hunt is completed. - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 20 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 8 The DEIS should definitively establish the full suite of mandatory mitigation measures for -each alternative that will be required for any given site-specific activity, instead of listing a -series of mitigation measures that may or may not apply to site-specific actions. - -• NMFS should ensure that mitigation measures are in place prior to starting any activity -rather than considering mitigation measures on a case by case basis later in the process -when it is more difficult as activities have advanced in planning. - -• Make additional mitigation measures standard and include both for any level of activity -that includes, at a minimum, those activities described in Section 2.4.9 and 2.4.10 of the -DEIS. - -• Mitigation measures required previously by IHAs (e.g., a 160dB vessel monitoring zone -for whales during shallow hazard surveys) show it is feasible for operators to perform -these measures. - -• NMFS should require a full suite of standard mitigation measures for every take -authorization issued by the agency and they should also be included under the terms and -conditions for the BOEM’s issuance of geological and geophysical permits and ancillary -activity and exploratory drilling approvals. - -• A number of detection-based measures should be standardized (e.g., sound source -verification, PAM). - -• Routing vessels around important habitat should be standard. - -MIT 9 Vessel restrictions and other measures need to be implemented to mitigate ship strikes, -including: - -• Vessels should be prohibited from sensitive areas with high levels of wildlife presence -that are determined to be key habitat for feeding, breeding, or calving. - -• Ship routes should be clearly defined, including a process for annual review to update -and re-route shipping around these sensitive areas. - -• Speed restrictions may also need to be considered if re-routing is not possible. -• NMFS should require use of real-time PAM in migratory corridors and other sensitive - -areas to alert ships to the presence of whales, primarily to reduce ship-strike risk. - -MIT 10 Time/area closures should be included in any alternative as standard avoidance measures and -should be expanded to include other deferral areas, including: - -• North of Dease Inlet to Smith Bay. -• Northeast of Smith Bay. -• Northeast of Cape Halkett where bowhead whales feed. -• Boulder patch communities. -• Particular caution should be taken in early fall throughout the region, when peak use of - -the Arctic by marine mammals takes place. -• Add the Coastal Band of the Chukchi Sea (~50 miles wide) [Commenting on the original - -Lease Sale 193 draft EIS, NMFS strongly endorse[d] an alternative that would have -avoided any federal leases out to 60 miles and specifically argued that a 25-mile buffer -[around deferral areas] is inadequate]. - -• Expand Barrow Canyon time/area closure area to the head of Barrow Canyon (off the -coast between Point Barrow and Point Franklin), as well as the mouth of Barrow Canyon -along the shelf break. - -• Areas to the south of Hanna Shoal are important to walrus, bowhead whales, and gray -whales. - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 21 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -• Encourage NMFS to consider a time/area closure during the winter and spring in the -Beaufort Sea that captures the ice fracture zone between landfast ice and the pack ice -where ringed seal densities are the highest. - -• Nuiqsut has long asked federal agencies to create a deferral area in the 20 miles to the -east of Cross Island. This area holds special importance for bowhead whale hunters and -the whales. - -• NMFS should consider designing larger exclusion zones (detection-dependent or - -independent) around river mouths with anadromous fish runs to protect beluga whale -foraging habitat, insofar as these areas are not encompassed by seasonal closures. - -• Final EIS must consider including additional (special habitat) areas and developing a -mechanism for new areas to be added over the life of the EIS. - -• Any protections for Camden Bay should extend beyond the dimensions of the Bay itself -to include areas located to the west and east, recently identified by NMFS as having -special significance to bowhead whales. - -• Additional analysis is required related to deferral areas specific to subsistence hunting. -Any Final EIS must confront the potential need for added coastal protections in the -Chukchi Sea. - -• There should be a buffer zone between Burger and the coast during migration of walrus -and other marine mammals. - -• Future measures should include time/area closures for IEAs (Important Ecological Areas) -of the Arctic. - -MIT 11 Additional Mitigation Measure D7 must be deleted or clarified: - -• The transit restrictions are not identified, nor are the conditions under which the transit -might be allowed. - -• Some hunting of marine mammals in the Chukchi Sea occurs year round making this -measure impracticable. - -MIT 12 Barrow Canyon merits considerable protection through time/area closures. In the spring, a -number of marine mammals use this area, including bowhead whales, beluga whales, bearded -seals, ringed seals, and polar bears. In the summer and fall this area is also important for gray -whales, walrus, and bearded seals. - -MIT 13 NMFS needs to expand and update its list of mitigation measures to include: - -• zero discharge requirement to protect water quality and subsistence resources. -• require oil and gas companies who are engaging in exploration operations to obtain EPA - -issued air permits. -• more stringent regulation of marine vessel discharge for both exploratory drilling - -operations, support vessels, and other operations to eliminate possible environmental -contamination through the introduction of pathogens and foreign organisms through -ballast water, waste water, sewage, and other discharge streams - -• the requirement that industry signs a Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA) with the -relevant marine mammal co-management organizations - -• Another Standard Mitigation Measure should be developed with regards to marine -mammal monitoring during darkness and inclement weather. This should require more -efficient and appropriate protocols. If more appropriate monitoring methods cannot be -developed, NMFS should not allow for seismic surveys during times when monitoring is -severely limited. - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 22 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -• NMFS should consider for mitigation a requirement that seismic survey vessels use the -lowest practicable source levels, minimize horizontal propagation of the sound signal, -and/or minimize the density of track lines consistent with the purposes of the survey. -Accordingly, the agencies should consider establishing a review panel, potentially -overseen by both NMFS and BOEM, to review survey designs with the aim of reducing -their wildlife impacts - -• A requirement that all vessels undergo measurement for their underwater noise output per -American National Standards Institute/Acoustical Society of America standards (S12.64); -that all vessels undergo regular maintenance to minimize propeller cavitation, which is -the primary contributor to underwater ship noise; and/or that all new vessels be required -to employ the best ship quieting designs and technologies available for their class of ship - -• NMFS should consider requiring aerial monitoring and/or fixed hydrophone arrays to -reduce the risk of near-source injury and monitor for impacts - -• Make MMOs (PSOs) mandatory on the vessels. -• Unmanned flights should also be investigated for monitoring, as recommended by - -NMFS’s Open Water Panel. -• Mitigation and monitoring measures concerning the introduction of non-native species - -need to be identified and analyzed - -MIT 14 Both the section on water quality and subsistence require a discussion of mitigation measures -and how NMFS intends to address local community concerns about contamination of -subsistence food from sanitary waste and drilling muds and cuttings. - -MIT 15 The most effective means of creating mitigation that works is to start small and focused and -reassess after a couple of seasons to determine what works and what doesn’t work. Mitigation -measures could then be adjusted to match reality. - -MIT 16 There should be a mechanism by which the public can be apprised of and provide input on -the efficacy of mitigation efforts. Suggestions include: - -• Something similar to the Open Water meetings -• Put out a document about the assumptions upon which all these NEPA documents and - -permits are based and assess mitigation: Are they working, how did they work, what were -the problems and challenges, where do we need to focus attention. - -• Include dates if something unusual happened that season that would provide an -opportunity to contact NOAA or BOEM or whoever and say, hey, by the way, during this -thing we noticed this or whatever. - -• This would just help us to again refine our mitigation recommendations in the future. - -MIT 17 If explosives are used, there needs to be mitigation to ensure that the explosives are -accounted for. - - - - - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 23 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -Marine Mammal and other Wildlife Impacts (MMI) -MMI General comments related to potential impacts to marine mammals or wildlife, unrelated to - -subsistence resource concepts. - -MMI 1 Loss of sea-ice habitat due to climate change may make polar bears, ice seals, and walrus -more vulnerable to impacts from oil and gas activities, which needs to be considered in the -EIS. The DEIS needs to adequately consider impacts in the context of climate change: - -• The added stress of habitat loss due to climate change should form a greater part of the -DEIS analysis. - -• Both polar bears and ringed seals may be affected by multiple-year impacts from -activities associated with drilling (including an associated increase in vessel traffic) given -their dependence on sea-ice and its projected decline. - -• Shifts in distribution and habitat use by polar bears and walrus in the Beaufort and -Chukchi seas attributable to loss of sea ice habitat is insufficiently incorporated into the -DEIS analysis. The DEIS only asserts that possible harm to subsistence and to polar bear -habitat from oil and gas operations would be negligible compared to the potential for -dramatic sea ice loss due to climate change and changes in ecosystems due to ocean -acidification. For walrus and ice seals, the DEIS simply notes potentially catastrophic -climate effects without adequately considering how oil and gas activities might leave -species more vulnerable to that outcome. - -• Sub-adult polar bears that return to land in summer because of sea-ice loss are more -likely to be impacted by activities in the water, onshore support of open water activities, -and oil spills; this could represent potentially major impacts to polar bear populations and -should be considered in any final EIS. - -• Walrus feeding grounds are being transformed and walrus are hauling out on land in large -numbers, leaving them vulnerable to land-based disturbances. - -MMI 2 Impacts from ship-strikes (fatal and non-fatal) need to be given greater consideration, -especially with increased ship traffic and the development of Arctic shipping routes. - -• Potential impacts on beluga whales and other resources in Kotzebue Sound needs to be -considered with vessels traveling past this area. - -• There is great concern for ship strikes of bowhead and other whales and these significant -impacts must be addressed in conjunction with the project alternatives. - -MMI 3 NMFS should include a discussion of the recent disease outbreak affecting seals and walrus, -include this outbreak as part of the baseline, and discuss how potential similar future events -(of unknown origin) are likely to increase in the future. - - - - - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 24 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -NEPA (NEP) -NEP Comments on aspects of the NEPA process (purpose and need, scoping, public involvement, - -etc.), issues with the impact criteria (Chapter 4), or issues with the impact analysis. - -NEP 1 The DEIS analysis should consider the frequency component, nature of the sound source, -cetacean hearing sensitivities, and biological significance when determining what constitutes -Level B incidental take. The working assumption that impulsive noise never disrupts marine -mammal behavior at levels below 160 dB (RMS), and disrupts behavior with 100 percent -probability at higher levels has been repeatedly demonstrated to be incorrect, including in -cases involving the sources and areas being considered in the DEIS. The reliance on the 160 -dB guideline for Level B take estimation is antiquated and should be revised by NMFS. The -criteria should be replaced by a combination of Sound Exposure Level limits and Peak (not -RMS) Sound Pressure Levels or other metric being considered. - -NEP 2 The communities are feeling overwhelmed with the amount of documents they are being -asked to review related to various aspects of oil and gas exploration and development -activities. The system of commenting on EIS documents needs to be revised. However, the -forums of public meetings are important to people in the communities so their concerns can -be heard before they are implemented in the EIS. - -NEP 3 The EIS project area boundary should be extended through the Bering Straits to -accommodate impacts resulting from vessel transit to and from lease areas. - - - - - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 25 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -Oil Spill Risks (OSR) -OSR Concerns about potential for oil spill, ability to clean up spills in various conditions, potential - -impacts to resources or environment from spills. - -OSR 1 A large oil spill in the extreme conditions present in Arctic waters would be extremely -difficult or impossible to clean up. Current cleanup methods are unsuitable and ineffective. -Oil spill responses need to be developed in advance of offshore development. NMFS and -BOEM need to consider the following: - -• Current technology only allows rescue and repair attempts during ice free parts of the -year. If an oil spill occurs near or into freeze-up, the oil will remain trapped there until -spring. These spring lead systems and melt pools are important areas where wildlife -collect. - -• How would oil be skimmed with sea ice present? -• How would rough waters affect oil spill response effectiveness and time, and could rough - -seas and sea ice, in combination, churn the surface oil? - -OSR 2 An oil spill being a low probability event is optimistic and would only apply to the -exploration phase. Once full development or production goes into effect, an oil spill is more -likely. Are there any data suggesting this is a low probability? NMFS should assume a spill -will occur and plan accordingly. - -OSR 3 An oil spill in the arctic environment would be devastating to numerous biological systems, -habitats, communities and people. There is too little known about Arctic marine wildlife to -know what the population effects would be. Black (oiled) ice would expedite ice melt. The -analysis section needs to be updated. Not only would the Arctic be affected but the waters -surrounding the Arctic as well. - -OSR 4 The oil spill section needs to be reworked. NMFS should consider also working the -discussion of oil spills in the discussion the alternatives. No overall risks to the environment -are stated, or severity of spills in different areas, shoreline oiling is inadequate, impacts to -whales may be of higher magnitude due to important feeding areas and spring lead systems. -Recovery rates should be re evaluated for spilled oil. There are no site-specific details. The -trajectory model needs to be more precise. - -OSR 5 The DEIS confirms our [the affected communities] worst fears about both potential negative -impacts from offshore drilling and the fact that the federal government appears ready to place -on our communities a completely unacceptable risk at the behest of the international oil -companies. Native people in Alaska depend on the region for food and economical support. -An oil spill would negatively impact the local economies and the livelihoods of Native -people. - - - - - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 26 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -Regulatory Compliance (REG) -REG Comments associated with compliance with existing regulations, laws and statutes. - -REG 1 NMFS should revise the DEIS to encompass only those areas that are within the agency’s -jurisdiction and remove provisions and sections that conflicts with other federal and state -agency jurisdictions (BOEM, USFWS, EPA, Coast Guard, and State of Alaska). The current -DEIS is felt to constitute a broad reassessment and expansion of regulatory oversight. -Comments include: - -• The EIS mandates portions of CAAs, which are voluntary and beyond NMFS -jurisdiction. - -• The EIS proposes polar bear mitigations measures that could contradict those issued by -USFWS under the MMPA and ESA. - -• Potential requirements for zero discharge encroach on EPA’s jurisdiction under the Clean -Water Act regarding whether and how to authorize discharges. - -• Proposed mitigation measures, acoustic restrictions, and “Special Habitat” area -effectively extend exclusion zones and curtail lease block access, in effect “capping” -exploration activities. These measures encroach on the Department of the Interior’s -jurisdiction to identify areas open for leasing and approve exploration plans, as -designated under OCSLA. - -• The proposed requirement for an Oil Spill Response Plan conflicts with BOEM, Bureau -of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and the Coast Guard’s jurisdiction, as -established in OPA-90, which requires spill response planning. - -• NMFS does not have the authority to restrict vessel transit, which is under the jurisdiction -of the Coast Guard. - -• Proposed restrictions, outcomes, and mitigation measures duplicate and contradict -existing State lease stipulations and mitigation measures. - -REG 2 The DEIS needs to be changed to reflect the omnibus bill signed by President Obama on -December 23, 2011 that transfers Clean Air Act permitting authority from the EPA -Administrator to the Secretary of Interior (BOEM) in Alaska Arctic OCS. - -REG 3 Until there an indication that BOEM intends to adopt new air permitting regulations for the -Arctic or otherwise adopt regulations that will ensure compliance with the requirements of -the Clean Air Act, it is important that NMFS address the worst case scenario- offshore oil and -gas activities proceeding under BOEM's current regulations. - - - - - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 27 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -Research, Monitoring, Evaluation Needs (RME) -RME Comments on baseline research, monitoring, and evaluation needs. - -RME 1 The DEIS does not address or acknowledge the increasingly well-documented gaps in -knowledge of baseline environmental conditions and data that is incomplete in the Beaufort -and Chukchi seas for marine mammals and fish, nor how baseline conditions and marine -mammal populations are being affected by climate change. Information regarding -information regarding the composition, distribution, status, ecology of the living marine -resources and sensitive habitats in these ecosystems needs to be better known. Baseline data -are also critical to developing appropriate mitigation measures and evaluating their -effectiveness. It is unclear what decisions over what period of time would be covered under -the DEIS or how information gaps would be addressed and new information incorporated into -future decisions. The information gaps in many areas with relatively new and expanding -exploration activities are extensive and severe enough that it may be too difficult for -regulators to reach scientifically reliable conclusions about the risks to marine mammals from -oil and gas activities. - -To complicate matters, much of the baseline data about individual species (e.g., population -dynamics) remains a noteworthy gap. It is this incomplete baseline that NMFS uses as their -basis for comparing the potential impacts of each alternative. - -RME 2 Throughout the DEIS, there are additional acknowledgements of missing information, but -without any specific findings as to the importance to the agencies’ decision making, as -required by Section 1502.22, including: - -• Foraging movements of pack-ice breeding seals are not known. -• There are limited data as to the effects of masking. The greatest limiting factor in - -estimating impacts of masking is a lack of understanding of the spatial and temporal -scales over which marine mammals actually communicate. - -• It is not known whether impulsive noises affect marine mammal reproductive rate or -distribution. - -• It is not currently possible to predict which behavioral responses to anthropogenic noise -might result in significant population consequences for marine mammals, such as -bowhead whales, in the future. - -• The potential long-term effects on beluga whales from repeated disturbance are unknown. -Moreover, the current population trend of the Beaufort Sea stock of beluga whales is -unknown. - -• The degree to which ramp-up protects marine mammals from exposure to intense noises -is unknown. - -• Chemical response techniques to address an oil spill, such as dispersants could result in -additional degradation of water quality, which may or may not offset the benefits of -dispersant use. - -• There is no way to tell what may or may not affect marine mammals in Russian, U.S., or -in Canadian waters. - - - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 28 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -RME 3 There is too little information known about the existing biological conditions in the Arctic, -especially in light of changes wrought by climate change, to be able to reasonably -understand, evaluate and address the cumulative, adverse impacts of oil and gas activities on -those arctic ice environments including: - -• Scientific literature emphasizes the need to ensure that the resiliency of ecosystems is -maintained in light of the changing environmental conditions associated with climate -change. Uncertainties exist on topics for which more science focus is required, including -physical parameters, such as storm frequency and intensity, and circulation patterns, and -species response to environmental changes. - -• There is little information on the potential for additional stresses brought by oil and gas -activity and increased shipping and tourism and how these potential stressors may -magnify the impacts associated with changing climate and shrinking sea ice habitats. -There are more studies that need to be done on invasive species, black carbon, aggregate -noise. - -• It was noted that a majority of the studies available have been conducted during the -summer and there is limited data about the wintertime when there is seven to eight -months of ice on the oceans. - - - - - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 29 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -Socioeconomic Impacts (SEI) -SEI Comments on economic impacts to local communities, regional economy, and national - -economy, can include changes in the social or economic environments. - -SEI 1 The analysis of socioeconomic impacts in the DEIS is inadequate. Comments include: - -• The analysis claims inaccurately many impacts are unknown or cannot be predicted and -fails to consider the full potential of unrealized employment, payroll, government -revenue, and other benefits of exploration and development, as well as the effectiveness -of local hire efforts. - -• The analysis is inappropriately limited in a manner not consistent with the analysis of -other impacts in the DEIS. Potential beneficial impacts from development should not be -considered “temporary” and economic impacts should not be considered “minor”. This -characterization is inconsistent with the use of these same terms for environmental -impacts analysis. - -• NMFS did not provide a complete evaluation of the socioeconomic impacts of instituting -the additional mitigation measures. - -• The projected increase in employment appears to be low; -• The forecasts for future activity in the DEIS scope of alternatives, if based on historical - -activity, appear to ignore the impact of economic forces, especially resource value as -impacted by current and future market prices. Historical exploration activity in the -Chukchi and Beaufort OCS in the 1980s and early 1990s declined and ceased due to low -oil price rather than absence of resource; - -• Positive benefits were not captured adequately. - - - - - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 30 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -Subsistence Resource Protection (SRP) -SRP Comments on need to protect subsistence resources and potential impacts to these resources. - -Can include ocean resources as our garden, contamination. - -SRP 1 The DEIS is lacking in an in-depth analysis of impacts to subsistence. NMFS should analyze -the following in more detail: - -• Effects of oil and gas activities on subsistence resources and how climate change could -make species even more vulnerable to those effects; - -• The discussion of subsistence in the section on oil spills; -• Long-term impacts to communities from loss of our whale hunting tradition; -• Impacts on subsistence hunting that occur outside the project area, for example, in the - -Canadian portion of the Beaufort Sea; -• Impacts associated with multiple authorizations taking place over multiple years. - -SRP 2 Many people depend on the Beaufort and Chukchi seas for subsistence resources. Protection -of these resources is important to sustaining food sources, nutrition, athletics, and the culture -of Alaskan Natives for future generations. The EIS needs to consider not only subsistence -resources, but the food, prey, and habitat of those resources in its analysis of impacts. - -SRP 3 NMFS should use the information acquired on subsistence hunting grounds and provide real -information about what will happen in these areas and when, and then disclose what the -impacts will be to coastal villages. - -SRP 4 Subsistence resources could be negatively impacted by exploratory activities. Specific -comments include: - -• Concerns about the health and welfare of the animals, with results such as that the -blubber is getting too hard, as a result of seismic activity; - -• Reduction of animals; -• Noise from seismic operations, exploration drilling, and/or development and production - -activities may make bowhead whales skittish and more difficult to hunt; -• Aircraft associated with oil and gas operations may negatively affect other subsistence - -resources, including polar bears, walrus, seals, caribou, and coastal and marine birds, -making it more difficult for Alaska Native hunters to obtain these resources; - -• Water pollution could release toxins that bioaccumulate in top predators, including -humans; - -• Increased shipping traffic (including the potential for ship strikes) and the associated -noise are going to impact whaling and other marine mammal subsistence activities. - -SRP 5 Bowhead whales and seals are not the only subsistence resource that Native Alaskan -communities rely upon. Fishing is also an important resource and different species are hunted -throughout the year. Subsistence users have expressed concern that activities to support -offshore exploration will change migratory patterns of fish and krill that occur along the -coastlines. The DEIS analysis should reflect these concerns. - - - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 31 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -Use of Traditional Knowledge (UTK) -UTK Comments regarding how traditional knowledge (TK) is used in the document or decision - -making process, the need to incorporate TK, or processes for documenting TK. - -UTK 1 It is important that both Western Science and TK be applied in the EIS. There needs to be a -clear definition of what TK is, and that it protects traditional ways of life but also provides -valuable information. TK that is used in NEPA documents should be used with consent. - -UTK 2 To be meaningful, NMFS must obtain and incorporate TK before it commits to management -decisions that may adversely affect subsistence resources. - - - - - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 32 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -Water and Air Quality (WAQ) -WAQ Comments regarding water and air quality, including potential to impact or degrade these - -resources. - -WAQ 1 The air quality analysis on impacts is flawed and needs more information. Reliance on recent -draft air permits is not accurate especially for the increases in vessel traffic due to oil and gas -exploration. All emissions associated with oil and gas development need to be considered not -just those that are subject to direct regulation or permit conditions. Emissions calculations -need to include vessels outside the 25 mile radius not just inside. Actual icebreaker emissions -need to be included also. This will allow more accurate emissions calculations. The use of -stack testing results and other emissions calculations for Arctic operations are recommended. - -WAQ 2 Many operators have agreed to use ultra-low sulfur fuel or low sulfur fuel in their operations, -but those that do not agree have to be accounted for. The use of projected air emissions for -NOx and SOz need to be included to account for those that do not use the lower fuel grades. - -WAQ 3 Since air permits have not yet been applied for by oil companies engaging in seismic or -geological and geophysical surveys, control factors should not be applied to them without -knowing the actual information. - -WAQ 4 Concerns about the potential for diversion of bowhead whales and other subsistence species -due to water and air discharges. The location of these discharges, and waste streams, and -where they will overlap between the air and water needs to be compared to the whale -migrations and discern the potential areas of impact. - - - - - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -APPENDIX A -Submission and Comment Index - - - - - - - -DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-1 -Draft Government to Government Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -Iñupiat Community of the -Arctic Slope -(written comments) - -3776 ALT 1, ALT 2, ALT 4, ALT 5, CEF 2, CEF -3, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 6, COR 1, COR 4, -DATA 1, DATA 3, EDI 8, GPE 1, GSE 1, -GSE 2, HAB 1, ICL 2, ICL 3, MIT 8, MIT 9, -MIT 13, MIT 14, MMI 2, MMI 3, OSR 1, -OSR 2, OSR 3, OSR 4, OSR 5, REG 2, REG -3, SRP 1, SRP 3, WAQ 1, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, -WAQ 4 - -Iñupiat Community of the -Arctic Slope -(Government to Government -Meeting) - -13149 COR 1, ICL 1, MIT 17, RME 1, SEI 1, SRP -2, SRP 3 - -Native Village of Barrow -(Government to Government -Meeting) - -13150 ALT 5, COR 1, COR 2, COR 3, NEP 1, NEP -2, NEP 3, RME 1, RME 2, RME 3, SRP 2, -SRP 5 - -Native Village of Kivalina -(Government to Government -Meeting) - -13151 COR 1, SRP 4, UTK 1, UTK 2 - -Native Village of Kotzebue -IRA -(written comments) - -3751 ALT 3, ALT 5, ALT 6, DATA 2, EDI 1, EDI -2, EDI 3, EDI 4, EDI 5, EDI 6, EDI 7, EDI 8, -EDI 9, EDI 10, GPE 1, MIT 1, MIT 2, MIT -3, MIT 4, MIT 5, MIT 6, MIT 7, MMI 2, -REG 1 - -Native Village of Kotzebue -IRA -(Government to Government -Meeting) - -13148 ALT 5, CEF 1, GPE 1, ICL 3, MIT 3, MIT 4, -MIT 5, MIT 10, MIT 15, MIT 16, OSR 1, -OSR 3 - -Native Village of Point Lay -(Government to Government -Meeting) - -13152 CEF 5, MIT 11, MMI 1, OSR 3, SRP 4 - - - - - - - Draft G2G CAR_Arctic EIS (042012).pdf - Cover Page - TABLE OF CONTENTS - LIST OF TABLES - LIST OF FIGURES - LIST OF APPENDICES - ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS - 1.0 INTRODUCTION - 2.0 BACKGROUND - 3.0 THE ROLE OF CONSULTATION WITH INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS - Table 1. Government to Government Meetings, Locations and Dates - - 4.0 ANALYSIS OF SUBMISSIONS - Table 2. Issue Categories for DEIS Comments - Figure 1: Comments by Issue - - 5.0 STATEMENTS OF CONCERN - Alternatives (ALT) - Cumulative Effects (CEF) - Coordination and Compatibility (COR) - Data (DAT) - Editorial (EDI) - Physical Environment – General (GPE) - Social Environment – General (GSE) - Habitat (HAB) - Iñupiat Culture and Way of Life (ICL) - Mitigation Measures (MIT) - Marine Mammal and other Wildlife Impacts (MMI) - NEPA (NEP) - Oil Spill Risks (OSR) - Regulatory Compliance (REG) - Research, Monitoring, Evaluation Needs (RME) - Socioeconomic Impacts (SEI) - Subsistence Resource Protection (SRP) - Use of Traditional Knowledge (UTK) - Water and Air Quality (WAQ) - - APPENDIX A - - diff --git a/test_docs/090004d280249883/record.json b/test_docs/090004d280249883/record.json deleted file mode 100644 index 7f8c3a5..0000000 --- a/test_docs/090004d280249883/record.json +++ /dev/null @@ -1,18 +0,0 @@ -{ - "agency": "DOC", - "author": null, - "download_url": "https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/getContent?objectId=8PU3MyJPEOTMvk6iAcxL_YOR8q0g3gxn", - "exemptions": null, - "file_size": "0.016489028930664062", - "file_type": "pdf", - "landing_id": "090004d280249883", - "landing_url": "https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/view/record?objectId=090004d280249883", - "released_on": "2014-04-24", - "released_original": "Thu Apr 24 12:29:17 EDT 2014", - "request_id": "DOC-NOAA-2012-000993", - "retention": "6 year", - "title": "2012 0502 McCune email re Shell concerns", - "type": "record", - "unreleased": false, - "year": "2012" -} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/test_docs/090004d280249883/record.pdf b/test_docs/090004d280249883/record.pdf deleted file mode 100644 index bf4ffe5..0000000 Binary files a/test_docs/090004d280249883/record.pdf and /dev/null differ diff --git a/test_docs/090004d280249883/record.txt b/test_docs/090004d280249883/record.txt deleted file mode 100644 index cd9db1a..0000000 --- a/test_docs/090004d280249883/record.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,72 +0,0 @@ - -Candace Nachman - NOAA Federal - -FW: Arctic oil and gas DEIS -1 message - -Timothy McCune Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:24 PM -To: Heather Blough , Helen Golde , Buck Sutter -, Brandon Sousa , Mark Hodor , Jennifer -Nist , Jolie Harrison , Candace Nachman -, Alan Risenhoover - -FYI - - - -From: Kristine.Lynch@shell.com [mailto:Kristine.Lynch@shell.com] -Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 4:10 PM -To: kate.clark@noaa.gov; Timothy.McCune@noaa.gov -Subject: Arctic oil and gas DEIS - - - -Kate and Tim, - - - -Several months ago we briefly discussed the Arctic Oil and Gas DEIS, and as you may know a few weeks ago PR -held a meeting with industry to address concerns with this document. The meeting did not ease concerns, however, -and the attachment explains some key ongoing issues with the DEIS. I wanted to keep you in the loop on the latest -and see if you have any insight or advice on this matter. I’d be happy to discuss at your convenience. - - - -Thanks very much – Kris - - - -_____________________________ - -Kristine Lynch, PhD - -Science & Regulatory Policy Specialist - -Shell Exploration & Production Co. - -1050 K Street NW, Suite 700 - -Washington, DC 20001 - -(202) 466-1493 desk - -(504) 343-1294 cell - -(202) 466-1498 fax - - - -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Mail - FW: Arctic oil... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=67a289d86b&view=pt&cat=... - -1 of 2 4/2/2014 5:01 PM - - - -ArcticdraftDEISconcerns 4 30 12.docx -15K - -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Mail - FW: Arctic oil... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=67a289d86b&view=pt&cat=... - -2 of 2 4/2/2014 5:01 PM - - diff --git a/test_docs/090004d280249889/record.json b/test_docs/090004d280249889/record.json deleted file mode 100644 index 97e752b..0000000 --- a/test_docs/090004d280249889/record.json +++ /dev/null @@ -1,18 +0,0 @@ -{ - "agency": "DOC", - "author": null, - "download_url": "https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/getContent?objectId=ZMiWU2Pnr3jMvk6iAcxL_UopRNxpSv69", - "exemptions": null, - "file_size": "3.265021324157715", - "file_type": "pdf", - "landing_id": "090004d280249889", - "landing_url": "https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/view/record?objectId=090004d280249889", - "released_on": "2014-04-24", - "released_original": "Thu Apr 24 12:29:17 EDT 2014", - "request_id": "DOC-NOAA-2012-000993", - "retention": "6 year", - "title": "138-ICAS Attachment 3", - "type": "record", - "unreleased": false, - "year": "2012" -} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/test_docs/090004d280249889/record.pdf b/test_docs/090004d280249889/record.pdf deleted file mode 100644 index 8d17e0a..0000000 Binary files a/test_docs/090004d280249889/record.pdf and /dev/null differ diff --git a/test_docs/090004d280249889/record.txt b/test_docs/090004d280249889/record.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 5945b39..0000000 --- a/test_docs/090004d280249889/record.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,11976 +0,0 @@ - -1 -NORSK POLARINSTITUTT/NORWEGIAN POLAR INSTITUTE, POLARMILJØSENTERET/POLAR ENVIRONMENTAL CENTRE, NO-9296 TROMSØ - -Best Practices in Ecosystem-based -Oceans Management in the Arctic - -129 - -Alf Håkon Hoel (ed.) - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -2 -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -3 -Rapportserie nr. 129 -Report Series no. 129 - -Norsk Polarinstitutt er Norges sentrale statsinstitusjon for kartlegging, miljøovervåking og forvaltningsrettet -forskning i Arktis og Antarktis. Instituttet er faglig og strategisk rådgiver i miljøvernsaker i disse områdene og har - -forvaltningsmyndighet i norsk del av Antarktis. -The Norwegian Polar Institute is Norway’s main institution for research, monitoring and topographic mapping in the Norwegian polar - -regions. The institute also advises Norwegian authorities on matters concerning polar environmental management. - -Best Practices in Ecosystem-based - -Oceans Management in the Arctic - -Alf Håkon Hoel (ed.) - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -4 -Norsk Polarinstitutt, Polarmiljøsenteret, 9296 Tromsø. Norwegian Polar Institute, Polar Environmental Centre, NO-9296 Tromsø -www.npolar.no post@npolar.no - -Cover: Figure by Anders Skoglund, Norwegian Polar Institute -Design: Jan Roald, Norwegian Polar Institute -Printed: Norbye & Konsepta, April 2009 -ISBN: 978-82-7666-257-3 -ISSN: 0803-0421 - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -5 -Foreword - -Arctic communities and settlements are largely based on the use of natural resources. Traditionally these -activities included hunting, fishing and reindeer herding. Commercial fisheries are now of major signifi- -cance in several Arctic regions. The importance of the non-renewable resources is growing. Both onshore -and offshore petroleum developments are expanding to new areas of the Arctic. Also external pressures -from climate change and long-range pollution are of growing significance in the Arctic. - -New economic activities may provide an important basis for welfare and economic growth. It is vital that -all resource use is planned and carried out in a sustainable manner to facilitate the coexistence of activities -in different sectors. Economic activities must be carried out in accordance with environmental and safety -standards, to the benefit of Arctic communities. Minimizing negative impacts of commercial activities -on the ecosystems and living resources of the Arctic is a particularly important task, and that has to be -considered in light of climate change and pollution issues. - -On the basis of the mandate given at the Salekhard ministerial meeting in 2006, the Norwegian chairman- -ship of the Arctic Council initiated a project on ecosystem-based oceans management. This project was -undertaken as an approved project of the Arctic Council Sustainable Development Working Group and -the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment Working Group. The project report was prepared by a -project team and does not necessarily reflect the policy or positions of any Arctic State, Permanent -Participant or Observer of the Arctic Council. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -6 -Contents - -Introduction 7 - -Indigenous Perspectives 11 - -Management of the Russian Arctic Seas 19 - -Finland 37 - -Norway and Integrated Oceans Management – the Case of the Barents Sea 43 - -Iceland 53 - -Greenland 61 - -Ecosystem-based Ocean Management in the Canadian Arctic 81 - -USA: An Integrated Approach to Ecosystem-based Management 101 - -Conclusions 109 - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -7 -Introduction -Alf Håkon Hoel - -REPORT SERIES NO 129 - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -8 -Introduction - -Background and rationale -The aggregate effects of multiple uses of the oceans – fishing, -transportation, petroleum development, waste disposal, etc. – call for -an ecosystem-based approach to oceans management. The need for -oceans management based on an ecosystem approach is now widely -recognized by the international community, as reflected in calls for the -application of the ecosystem approach by 2010 in the 2002 Johannes- -burg Plan of Implementation from WSSD1 as well as in recommenda- -tions from the UN General Assembly.2 In the Arctic context, the 2004 -Arctic Marine Strategic Plan3 points to challenges and opportunities in -this regard, and the working map of the 17 Arctic LMEs represents a -basis for further work. - -The 2004 Arctic Marine Strategic Plan defines ecosystem-based man- -agement as an approach that “requires that development activities be -coordinated in a way that minimizes their impact on the environment -and integrates thinking across environmental, socio-economic, politi- -cal and sectoral realms.”4 - -The employment of an ecosystem-based approach to oceans man- -agement is critical to the protection and sustainable use of marine -ecosystems. However, the form and content of the ecosystem-based -approach to oceans management is context dependent and vary from -case to case. An important distinction is between the ecosystem-based -approach to the management as applied to oceans in general on the one -hand, and its use within one sector, as e.g. fisheries, on the other. - -The application of the ecosystem approach to oceans management of -Arctic waters raises a number of issues with commonalities across the -Arctic region: ice-covered waters, transboundary cooperation, fisheries -management, exploitation of petroleum under severe climatic condi- -tions, long-range transport of pollutants, indigenous communities, -socio-economic growth and sustainability issues, and the impacts of -climate change. - -Objectives -Oceans management is carried out by governments, independently -and in cooperation with other states. States and their practices in -ecosystem-based oceans management ais therefore the basis for an -analysis of the factors that contribute to sustainable use and conserva- -tion of Arctic marine ecosystems. - -The objective of the project is to present the concepts and practices the -Arctic countries have developed for the application of an ecosystem- -based approach to oceans management. By way of reviewing how -countries actually put to use such concepts and practices, lessons can -be drawn on how to effectively do ecosystem-based oceans manage- -ment. The project addresses both the use and conservation aspects of -sustainable development. - -Two sets of questions here address the substance and process of -putting ecosystem-based oceans management to work, respectively: -which practices and approaches have proved useful in moving towards -effective protection and sustainable use of the Arctic marine environ- -ment? - -What are the main obstacles, and what are the important success ele- -ments in moving towards ecosystem-based oceans management? - -The issue of practices and approaches in ecosystem-based oceans -management is addressed on the basis of descriptions provided by -the Arctic countries on how they are actually doing this. Among the -elements considered are how countries define ecosystem-based oceans -management, the types of objectives that are formulated, the choice of -policy instruments and organization of the work, for example in terms -of how stakeholders are consulted and the geographical context for - -ecosystem-based oceans management, including existing transbound- -ary agreements relevant to the management of Arctic marine ecosys- -tems. - -The question of obstacles and success elements is considered by ask- -ing the Arctic countries to describe their experiences in applying an -ecosystem-based approach to oceans management. Important elements -here include the process aspects of interagency cooperation and the or- -ganization of that, the organization and use of science, and stakeholder -involvement, as well as the actual content of ecosystem-based oceans -management, such as institutions for ecosystem-based oceans manage- -ment, legislation and policy tools, geographical approaches, including -LMEs, and biodiversity considerations. - -The main emphasis of the project is on the analytical aspects of these -issues, so that actions can be based on lessons learnt and possible best -practices identified. - -The project build on previous assessments and work under the Arctic -Council, and will neither venture into new studies of the Arctic marine -environment, nor address issues relating to jurisdictions and rights to -resources. - -The case studies -The project is built around seven case studies of how countries develop -and implement ecosystem-based oceans management in the Arctic. -The seven cases – Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Finland, Iceland, -Norway, Russia and USA – demonstrate that the Arctic countries in- -deed are implementing ecosystem approaches to oceans management. -In addition, there is a chapter on indigenous issues. The final chapter -lays out Observed Best Practices that can be subsumed from the case -studies. - -International context -The growth of rule-based, as opposed to power-based, interactions -among countries in oceans affairs, is a definite characteristic of the -international oceans regime that developed over the last decades. Com- -mencing with the 1958 UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (UN- -CLOS I), a broad framework regulating almost all uses of the oceans -has emerged. UNCLOS III (1973–1982) introduced the concept of -the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which set the stage for a major -reconfiguration of rights to natural resources and the development of a -coastal state based system of resource management regimes, laid down -in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention. The Convention entered into -force in 1994, and is broadly considered to reflect customary interna- -tional law in this realm. - -In relation to living marine resources, the Law of the Sea Convention -has beed elaborated upon and made more specific by the 1995 UN Fish -Stocks Agreement, which obliges countries to apply a precautionary -approach and a ecosystems approach to fisheries management. Also in -relation to fisheries, the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct of Responsible -Fisheries and the international action plans adopted to further the im- -plementation of the code at national and regional levels are important.5 - -The United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly called for the -introduction of ecosystem-based oceans management in its annual -resolutions on oceans and the Law of the Sea. Also, in 2006, the -United Nations Informal Consultations on Oceans and the Law of the -Sea (UNICPOLOS) developed a set of “Agreed Consensual Elements” -on ecosystem approaches and the oceans, that was forwarded to the -General Assembly 6. - -Also relevant in in relation to marine questions in general and living -marine resources in particular is the 1992 Biodiversity Convention. -The convention is very general in its approach, and relies on countries -to develop plans for its implementation. Protected areas are a key -measure in this regard. Specific measures concerning the marine envi- -ronment were adopted in 1995.7 A marine program of work has been in -effect for several years, and was extended until 2010 at the meeting of -the parties in 2004. - -1 http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/ - WSSD_PlanImpl.pdf, at para 30 (d). - -2 http://www.un.org/Depts/los/general_assembly/general_assembly_resolutions.htm - -3 http://arcticportal.org/pame/amsp - -4 2004 Arctic Marine Strategic Plan, p 8. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -9 -Other global, marine treaties regulate shipping-related activities and -pollution. The 1972 London Dumping Convention regulates the dis- -charge of waste from vessels into the ocean, and the 1973 MARPOL -Convention stipulates the standards vessels engaged in international -shipping has to comply with. The International Maritime Organiza- -tion (IMO) has adopted a number of global agreements to protect -the marine environment from negative impacts of marine transport, -dealing with certifications as well as oil pollution damage, anti-fouling -systems, ships ballast water and sediment, carriage of hazardous and -noxious substances etc. - -Beyond these global instruments, international cooperation on the -protection of the ocean environment is based on regional institutions. - -In the northeast Atlantic, measures to protect the marine environment -are based on the 1992 Convention for the Protection of the Marine -Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention).8 The -work of the convention is organized under five strategies based on -the five annexes to the convention: land-based pollution, dumping, -ocean-based pollution, environmental assessments, and conservation -of ecosystems and biodiversity. The annexes and measures adopted -by OSPAR are the basis for domestic implementation. Of particular -importance is to marine conservation is the work of the Biodiversity -Committee, which includes ecological quality objectives (EcoQOs), -assessments of species and habitats in need of protection, and marine -protected areas. - -For air pollution and its consequences for the marine environment, -the two global treaties of importance are the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to -the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change -and the 1979 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe -Convention on Long-range Transport of Air Pollution (LRTAP) and its -protocols. The Kyoto Protocol specifies permitted emission levels of -greenhouse gases and timeframes for achieving reductions for industri- -alized countries. - -A number of “soft law” arrangements that supplement legally binding -agreements have gained in importance over the years. These include -Agenda 21, in particular chapter 17 on oceans, and the WSSD 2002 Jo- -hannesburg Plan of Implementation that provides specific guidance to -governments in developing their ocean policy. The latter in particular -“Encourage the application by 2010 of the ecosystem approach, noting -the Reykjavik Declaration on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine -Ecosystem and decision 5/6 of the Conference of Parties to the Con- -vention on Biological Diversity;”9 - -Such soft law arrangements also exist at the regional level. In the -north-east Atlantic region the most important arrangements are the -North Sea Conference and the Arctic Council. Both of these bodies -have emphasized the importance of the ecosystem-based approach to -oceans management. - -The “ecosystem approach” has been developed and incorporated in -several international agreements over the past ten years and has an -important place in the follow-up to the Convention on Biological -Diversity. Under this Convention, general criteria have been developed -for the implementation of the ecosystem approach to the management -Malawi Principles). - -5 International plans of action haven been developed for overcapacity in - fisheries, by-catch of seabirds and sharks, and for targeting illegal, unreported - and unregulated (IUU) fishing. - -6 Report on the work of the United Nations Open-ended Informal - Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea at its seventh meeting. - At: http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/432/90/PDF/ - N0643290.pdf?OpenElement - -7 The so-called Jakarta Mandate on Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity - adopted in 1995. See. http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/areas/marine/default.asp - (accessed 27 January 2007). - -8 Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East - Atlantic, done at Paris, 22 September 1992, entered into force 25 March - 1998, 32 ILM 1069. See http://www.ospar.org. - -9 Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, para 29 (d). - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -10 - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -11 - -Indigenous Perspectives -Henry P. Huntington and Caleb Pungowiyi - -REPORT SERIES NO 129 - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -12 - -Introduction -One [whaling] captain [on St. Lawrence Island, Alaska] discussed yaa- -yasitkegpenaan, a term describing the appropriate treatment of animals -and all life surrounding the Yupik. Proper behavior includes harvesting -no more than one needs, not killing an animal that cannot be retrieved, -and keeping the environment clean both for the animals and for future -generations of islanders. [Another] whaling captain described the -impacts of moving away from yaayasitkegpenaan, sometimes by the -imposition of external regulatory regimes. … This [new] regulatory -system created stress, diminished happiness, and created distrust and -anxiety not only towards the government but also among islanders. -The conflict between traditional values and modern regulations … still -remains. (Noongwook et al. 2007: 52) - -For indigenous peoples along arctic coastlines, the ocean has always -been a source of life. Food, clothing, building materials, tools — -all these have come from the ocean and the animals that live in it. -Preserving this source of well being is a theme in many traditional -stories and the basis for the ethics that govern how people interact with -the sea and its inhabitants. In some respects, these values are closely -aligned with modern notions of conservation and natural resource -management. In other respects, their views of human relations with the -sea are very different, at times incompatible with western notions (Jull -1990, Morrow and Hensel 1992, Berkes et al. 2005). In this paper, we -discuss the basis for indigenous beliefs and practices regarding oceans -and marine resources, the significant issues today for indigenous peo- -ples, and challenges in achieving effective oceans management from -indigenous points of view. Most of the examples used here are from -North America and Greenland, in large part due to the greater avail- -ability of relevant published material from those regions. - -The intent of this paper is to provide a general introduction to -indigenous understanding, beliefs, and values with respect to oceans -management. While indigenous peoples along arctic coasts may face -the same general environmental threats as everyone else, the causes -and impacts may be seen and felt differently. These differences in -turn affect the ways in which management actions are perceived and -ultimately the effectiveness of those actions. The question is not one -of finding or compelling a uniform view of management. Instead, it is -a question of understanding divergent views and developing strategies -that accommodate such differences in order to achieve a common goal -of stewarding marine resources for this and also for future generations. -Compromise and change may be required by some or all of those -involved, but should be the result of mutual understanding and respect, -not of unequal power or inflexibility. - -The Meaning of Oceans Management to Indigenous -Peoples -Although the details of beliefs and practices vary, arctic indigenous -peoples share a deeply personal, spiritual relationship with the animals -they know and use, a relationship built on ethics that govern who can -hunt, how, and what is to be done with the animal afterwards (e.g. -Bodenhorn 1989, Nuttall 1992, Fienup-Riordan 2000). Often, the ani- -mal is seen to give itself to the hunter, offering its flesh and body while -its soul remains intact. The soul is then able to return to bodily form. If -the body is treated properly, the animal is likely to be willing to make a -gift of itself again. If not, it may remain out of reach of people. -The foundation for this relationship between hunter and hunted is -respect. The hunter must show respect for the animal at all times, -recognizing that the decision to give itself is made by the animal, not -by the hunter. Yupik bowhead whalers on St. Lawrence Island, Alaska, -recognize a specific behavior of the whales, known as angyi, from the -stem ang-, which refers to giving something (Noongwook et al. 2007). -The whale swims alongside the walrus-skin whaling boat, on the left -side of the boat, where the harpooner cannot strike. The whale may -stay there for an hour, perhaps looking at each person in the boat, one -after another. If the whale is satisfied, it will surface on the right side -where it can be taken. If it is not satisfied, it will swim away out of -reach. The failure to take a whale that offers itself would be consid- -ered as offensive as the arrogant claim that the whaler, not the whale, -determines the outcome of angyi. - -This understanding of the basis for hunting success leads to expecta- -tions of appropriate behavior by hunters (and often by their families - -as well). Wenzel (1991: 135) provides an example from Clyde River, -Nunavut, Canada, showing the personal nature of such behavior: - - Sometimes such actions elude the most careful - observation since spiritual preparation for hunting is often - private and individual. Clyde harvesters often note that a man - can harvest successfully only if he always seeks animals with - the right thought (isuma) in his mind. By this they mean that - the hunter must always think about the animal he hunts, speak - correctly about it, never in a deprecating or negative way, and - be generous with the product of his efforts. - -The responsiveness of animals to human activity and speech is de- -scribed by Morrow and Hensel (1992: 43), who analyze discussions -concerning salmon management in southwestern Alaska: “By speaking -of the fish positively, the Yupiit hope to assure their continuance and to -prevent realization of the negative prognoses of non-Native manag- -ers.” In other words, speaking of a decline in fish is tantamount to -causing that decline, because the fish are aware of what is said about -them. Similarly, the Yupik (and many other indigenous peoples) are -appalled at the idea of catch-and-release fishing, because it is seen as -just playing with or rejecting a fish that has willingly given itself to the -fisherman. - -In both directions, then, the essential aspects of the human-animal re- -lationship are personal and individual. Humans as a group do not hunt -animals as a group. Animals as a group do not respond to the actions -of humans as a group. Neither people nor animals are interchangeable -units. - -One result is that notions of population management may translate -poorly to indigenous conceptions of human-animal relationships. As -indicated in the quote that opens this paper, management systems can -be seen as interfering with traditional values and practices. In that -example, the imposition of a quota on the whale harvest implied that -people rather than whales had the power to determine the outcome of -the hunt. Furthermore, limitations on a harvest can lead to competi- -tion between hunters, an attitude that is contrary to behavioral norms -of cooperation and humility. By breaking the bond between humans -and animals, harvest regulations can be seen as causing rather than -responding to population declines. - -Overcoming fundamental differences in worldview is not a trivial mat- -ter. Morrow and Hensel (1992) describe the lasting misunderstanding -and distrust between Yupik fishermen and fishery managers, stemming -in part from the fact that both groups used similar words to describe -concepts and phenomena that were in fact very different. They provide -an example regarding geese in the same region, concerning the impacts -of biological studies that involve capturing geese or handling eggs. -While Yupik concerns may appear to be closely related to biological -concepts of reproductive success, “it is not reproductive success per -se which is the issue; rather, it is the response of sentient beings who, -being affronted, make themselves unavailable to humans” (p. 43). A -quick appraisal of local concerns could easily frame the problem in -biological rather than ethical terms, missing the scale of the divide in -understanding. - -Nonetheless, common ground can be found in some cases. The Alaska -Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), which among other things -allocates and administers the quota for bowhead whales, is comprised -of Yupik and Iñupiaq whalers from the ten bowhead whaling villages -in Alaska. The quota has been a source of considerable and lasting -controversy and bitterness, but the co-management system that has -developed is also a source of considerable pride to many of the whal- -ers (Huntington 1992). AEWC Chairman Eddie Hopson explained his -views at a whaling captains’ meeting in 1990: - - Man’s first responsibility is his dominion over animals given by - God. That means management, not wastefulness. Management - agencies like the AEWC, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, - the National Marine Fisheries Service, the International Whaling - Commission – they are all doing the job given to us by the Creator, - so I do not object to them. (Quoted in Huntington 1992: 115) - -A crucial aspect of such a view is the development of collaboration, -communication, and trust over time. Huntington et al. (2002) note that - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -13 - -a sense of shared enterprise and a willingness to listen to one another -are hallmarks of successful interactions between indigenous hunters -and non-indigenous scientists and managers, and that such successes -are built over time by the individuals involved. Fienup-Riordan (1999) -found, in regard to goose research and management, that “research -projects perceived as responsive to local concerns in all stages—plan- -ning, implementation, and review—stand a much greater chance of -eliciting community cooperation and support” (p. 20). - -A related aspect of indigenous perspectives on oceans management -(and indeed many other topics) is the holistic or systemic way of con- -sidering a particular issue. In other words, a particular topic is typically -considered in the broader context of the community or society (e.g., -Jull 1990). The implications of a particular course of action may be -far-reaching, with the result that a solution that appeared obvious upon -first examination may not be considered optimal upon further consid- -eration. This idea includes both a holistic view of the environment, -similar in some respects to the idea of “ecosystem management,” and -the inclusion of human society as part of the system. - -Diduck et al. (2005) provide an example concerning polar bear -management in Nunavut. Estimates of the population size of the -M’Clintock Channel polar bear population had decreased sharply, indi- -cating that the harvest quota was too high. One proposed management -action was to stop the hunt altogether. The Nunavut Wildlife Manage- -ment Board (NWMB) opted instead for reducing the quota over two -years, to avoid hardship and resentment in the affected communities. -Only one community, Gjoa Haven, had no quota for another popula- -tion of polar bears. Accordingly, the NWMB included a re-evaluation -of the Gulf of Boothia polar bear population and a decision to allow -Gjoa Haven residents a quota of three bears from that population, so -that they would not lose their hunting opportunity entirely. The social -dimensions of the management action were an important part of the -NWMB’s deliberations. - -Indigenous perspectives on human-environmental relations and on the -implications of management actions are a crucial factor in the develop- -ment of effective and lasting conservation measures. Approaches that -ignore indigenous worldviews and clash with traditional values and be- -havior are unlikely to gain local support, leading to continued friction -and distrust. Approaches that recognize those worldviews and foster a -collaborative response to conservation concerns are likely to create a -lasting system based on respect and trust. Indigenous people and scien- -tists may not always agree in the abstract, but strong personal relation- -ships can help create mutual understanding and a recognition of shared -interests. Indeed, many of the major issues in oceans management in -the Arctic require a collaborative approach if indigenous voices are to -be heard and indigenous concerns addressed. - -Significant Issues in Oceans Management for -Indigenous Peoples -In former times, the ocean provided food, clothing, materials, and -other necessities for survival in the Arctic. Proper behavior and action, -as described in the preceding section, were required to sustain the -relationship between people and animals. This outlook was concerned -with one’s local area and a relatively short-term perspective. Indeed, -advance planning was often regarded as unnecessary because the sea -would provide at the appropriate times of the year (e.g., Briggs 1970, -Natcher et al., in press). - -Today, addressing local actions alone is no longer adequate. The prolif- -eration of management institutions across the Arctic is one indication -of the extent and significance of the many conservation issues facing -the region today. The level of indigenous participation, from local -committees and boards through to international activity in the Arctic -Council and United Nations, is a similar indication of the importance -that Arctic indigenous peoples place on conservation and management -in general and specifically on playing an active role in what is done. - -Here we consider three categories of topics and their relationship with -indigenous peoples of the arctic coasts: disturbance, harvests, and self- -determination. Which issues are of primary importance varies from -place to place and from time to time, and even from person to person. -We will not attempt to assess local priorities, or even to evaluate which - -of these three categories is most pressing on regional or circumpolar -scales. Instead, we address the nature of the issue, its significance to -indigenous peoples, and what it means for oceans management. - -Disturbance -Disturbance is the broadest of the topics, covering all forms of impacts -to the environment and society that result in unwelcome changes to -the sea and its resources, and their relationships with humans. Climate -change is the most prominent disturbance in research and in media -coverage, but industrial activity, shipping, commercial fishing, and -pollution are also included. Societal change is part of the equation, too, -but will be addressed in more detail when we discuss self-determina- -tion. - -Disturbance from any cause can upset the movements and behavior of -fish, birds, and mammals. This can affect the health of the animals and -also their distribution, with resulting effects on people. For example, -shifts in ocean currents and climate caused a decline in cod abundance -in West Greenland, while making ideal conditions for shrimp. Hamil- -ton et al. (2003) describe how the town of Sisimiut was able to switch -from cod fishing to shrimp trawling, resulting in economic growth. -Paamiut, farther south, experienced the switch later, by which time -there was no opportunity to enter the shrimp fishery. As a consequence, -Paamiut’s population declined. - -Disturbance can also affect travel and other human activity, for -example by creating physical barriers or by making travel on sea ice -unsafe. Indigenous knowledge has been built around experience and -understanding of patterns in the natural world. Such knowledge allows -people to live in the rhythms of the land and sea, to know where to find -what they need at any particular time. When those patterns change, -it may be difficult to adjust. Huntington and Fox (2005) describe -several examples from climate change around the Arctic, pointing to -disruption of expected patterns and customary practices. The National -Research Council (2003) describes how whalers in northern Alaska -have had to go farther out to sea because bowhead whales have been -deflected in their migration by offshore oil and gas activity. This -change entails considerably more risk for the whalers and can affect -the quality of the harvested food since towing the whale to shore may -take longer, increasing the chance that the meat may spoil. - -As various forms of human influence and activity become more -prominent in the Arctic, disturbance becomes greater and its impacts -more severe. The combination of factors is perhaps most worrisome, -particularly in areas where activities are most intensive and overlaps -most common. For example, offshore oil and gas activity is begin- -ning in the Chukchi Sea (AMAP, in press), and the region will also be -directly on the route of cargo ships transiting the Northern Sea Route -(Brigham and Ellis 2004). The Barents Sea, at the other end of the -cargo route, is already seeing large-scale oil and gas activity, together -with tanker transport of oil from Russia to Europe (Bambulyak and -Frantzen 2007). Commercial fisheries (Vilhjálmsson and Hoel 2005) -may reach both areas, along with Baffin Bay, where more oil and gas -activity is possible. - -Activities on this scale within the Arctic will also add to pollution -problems caused by industry and agriculture elsewhere in the world. -The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program has documented the -extent of contaminants in the Arctic and their effects on plants, ani- -mals, and people (AMAP 1998, 2004). Oil and gas activity, shipping, -cruise ships, and commercial fisheries are likely to add to contaminant -levels. Several large rivers in the Arctic carry contaminants from -southern areas, delivering the effects of distant activity directly to es- -tuaries and coasts that provide essential habitats for marine species and -are also home to many indigenous communities. Pollution undermines -the relationship between people and their environment, casting doubt -on the healthfulness of traditional foods, and demonstrating a lack of -respect for animals. In many communities, young hunters share their -first catch with elders. If the hunters fear the animal is contaminated or -unhealthy, they may be reluctant to offer it to an elder. - -Invasive species are another form of disturbance, often a secondary -effect from habitat change. Some arrivals may be welcomed or at -least offer some benefits, such as salmon appearing in the Beaufort - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -14 - -Sea (e.g., Berkes and Jolly 2001). Other newcomers may be less -desirable, particularly parasites and diseases (Burek et al. in press). -For people dependent upon the fish and animals of their local waters, -invasive species and diseases pose a substantial threat. One example -is the increased prevalence of the fungus ichthyophonus affecting king -salmon in the Yukon River (Kocan et al. 2003), harming an important -source of food and income for people throughout the watershed. The -increase is believed to be due to rising water temperatures associated -with climate change. - -Disturbance thus has many and far-reaching implications for indig- -enous peoples. The multitude of causes makes management a complex -matter, for restrictions on one factor may have no benefit if other -factors remain beyond control. Types of disturbance vary greatly, too, -from the localized impacts of a single drilling rig to the global impacts -of long-range pollution and climate change. Addressing the causes of -disturbance and reducing its cumulative impacts will take coordinated -management. For indigenous peoples, one of the key goals is effective -involvement in such management, a topic to which we return later in -this paper. - -Harvest levels and allocations -The myth of the inexhaustible sea is persistent but illusionary (Roberts -2007). While the resources of the sea have sustained arctic coastal peo- -ples since time immemorial, the patterns of species and harvests have -also varied considerably in response to environmental shifts and the -development of new hunting and fishing technologies (e.g., Krupnik -1993). Food security, the reliable ability to provide for one’s family -and community, has long been the goal of indigenous harvest strate- -gies. In an uncertain and variable environment, patterns of use could -vary considerably from year to year, but access to a range of resources -and options was a key component of resilience (e.g., Nuttall 2005). - -In more recent times, other factors have influenced harvest patterns -and levels. Local and distant markets for marine products have stimu- -lated indigenous involvement in fisheries and hunts (e.g., Bockstoce -1986, Marquardt and Caulfield 1996). The loss of those markets, from -economic or political causes, has often caused hardship for those who -previously had relied on income from their catches, as happened when -sealskin markets in the United States and the European Union were -closed by import bans (e.g., Wenzel 1991, Lynge 1992). Ecological -change has also led to harvest changes, as noted earlier regarding cod -and shrimp in West Greenland. Markets have also created new forms -of resource use, such as the Soviet-era harvest of gray whales in Chu- -kotka, Russia, to provide meat for fox farms along the coast (Sander -1992, Kerttula 2000). - -Perhaps the most widespread factor, however, has been the develop- -ment of various management regimes for fishing and hunting in the -Arctic (e.g., Huntington 1992, Caulfield 1997, 2004, Klein 2005). -Seasons, limits, acceptable methods, and other restrictions on hunting -and fishing are not often simple to apply to traditional practices in -indigenous communities in the Arctic. Designed largely for recrea- -tional uses, these regulations typically ignore important features of -arctic production systems. For example, a small number of hunters in -a community are usually responsible for the majority of the production -of fish and meat (e.g., Magdanz et al. 2002). Restricting individual har- -vests in such a situation, even if the potential community-wide harvest -remained the same, would make it difficult for a community to meet -its needs because not everyone is able to participate equally in a hunt. -Community limits, which have been used in some locations for some -species, avoid this problem. - -While many regulatory approaches are less than ideal in the arctic con- -text, unregulated or poorly regulated harvests can also create problems. -Beluga whales in West Greenland, for example, have declined sharply -in recent years. This change is attributed by scientists and manag- -ers to overharvest (e.g., Alvarez-Flores and Heide-Jørgensen 2004), -though this conclusion is disputed by local hunters (e.g., Mølgaard -2006). From the hunters’ point of view, a large part of the problem -is poor communication between hunters on one hand and scientists -and managers on the other. Mølgaard states that communication had -actually been better prior to the devolution of Home Rule status to the -Greenland government (see also Sejersen 2002). As noted earlier with - -regard to the management of disturbance, indigenous peoples seek -more effective involvement in the management of hunting and fishing. -A related problem is that of allocation of harvests among various -user groups. In the case of personal-use harvests, conflicts may arise -between local users and those visiting from other areas. In Alaska, for -example, there is considerable tension between “subsistence” users -and “sport” users, with contentious definitions of each category (e.g., -Huntington 1992). For indigenous peoples in Alaska, the situation is -exacerbated by the fact that “subsistence” users are typically equated -with rural residents, regardless of ethnicity. (The exception is the case -of marine mammal hunting, which under the 1972 Marine Mammal -Protection Act is limited to indigenous Alaskans, who can hunt without -restriction so long as there is no waste and the stock in question is not -depleted.) Participation in traditional activities may thus be reduced or -impossible for indigenous persons who live in cities. Additionally, the -management of fish and wildlife may favor sport users by restricting -harvests to certain seasons, methods, sex, or size of fish or animals. -Harvests that involve a commercial element can be, if anything, even -more contentious. Fisheries allocations have long led to battles at the -national and even international levels. For indigenous users, particu- -larly in fisheries, it may be difficult to obtain recognition for traditional -practices or uses when larger economic interests are involved. Cod -fisheries along the North Norwegian coast are one example. Economi- -cally, large vessels fishing offshore are the most efficient means of -catching fish. Culturally and in terms of local employment, however, -inshore fisheries from small boats provide opportunities for coastal -residents, particularly Saami who have long fished for cod in this man- -ner (Nielssen 1986). After 1990, Norway established a quota system -for cod fisheries, in which Saami fishermen were included with other -small boats under a total catch limit. The Saami fishermen felt that -they could not compete effectively under this system, and have been -calling for regional fisheries management to prevent the disappearance -of their fishing traditions (FAO 2005). - -In Alaska, concern for local fishermen and communities in the Bering -Sea spurred the creation of community development quotas, or CDQs, -administered by six organizations that together include over 50 pre- -dominantly indigenous communities (National Research Council 1999, -Caulfield 2004). The CDQ groups are allocated a portion of the harvest -of Pollock, halibut, sablefish, Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and crab. -The income from the catch can then be invested in the communities, -including infrastructure and equipment to support further economic de- -velopment or greater participation in fisheries. While the program has -not resolved all fisheries issues, it has helped create employment and -new investment and opportunity derived from fisheries in the region. - -A further conflict over harvests concerns use areas. Indigenous hunt- -ers and fishermen often travel over vast areas to provide for their -families and communities (e.g., Freeman 1976). New activities that -appear to be distant from existing settlements may still affect residents -of those settlements. Use areas are at least part of the basis for land -claims agreements in North America (e.g., Berger 1985). The increase -in shipping, offshore oil and gas activities, and commercial fisher- -ies all threaten to affect hunters and fishermen. Indirect effects were -discussed earlier as forms of disturbance affecting the environment. -Direct effects include obstacles to boat travel, such as causeways, -and hindrances to hunting and fishing methods. Fishing nets can snag -on industrial equipment. Firearms cannot be used at sea when many -people are near, for fear of ricochets off the water. While interference -with indigenous harvest activities may be unintended, that nonetheless -can be the result if harvests are forced into smaller areas or hunters and -fishermen must travel farther. - -Self-determination -The environmental and economic dimensions of oceans management -are important to arctic indigenous peoples, but spanning all such -considerations is the question of self-determination. When manage- -ment decisions are made elsewhere, for any aspect of society, it is -difficult for local residents to retain a stake in the outcomes of those -decisions. One result is passive dependence upon others for economic -sustenance. Another result is the loss of traditional approaches to -cultural and environmental stewardship. If a society responds to the -rules created by others, it is less likely to heed the signals and indica- -tors of opportunities and threats. If, on the other hand, a society bears - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -15 - -responsibility for the results of its actions, it is perhaps more likely to -seek the information and ideas necessary for sound decisions. -The most alarming change over the past century has been the erosion -of the ability of arctic peoples to determine for themselves what course -of action to follow. However, there has been in recent decades a grow- -ing awareness in arctic communities of what is at stake, accompanied -by a push for greater local involvement in all aspects of governance. -While there has been some progress towards self-determination in -some areas, such as the establishment of Home Rule in Greenland -in 1979 and the creation of Nunavut in Canada in 1999, and greater -involvement in governance in others, arctic communities often lack the -resources needed to achieve their ambitions (AHDR 2004). Further- -more, national policies and international commitments are not always -conducive to indigenous self-determination. - -On land, land-claims settlements in Alaska and Canada, plus Home -Rule status in Greenland, have provided some measure of authority -and property rights to indigenous peoples and their organizations. At -sea, however, national governments retain ownership of mineral and -living resources and the power to make decisions about their use and -development. International disputes over topics such as whether the -Northwest Passage constitutes international waters have simmered -for years (e.g., Jull 1990). Climate change and the retreat of sea ice -have now brought sovereignty issues to the forefront, along with the -prospects for increased development, shipping, and even commercial -fishing (AMAP in press, Brigham and Ellis 2004, Vilhjálmsson and -Hoel 2005). - -For indigenous peoples, these are not necessarily positive develop- -ments. In addition to the various types of disturbance described earlier, -greater economic and political attention to the Arctic may mean an -influx of new and competing interests. In some areas with extensive -development, indigenous peoples have become outnumbered by new -migrants (AMAP 1998, in press, AHDR 2004). Geographical margin- -alization at least had the benefit of minimal competition for resources -and the potential for being left alone. To become marginalized within -one’s homeland, however, is another story. In the rush to claim and ex- -ploit arctic marine resources, indigenous peoples are once again faced -with the prospect of being pushed aside while others make decisions -and take actions that will have far-reaching consequences for residents -of arctic coasts. - -Challenges in Oceans Management from the -Indigenous Perspective -The overwhelming challenge for arctic indigenous peoples is the sheer -scope of oceans management issues today and in the decades to come. -The recurring theme in indigenous perspectives on oceans manage- -ment is the desire to be involved in all phases of management, from -identifying problems to evaluating response options to deciding what -actions are taken to monitoring the effectiveness of those actions and -making modifications as needed. Marine issues affect coastal peoples -directly and personally, through traditional activities, the nutritional -and cultural benefits of food from the sea, and their very identities as -peoples. Simply put, they have everything at stake. - -At the same time, however, many indigenous communities and peoples -are few in number. Many companies or government agencies have -more employees than an entire arctic ethnic group has members. There -simply are not enough people to address every oceans management -issue separately. Furthermore, many communities lack the resources -and capacity to address even the issues they see as priorities. Many -indigenous leaders are overworked already. Hiring others to help can -help, but requires additional financial resources plus cultural and other -training. Finally, the creation of management organizations can have -unintended and unexpected social consequences. In this section, we -look at three topics: capacity, organizational structure, and societal -change. Together, these topics point the way to more effective oceans -management practices from the indigenous point of view. - -Capacity -Oceans management addressing the many issues outlined above -entails many agencies, organizations, and companies, producing tens -of thousands of pages of reports and analyses, based on hundreds or - -thousands of scientific and other studies, to be discussed at a seem- -ingly endless procession of meetings, conferences, consultations, and -hearings, each dedicated to one small part of one particular issue. -Taking part in all the meetings relevant to even a single issue requires -more than one person dedicated to that task alone can handle. For -most indigenous and other local organizations in the Arctic, this is -rarely possible. Instead, people must choose which events to attend, -which issues to study in depth, and what they can hope to accomplish. -In many respects, this is the same position that nearly all participants -in management processes must address. For indigenous communi- -ties, however, the problem is exacerbated by the breadth of issues of -concern and the limited capacity available. - -Let us take the example of Yupik and Iñupiaq Eskimo whalers in -northern Alaska (see Huntington [1992] for further discussion). In -1977, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) voted to stop -the centuries-old hunt for the bowhead whale, basing the decision on -estimated harvest levels and the available minimum estimates for the -whale population. The whalers argued that the population was higher -that the IWC recognized and that it was growing. The U.S. government -and the local government (North Slope Borough), working with the -Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, conducted a number of studies, -designed in part on observations made by the whalers. The studies -showed that the population was indeed larger than estimated and in -fact was growing. But this was only the first step. - -Next, the whalers had to persuade the U.S. government to seek a larger -quota, and then convince the IWC to approve that quota. This entailed -participating in the annual IWC meeting, held at various locations -around the world, as well as preparatory meetings with the U.S. dele- -gation. The IWC, while accepting the improved population estimates, -asked for more information on cultural need and killing methods, -which in turn required additional studies and programs. The story -does not end with the Alaska whalers, however. The IWC also governs -whaling by other nations, and the Alaskans can find themselves caught -in international politics (see brief overview in Noongwook et al. -[2007]). Sometimes more study is required, and sometimes political -and diplomatic work is necessary. In both cases, the whalers cannot -afford to stand aside, but must take part in all phases to make sure their -voice is heard. - -And the IWC is only one aspect of bowhead whaling. As noted earlier, -offshore oil and gas activity is a major concern for the whalers, both -for access to and for the health of the whales. The Beaufort and Chuk- -chi Seas have seen extensive offshore exploration and, in the case of -the Beaufort, the beginnings of development and production (AMAP -in press). The Minerals Management Service holds lease sales, each -of which is preceded by an environmental impact statement, including -public review periods and meetings. Oil companies also hold meetings, -seeking agreements with the whaling communities about avoiding -conflicts on the water. Other reviews and studies of impacts from -noise, pollution, shipping, and so on are underway, each requiring -some level of attention and scrutiny. It should also be remembered that -much of the public process is devoted, not to the question of whether -offshore activity should proceed at all, but to details of the conditions -under which will occur, spreading local capacity ever thinner across -the minutiae of regulations. - -While extensive processes for public involvement are appropriate (and -certainly better than little or no public involvement), the cumulative -burden on the whalers and the associated scientific and legal teams is -extremely high. Hiring more people could help, if the resources to do -so were available. Combining environmental assessments or reviews -to reduce the numbers of documents and meetings could also help. -Another option, deciding not to participate in some meetings or events, -may also be a necessity, but with the risk that the whalers are ignored -because they are not present. This was part of the reason that the IWC -ban was enacted in 1977, and the whalers are unlikely to want a repeat -through inattention. Shipping, commercial fishing, contaminants, and -climate change are also part of the picture for bowhead whales, now -or in the next few decades. There is little reason to think that the issue -will become simpler or the consequences lower. - -Bowhead whales are only one example. Alaska hunters are also -concerned with impacts to other marine mammals, to seabirds, and to - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -16 - -fish. Saami fishermen along the Barents Sea coast have a similar suite -of issues to contend with and a similar range of management regimes, -including international agreements. Hunters in West Greenland and the -eastern Canadian Arctic likewise share stocks of many species, creat- -ing both international and domestic elements of management policy -and practice in areas where commercial fisheries and offshore oil and -gas activities are on the horizon. Capacity to engage effectively and -meaningfully in management regimes depends in part on the structure -of those regimes, as discussed next. - -Organizational structure -A multitude of management issues need not lead to a proliferation -of management regimes. Indeed, the notion of “ecosystem manage- -ment” suggests that fewer management bodies working more closely -together is a better idea than a fragmented system in which no agency -or organization has the ability to consider all aspects of management -together. There are, however, few examples of such coordination or -consolidation. One of the better ones is in the Inuvialuit Settlement -Region in Canada’s Northwest Territories. Under the terms of the -land claim settlement, the Government of Canada, the Government of -the Northwest Territories, the Yukon Territorial Government, and the -community and regional Inuvialuit organizations participate in five co- -management groups. These groups govern fishing and hunting as well -as environmental impact screening and review (Smith 2001). - -Following the provisions of Canada’s 1997 Oceans Act, which calls -for integrated and precautionary management of oceans and coastal -waters, the Inuvialuit, the governments, and the oil and gas industry -developed the Beaufort Sea Integrated Management Planning Initiative -(BSIMPI; see Fast et al. 2005). The initiative focused to start with on -evaluating the idea of a marine protected area to conserve three areas -of important beluga whale and fish habitats in the Mackenzie Delta. -Though not without challenges, a three-year period of consultations -with Inuvialuit, governments, and industry led to better mutual under- -standing and the identification of solutions that are acceptable to all -stakeholders. As Fast et al. (2005: 113) describe: - - There has been a better definition of issues and problems. - Communities, Inuvialuit management and co-management - bodies, industry, and government agencies, including DFO - [Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada], have a better - understanding of the complexities of balancing conservation - and development in the complex offshore environment of the - Beaufort Sea. Access to information and understanding beyond - a single realm such as science has been achieved. … Ultimately, - the objective of integrated management is to influence human - behaviour. This is the realm that has been advanced through the - BSIMPI consultation process. - -The BSIMPI is designed to address industrial development, but to do -so in the full context of what such development may mean to the indig- -enous communities of the region. The accommodation of all aspects of -local concerns is an essential component of this approach, ensuring the -Inuvialuit that their views will be heard and taken into account. Some -compromise will undoubtedly be necessary on all sides, but those deci- -sions can be made in light of all relevant information that can be gath- -ered, and through a structure in which power is shared. It should also -be noted that the BSIMPI had considerable resources to work with, -and extensive local experience in management processes thanks to the -co-management groups established under the land claim settlement. - -Elsewhere in the Arctic there are other examples of cooperative and -co-management regimes (e.g., Huntington 1992, Caulfield 1997, 2004, -Freeman et al. 1998, Hovelsrud and Winsnes 2006), but these usually -address single species or issues rather than taking an integrated ap- -proach to oceans management. Still, the cooperative approach offers -many advantages, including sharing of power and the ability to address -various issues in relation to, rather than independent of, one another. -Many such bodies have only advisory or otherwise limited author- -ity, and as such cannot necessarily influence the full range of issues -and threats they identify. Nonetheless, they have succeeded in many -respects in providing a means for indigenous peoples to express their -views and to be engaged in the management process. - -Societal change -As noted by Noongwook et al. (2007) in the quote with which this -paper opens, management regimes can conflict with traditional values. -This remains true even for the most participatory regimes, if man- -agement actions run counter to traditional views of the relationship -between people and the fish and animals that sustain them. In addition -to helping conserve marine resources, management regimes can also -promote cultural assimilation and even co-optation by enlisting indig- -enous participants in fulfilling the goals of the management agency -with whom final authority rests (e.g., Nadasdy 2004). - -Management regimes can also create social divisions within communi- -ties, as some individuals gain authority and stature by participation -or employment within a management agency or body (e.g., Caulfield -1997). In a time when social and cultural change are rapid and pro- -found, further drivers of change, even if inadvertent, are unlikely to -have a long-term benefit for the communities involved. Instead, just -as the full range of oceans management issues should be considered in -making decisions about conservation measures, the full range of social -impacts should be considered in determining how to create manage- -ment organizations. Oceans management is a large topic, but only -one of many interwoven aspects of life in today’s arctic indigenous -societies. It cannot be considered separately, but must be recognized -as an integral part of a larger whole: the present and future of Arctic -indigenous peoples. - -References -AHDR. 2004. Arctic human development report. Akureyri, Iceland: Ste - fansson Arctic Institute. - -Alvarez-Flores, C.M., and M.P. Heide-Jørgensen. 2004. A risk assessment - of the sustainability of the harvest of beluga (Delphinapterus leucas - [Pallas 1776]) in West Greenland. ICES Journal of Marine Science - 61(2):274-286. - -AMAP. 1998. AMAP assessment report: arctic pollution issues. Oslo: Arctic - Monitoring and Assessment Program. - -AMAP. 2004. AMAP assessment 2002: persistent organic pollutants in the - Arctic. Oslo: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program. - -AMAP. In press. Oil and gas activities in the Arctic: effects and potential effects. - Oslo: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program. - -Bambulyak, A., and B. Frantzen. 2007. Oil transport from the Russian part of - the Barents region: status per January 2007. Tromsø: The Norwegian - Barents Secretariat and Akvaplan-niva. - -Berger, T.R. 1985. Village journey. New York: Hill & Wang. -Berkes, F., and D. Jolly. 2001. Adapting to climate change socialecological - resilience in a Canadian western Arctic community. Conservation Ecology - 5(2):18 [online] http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art18/ - -Berkes, F., R. Huebert, H. Fast, M. Manseau, and A. Diduck. 2005. Breaking - ice: renewable resource and ocean management in the Canadian North. - Calgary: University of Calgary Press. - -Bockstoce, J.R. 1986. Whales, ice & men. Seattle: University of Washington. - -Bodenhorn, B. 1989. “The animals comes to me, they know I share”: Iñupiaq - kinship, changing economic relations and enduring worldviews on Alaska’s - North Slope. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Social Anthropology, University - of Cambridge. - -Briggs, J. 1970. Never in anger. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. - -Brigham, L., and B. Ellis. 2004. Arctic marine transport workshop. Anchorage: - Institute of the North. - -Burek, K.A., F.M.D. Gulland, and T.M. O’Hara. In press. Effects of climate - change on arctic marine mammal health. Ecological Applications. - -Caulfield, R.A. 1997. Greenlanders, whales, and whaling: sustainability and - self-determination in the Arctic. Hanover, NH: University Press of New - England. - -Caulfield, R.A. 2004. Resource governance. In: AHDR. Arctic human - development report. Akureyri, Iceland: Stefansson Arctic Institute. - pp. 121-138. - -Diduck, A., N. Bankes, D. Clark, and D. Armitage. 2005. Unpacking social - learning in social-ecological systems: case studies of polar bear and narwhal - management in northern Canada. In: F. Berkes, R. Huebert, H. Fast, M. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -17 - - Manseau, and A.Diduck, eds. Breaking ice: renewable resource and ocean - management in the Canadian North. Calgary: University of Calgary Press. - pp. 269-290. -FAO. 2005. FAO fishery country profile – the Kingdom of Norway. - http://www.fao.org/fi/fcp/en/NOR/profile.htm - -Fast, H., D.B. Chiperzak, K.J. Cott, and G.M. Elliott. 2005. Integrated - management planning in Canada’s western Arctic: an adaptive consultation - process. In: F. Berkes, R. Huebert, H. Fast, M. Manseau, and A.Diduck, eds. - Breaking ice: renewable resource and ocean management in the Canadian - North. Calgary: University of Calgary Press. pp. 95-117. - -Fienup-Riordan, A. 1999. Yagulget qaillun pilartat (what the birds do): Yup’ik - Eskimo understanding of geese and those who study them. Arctic 52(1):1-22. - -Fienup-Riordan, A. 2000. Hunting tradition in a changing world: Yup’ik lives in - Alaska today. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. - -Freeman, M.M.R., ed. 1976. Report of the Inuit land use and occupancy project. - Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. - -Freeman, M.M.R., L. Bogoslovskaya, R.A. Caulfield, I. Egede, I.I. Krupnik, and - M.G. Stevenson. 1998. Inuit, whaling, and sustainability. Walnut Creek, - CA: Altamira Press. - -Hamilton, L.C., B.C. Brown, and R.O. Rasmussen. 2003. West Greenland’s - cod-to-shrimp transition: local dimensions of climatic change. Arctic - 56(3):271–282. - -Hovelsrud, G.K., and C. Winsnes, eds. 2006. Conference on user knowledge and - scientific knowledge in management decision-making, Reykjavik, Iceland 4-7 - January 2003. Conference proceedings. Tromsø: North Atlantic Marine - Mammal Commission. - -Huntington, H.P. 1992. Wildlife management and subsistence hunting in Alaska. - London: Belhaven Press. - -Huntington, H.P., and S. Fox. 2005. The changing Arctic: indigenous - perspectives. In: ACIA. Arctic climate impact assessment. Cambridge, - UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 61-98. - -Huntington, H.P., P.K. Brown-Schwalenberg, M.E. Fernandez-Gimenez, - K.J. Frost, D.W. Norton, and D.H. Rosenberg. 2002. Observations on - the workshop as a means of improving communication between - holders of traditional and scientific knowledge. Environmental Management - 30(6): 778-792. - -Jull, P. 1990. Inuit concerns and environmental assessment. In: D.L.VanderZwaag - and C. Lamson, eds. The challenge of arctic shipping: science, environmental - values, and human values. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. - pp. 139-153. - -Kerttula, A.M. 2000. Antler on the sea: the Yup’ik and Chukchi of the Russian - Far East. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. - -Klein, D.A. 2005. Management and conservation of wildlife in a - changing arctic environment. In: ACIA. Arctic climate impact - assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. - pp. 597-648. - -Kocan, R., P. Hershberger, and J. Winton. 2003. Effects of Ichthyophonus on - Survival and Reproductive Success of Yukon River Chinook Salmon. Federal - Subsistence Fishery Monitoring Program, Final Project Report No. FIS 01- - 200. Anchorage: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Subsistence - Management, Fishery Information Services Division. - -Krupnik, I. 1993. Arctic adaptations: Native whalers and reindeer herders of - northern Eurasia. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. - -Lynge, F. 1992. The animal wars: an arctic perspective. Hanover NH: University - Press of New England. - -Magdanz, J.S., C.J. Utermohle, and R.J. Wolfe. 2002. The production and - distribution of wild food in Wales and Deering, Alaska. Technical Paper No. - 259. Juneau: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. - -Marquardt, O., and R.A. Caulfield. 1996. Development of West Greenlandic - markets for country foods since the 18th century. Arctic 49:2:107-19. - -Mølgaard, K. 2006. The role of scientific knowledge among hunters in - Greenland. In: G.K. Hovelsrud and C. Winsnes, eds. Conference on user - knowledge and scientific knowledge in management decision-making, - Reykjavik, Iceland 4-7 January 2003. Conference proceedings. Tromsø: - North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission. - -Morrow, P., and C. Hensel 1992. Hidden dissention: minority-majority - relationships and the use of contested terminology. Arctic Anthropology - 29(1):38-53. - -Nadasdy, P. 2004. Hunters and bureaucrats. Vancouver: University of British - Columbia. - -Natcher, D.A., O. Huntington, H. Huntington, F.S. Chapin III, S.F. Trainor, and - L. DeWilde. 2007. Notions of time and sentience: methodological - considerations for arctic climate change research. Arctic Anthropology 44(2):. - -National Research Council. 1999. The community development quota program in - Alaska and lessons for the Western Pacific. Washington, DC: National - Academies Press. - -National Research Council, 2003. Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and - Gas Activities on Alaska’s North Slope. Washington, DC: - -National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/books/0309087376/html/ - -Nielssen A.R. 1986. The economic adaptation among the Coast Sami population - in Finnmark c.1700. Acta Borealia 3(1):21-41 - -Noongwook, G., the Native Village of Savoonga, the Native Village of Gambell, - H.P. Huntington, and J.C. George. 2007. Traditional knowledge of the - bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) around St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. - Arctic 60(1):47-54. - -Nuttall, M. 1992. Arctic homeland: kinship, community, and development in - northwest Greenland. London: Belhaven Press. - -Nuttall, M. 2005. Hunting, herding, fishing, and gathering: indigenous peoples - and renewable resource use in the Arctic. In: ACIA. Arctic climate impact - assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 649-690. - -Roberts, C. 2007. The unnatural history of the sea. Washington, DC: Island Press. -Sander, E. 1992. Whales for foxes from Arctic Circle. Inuit Tusaataat 5 - (Special Issue):9. - -Sejersen, F. 2002. Local knowledge, sustainability and visionscapes in - Greenland. Eskimologis Skrifter 17. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen. -Smith, D. 2001. Co-management in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. In: CAFF - (Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna). Arctic flora and fauna: status and - conservation. Helsinki: Edita. pp. 64-65. - -Vilhjálmsson, H., and A.H. Hoel. 2005. Fisheries and aquaculture. In: ACIA. - Arctic climate impact assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University - Press. pp. 691-780. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -18 - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -19 - -Management of the Russian Arctic -Seas -V. V. Denisov and Yu. G. Mikhaylichenko - -REPORT SERIES NO 129 - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -20 - -Summary -The chapter describes the Russian Arctic seas as an object of man- -agement starting out with a description of their physical- and bio- -geographical features with special attention to LMEs and fisheries as -the main resource usage. The chapter addresses also the current stage -of other kinds of marine economic activities such as cargo shipping -and oil and gas production and their prospects, as well as some social -problems of the modern Russian Arctic. - -The chapter then describes current federal legislation established, -executive institutions responsible for the national marine policy devel- -opment process and peculiarities of the policy formation and realiza- -tion. The next steps suggested on the way to real implementation of -integrated approaches, first of all at the federal level, are considered. - -1. Introduction -Russia is by right considered and remains one of the leading maritime -nations. A historical feature of Russia is its aspiration to the sea, to -operate, develop and research its expanses and resources. The Russians -started developing coasts and islands of the White and Barents Seas as -far back as the XII century. In the middle of the XVI century (under -Tsar Ivan the Terrible) the Muscovite Russia started active expansion -to the north and east. Later in the XVI century and in the first half of -the next one, future Russian towns were established in the Arctic. - -With coasts bordering three oceans, the modern Russia with total land -area of 17.1 million km² and the population of 142 mln people) has -one of the most extended coastlines in the world (61 000 km without -small islands) including the Arctic coast of 39 940 km (Fig. 1.1, Table -1.1). - -The marine border of Russia running along the external boundary of -the territorial sea has length of over 38 000 km. The area of the exclu- -sive economic zone is over 6 mln km2. - -Situated in different climatic zones ranging from Arctic to subtrop- -ics, Russia’s coastal zone is characterized by strong heterogeneity in -natural, geographic and socio-economic parameters influencing the -character of maritime activity. Thus, it is necessary to mention that -approximately 17 million people populate the country’s coastal zone -(about 12% of the total population) of which 45% live in the coastal - -zone of the Black, Azov and Baltic seas (which accounts for only 2% -of the entire coastal zone area), whereas only 15% live in the coastal -zone of the Arctic regions (which accounts for 67% of the entire -coastal zone area). - -Fundamental changes in the socio-economic and political structure of -Russia started in the 1990s have undoubtedly had essential influence -on its maritime activity too. Complex situational analysis of economic -activity by regional components of the coastal zone and seas of Russia -have showed ineffective use of resources and depressive state of the -environment in almost all the coastal provinces of Russia as well as the -necessity to change the organization of the nature management and the -character of interactions between the involved parties – resource users, -population and authorities [1]. - -2. Geographical information and ecosystem -characteristics -The following large marine ecosystems are defined in the Russian -Arctic: Barents Sea, Kara Sea, Laptev Sea, East Siberian Sea, and -Chukchee Sea. There is exact delimitation between the Russian West -Arctic sector (Barents and Kara seas) and the Russian East Arctic -sector (Laptev, East-Siberian and Chukchee seas) (Fig. 2.1). The of- -ficial west boundary of the Barents Sea does not coincide with the sea -boundary of the shelf. The continental slope is clearly pronounced in -this area, depth increases 500 to 1 000 m each 10-20 km, therefore the -west boundary of the Barents Sea LME must be laid along the edge of -the shelf. It may be recommended to be delineated in the first approxi- -mation strictly south along the meridian 16° 30¢ from the southern -extremity of Spitsbergen Island (Svalbard) down to the Norwegian -coast. - -The boundary between the Barents Sea and the Kara Sea along the -Novaya Zemlya (New Land) Archipelago is quite obvious, but rather -rough to the north of it. There are two hydrographic sections between -Novaya Zemlya (New Land) and Franz Josef Land, areas of which -(103 km² and 105 km², respectively) are substantially smaller than the -area of the section running along the boundary between the Barents -Sea and the Kara Sea (165 km²). However contrasts of depth and other -natural factors at this part of the shelf are insignificant, therefore there -is no need diverging from the official sea boundary in this case. - -Figure 1.1: The Russian Federation, its federal districts (coloured) and Arctic coastal provinces (subjects of the Federation) (numbered, see Table 1.1) -a – White Sea -1 – equivalent of 100 000 people of a province’s coastal urban population - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -21 - -The shelf of the Russian East Arctic sector represents a single body -with small depths (less than 50 m) and insignificantly rugged seabed. -The sea boundary of the shelf coincides approximately with the official -boundaries of the seas except for the Laptev Sea, where the abyssal -hollow juts out deeply into the shelf. Taking all this into account, -the boundary of the Laptev Sea LME could be delineated from Cape -Chelyuskin to the north-east boundary point 79° N 139° E, i.e. south- -ward of the hydrographical sea boundary. - -River runoff is a chief natural factor for the shelf seas of the Russian -Arctic. In the Barents Sea this is mostly characteristic of its south- -eastern part, which is sometimes called the Pechora Sea and is the -shallowest one receiving half of the total inflow of river water with the -Pechora River runoff. - -River runoff (Ob, Yenisei, Taz and other rivers) is a major factor -affecting salinity, temperature, ice regime, and levels of man-caused -contamination in the Kara Sea. The Kara Sea annually receives around -1 300 cubic km of river runoff which is more than 40% of the total -runoff into the Arctic Ocean from Eurasia. The Laptev Sea is subject to -a substantial impact of the river runoff with the Lena River as a major -source of inflow (520 km3 annually). The East Siberian Sea and the -Chukchee Sea are less affected by this factor. - -Sea ice is a major natural factor regulating seasonal cycles of pho- -tosynthesis, plankton development, and feeding and migrations of -commercial fish stocks. Besides, it provides a habitat for some marine -mammals. The aforementioned LMEs have quite different ice condi- -tions: from total absence of ice to complete ice cover the whole year -round. - -The Southwest Barents Sea is free of ice all the year round which -results in high biological productivity, development of fisheries and -other economic activities. In the North Barents Sea drifting ice occurs -any time of the year except for July and August when a probability to -meet ice becomes less than 50 %. - -A complete description of productivity of polar seas including its sea- -sonal changes is not obtained up to now. Many areas either have never -been visited by expeditions or there are only episodic data on them. -Thus, until the mid 1990s there were no data available on the state of -ecosystems in winter and spring for the seas running along the North- -ern Sea Route (East Barents Sea, Kara Sea, Laptev Sea, East Siberian -Sea, and Chukchee Sea). Based on results of regular monitoring car- -ried out by the Murmansk Marine Biological Institute (MMBI) (Rus- -sia, Murmansk) from Russian nuclear-powered icebreakers navigating -the Arctic during the whole ice season, a series of new conclusions -on the structure and function of Arctic ecosystems at different trophic -levels (plankton communities to marine birds and mammals) has been -obtained [3]. - -A sharp decrease in zooplankton and zoobenthos biomass is typical -of seas of the Russian Arctic east of the Barents Sea. In a deep-water -Arctic Ocean benthos biomass sharply decreases at a depth of 600- -800 m. Characteristic values of benthos biomass differ five orders of -magnitude, 0.05-0.1 g/m2 in the Arctic Ocean to 1 000 g/m2 and more -at some parts of the Barents Sea shelf. On the whole the distribution of -biomass closely depends on depth therefore the shelf boundaries can -well be used as boundaries of benthic communities. - -Fish fauna of polar seas is referred to as the circumpolar, Atlantic -boreal and Pacific boreal according to the modern biogeographical -zoning. The first one is spread all over the whole Arctic basin and its -shelf seas, including the northern shelf of the Bering Sea, except for -the South Barents Sea, which belongs to the Atlantic boreal area. The -Pacific boreal includes the deep-water part of the Bering Sea. Almost -all fishing areas are located within boreal areas. - -Many fish species undertake long migrations which routes may depend -on the inter-annual variability of water temperature. In warm years -the Northeast Arctic cod spreads all over the whole Southeast Barents -Sea while in cold years it migrates to central and south-western areas. -Reduction of the cod habitat is accompanied by widening of the distri- -bution area and increase in abundance of the polar cod, a representa- -tive of Arctic fish fauna. - -Distribution density of sea birds and marine mammals is also closely -connected with the level of LME bioproductivity. The most numerous -rookeries are located in non-freezing coastal zones of Norway and -Kola Peninsula. For some marine mammals (polar bear, ringed seal -and others) sea ice provides a natural habitat and a room for migra- -tions, therefore their distribution areas may become narrower or larger -depending on long-term climatic changes. - -Isolation of trophic connections, being another criterion for the LME -delimitation, may be considered full only for benthic organisms -and coastal phytocenoses. Even passively floating phytoplankton is -advected with currents over large distance and cross LMEs boundaries. -Representatives of higher trophic levels (fishes, birds, mammals) are -often not limited by boundaries of particular ecosystems. Many fish -species undertake passive and active migrations during their life cycle -(spawn, larvae, juveniles, and mature fish). The general regularity is -that an increased abundance of representatives of all the trophic levels -is observed in ocean areas with high levels of primary production -(upwellings, river estuaries). - -Background contamination in the Barents Sea results from transbound- -ary transport of contaminants entering the sea with the Norwegian -current from the west and local contamination from land-based sources -and intensive navigation. Contamination levels in open areas of the -Barents Sea are significantly lower than those of western and southern - -Table 1.1: Federal districts bordering on Arctic ocean, Arctic coastal provinces (subjects of the Federation) and their Arctic coastline length - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -22 - -European seas. Exceptions are some coastal areas, especially Kola In- -let housing the largest port and industrial complex in the Arctic. High -ecological vulnerability is also characteristic of the Southeast Barents -Sea receiving contaminants from onshore oil and gas production sites -located in the Pechora River basin. Offshore oil production which will -start in the near future presents a potential ecological threat to this part -of the Barents Sea. - -River basins are major sources of contaminants for other Arctic seas of -Russia. The most vulnerable water areas are the White Sea and estua- -rine areas of the Ob River and the Yenisei River in the Kara Sea. - -A specific feature of the Russian Western Arctic sector is a threat of -radioactive contamination as this region houses a large number of lo- -cal sources of artificial radionuclides and receives contaminants from -external sources. However in general nowhere in the Arctic chemical -and radiation contamination is referred to as a major factor affecting -ecosystems, quality of fish food products and health of sea bird and -mammal populations which to a greater extent are subject to effects of -bioaccumulation of toxic substances [4]. - -Arctic seas, compared to other regions of the World Ocean, are -relatively clean and the state of pelagic (open-sea) ecosystems is as a -whole stable (apart from overfishing of commercial species). However -some shelf areas of arctic seas and coastal zones (Kola Inlet in particu- -lar) are substantially contaminated. - -Among typical environmental problems in -the Arctic are: a) specifying quantities of -contaminants entering the Arctic and shares -of contribution of their sources; b) studying -assimilation capacities of single areas to -the most dangerous contaminants, assess- -ing their impacts on the biotic system; -c) developing and introducing biological -and chemical methods to assess effects of -cumulative impacts of man-caused factors; -d) developing measures for mitigating im- -pacts of current levels of pollution on man -and living nature taking into account slow -character of self purification and restoration -of arctic ecosystems; e) assessing impacts -of climatic changes on ecosystems [5]. - -Special attention should be paid to the -necessity to enlarge the area of protected -land and water territories. Some scientists -believe such areas should occupy 25 % of -the whole Arctic area. - -3. Socio-economic -characteristics - -Role of macroeconomic processes in -Russia -Significant economic activity of the USSR -on its coasts, in the adjacent seas and in the -open ocean was conducted under condi- -tions of a strictly centralized management -system, based on a sectoral (ministerial) -approach and exclusive state ownership of -land, resources and means of production. -The sectoral ministries were responsible, -first of all, for the fulfillment of their own -plans. Consequently integrated regional -programs were paid little attention. That -meant in practice that under conditions -of the centralized directive management -system there was no need for sound recom- -mendations on integrated use of coastal -resources and for objective mechanisms of -coordination of interests and settlement of -conflicts between the stakeholders [6]. - -Characteristic of the transitional stage, fundamental changes happened -in Russia in the 1990s substantially influenced maritime activities -as well. These changes include privatization and changed ownership -patterns, significant revision of the governing role of national, regional -and local authorities, noticeable weakening of attention to nature con- -servation measures under conditions of poor socio-economic situation. -Characteristic of a transition period, costs of organization of a new sys- -tem of economic relations– first of all relations between ownership and -use of natural resources which interconnect national, regional and local -interests and interests of private business – should also be mentioned. -Then comes the insufficiency of the respective legislative basis and -institutional structure for the integrated regional ocean management, -absence of long-term experience in market regulation. Other things -– typical for the transition period – that should be mentioned here -are weak investment policy at different levels, insignificant practical -demand for results of scientific research and lack of modern coastal -zone cadastres necessary for effective management [7]. - -At the same time among positive things is a traditionally high level of -expertise of specialists in natural sciences, including marine sciences, -in Russia, and effective system of higher education, and availability -of access to international experience in integrated approaches to ocean -management. - -On its way towards the modern political and economic system, Russia -has gained relative success in solving tasks of two stages of drastic - -Figure 2.1: Boundaries of Large Marine Ecosystems of the Russian Arctic [2] - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -23 - -socio-economic reforms. The first stage that occurred in the 1990s was -directed at dismantling of the old socialist system by that time gone -through economic, social, political and value crash. - -Characterized by a chain of crises dramatically experienced by the so- -ciety, this stage formed basic institutes of market economy and democ- -racy and restored relative stability, both macroeconomic and political. -By the end of the 1990s the following problems had been solved: 1) -basic political institutions had been established, the most significant -element of that being the adoption of the Constitution of the Russian -Federation and regulation of federative relations; 2) macroeconomic -stabilization had been reached by 2004 providing the country with a -relatively steady currency and balanced budget; 3) mass privatization -had been conducted which laid a basis for transition of the Russian -economy to a market economy. Creation and development of private -property institutions became one of the key factors creating a basis for -further stable economic growth. - -The second stage started in the beginning of the 2000s. This period -has become the time of restoration and growth of the economy. The -federal government has gained a possibility to solve strategic tasks. -Intensifying efforts to ensure macroeconomic and political stability the -President and the Government of Russia have directed major attention -at formation of economic institutes typical for a modern market and -democratic society and corresponding to the peculiarities of Russia. -The Civil, Taxation, Budget, Labor, Land, Forrest, and Water Codes, -new pension and bankruptcy legislation have been adopted. Much has -been done towards debureaucratization (deregulation) and improve- -ment of inter-budgetary relations (federal budget, regional and local -budgets), improvement of monetary legislation, reforming of natural -monopolies and other things [8]. - -At the same time, further progress in development of Russia’s -economy including national maritime activity obviously depends on, -first of all, successful resolution of a range of problems, common for -the development of the country and its economy as a whole. These -problems include progressive structure shifts in -the economy (diversification and overcoming of -infrastructure restrictions), building effective mar- -ket institutions and creating progressive business -environment, improving effectiveness of govern- -ment institutions, and developing human potential. -This progress should be achieved by relying on -strategic competitive benefits of Russia having -substantial marine components such as energy, -transit, innovation, and ecologic potential. - -It should be mentioned that forming a new pro- -gressive competitive environment is especially -important for such a traditionally conflict sphere -as nature management, first of all multi-sectoral -ocean management. - -Speaking of key problems of the economy’s -maritime sector it should be mentioned that Rus- -sia still lacks economic, financial, legislative, -and institutional basis for their solution. For the -development of mineral and energy resources -of the continental shelf, these problems include -construction of new equipment, intensification -of geologic and geophysical surveys on shelf, -substantiation of enlargement of shelf boundaries. -For the development of water biologic resources, -these include reduction of a raw component in -the Russian export of fish products and increase -of the share of Russian producers, and significant -reduction of the shady turnover of fish products. -For the development of marine shipping these -problems include growth of cargo transfer vol- -umes in Russian ports and increase in the share of -Russian shipping companies in the whole volume -of national foreign-trade operations. This is also -restoration of the ship building industry, improve- -ment of economic provision of the Russian Navy, -use of potential possibilities of the Northern Sea -Route for the provision of stable functioning of - -the Russian Arctic Zone and transit sea shipping, intensification of -scientific research, etc. - -Since recently definite steps have been made to solve these problems. -These are, among others, establishment of the Joint Ship Building -Corporation by the Federal law in 2007, adoption of the Federal Target -Program “Development of Civil Maritime Machinery and Equipment -(2009-2016)”, working out of the State Program for the Explora- -tion and Development of the Continental Shelf, restoration of an -self-dependent Federal Agency of Fisheries in 2007, adoption of the -Federal Target Program “Development of Fishery Resource Potential -and Its Effective Use”, working out of a program for substantiation -of the outer limits of the country’s continental shelf, renovation of the -Federal Target Program “Modernization of Russian Transport System” -with its marine-oriented subprogram, etc. - -The specificity of integrated marine management has not yet been -introduced into the development and execution of comprehensive pro- -grams of socio-economic development of Russia’s coastal provinces -and coastal local communities (first of all the necessity of taking into -account the spatial and territory aspect of the marine activity develop- -ment). - -Situation in the region -Nowadays the prevailing maritime activities in the Russian Arctic are -fisheries in the Barents Sea and cargo shipping. Oil and gas production -and extraction of chemical, mineral and building raw material have -been substantially increasing over the last years (Fig. 3.1) -For Russia, sea shipping is of great importance connecting territories -with each other and playing a vital role in external economic activi- -ties. The role of sea shipping remains essential in supporting the life of -coastal communities of the Utmost North and the Far East of Russia. -Sea transport as one of the main components of the maritime sector is - -Figure 3.1: Scheme of economic activities in the Barents Sea [9] - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -24 - -closely and logically connected with other sectors of the economy, dis- -tribution of production and population in coastal areas, and exploita- -tion and development of mineral, biological and recreational resources -of the sea (Fig. 3.2). - -Traditionally arctic seas have been used, first of all, for coastwise -shipping or international shipping between neighboring countries. The -Russian Northern Sea Route has always been playing a greater role -both by volumes of cargo shipped and by its strategic significance. -Geographically the Northern Sea Route runs from north-western -boundaries of Russia (ports of Murmansk and Arkhangelsk) to the Ber- -ing Strait occupying about 3 000 nautical miles. - -Northern Sea Route is a single latitudinal water artery connecting all -the arctic and subarctic regions of Russia with their rich mineral, en- -ergy and biologic resources, and having a great influence on develop- -ment of the Russian territories located south of the Arctic Ocean for -many hundreds of kilometers (first of all along large rivers). Exploita- -tion of the Northern Sea Route demands non-traditional approaches. -This relates to severe nature conditions of the region, first of all ice -cover along navigation routes and particular vulnerability of the arctic -nature. Russia has spent great resources and efforts of many genera- -tions to explore and develop the Northern Sea Route having built the -infrastructure, powerful ice-breaker and transport fleet, systems for -hydrographic and hydrometeorologic support of shipping. -Volumes of cargo shipped along the Northern Sea Route reached 6.5 -mln tons in 1987. Drastic economic reforms in Russia decreased this -index by a factor of 4. Economic stabilization in Russia should inevita- -bly result in restoration and further growth of the Northern Sea Route -significance. The main factor of prospective increase of economic ac- -tivity in this region is the development of onshore and offshore oil and -gas production in the Barents Sea, South-East Barents Sea (Pechora -Sea), and Kara Sea. Potential volumes of oil and gas shipping from -these regions are estimated at 50 mln tons a year. -By now multiyear navigation practice has showed a possibility of all- -the-year-round navigation of large-capacity vessels along the Northern -Sea Route using both traditional and high-latitude routes. - -The role of navigation in coastal waters (cabotage) is especially - -important for the northern and eastern coasts of -Russia where it very often has no alternatives. -Such territories involve the arctic zone from the -Norwegian border to the Bering Strait including -arctic islands and mouths of large Asian rivers, -the Ob, the Yenisey, the Lena, and less exten- -sive the Khatanga, the Anabar, the Olenek, the -Yana, the Indigirka, and the Kolyma. Goods -and materials are shipped to arctic ports of Rus- -sia according to a traditional scheme, both from -the west and from the east. Petroleum products, -technical cargo, and food products are mainly -transported from west to east, from ports of the -Western Arctic sector of Russia (Murmansk -and Archangelsk) to Asian ports located in the -Eastern Arctic sector of Russia. Far Eastern -ports (Vladivostok, Nakhodka, Vanino and oth- -ers) supply to the west into the Russian Arctic -building material, technical and technological -cargo, and food products. Transport of goods -and materials from the Arctic is mainly oriented -to the west. Coastal navigation plays an im- -portant role in the development of the Norilsk -Industrial Complex, oil and gas complex of -Western Siberia, and extractive enterprises of -Yakutiya and Chukotka. - -Economic crisis of the 1990s and transition of -Russia from planned to market economy the -most seriously affected the arctic regions which -highly depended on centralized state govern- -ance and funding. The volume of annual ship- -ping of goods and materials along the Northern -Sea Route decreased from 6.5 mil tons in the -1980s to 1.5 mil tons in the end of the 1990s. -In the Western Arctic Sector of Russia (Barents - -Sea and Kara Sea) shipping was reduced by a factor of 2.8 while in -the Eastern Arctic Sector (from the Laptev Sea to the Chukchee Sea) -it was reduced by a factor of 16. This happened because of collapse -of many industrial enterprises in the Eastern Russian Arctic. At the -same time the demand for annual marine transportation in the Western -Russian Arctic remained owing to export-oriented industries (oil and -gas, non-ferrous metallurgy, forestry). Turnover of goods in ports of -the Eastern Arctic decreased in the same proportions and only the port -of Dudinka has kept its importance as a main link between the Norilsk -Industrial Complex and consumers of its output. The structure of trans- -portation has also changed: the share of building material, machinery -and equipment decreased while that of petroleum products, coal, and -food products increased. - -Economic activity along the Northern Sea Route has been intensified -over the last years. The effectiveness of icebreaker pilotage increases -with the growth of goods turnover. The growth of demand for shipping -along the Northern Sea Route in the nearest 5-10 years is expected to -be induced by the need for oil transport from deposits of Siberia and -Northwest Russia and backward transport of pipes, building materials -and other goods, and by the development of container traffic between -Europe and Southeast Asia. - -The latter concerns the use of the Northern Sea Route for transit -between countries of North-Western Europe and countries of the -Pacific Region (Japan, China, USA, Canada, etc.). As far back as the -18th century Russian scientist Mikhail Lomonosov proposed an idea of -using icebreakers to make the Northern Sea Route a shortest way into -the Pacific Ocean. So the extension of the Hamburg-Yokohama route -(11 400 nautical miles via the Suez Canal) decreases by a factor of 1.7 -via the Northern Sea Route. - -Russian and foreign experts make optimistic estimates of the Northern -Sea Route’s competitive capacity for goods transit (compared to south- -ern routes), its navigation reliability and safety. According to some -estimates, the freight flow along the Northern Sea Route may reach -10 mil tons a year by 2010 and 50 mil tons a year by 2020 provided -that appropriate investments into the development of the Northern Sea -Route’s infrastructure are made and that icebreakers and transport ves- - -Figure 3.2: Major navigation routes in the Russian Arctic along the -Northern Sea Route - - - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -25 - -sels of new generation are constructed. Taking into account increased -requirements to navigation under ice conditions and particular vulner- -ability of the Arctic nature, shipping along the Northern Sea Route -should be executed under strict government control. This is consistent -with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea according to which -countries bordering on seas ice-bound over 6 months a year have right -to set their own rules of shipping within their jurisdiction areas. -The most serious manifestation of the economic crisis of the 1990s is -the depopulation of the Russian Arctic. In the 1990s, the population of -the northern territories of Russia substantially decreased (Table 3.1). -Especially large relative losses fell on small settlements along the coast -resulting from a decrease in military activity and concentration of - -fisheries in few large coastal sites (Murmansk, Belomorsk, Norwegian -ports). This tendency is expected to be reversed due to a prospective -upturn in the economy of Northwest Russia, especially in the oil and -gas sector. - -Eurasian coast of the Russian Arctic east of Kola Peninsula is weakly -populated. The population of harbor towns and villages along the -Northern Sea Route is 5 000 to 10 000 people, while smaller commu- -nities number only several hundreds of people each. - -The aforementioned difference in demography and economy of coastal -communities is well in accordance with the existing scheme of delimi- -tation of LMEs. The most productive LMEs have denser population -and dominate in the development of the marine sector of the economy. - -On the Barents Sea coast, 90 % of all population is concentrated -around Kola Inlet. According to the population census of 2002 correct- -ed by a later assessment of the Murmansk population, the population -of this territory nowadays is about 450 000 people including 332 000 -people in the Murmansk agglomeration (the towns of Murmansk and -Kola), 75 000 people in the town of Severomorsk and adjacent areas, -and 43 000 people in towns located in the northwest of Kola Inlet -(Polyarniy, Snezhnogorsk, Skalistiy). Rural population in the area is -insignificant (about 1 % of the total). Almost all the people inhabiting -this territory live within 5 kilometers from the sea. Almost all the infra- -structure and enterprises are also located within this area. - -Communities situated in other territories of the Arctic coast number -less than 10 000 people each, except Naryan-Mar which is more likely -an inland port than a sea harbor. It should be mentioned that maritime -economic activities on the Kola Peninsula coast outside the Kola Inlet -territory are mainly presented by naval stations and protection of fron- -tiers. The port and industrial complex of Kola Inlet occupies a domi- -nant, and even a monopolistic, place in the civilian maritime sector. -It includes commercial and fish sea ports, land transport junction, fish -processing enterprises in Murmansk, naval stations in Severomorsk -and Polyarniy, and naval and civilian shipyards in Murmansk, Roslya- -kovo, Polyarniy, and Snezhnogorsk. The coastal zone is very unevenly -developed: industrial enterprises and housing areas and mooring lines -alternate with areas of the coast with natural undisturbed landscapes. - -The current status and prospects of development of the port and indus- -trial complex in many respects depend on the whole socio-economic -situation in Murmansk Oblast (province), including the situation in -mining industry, non-ferrous metallurgy, building, and agriculture, as -well as living standard and employment. - -The industry is presented mainly by raw sectors of economy (fishery, -extraction and processing of minerals) and by processing industries -(non-ferrous metallurgy, fish production, woodworking). Non-ferrous -metallurgy occupies the largest share in the structure of industrial out- - -put (28 %). The share of electric power production is 22 %, 15 % fall -on food production (including fish processing – 13 %), again 15 % is -the share of chemical industry (production of apatite concentrate), fer- -rous metallurgy has 12 % and the share of engineering and machinery -construction is 5 %. The contribution of other branches is insignificant. -Annual indices of industrial output in some branches are the follow- -ing: iron-ore concentrate – up to 10 mil tons, apatite concentrate – 3-4 -mil tons, saw-timber – about 20 000 cubical meters. Annual fish catch -by the beginning of the 1990s reached 1 200 000 tons, then in the mid -1990s it was reduced to 400 000-450 000 tons and in 2005 increased -again up to 585 000 tons. However most fish caught in the Barents -Sea (up to 75 %) is landed outside Murmansk Oblast. That’s why the - -share of fish industry in the total production of output in the region -decreased from 31 to 13 % in 2004. The capacities of fish processing -enterprises in 2004-2005 were used only for 15-20 % of the total. The -recession mostly affected the production of canned fish which now -comprises only 10 % of the level of 1990. The fishing fleet is highly -depreciated and obsolescent. - -Since the beginning of the 2000s, a substantial increase in petroleum -transport in Kola Inlet has been observed. Several offshore oil termi- -nals were put into production. Land-based oil terminals are located -at the oil storage depot of the Murmansk fish port, at the “Shipyard -35” enterprise, and at naval facilities. Offshore terminals in Kola Inlet -transfer oil from shuttle tankers into storage vessels and then into -large-capacity transport tankers. The largest of such terminals is the -storage tanker “Belokamenka” with a deadweight of 360 000 tons -located in the central bend of Kola Inlet near the village of the same -name. The total volume of petroleum products processed at offshore -and land-based terminals comprises now 20 mil tons and is expected to -grow twofold by 2010-2015. - -The only shipping company in the region capable of operating in the -Arctic all the year round is the Murmansk Shipping Company (MSC). -MSC has been traditionally specializing in arctic shipping and until -August 2008 executed day-to-day management of the state icebreaker -fleet. Since August 2008 the state icebreaker fleet has been transferred -into the Atomflot Company, regulated by a different agency than MSC -(Ministry of Energy instead of Ministry of Transport). Interactions -between the Murmansk Shipping Company and the Atomflot Company -will be rested upon a commercial basis. - -MSC vessels transport 80 % of all goods and materials along the -Northern Sea Route. A diverse structure of the fleet enables the MSC -to ship the production of the “Norilsk Nikel” and the “Apatite” enter- -prises, transport coal from Svalbard, oil and petroleum products from -the Varandey, the Kolguyev, Ob deposits, Yakutia, the White Sea, and -Murmansk and from the Baltic Sea. The share of bulked cargo in total -fleet operations (around 9 mil tons a year) increased from 20 to 50 % -in 2000-2004. By 2005 the MSC controlled 12 vessels with a total -deadweight of 290 000 tons running under the flags of convenience. - -The MSC will play an important role in revival of shipping along -the Northern Sea Route for the development of large gas deposits, -transport of raw material abroad, and supporting arctic communities -of Russia. The MSC possesses the new offshore terminal at Varandey. -According to estimates, the volume of sea shipping in the Arctic may -reach 12 mil tons by 2010 and 50 mil tons by 2020. In the light of -these estimates Russia starts overhauling its cargo ice-class fleet and -icebreakers. Recently a new nuclear-powered icebreaker called “50 -Let Pobedy” (50 Years of Victory) has been commissioned into the -icebreaker fleet. The icebreaker has replaced the decommissioned -nuclear-powered icebreaker “Sibir” (Siberia) and, together with new - -Table 3.1: Population of the largest towns and villages of the eastern sector of the Russian Arctic according to data of the population censuses of -1989 and 2002 (thousands of people) - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -26 - -diesel electric icebreakers, is to support a stable navigation along the -Northern Sea Route. The overhauling of the icebreaker fleet would be -partially funded by private companies “Norilsk Nikel”, “LUKOIL” -and some other industrial groups in a form of state-private partnership. -LUKOIL possesses its own tanker company which fleet comprised 10 -ice-class tankers with a total deadweight of 180 000 tons in 2004. With -the help of these tankers LUKOIL has started a year-round export of -crude oil and gas condensate produced by the company in the Timano- -Pechora region. In 2002 the Association of the Users of the Northern -Sea Route was created. The Association united more than 20 member- -companies. - -It should be mentioned that the maritime sector in the Barents Sea is -mainly oriented to exploitation of living resources. Other maritime -activities either do not affect seriously the ecosystem (sea transport, -military activities) or have just started developing and are expected -to be intensified in the future (oil and gas production on shelf). Thus -nowadays fishery is the main factor affecting the ecosystem, which -though may soon be crowded by gas production from the Shtokman -Gas Condensate Deposit being increasingly developed. - -Thus, the Barents Sea plays a particular role which is determined by -two major factors: first its special geopolitical and strategic role and -second its rich natural resources. There is every reason to believe that -in 2008-2015 this region will become one of the major sources of fuel -reserves and an important factor of global energy safety. At the same -time it’s very important to prevent the loss of the Barents Sea living -resources because of increased oil and gas production on shelf and -to preserve the status of this sea as one of the most important World -Ocean’s basins as regards biological resources. Therefore the Barents -Sea will inevitably be transformed into an integral area which implies -special requirements to the management over this water body. - -Nowadays the whole arctic shelf is regarded as a single oil and gas -bearing super-basin with resources equal to 83-110 billion tons which -exceeds resources of other oceans. Numerous oil fields have been -discovered in the Kara Sea including huge Rusanovskoye and Lenin- -gradskoye gas condensate deposits, 4.5 trillion cubical meters each, -exceeding the well-known Shtokman deposit in the Barents Sea which -is planned to be put on production in 2013. - -Biologic resources of the Kara Sea are used nowadays only by scarce -local population and this will hardly change in the near future. Large- -scale exploitation of living marine resources in the Kara Sea is impos- -sible due to severe ice and climate conditions, scarce resources and -their slow reproduction, and remoteness from markets. Fishing of com- -mercial anadromous fish species here is more expedient in rivers. On -the other hand, scarce population and lack of large industries in eastern -Arctic regions of Russia serve as a protection against environmental -degradation. That’s why the management of the Kara Sea and other -arctic seas should above all be rested upon nature conservation princi- -ples according to the federal acts: the Federal Act on the Protection of -the Environment and the Federal Act on Environmental Examination. - -Natural and ethnographic peculiarities of the Arctic region condi- -tion the development of environmental, fishing and extreme kinds of -tourism here, related to its exotic nature. The development of tourist -business is to a great extent connected to ways of further development -of indigenous peoples of the North. A particular importance of inter- -relation between tourism and environmental protection in the Arctic -has been largely understood since recently. - -The concept of Linking Tourism and Conservation in the Arctic origi- -nated from the 1995 Second International Symposium on Polar Tour- -ism in St. Petersburg, Russia. Since that time, a series of workshops -have developed Principles and Codes of Conduct for Arctic Tourism -and a mechanism for their practical implementation. Because tourism -in Russia differs significantly from other parts of the Arctic, a separate -effort will be required to introduce the principles and implement the -mechanism there. The challenge will be to adapt lessons learned else- -where for conditions in Russia — the largest and least disturbed parts -of the circumpolar Arctic. - -During the last years, Russian icebreakers have been making constant -tourist voyages to the North Pole, the Franz Josef Land Archipelago, - -or from Provideniye (Providence) Bay (Bering Strait) along the -Northern Sea Route with tourists from the USA, Japan, Canada and -other countries on board. Major conditions for the development of this -kind of tourism is a construction of a special fleet and coastal tourist -infrastructure. - -Speaking of participation of indigenous arctic peoples in management -of the region’s development one should mention that despite uniting -organizations (including the Association of Indigenous Peoples of the -North), indigenous peoples have very little influence on the decision- -making process. - -Fishery -The fish fauna of the Barents Sea includes about 150 fish species. One -third of them are boreal species that rarely enter the Barents Sea from -the west. Ninety to ninety-five species permanently live in the Barents -Sea. Less than 30 species are of commercial value. Commercially -important fisheries are for cod, haddock, saithe, capelin, polar cod, -herring (2 species), red fish (2 species), wolffishes (3 species) and -some other species. Most part of commercial fisheries falls under the -jurisdiction of two and more countries therefore they are regulated by -bilateral and multilateral agreements including the Joint Norwegian- -Russian Fisheries Commission. These are fisheries for cod, haddock, -Atlantic Scandinavian herring, capelin, red fish, black halibut, blue -whiting, Atlantic mackerel, and partly saithe. - -Commercial fishery serves as an index of the LME productivity and -resources potential but simultaneously it imposes on a LME a potential -risk of anthropogenic degradation due to over-fishing. Thus, annual -catch in the Barents Sea has decreased 3 to 4 times during the second -half of the 20th century. Dramatic changes in abundance of the most -important commercial fish stocks, cod and capelin, have been regis- -tered. - -The economically and politically dominant fishery in the Barents Sea -is for Northeast Arctic cod. The Barents Sea fishery for cod depends -on the state of its stock. Thus, if for the period of 1955-1979 the total -annual catch averaged about 445 000 tons at fluctuations within the -range of 202 000 to 841 000 tons, then when the cod stock was the -most greatly depressed (1983-1984) the total annual catch decreased to -56 000-58 000 tons. Over the last seven years (2000-2006) the Russian -cod quota varied within the range of 181 400 to 212 600 tons. - -Among major problems that the Barents Sea fisheries for cod and had- -dock face nowadays poaching is one of the most important. According -to Norwegian estimates, annual overfishing of cod over the period of -2002-2005 constituted 80 000 to 120 000 tons and 101 000 tons in -2005. According to Russian estimates this was less than 26 000 tons. - -The current status of the cod stock (between 2005 and 2008), ac- -cording to N.M. Knipovich Polar Research Institute of Fisheries and -Oceanography (PINRO) data, is stable now and hardly will experience -significant changes in the near future provided that Russia and Norway -adhere to conservancy principles. At the same time inter-annual -variations of the stock are inevitable due to natural fluctuations in -numbers of generations entering the commercial stock. That was -exactly the reason of that the Russian cod quota for 2007 was reduced -to 179 500 tons. - -A clear notion of the Barents Sea fisheries could be obtained with the -help of maps showing registered vessels operations in the fishery for -cod, which is the dominant commercial species in the Barents Sea. -Undertaking long migrations (feeding and pre-spawning) the cod -spreads during the year over vast areas of the sea forming gatherings -of commercial value, which in most cases juxtapose with other com- -mercial fish stocks. - -Figure 3.3 demonstrates fisheries operations of fishing vessels in the -Russian EEZ and in the disputable Russian-Norwegian area (Grey -Zone) during 2006. Besides the cod fishery, vessels fishing for had- -dock and polar cod were also taken into account. Areas of the greatest -fishing activity are marked by a darker color. As the figure shows in -some areas fisheries operations lasted the whole year round. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -27 - -The most important fishing areas in the Russian EEZ are the Rybachya -Bank, the North-Eastern Slope of the Murmansk Bank, the Western -Coastal Area, and slopes of the Gusinaya (Goose) Bank. In the Grey -Zone these are the West-Eastern Slope of the Murmansk Bank, the -Finnmarken Bank, and the Demidov Bank. - -Transition of Russia to the market economy and partial demilitariza- -tion of Barents Sea coastal areas created conditions for development -of coastal fishery on a new market basis. Nowadays the coastal fleet -consists of about 160 vessels. - -In 2005 and 2006 coastal quotas for bottom-dwelling species in the -Barents Sea were at the level of 30 000 tons. Nowadays maximum uti- -lization of coastal quotas for bottom-dwelling species is possible only -when three types of fishing are used: trawl fishing, long-line fishing, -and hook-and-line fishing. Taking into account peculiarities of distri- -bution of bottom-dwelling stocks in Russian territorial waters, and the -presence of the area west of the longitude 35° E banned for trawling, -and poorly developed coastal infrastructure of Kola Peninsula, quotas -allotted for coastal fisheries are most likely to be utilized in the follow- -ing proportion: 70 % by trawlers, 20 % by long-line fishing vessels, -and 10 % by vessels equipped with hook-and-line or jig gear. - -When organizing coastal fisheries by the existing fleet under condi- -tions of northern seas one should take into account certain restric- -tions. Fisheries in the coastal zone of the Barents Sea due to severe -hydrometeorologic conditions, especially during the winter period, are -limited to 7 months. One should also take into account the seasonality -in the formation of commercial gatherings of different stocks within -the coastal 12-mile zone, which is also makes these fisheries season- -ally restricted. - -Formerly costal fishery in Russia was referred to as the fishery within -internal waters and the territorial sea of the Russian Federation. -Division of fisheries into the costal fishery and sea fishery within the -national exclusive economic zone along the line of the territorial sea -(a 12-mile zone) created difficulties for fishing firms due to mobility -of fish stocks. That is why the purpose of this fishery was specified – -supplying fish for selling and processing in the territory of the Russian -Federation. Such a fishery involves individual entrepreneurs and com- -panies. Types of fishing vessels and fishing gear and methods of fish- -ing are determined for each fishing area. Quotas for coastal fisheries -on shelf and in the Russian EEZ, as well as in areas under jurisdiction -of international agreements, are allotted by the Government of Russia. -Quotas for fisheries in internal marine waters and the territorial sea -are allocated between users by the Federal Agency of Fisheries of the -Russian Federation on requests from regional governments. Quotas for -the coastal fishery are allotted to a user only provided that fish caught -is landed in the territory of Russia. - -Coastal fishery contributes to the development of coastal and port -infrastructure of the fisheries sector, social development of coastal -communities, provides new jobs, increases revenues into budgets of -different levels. Fishing and fish processing companies bear large -social responsibility providing jobs for local population and supporting -housing and communal infrastructure of local communities. - -Fishery for marine biological resources is a traditional occupation for -a number of indigenous peoples living in the Arctic. But only fisheries -within the Barents Sea basin have national and international signifi- -cance in the Arctic. There are still contradictions between Russian and -Norwegian fisheries rules, especially within the Svalbard fisheries area, -for example trawl mesh sizes, minimum size of the fish caught and -others. Agreements on these normative differences can be successfully - -achieved within gradual Russian-Norwegian -negotiations. Existing economic contradic- -tions between the sea fisheries and coastal -fisheries in Russia still remain unresolved. - -Management of biological resources in -the Barents Sea is executed on the basis -of the 1975 Inter-government Agreement -on Cooperation on Fisheries between the -former USSR and Norway. This agreement -is executed through decisions of the Joint -Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission. -The main instrument of fisheries regulation -is the allocation of annual TACs for each -stock. This measure is based on estimates -of commercial stocks conducted by scien- -tists of the two countries within joint and -national research programs. Besides, the Joint -Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission -uses such important instruments as introduc- -tion of a strictly limited catch for many fisher- -ies by allocating national quotas, introduction -of a minimum fish size for some fisheries, and -a range of scientifically-induced restrictions -for use of this or that fishing gear (territorial -bans, mesh sizes, etc). - -An important role in conservation of stocks -and sustainable management of marine fish -resources is still played by such international -organizations as the International Council -on Exploration of the Sea and some other. -Despite that their decisions are of advice -character, coastal states try to comply with -them. - -Nowadays there is need to introduce new -methods of fisheries management, such as -precautionary approach for TAC allocation, -balance ecosystem-based fisheries, etc. Under -conditions of decreased stocks, inconsistency -of adherence to single-species cod fisher- -ies becomes obvious. Over the last years -the shrimp fishery has been increased in the - -Figure 3.3: Fisheries in the Barents Sea in 2006 (according to remote sensing of fishing vessels) -(source: The Natsrybresursy Company) - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -28 - -region first of all by Norway. Russia and Norway started commercial -fishery for the red king crab acclimatized in the Barents Sea. At the -same time Russian and Norwegian approaches to the red king crab -fishery differ. Russia sets quotas for its red king crab fisheries while -Norway does not. This depends on attitudes of both countries to this -introduced species. Norway tries to overfish it following the provisions -of the Convention on Conservation of Biodiversity. Russia considers -the red king crab a valuable commercial resource which exploitation -should be regulated without undermining the ability of the population -to reproduce itself. - -Development of fisheries in the region in the following years will be -characterized by: a) fluctuations of stocks of the most common com- -mercial species due to climate change; b) regulation of fisheries in high -seas and introduction of international control of fisheries; c) increased -development of aquaculture and fish farms in coastal zones and in -EEZs. - -Development of offshore oil and gas production will be a serious -challenge to Barents Sea fisheries. In view of vulnerability of marine -ecosystems, there is a need for a new nature conservation strategy -based on assessment of contaminant impacts on the primary produc- -tion, vital functions of marine living organisms, and commercial stocks -and their reproduction capability. Special attention should be paid to -development of the EIA procedure for oil and gas projects. - -Future offshore oil and gas production activities may cause certain -damage to marine fisheries. To compensate this damage there is a need -to reproduce commercially valuable fish species and enlarge the net- -work of marine protected zones. The volume of these measures should -correlate with the scale of development of oil and gas production in the -Russian economic zone. - -4. Administrative division and legislation established -According to the Constitution adopted in December 1993, the Russian -state (Russian Federation, or Russia) consists of subjects of federation -recognized as equal in rights in mutual relations with federal govern- -ment agencies, and independent in issues of their own competence. -Nowadays there is a clear tendency towards integration of federal sub- -jects when subjects having small population merge with larger ones. -At present the Russian Federation consists of 83 subjects, 21 of which -have direct access to the sea. - -In 2000 the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation intro- -duced the division of the country into seven federal districts in which -presidential plenipotentiaries provide constitutional powers of the head -of the state in the territory of the appropriate district. Each federal -district includes a group of subjects of federation. Out of seven federal -districts, five have access to sea, with three of them basically consist- -ing of coastal subjects of federation, which play a leading role. - -The new internal state structure of the Russian Federation is character- -ized by a high degree of independence of the subjects of federation. At -the same time, some current coastal subjects of federation (autono- -mous districts on the north and northeast coasts of the country) do not -appear to be ready to assume their status and executive duties of state -functions because, before the Constitution of 1993 was adopted, they -had been components of larger administrative-territorial units. Clause -2 of article 11 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation gives -subjects of federation the right to form bodies of state power. Article -77 of the Constitution says that the system of bodies of state power -of subjects of federation is established independently, including the -provision that federal executive authorities and executive authorities of -subjects of federation form a unified system of executive power. - -These changes to the state system do not provide for unified imple- -mentation of the specific issues connected to management of the ma- -rine activity, which are referred to in the competences of the Russian -Federation in its subjects of federation. In addition to the new federal -structure, municipal governments were introduced throughout the Rus- -sian Federation. At the same time, article 12 of the Constitution of the -Russian Federation says, “institutions of municipal government are not -included into the system of state power”. - -Article 8 of the Russian Constitution and federal legislation have -established high levels of independence for municipal government in- -stitutions and provided them with a large number of rights and duties. -Formation of municipal governments on this new basis has changed -relations between the authorities of coastal subjects of federation and -authorities of the coastal municipalities. These relations have not been -fully defined. Regarding finances, the dependence of local govern- -ments on regional institutions, and through them on federal executive -authorities, has not only been maintained but conditions of economic -recession frequently exacerbated it. At the same time, there is no -clear definition of the new order and rules of participation for coastal -local government institutions in implementing maritime activity and -national marine policy. As a result, in the Russian Federation there is -a governing system based on three authority levels – federal, regional, -and local. The relationship between these levels concerning marine -activity problems in many respects remains uncertain. - -Currently, according to Russian legislation, the legal status of sea -expanses is established on a new approach basis. Clause 1 of article -67 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation states that the terri- -tory of the Russian Federation includes the territories of its subjects, -internal waters, and the territorial sea and air space above them. This -implies that internal maritime waters and the territorial sea are not part -of territories of subjects of the Russian Federation. Clause 2 of article -67 says: “The Russian Federation has sovereign rights and carries out -jurisdiction over the continental shelf and in the exclusive economic -zone of the Russian Federation in the order determined by the federal -law and international law regulations” (not by regional laws). Simul- -taneously, according to clause “m” of article 71 of the Constitution of -the Russian Federation, the definition of the status of the territorial sea, -EEZ and the continental shelf is also referred to the exclusive compe- -tence of the Russian Federation. These positions make it difficult to -actively engage subjects of federation in implementing national marine -policy and developing marine activity [8]. - -In the field of joint competence of the Russian Federation and its -subjects there is no direct mention concerning marine matters either. -It is necessary to note that clause “c” of article 72 of the Constitution -of the Russian Federation specifies that “water resources” are a joint -competence of the Russian Federation and its subjects. However, in- -ternal maritime waters and the territorial sea are declared in the Water -Code of the Russian Federation to be federal property (article 8). At -the same time, the operational regulation specifies in article 26 of the -Water Code that management of the federal property on water bodies -is to be carried out by the Government of the Russian Federation. Part -of responsibilities for the management of federal property on water -bodies, according to the Constitution of the Russian Federation and -the Water Code, can be transferred by the Government of the Russian -Federation to interested federal executive agencies and executive agen- -cies of subjects of the federation. Under current legislation, subjects -of the Russian Federation do not have regulating power in the sphere -of marine activity, although they can (in some cases) participate in -management of water bodies. - -As already noted, definition of the status of the internal maritime -waters, the territorial sea and the continental shelf according to the -Constitution of the Russian Federation, is referred to the exclusive -competence of the Russian Federation. The status of the specified sea -expanses is determined in accordance with the international law and -regulated by federal acts “On the Continental Shelf of the Russian -Federation” (1995), “On the Internal Maritime Waters, Territorial Sea -and Contiguous Zone of the Russian Federation” (1998), and “On the -Exclusive Economic Zone of the Russian Federation” (1998). The -establishment of such a detailed legal regime by means of federal laws -and other legislative acts does not mean, however, exclude participa- -tion by coastal subjects of the Russian Federation in implementing of -federal power on preservation, and use and management of marine -resources and expanses. According to the Constitution, federal execu- -tive authorities have the right to establish such regimes for those sea -expanses that provide an optimum level of competences of coastal -subjects of the Russian Federation in the designated area. However, in -the enacting legislation, these opportunities have not been realized [8]. - -Thus, changes to the internal administrative and territorial division -at all levels are of an extremely deep and qualitative character. The - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -29 - -system of state power and management already has been created. It is -provided with several legal regulatory acts, however, the process of -reform is not complete. The changed state system, system of author- -ity and management, as well as a multitude of conceptual documents, -legislative and statutory acts, are not cohesive and require additional -work. The reform of administrative-territorial division of the Russian -Federation requires preparatory and implementation efforts. - -Marine Doctrine -The Marine Doctrine of the Russian Federation for the period to 2020 -[10], authorized by the President of the Russian Federation (27 July -2001), reveals the essence, content and method of implementing a -national marine policy (Fig. 4.1) which is a major component of state -policy of the Russian Federation. The Doctrine sets out a set of -concepts necessary for resolving practical tasks in the World Ocean -(Fig. 4.2). Russian national marine policy is carried out under two -broad categories: -Ÿ Functional: examining types of marine activity (transport, fishing, - naval, etc.) depending on Russia’s economic opportunities and the - role of Russia in international relations; - -Ÿ Regional: taking into account Russia’s position on the globe, as - - well as geographical and other features of its regions. - -The Marine Doctrine of the Russian Federation provides criteria for -evaluation of the national marine policy: an opportunity to implement -the national marine policy’s short-term and long-term tasks; a degree -of realization of sovereign rights in the EEZ, over the continental shelf, -and also high seas freedoms for merchant, fishing, research and other -Russian specialized fleets; the ability of Russian maritime military -component to protect territory from marine threats and state interests -in the World Ocean. - -Russia determined its national interests in the World Ocean and -declared them in the Marine Doctrine. According to this document, the -national interests of the Russian Federation in the World Ocean are: - -Ÿ inviolability of Russia’s sovereignty beyond its land territory to its - internal maritime waters, the territorial sea, as well as to the air - space over them, to the seabed and subsoil; - -Ÿ safeguarding sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the Russian - Federation in the EEZ and over the continental shelf, i.e., - exploration, exploitation and conservation of natural resources - (both living and non-living resources located on the seabed, - -in its subsoil and the waters superja- -cent to the seabed), as well as manage -ment of these resources; generation -of energy from water, currents and -winds; creation and use of artificial -islands, construction and structures; -marine scientific research; and protec- -tion and conservation of the marine -environment; - -Ÿ realization of the high seas freedoms - in the interest of the Russian - Federation including freedom of - navigation, overflight, to laying - submarine cables and pipelines, - fishing and scientific research; - -Ÿ protection of human life at the sea, - prevention of marine environmental - pollution, maintenance of the control - over vital sea communications, - creation of the conditions promoting - benefits from marine economic - activities to the population of the - Russian Federation, especially its - coastal regions, and also to the state as - a whole. - -Thus, the purposes of the national marine -policy of the Russian Federation are -ensuring and protecting state sovereignty, -sovereign rights, and freedoms of the high -seas in the World Ocean. - -The Marine Doctrine of the Russian Fed- -eration stipulates that subjects of national -marine policy are the state and society. -The state implements national marine -policy through the bodies of state power of -the Russian Federation and the subjects of -the Russian Federation. Society partici- -pates in the formation and implementa- -tion of national marine policy through -federal and regional representative bodies, -institutions of local government and public -associations working under the jurisdiction -of the Constitution and the legislation of -the Russian Federation. - -The following are the basic activities of -the national marine policy actors: -Ÿ comprehensive identification of priori - ties of the national marine policy on - near and long-term prospects; - -Figure 4.2: Development of marine activity conceptual definitions [8] - -Figure 4.1: Block diagram of the Marine Doctrine of the Russian Federation [8] - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -30 - -Ÿ continuous upgrading of the contents of national marine activity; -Ÿ management of the components of the state marine potential, - branches of the economy and science related to maritime activity; -Ÿ creation of a favorable legal regime; -Ÿ economic, information, scientific, personnel another - ensuring the national marine policy; -Ÿ evaluation of the efficiency of national marine policy and its - subsequent updating. - -The subjects of the national marine policy are -guided by the principles of national marine policy -formulated in the Marine Doctrine. These princi- -ples are common for both functional and regional -category of national marine policy (Fig. 4.3). - -The Marine Doctrine also implies coordination -of efforts of the federal government and regional -governments in defining priority objections and -substance of the national maritime policy for short- -term and long-range outlook, and in management -of the constituents of the maritime potential of -Russia, economy and science branches connected -with maritime economic activities, and in planning -of maritime economic activities and construction of -the Russian fleet. - -5. Institutions and Policy -The prerogative of defining priority objections - -and the substance of the national maritime policy -belongs to the President of the Russian Federation. -Besides, the President, according to the Constitution, -undertakes measures to secure the sovereignty of the -Russian Federation in the World Ocean, to protect -and secure the interests of a person, society and the -state in the field of maritime affairs. The President -also provides guidance of the national oceans policy. -The Security Council of the Russian Federation as a -constitutional body attached to the President of the -Russian Federation reveals threats, determines vi- -tally important demands of the society and the state, -and works out major directions of the safety strategy -of Russia in the World Ocean. - -Issues of national marine policy can be also con- -sidered at the sessions of the State Council of the -Russian Federation, a deliberative body headed by -the President of the Russian Federation that was -created according to Presidential decree. It aims to -sustain and use the potential of the regional supreme -officials. Issues of marine activity are also super- -vised by the President’s plenipotentiaries in federal -districts of the Russian Federation, who can present -their proposals in the field of marine policy. - -The system of long-term decision-making along -with the legislative and normative base together -ensure that a sound state marine policy has been de- -veloped in the Russian Federation and that it contin- -ues to be improved. Its conceptual bases have been -developed according to the 1982 UN Convention on -the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which Russia rati- -fied in 1997 as part of the Russian Federation’s par- -ticipation in activity of other international maritime -institutions, treaties, and agreements and assumes -appropriate national legislation development. - -The Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation -(the Parliament) within the frames of its constitu- -tional authority does legislative business to ensure -the execution of the national marine policy. For -these purposes to be achieved, the Commission on -the National Ocean Policy was established in 2004 -within the Federation Council (the upper chamber of - -the Parliament). The main tasks of the Commission are the following: -monitoring of legislation in the filed of the maritime affairs, elabora- -tion of proposals for projects of federal acts for the Federation Council -aimed at increasing the effectiveness of maritime economic activities, -interaction with federal bodies of the executive power involved in -maritime affairs. -Draft laws go to the State Duma where they are examined by ap- -propriate committees and commissions, or are elaborated on by them. -Afterwards draft laws have to be affirmed at plenary sessions. Draft - - Figure 4.3: National marine policy realization scheme [8] - -Table 5.1: Documents determining national marine policy conceptual basis [8] - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -31 - -laws accepted by the State Duma go on for approval to the Council -of Federation. In cases of disagreement, conciliation commissions are -created. When a draft law is approved in the upper chamber of parlia- -ment, it goes to the President of the Russian Federation for signature. -The Marine Doctrine lays out the basis of the national marine policy. - -At the same time, a system of basic documents outlining the contents -of Russia’s marine policy has been developed (Table 5.1), which is -however being constantly improved. - -Provisions stipulated by federal laws and other directive documents - -Figure 5.1: Scheme of management of civilian maritime activity in Russia [11] - -Figure 5.2: Scheme of Marine Board’s activity and its interaction with federal legislative and provincial authorities [12] - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -32 - -are formalized by the normative legal acts developed and accepted by -the Government of the Russian Federation, as well as the appropriate -federal executive authorities. - -Nowadays the oceans management in Russia involves around 10 fed- -eral ministries and agencies as well as regional governments of coastal -regions (Figure 5.1). The exploitation of marine living resources is -regulated by the Federal Agency of Fisheries. Navigation in the Arctic -is regulated by the Ministry of Transport. The Ministry of Natural -Resources and Ecology regulates prospecting and exploration and the -Ministry of Energy - extraction of mineral resources on shelf and in -coastal areas. Protection of marine environment and ecosystems is -regulated by the Federal Nature Management Surveillance Service -which is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Natural Resources -and Ecology. - -Marine Board -The Marine Board of the Government of the Russian Federation, -headed by the Deputy Chairman of the Government of the Russian -Federation (the Deputy Prime Minister), is a permanent coordinating -body, which brings together the actions of federal executive agencies, -regional executive agencies and the organizations engaged in marine -activity of the Russian Federation, for the purpose of implementing -Russia’s marine policy. The Marine Board has become the main body -responsible for formulation of short-term and current tasks (Fig. 5.2). - -The Marine Board members are heads of federal executive agencies, -regional executive agencies, scientific and other organizations that -study, develop and use the World Ocean. The membership of the Ma- -rine Board is approved by the Government of the Russian Federation. -Representatives of interested government bodies, federal executive -agencies, regional executive authorities, state institutions, as well as -scientists and experts on marine matters mentioned above take part in -Marine Board sessions. With the Marine Board chairman’s approval, -representatives from NGOs, commercial entities and mass media can -be invited to the Board’s sessions. Marine Board activity was initially -focused on the creation of conditions for decisions by the Russian -Government, federal and regional executive authorities on tasks of -protection and realization of sovereign rights and meeting obligations -to the world community accepted by the Russian Federation in internal -maritime waters, the territorial sea, the EEZ, over the continental shelf, -the high seas, in Arctic and Antarctic regions, as well as on increased -maritime activity efficiency and maintaining military-political stability, -national security and neutralize maritime threats and strengthening the -international authority of the Russian Federation. - -The experience gained suggests that this coordination body is the -major practical guide to marine activity in the Russian Federation. It -carries out preparatory and scientific, political and economic recom- -mendations for adjusting and implementing the marine policy of the -state. The Marine Board has intensified its work over the last years. -Its structure has been improved and new bodies have been established -within the Board including interagency commissions, the Secretariat, -the Science and Advisory Panel. - -The aim of establishing interagency commissions was to intensify the -work of the Marine Board and to form workable bodies within the -ministries. That was hard work but now the process has been almost -completed. At present the Marine Board includes several interagency -commissions: Commission on the National Maritime Policy and the -Execution of the Federal Program “World Ocean”; Sea and Inland -Water Transport Commission; Commission on Exploitation of Marine -Biological Resources; Commission on Exploitation of Marine Mineral -and Energy Resources; Commission on Scientific Study of the World -Ocean; Naval Commission; Commission on the International Maritime -Law; Shipbuilding Commission; Diving Commission; Commission on -Information and Technical Support of Maritime Affairs. - -Over the last few years the Marine Board has managed to resolve one -of the major problems – to establish connections with federal districts -and federal governments of the Russian Federation. Such connections -are exercised through special coordinating advisory bodies – regional -maritime councils. In the Russian Arctic these are Government Mari- -time Council of Murmansk Oblast, Government Maritime Council of - -Arkhangelsk Oblast, President’s Maritime Council of the Republic of -Karelia, Government Maritime Council of Yamal-Nenets Autonomous -Okrug, President’s Maritime Council of the Republic of Sakha (Yaku- -tia), and Government Maritime Council of Chukchee Autonomous -Okrug. - -Interactions with regional maritime councils, which include represent- -atives of local governments (local coastal communities), allow taking -into account demands and peculiarities of coastal regions. Initiatives of -these regional councils would contribute to solution of burning socio- -economic problems of coastal communities. - -Advisory bodies on marine activity have been established in Moscow -and in two federal districts. Interactions with these advisory bodies -will allow executing Russia’s ocean policy more efficiently. - -Thus, established for the first time in Russia, the effective mechanism -of coordination of actions of all the actors involved in maritime affairs -integrates efforts of these actors in execution of provisions of the -Marine Doctrine at all major directions of work of the Government of -Russia. This mechanism is aimed at making prospective strategic deci- -sions of Russia on exploration of resources and expanses of the World -Ocean for national purposes. - -World Ocean Program -The necessity of overcoming the negative consequences of maritime -economic liberalization and uncontrolled privatization of the maritime -economy basic production assets was evident in the mid-1990s. It was -clear that Russia’s participation in developing resources and expanses -of the World Ocean was closely connected to improving manage- -ment, including state regulation, together with purposeful scientific -and technical development of marine activity in the country. For these -purposes, Russia launched the federal target program (FTP) “World -Ocean”, approved by the Act of the Government of the Russian Fed- -eration of 10 August 1998, No 919. The concept of the program was -approved by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation in -January 1997. Over forty federal and provincial executive agencies -and a dozen of research organizations took part in the development of -this program. - -Adoption of the World Ocean Program at the nation-wide level was -aimed at changing the existing narrowly-focused sectoral and local- -provincial approaches to conducting marine activity that were realized -through several dozens of state programs with branch or regional ori- -entation. Since 1998, the World Ocean Program has become the basis -of a nation-wide system of regulation and management of Russia’s -marine activity aimed at its integration and increased effectiveness (for -more details, see [8]). - -Unfortunately from the very beginning the World Ocean Program did -not cover all the problems of maritime affairs listed in its conception -which was approved by the President’s decree. Moreover, the Program -skipped complicated and the most critical problems of the regional -development. The program does not reflect the problems of develop- -ment of external economic and scientific links with foreign countries -and personnel training. However, in 2007 on request from the Federal -Agency of Science and Innovation, Murmansk Marine Biological -Institute carried out a project called “Developing integrated methods -of oceans and coastal zone management in arctic and southern seas of -Russia”, which testifies a slow increase of attention to this problem in -the Government of Russia. - -Scantiness of financial recources, week involvement of subjects of -Federation in program implementation, underestimation of the impor- -tance of integrated approaches to the problems solution have resulted -in stopping the realization of half of the subprograms (6 of 12) which -Federal Target Program World Ocean consisted of, and the program -has lost its leading and coordinating role in marine activity develop- -ment, solving some important, but individual tasks. On the other hand, -its Arctic Subprogram has received new, financial and content, impulse -since 2008, aimed at the business activity and infrastructure develop- -ment, as well as coordination in the Arctic. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -33 - -Integrated approaches to marine management -Integrated approaches to marine management have been developing -for the last 25 years. These are the Integrated Coastal and Oceans -Management (ICOM) and the Ecosystem Based Ocean Management -(EBOM) appeared later. The two approaches are closely connected -with each other since the ICOM cannot be effective without identifica- -tion of ecosystems as a whole including the human factor while the -EBOM obviously implies an integrated approach to the ecosystems -identified. - -The EBOM approach continues developing and is widely recognized -throughout the world as a concept used in global, national, and re- -gional research, management (first of all in fisheries), and nature con- -servation programs and documents. However, compared to the ICOM -approach, it yet has not been widely introduced into a real practice of -the coastal management since it still lacks carefully worked out instru- -ments for dealing with inter-sectoral problems and an institutional -potential to be realized in practice. The last Global Conference on -Oceans, Coasts and Islands (Hanoi, 2008) comprehensively considered -both approaches and recommended to incorporate ICOM into EBOM -and vice versa [13]. - -Adaptation and introduction of modern management practices (ICZM -methodology) into the coastal and marine management in Russia -started in the mid 1990s. At the federal level that was done through -federal marine research programs and then since 2000 through the -Federal Target Program World Ocean (with the Ministry of Economic -Development of the Russian Federation as a state customer and coor- -dinator). At the regional level that was mainly initiated by international -projects and programs (e.g. the Black Sea and the Caspian Environ- -mental programs). - -Over the last years the following have been done [7, 14-16, and some -others]: - -Ÿ assessments of Russia’s coastal resource potential and situation in - its use; - -Ÿ study of international experience in development and realization of - national and local ICZM programs; - -Ÿ a series of conceptual and methodological papers on the ICZM has - been worked out and published; - -Ÿ the ICZM curriculum has been drawn up and teaching students - ICZM in the national higher school system has started; - -Ÿ an article-by-article structure of several versions of federal draft law - on ICZM has been worked out; - -Ÿ first steps towards introducing ICZM principles and approaches into - the process of elaboration of local programs for coastal develop- - ment and use of coastal resources have been made by means - of coordination of efforts of federal and international projects. - -Working out requirements to the development of the ICZM system -of the Murmansk Province and its initialization for Kandalaksha Bay -(White Sea) at the local government level are the most successful ex- -amples made to introduce ICZM approaches on-the-ground in the Rus- -sian Arctic. The steps that have already been done for the latter include -the elaboration of the Strategic Kandalaksha Bay ICZM Development -Plan, substantiation of organization structure of an ICZM system for -the local level, formulation of an action plan to develop a coastal zone -management system at the local level [17]. - -Success and problems in the ICZM development in Russia raised -understanding of the necessity to arrange a meeting that could gather -together all the specialists involved with an aim of exchanging experi- -ence, consolidating efforts, discussing problems with leading foreign -experts, and attracting attention, first of all of managers, to the impor- -tance of improving this sphere. In view of this, the first and yet the -only specialized international conference on ICZM “Integrated Coastal -Zone Management and its Integration with Marine Sciences” (130 -participants from 20 countries) was held in 2000 in St. Petersburg. - -In the course of detailed discussion of issues relating to the develop- -ment and scientific support of the ICZM in countries with transition - -economies, the Conference confirmed the importance of efforts in -this direction. It also helped identify problems hampering the ICZM -development in these countries, work out recommendations for further -actions including those at the international level, emphasize a special -importance of administrative, economic and scientific circles of these -countries being familiar with global practice of the development and -execution of ICZM approaches and programs and the role of marine -sciences in this. - -During the last years ICZM problems in Russia are discussed at the -special section of annual fora of strategic planning leaders held in -Saint Petersburg by the International Centre for Social and Economic -Research – Leontief Centre. - -6. Towards ecosystem-based oceans management: -disadvantages, challenges and future outlook -Summing up some general results of the ocean and coastal man- -agement in Russia it is important to mention the following: a) real -introduction of ICZM approaches is a very hard task and will take -many years, b) the essence of these approaches and instruments used -by this methodology must be really understood, c) it is important that -introduction of ICZM methods into management practices would be -executed both downwards (from the federal level) and upwards (from -the local level) with the unity of approaches used; d) the process of im- -plementation must include all the ICZM instruments and procedures. - -Despite that the ICZM realization in Russia was implied by the World -Ocean Program Concept adopted by the Russian Federation Presi- -dent’s Decree, these approaches still have not been adopted or remain -unknown in administrative circles at all levels and other potentially -concerned entities (e.g., business, local population, NGOs) which par- -ticipation in the decision-making process is of critical importance. This -is an objective proof of the fact that Russia, rapidly entered market -economy, does not pay sufficient attention to assimilation of the mod- -ern managerial practice that has proved its efficiency in marine natural -resource use. At the same time, the thesis on necessity for ICZM -development and realization at a state level is especially topical in the -country, since, on the one hand, the institutional and legal tools that -have not existed before should be built anew, and on the other hand, -there widely remain traditional expectations and habits of relying on -the decisive role of the State. - -Despite the existence of “points of growth” along the country’s coasts -(north, south, west, east) it is still hard for ICZM “to make its way” in -real life in a market economy still being shaped. Subjective factor still -plays a substantial role and application of the sustainable develop- -ment approaches to the country’s coasts still depends, first, on social -responsibility and motivation of key executives on provincial and local -levels, That is a direct consequence of a present level of economy and -democracy development in Russia [7]. - -Present legislative and regulative basis in the maritime activity can -also hardly contribute to development of modern ocean and coastal -management technologies [18]: - -1) Thus, in modern conceptual documents devoted to political and -socio-economic development of democracies with market economy it -is common, including in Russia, to identify three key acting subjects: -state, society and business. Unfortunately, Russia’s Marine Doctrine -recognizes only state and society as subjects of the national marine -policy excluding business with all consequences that it implies, which -is of course does not meet the reality. Such an approach was presented -also at the first discussion of the Draft Russia’s Maritime Activity -Development Strategy for the period until 2020 and further on. - -2) For a range of objective and subjective reasons, the priority in -the text of the Marine Doctrine was given to issues relating to the -provision of national security of Russia (protection, preservation -and ensuring of the sovereignty and sovereign rights of Russia in the -World Ocean). In four paragraphs of the Doctrine describing Russia’s -national interests in the World Ocean, questions of maritime economic -activity are mentioned only at the very end of the last fourth paragraph -after the questions of control of communication functioning, preven- -tion of marine environment contamination, and protection of man’s life - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -34 - -at sea. The same way of formulation was chosen for major purposes of -the national ocean policy as well. - -The documents of such kind as the Marine Doctrine defining general -ways of development of maritime activity, complex by nature, should -clearly pronounce the priority of development of the economy and im- -provement of the quality of life. The Marine Doctrine should formulate -a new, comprehensive and coordinated national marine policy, aimed -at sound management of marine and coastal resources, development of -maritime economy, stimulation of investments into maritime branches, -protection of life and property, prevention of contamination, protection -of marine environment, development of knowledge on environment, -close cooperation of authorities and business for successful develop- -ment of marine and coastal activities of Russia. - -3) It is believed that the codification of norms of the Russian marine -legislation could contribute to creation of internally consistent and -integral maritime activity’s legislative basis corresponding to modern -state of country’s economy as well as the best foreign experience, and -to performance of measures to divide functions of state regulation and -economic management of maritime activities. The following key pro- -visions increasing effectiveness of Russia’s maritime activities would -be optimal to introduce into federal law: - -Ÿ Application of integrated approach to planning and managing the - maritime activity; - -Nowadays Russia’s maritime activity is regulated on the basis of a -departmental (sectoral) approach and the use of different resources -is regulated by different legislative acts. Such a management system -entails numerous conflicts of interests between maritime economic -activities, does not contain mechanisms to resolve them and is poorly -environmentally-oriented. - -Ÿ Mechanism for participation of subjects of Federation in clear and - sound allocation of power between the federal government and - provinces in the ocean management and use of marine and costal - resources in the frames of defining the status of the territorial sea, - national exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of Russia. - -In other words, mechanisms (legislative, economic and institutional) -to support the activity of regional and local authorities in developing -coastal and marine resources are needed. - -Ÿ Major principles of the national maritime policy such as ecosystem- - based approach, adaptive management, participa tory process, - application of the best existing scientific and technology - knowledge, precautionary approach, preventive measures, - conservation of biodiversity, etc. - -These principles have been worked out and laid down into national -legislation of leading maritime nations and the international maritime -law. Some of these principles are included into the national legislation -of Russia, for example into the Federal Act on the Protection of the -Environment or into international conventions of which Russia is a -signatory-state, for example the Convention on Biological Diversity. -However these principles are not considered by maritime directive -documents including the Marine Doctrine. - -Ÿ Practice of development and realization of ICZM programs in - the frames of complex programs of socio-economic development of - Russia’s coastal provinces and programs of coastal local - communities development as an economic and legislative instru- - ment of inter-sectoral coordination of different conflicting interests - between coastal and marine resource users first of all in a territorial - and spatial aspect. - -There is a need for unified state management of coastal zones of -Russia (including their both components: land and sea) based on -global successful experience and recommendations of UN -organizations and international fora. - -Ÿ Effective and understandable mechanism of revealing and resolving - contradictions, first of all between the federal government, - provincial governments and local communities. - -Ÿ Mechanism of regular system assessments (at different levels) of - the effectiveness of marine management and monitoring of the - effectiveness of the coastal area development program’s execution. - -In view of this, in 2005, on request from the Marine Board, the Min- -istry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation prepared a -draft concept of a legislative act on the state management of maritime -activities. - -Generally speaking of improving management over Russia’s marine -activity at the present stage, it is believed that major tasks in this direc- -tion should be the following [19]: - -Ÿ Specification and more precise definition of the Marine Doctrine - provisions (preparation of its new corrected version based on eight - years experience of its being in force) and its adoption by the - President’s decree; - -Ÿ Elaboration of a draft federal legislative act on issues of state - management of maritime activities and the inclusion of major - definitions of the Marine Doctrine and provisions described above - into it; - -Ÿ A full inventory of maritime economic activities similar to that in - leading maritime nations and on the similar methodological basis; - -Ÿ Forming the package of national, subnational, provincial and local - priorities for the development of maritime economic activities, - based on provisions of the Marine Doctrine, system analysis of the - inventory results, and major global trends in studying and utilizing - the World Ocean’s resources, which are formulated in documents of - late international maritime fora. All stakeholders should be involved - in this process; - -Ÿ Elaboration of the Strategy of Russia’s Maritime Activity - Development on the basis of the abovementioned priorities (which - should not be just a combined list of sectoral measures) and the - Integrated Plan for implementing this strategy. - -Based on a commonly recognized consecution “concept (doctrine) -à strategy à program”, it should be particularly mentioned that the -elaboration and adoption of a new corrected version of the Marine -Doctrine should precede the forming of the Strategy; - -Ÿ Adaptation and mastering modern management technologies - (ICOM, EBOM) in Russia’s coastal zone management practices. At - the same time developing and implementing both sectoral strategies - and ICZM programs for definite coastal zones would become an - effective instrument of harmonizing and realizing priorities - identified; - -Ÿ Forming a system of program measures of the Federal World Ocean - Program in accordance with the Strategy of Russia’s Maritime - Activity Development; - -Ÿ Increase the role of Russia in formulation and execution of - international maritime policy. - -Use of modern marine management models in coastal zones of Russia -will provide for additional economic growth, competitive capacity, in- -vestment attractiveness, employment, and quality of life in the coastal -provinces of the country, and will contribute to environmental protec- -tion and decrease damage from natural and man-caused disasters, and -strengthen the safety of Russia. Besides, it may prevent further “creep- -ing” privatization of Russia’s coasts. - -It is believed that, at the suggestion of the Ministry of Economic -Development, modern integrated ecosystem-based ocean management -approaches will be employed in the development of Russia’s -Government Arctic Policy Principles. The importance of these ap- -proaches is also increasingly recognized by provincial governments. -Thus in May 2007 in Murmansk at the joint session of the State -Council and the Marine Board hold by President Putin, the governor of -Murmansk Province Evdokimov said that “as far as we can see from - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -35 - -our place, each issue is treated separately and independently of others: -development of shelf deposits is one thing, the Northern Sea Route is -another one, and transport communications are a third one. No coordi- -nation exists between them”. - -The work on forming ecosystem-oriented mentality in ocean and -coastal policy and management is done through research projects and -publications. Thus, in 2007 on request from the Federal Agency of -Science and Innovation, Murmansk Marine Biological Institute carried -out a project called “Developing integrated technologies for ocean and -coastal zone management in arctic and southern seas of Russia”, which -testifies a slow increase of attention to this problem in the Government -of Russia. - -7. Conclusions -In Russia, as in the whole world, the last decades is characterized by -an increase in attention to marine activity and improvement of its man- -agement. It can be noted that the basic parameters of national marine -policy were formulated in the Russian Federation with the approval of -the Marine Doctrine. The system of executive decision-making, which -is necessary for implementation of a sound marine policy, has been -developed through the creation of the Marine Board and continues to -be improved. The Federal Target Program “World Ocean” is currently -one of the mechanisms of implementing these decisions. - -However, the aforementioned growth of activity has not yet trans- -formed into success in realizing modern integral approaches including -Ecosystem Based Ocean Management, neither in the national marine -policy nor in coastal and marine activity management practices. These -approaches have yet been applied neither in directive maritime docu- -ments not in developing marine management infrastructure. - -It’s obvious that Russia has just started its way towards the Ecosystem -Based Ocean Management. It is the very stage when the idea has not -yet been generally accepted by the society, first of all by administrative -circles, and is just expected to be. The need for integrated approaches -to marine activity management at all levels should be clearly stated -by the federal legislation, taking into account that regional and local -authorities do not fully recognize the importance of integrated ap- -proaches and are not fully able to apply them and that unstable socio- -economic situation in some regions and local communities put aside -the solution of ecological problems. - -No doubt that employment of world-acknowledged integrated ap- -proaches in ocean and coastal management practices in Russia would -help increase their effectiveness, stimulate comprehensive develop- -ment of Russia’s maritime economic sector, and contribute to -improvement of the state of marine environment. - -References -1. Aibulatov, N.A., Andreeva, E.N., Mikhaylichenko, Yu.G., Vylegjanin, A.N. Na - ture resource use in the Russian sea coastal zone. Proc. Russ. Acad. - Sci., Geogr. Ser., No. 4, 2005, pp. 13-26 (in Russian). - -2. Matishov, G.G., Denisov, V.V., Dzhenyuk, S.L. Delimitation of Large Marine - Ecosystems of the Arctic as a task of integrated geographical zoning of - oceans. Proc. Russ. Acad. Sci., Geogr. Ser., No. 3, 2006, pp. 5-18 (in Russian) - -3. Matishov, G.G. (ed.) Biology and Oceanography of the Northern Sea Route: - the Barents Sea and the Kara Sea. Murmansk Marine Biological Institute. - Moscow, Nauka, 2007, 323 p. (in Russian) - -4. Matishov, D.G., Matishov, G.G. Radioecology in Northern European Seas. - Springer, 2004, 335. -5. Mikhaylichenko, Yu.G. The Arctic Ocean // The Oceans: Key issues in Marine - Affairs. Ed. H.D.Smith. The Geojournal Library, v. 78 - Dordrecht, the - Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004, pp. 283-296. - -6. Aibulatov, N.A., Mikhaylichenko, Yu.G., Vartanov, R.V. Problems of the - integrated coastal zone management of the Russian seas. Proc. Russ. Acad. - Sci., Geogr. Ser., No. 6, 1996, pp. 94-104 (in Russian). - -7. Mikhaylichenko, Yu. G. Adaptation and mastering of integrated coastal man - agement in Russia. Proc. Russ. Acad. Sci., Geogr. Ser., No. 6, 2004, pp. 31-40 - (in Russian). - -8. Kolochkov, Yu.M., Mikhaylichenko, Yu.G., Sinetsky, V.P., Voitolovsky, G.K.. - The marine policy of the Russian Federation: its formation and realization. // - Integrated national and regional ocean policies: comparative practices - and future prospects. Eds. B. Cicin-Sain, D. VanderZwaag, M. Balgos, - - Tokyo, Japan: United Nations University Press, 2009 (in press). - -9. Matishov, G.G., Denisov, V.V., Dzhenyuk, S.L. Integrated Marine - Management of shelf seas. Proc. Russ. Acad. Sci., Geogr. Ser., No. 3, 2007, - pp. 27-40 (in Russian). - -10. The Marine Doctrine of the Russian Federation for the period to 2020. - Internet: online, http://www.scrf.gov.ru/documents/34.html (in Russian). - -11. Matishov, G.G. Large Marine Ecosystems of Russia under conditions of - climatic and anthropogenic change. In: Large Marine Ecosystems of Russia - in the Epoch of Global Change (Climate, Resources, Management). Materials - of the International Scientific Conference (Rostov-on-Don, 10-13 October - 2007). Rostov-on-Don, Southern Science Center, 2007 (in Russian). - -12. Sinetsky, V.P. Searching for regularities. Theory and practice of maritime - activity. Issue 12. Moscow, SOPS, 2007, 304 p. (in Russian). - -13. 4th Global Conference on Oceans, Coasts and Islands (Hanoi, 2008.) Internet: - online, http://www.globaloceans.org/globalconferences/2008/pdf/EBM-ICM- - PB-April4.pdf. - -14. Management of the Russian Arctic seas. Journal of Ocean & Coastal - Management, Special Issue, ed. Yu.G.Mikhaylichenko, v. 41, No. 2-3, 1998, - pp. 123-280. - -15. Andreeva, E.E., Mikhaylichenko, Yu.G., Vylegjanin, A.N. Towards a Coastal - Area Management Act of the Russian Federation. Journal of Coastal - Conservation, v. 9, No. 1, 2003, pp. 19-24. - -16. Denisov, V.V. Eco-geographical principles of sustainable resources - exploitation in the shelf seas (marine ecological geography). – Apatity: Publ. - KNC RAS, 2002, 502 p. (in Russian). - -17. UNESCO, 2006. Exit from the labyrinth. Integrated coastal management in - the Kandalaksha District, Murmansk Region of the Russian Federation. - Coastal region and small island papers 21, UNESCO, Paris, 75 p. - -18. Mikhaylichenko, Yu.G. Integrated approaches to the marine coast - development. State Management of Resources, 2009, (in press) (in Russian). -19. Mikhaylichenko, Yu.G. United World – United Ocean. State Management of - Resources, No. 11, 2007, pp. 26-35 (in Russian). - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -36 - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -37 - -Finland -Hermanni Kartakallio - -REPORT SERIES NO 129 - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -38 - -1. Introduction -Finland has no truly Arctic waters, meaning marine waters that are -geographically located in the Arctic area. However, Finland is sur- -rounded by the Baltic Sea, which is a temperate, brackish-water sea -basin sharing many characteristics and anthropogenic pressures with -the Arctic Ocean. Among them are coldness and annual ice cover, low -biological diversity and relatively simple food webs which lead to -vulnerability to pollution and overexploitation. The Baltic Sea area is -entirely covered by territorial waters and exclusive economic zones of -the nine coastal states (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, -Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Sweden). In addition, the catchment -extends to Belarus, Czech Republic, Norway, Slovakia and Ukraine. -All Finland’s marine territorial waters and exclusive economic zone -are in the Baltic Sea. - -Compared to Arctic Ocean, the Baltic Sea is small and heavily influ- -enced by human activities. Baltic Sea has a large catchment area with -85 million inhabitants. The combination of a high population density, -intensive agriculture, and other human activities, such as emissions -from industry and transport both on the sea and throughout its catch- -ment area are placing rapidly increasing pressure on marine ecosys- -tems. - -The environmental status in the Baltic Sea has drastically deteriorated -over recent decades. Of the many environmental challenges, the most -serious and difficult to tackle with conventional approaches is the -continuing eutrophication (i.e. overload of plant nutrients into the -sea) of the Baltic Sea. Inputs of hazardous substances also affect the -biodiversity of the Baltic Sea and the potential for its sustainable use. -Clear indicators of the declining environmental status of the Baltic Sea -marine environment include problems with algal blooms, dead sea- -beds and overfishing, particularly of cod. - -The Baltic Sea area has a long industrial history, which is also reflected -in long history of environmental problems. The sea area and water - -volume are relatively small compared to the human-induced pressures. -To alleviate the human-induced problems it was clear already 30 years -ago that efficient co-operation between coastal states is needed. To pro- -tect the Baltic Sea environment trough intergovernmental co-operation -the Baltic countries have adopted the Convention on the Protection of -the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki Convention). -This is the first international convention, where all sources of pollu- -tion around a sea-area were made subject to a single convention. The -Convention aims to prevent pollution from ships (including dumping), -pollution from land-based sources and pollution resulting from the -exploration and exploitation of the seabed and its subsoil. The Conven- -tion was signed in 1974 by seven coastal states and entered into force -in 1980. In order to extend, strengthen and modernize the legal regime -for the protection of the Baltic marine environment, the Convention -was renewed in 1992, signed by all coastal states and entered into -force in 2000. Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) is a governing body -of Helsinki Convention. - -In this chapter, Integrated Oceans Management in Finland is treated -in the larger context of the entire Management of the Baltic Sea under -the auspices of HELCOM. Also other relevant international processes -applying Ecosystem Approach to management of human activities -aiming at protection of the Baltic Sea environment are treated. - -2. Characteristics of the Baltic Sea - - -The Baltic Sea is the second largest brackish water basins with a sur- -face area of 415 000 km2 and volume of 21 000 km3. It is divided into -several sub-regions and a transition zone to the North Sea, consisting -of basins separated by sills. The major basins of the Baltic Sea are: 1) -The Baltic Proper, 2) The Gulf of Bothnia, 3) The Gulf of Finland, 4) -The Gulf of Riga and 5) The Danish Straits (Fig. 1). The mean depth -of the Baltic Sea is only 55 m, and in the Gulf of Finland and the Both- -nian Bay less than 40 m The surface salinity varies from 9 psu in the -southern Baltic Proper to <1 psu in the innermost parts of the Gulf of -Finland and the Bothnian Bay. On the SW coast of Finland, the surface - -Figure 1. Land-cover map over the Baltic Sea and its catchment. -Source: UNEP Baltic Environmental Atlas. - -Figure 2. Population density in the Baltic Sea catchment. -Source: UNEP Baltic Environmental Atlas. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -39 - -salinity is usually between 5 and 6 psu and in the Quark area between -4 and 5 psu. - -The catchment area covers 1.74 million km2, with the largest areas in -Sweden (25.3 %), Russia (19.0 %), Poland 17.8 %) and Finland (17.4 -%). Forests cover approximately 54 % of the catchment area, agricul- -tural land 26 %, wetlands 20 % and urban areas 4 % (Fig. 1). The ten -largest rivers account for 59 % of the total drainage area of the Baltic. -Extensive archipelagoes are typical for the northern and north-eastern -parts of the Sea, the total number of islands being around 200 000. -The population density varies from less than 1 person per km2 in the -northern and north-eastern parts of the catchment area to more than -100 persons per km2 in the southern and south-western parts (Fig. 2). -Land use patterns follow the population density with a high proportion -of arable land in the eastern, southern and western parts and predomi- -nantly wooded land in the northern part. - -The Baltic Sea is heavily influenced by river discharge, and the sea has -a positive water balance, meaning that river runoff and precipitation -exceed evaporation. The dominance of river runoff leads to estuarine -gradients in both salinity and ecosystem variables in the North—South -dimension, with fresher waters in the northern and eastern parts. - -The brackish nature of the sea is maintained by intermittent inflows of -saline North Sea water through the Danish Straits. These episodic in- -flows, typically of size 100-250 km3, renew the Baltic Sea deep water -with highly saline and oxygen-rich North Sea water. The frequency -and intensity of major inflows has decreased since mid-1970s, which -has led to serious stagnation and hypoxia in Baltic Sea deep waters. -Due to a strong choking effect of the shallow Danish Straits at the -entrance of the Baltic Sea, tidal sea-level variation is generally only -1-10 cm. In the central Baltic Proper, the water column is permanently -stratified, with the fresher surface water separated from the deeper, -more saline water by a halocline. In the shallow southwestern area, the -water column may be stratified or well mixed depending on the condi- -tions. In summer, a thermal stratification of the water column occurs at -approximately 25-30 m depth, separating the warm upper layer from -the cold intermediate water above the halocline. - -The Baltic Sea belongs to the seasonal sea-ice zone and freezes over -annually. The ice season in the Baltic Sea normally extends from -October-November to May-June, with an annual areal maximum usu- -ally in late February-early March. The inter-annual variation in the ice -cover is large, ranging from 10% to 100% of the Baltic Sea. Ice covers -an average of approximately 200 000 km², which equals almost half -the entire Baltic Sea. During mild winters the maximum extent of the -ice is well below 100 000 km². - -The Baltic Sea extends over a large geographical area in the North- -South dimension, which leads to regional differences in the annual pri- -mary production dynamics caused by variations in solar radiation. The -characteristics of ice winter also vary considerably in the sub-basins of -the Baltic Sea. Because of its very specific characteristics, the Baltic -Sea has quite unique fauna and flora comprising of both marine and -freshwater organisms. Many species are living near the limits of their -physiological tolerance range in terms of salinity. In addition, compa- -rably to the Arctic Ocean, life in the Baltic Sea requires adaptation to -low temperatures. Due to the above mentioned reasons, biodiversity -in the Baltic Sea is very low compared to temperate oceanic environ- -ments. Because of physiological constraints, cold temperatures and -long residence time of the water, the Baltic Sea ecosystem is particu- -larly sensitive to persistent hazardous substances. - -3. Commercial activity in the Baltic Sea -The Baltic Sea has always been of great importance to the people liv- -ing around it, providing continuous and predictable source of living, -as well as routes for navigation. Today, shipping is the major offshore -activity in the Baltic Sea. Other activities include construction (e.g. -planned North Stream gas pipeline from Russia to Germany and -several offshore wind-power parks) and sand and rock abstraction. In -Finland, all offshore activities expect shipping are subject to environ- -mental impact assessments and permits. Fisheries remain a valuable -part of people’s livelihood and the Baltic Sea is also a recreational -resource of growing value. - -3.1. Maritime transport -The Baltic Sea is one of the most intensely trafficked shipping areas -in the world. According to HELCOM AIS (Automatic Identification -System) data, 54 thousand vessels enter or leave the Baltic Sea annu- -ally via the Danish Straits and 40 thousand vessels enter or leave Gulf -of Finland. At any given moment there are approximately 1800 AIS -equipped vessels in the Baltic Sea. Both the number and size of the -ships (especially oil tankers) have been growing during last years and -also the amount of transported oil has increased significantly since the -year 2000. - -Many of the major oil terminals in the Baltic Sea are located in the -eastern Baltic Sea, especially in eastern part of the Gulf of Finland. Oil -transport through major oil ports in the Gulf of Finland was approxi- -mately 140 million metric tons, and the transport has been projected to -increase to 250 metric tons by 2015. Liquid bulk chemical transport in -the Baltic Sea was 9.1 million metric tons in 2004. - -Finland’s foreign trade is almost entirely dependent on maritime -transport accounting for approximately 80 % of the trade. Amount of -maritime transport in Finland was in 2005 in total approximately 90 -million metric tons, fuels and forest industry products being the most -important categories in maritime import and export, respectively. -Also passenger traffic is dominated by ship transport, the share of -ship traveling in annual travels being approximately 70 %. In 2005 17 -million passengers were carried between Finland and other countries, -mainly Estonia and Sweden. - -One quarter of the maritime transport of goods is carried out in winter -under ice-covered conditions. Finland is the only country in the -world whose all international ports are annually ice-covered. Winter -navigation in ice increases the risks of maritime transport and requires -adequate ice strengthening for ships, icebreaker assistance services and -continuous information on ice conditions. - -The Baltic Sea has been designated as a special area under MARPOL -73/78 Annex I, II, and V with far-reaching prohibitions and restric- -tions on any discharge into the sea of oil or oily mixtures, noxious -liquid substances and garbage. Also discharge of untreated sewage is -prohibited within 12 nautical miles from the nearest land. Incineration -of wastes and dumping are prohibited. In addition, The Baltic Sea has -been designated as a SOx emission control area under Annex VI of -MARPOL 73/78, and all ships navigating in the area are required to -use fuel oil with a sulphur content not exceeding 1.5 % or use special -measures to reduce sulphur emissions. In addition to the pollution -prevention measures listed above, the Baltic Sea states have agreed on -certain safety measures in the Baltic Sea area, like ship routing, ship -reporting, traffic separation schemes, pilotage and safety measures -for winter navigation. The Baltic Sea is also designed by IMO as a -Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA). - -3.2. Baltic Sea fisheries in Finland -The Baltic Sea fisheries are managed under the EU common fisher- -ies policy (CFP). Annual total allowable catches are negotiated with -the European Commission and allocated on national level. Formerly -fishing quotas were internationally agreed in the Baltic Sea Fishing -Commission, that ceased to exist beginning of 2007. The commission -is now negotiating a new bilateral fishing agreement with Russia, that -is only non-EU country of the Baltic Sea coastal states. - -The commercial Baltic Sea fisheries in Finland is mainly carried on in -the Gulf of Bothnia, Gulf of Finland and the Baltic Proper. The most -important catch species are Baltic herring, wild salmon, whitefish, -sprat and cod. Herring is mainly fished by trawling, salmon and some -other species like cod and flatfish by nets and long lines. Freshwater -species, mainly pike and perch are important catch for coastal fisheries. - -There are approximately 1300 professional fishermen fishing in the -Baltic Sea in Finland, of which full-time fishermen only 200. In total -3900 Fishing vessels are being used in offshore and coastal fishing. -The vessels are typically small, only 54 vessels being longer than 21 -meters. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -40 - -4. Instititutions and policy for management of ma- -rine waters in Finland -Finland has relevant national legislation covering all sectors related -to the management of the Baltic Sea. The national legislation is har- -monized with the existing EU legislation, as well as with the Helsinki -Convention and numerous ratified IMO and UN international conven- -tions. The responsibilities on marine affairs are organized sector-wise, -with Ministry of the Environment being responsible for environmental -protection, Ministry of Trade and Industry for economic offshore activ- -ities (including EEZ), Ministry of Transport and Communications for -shipping issues and Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry for fisheries. -No permanent administrative body for coordination of marine affairs -and integrated management exists, but coordination is done using -normal administrative procedures and channels between the sectors -and ministries. Temporary cross-sectoral working groups or bodies are -being established upon need to implement national or EU legislation. - -5. Introduction of Ecosystems-based oceans man- -agement in Baltic Sea (including Finland) - -5.1. National Action Plan for protection of the Baltic Sea and -inland waters -To enhance protection of the Baltic Sea and inland waters, Finland has -developed a national Action Plan (Ministry of the environment 2005), -which was adopted in 2005 and is currently in implementation phase. -The Action Plan is based on government Decision-In-Principle on -the protection of the Baltic Sea on 2002 (Ministry of the environment -2002). The timeframe for the implementation of the Plan is by 2015 -but many measures being implemented are continuous in nature. - -The Action plan has been jointly prepared by various administrative -sectors and other actors. The plan is organized to encompass five main -themes: 1) Combatting eutrophication, 2) Reducing risks caused by -hazardous substances, 3) Reducing the harmful impacts of the use of -the Baltic Sea, 4) preserving biodiversity and 5) Increasing environ- -mental awareness. All sections are coordinated with HELCOM activi- -ties to ensure the national Action Plan’s compatibility and applicability -for joint efforts under the auspices of HELCOM and EU in protection -of the Baltic Sea marine environment in the coming years. - -5.1.1. Combatting eutrophication -This section includes complex and multifaceted measures to reduce -nutrient loads entering the Baltic Sea and causing undesirable eu- -trophication effects, such as massive summertime blooms of harmful -filamentous cyanobacteria, increased algal production -leading to reduced water clarity and anoxic seafloor -resulting from excess sedimenting organic matter. The -measures are targeted to reducing nutrient loads from -agriculture, municipal wastewater, rural settlements and -industry. Also nutrient loads from shipping, atmospheric -loads and loads from neighboring countries are targeted. - -5.1.2. Hazardous substances -This section includes measures to reduce emissions of -hazardous substances (e.g. POPs, heavy metals) nation- -ally as well as to improve monitoring and international -co-operation. Measures include both legislative controls -and voluntary measures taken by industry. In addition -to national legislation, EU Water framework directive -targeted to the protection of inland and coastal waters is -an important tool in planning and implementing emis- -sion reductions. - -5.1.3. Reducing the harmful impacts of the use of the -Baltic Sea -The section aims at reducing risks of shipping, coastal -and recreational use and improving the preservation of -coastal areas. Main focus in shipping is on measures to -reduce risks of accidental and intentional oil and chemi- -cal spills by improving general navigational safety, -reducing deliberate illegal releases of oil by better port - -reception and surveillance as well as improving the preparedness and -response capacity to major accidental spills. Coastal and recreational -pressures are met with better spatial planning (including location of -shipping lanes), better control on sand and rock extraction from seabed -and a new national strategy for ICZM. - -5.1.4. Preserving biodiversity in marine and coastal habitats -This section aims at preserving the biological and geological diversity -of marine habitats and preventing any decline in biodiversity. Meas- -ures taken will include a programme for inventory of marine ecosys- -tems (VELMU) that aims to identify ecologically valuable marine -areas, indicate the activities that could endanger their favorable status. -In addition, co-operation in nature conservation and management of -nature reserves with neighboring countries will be improved. To pre- -vent spreading of non-indigenous species to Baltic Sea, Finland will -actively lobby within the IMO for the signing of a binding agreement -to restrict ballast water emissions and work within IMO and HELCOM -to promote better technology in that particular area. - -5.2. HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan -HELCOM has a central role in implementation of Ecosystem Ap- -proach in management of the Baltic Sea. The Ecosystem Approach -was adopted by joint OSPAR/HELCOM ministerial meeting in 2003 -and HELCOM subsequent actions will be based on it. HELCOM -has developed a vision of healthy Baltic Sea, adjacent goals on four -priority areas (mentioned below & Fig. 3) and system of Ecological -Objectives to measure the progress towards these goals, which were -approved in 2005. HELCOM 2007, Backer & Leppänen 2008). - -Previous HELCOM efforts have led to noticeable improvements in -many areas, for example concerning the inputs of nutrients HELCOM -has already achieved a 40% reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus -discharges (from sources in the catchment area) and likewise a 40% -decrease as regards emissions of nitrogen to the air, as well as a -50% reduction in discharges of 46 hazardous substances. However, -further progress cannot be achieved using only the old administrative -measures and it is clear that a completely different approach will be -required to restore good ecological status of the Baltic Sea. Moreover, -the remaining challenges are more difficult than earlier obstacles. Re- -ductions of nutrient inputs have so far mainly been achieved by target- -ing major point sources, such as sewage treatment plants and industry. -In the future diffuse sources of nutrients including over-fertilised -agricultural lands need to be targeted, including developing economies -in the eastern Baltic Sea area. - -Figure 3. HELCOM Vision, Goals and system of ecological objectives. Source: HELCOM 2007 - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -41 - -HELCOM has developed an ambitious strategy to restore the good -ecological status of the Baltic Sea, called the Baltic Sea Action Plan -(BSAP). The plan was approved by HELCOM countries in a ministe- -rial meeting in Krakow, Poland on 15th November 2007. With BSAP -HELCOM continues its central role in marine environmental protec- -tion in the Baltic Sea area. As one of the first schemes to implement -the ecosystem approach to the management of human activities, BSAP -will lead to profound, innovative changes in the ways the marine envi- -ronment in the Baltic Sea region is managed. BSAP enables wide-scale -and decisive actions to achieve healthy marine environment, with good -ecological status and supporting a wide range of sustainable human -activities. This vision sets a very ambitious target of achieving a good -ecological status for the Baltic Sea by 2021. BSAP is essentially a joint -regional policy, with common objectives, common actions, and com- -mon obligations. Successful implementation of the plan will largely -depend on how all the coastal countries can co-operate to achieve the -goal of a healthy Baltic marine environment. - -As the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive foresees such an -action plan for each European marine eco-region, including the Baltic -Sea, BSAP has been heralded as a pilot project for European seas in -the context of the proposed directive. The EU has described HEL- -COM’s plan as instrumental to the successful implementation of the -new EU Marine Strategy in the region. Thus HELCOM will likely -have a central role in the implementation of EU Marine Strategy -Framework Directive in the Baltic Sea in the future. In developing the -action plan, HELCOM has also taken into account the environmental -provisions of the Maritime Doctrine of the Russian Federation. Close -co-operation with Russia, which is the only HELCOM country outside -the EU in the Baltic Sea region, is crucial for any further progress to be -made in rescuing the troubled Baltic marine environment. HELCOM’s -innovative strategy will also be instrumental to the implementation -of the renewed Northern Dimension policy, the Baltic Sea regional -aspects of the EU-Russian Environmental Dialogue, and the Nordic -Environmental Action Plan. - -BSAP is clearly different from previous HELCOM programmes of -action in that it is based on a clear set of Ecological Objectives defined -to reflect a jointly agreed vision of a healthy Baltic Sea. Example -objectives include clear water, an end to excessive algal blooms, and -viable populations of species. Targets for ‘good ecological status’ are -to be based on the best available scientific knowledge. The timeframe -for reaching the targets will be a political decision. With the ecosystem -approach, the protection of the marine environment is no longer seen -as an event-driven pollution reduction approach to be taken sector- -by-sector. Instead, the plan applies adaptive management of human -actions employing cost-efficient solutions with the responsiveness of -the marine environment as the starting point. - -The plan has four main segments, according to the four main environ- -mental priorities: combating eutrophication, curbing inputs of hazard- -ous substances, ensuring maritime safety, and halting habitat destruc- -tion and the ongoing decline in biodiversity. A number of indicators -will be selected for each objective, so that progress towards the desired -‘good ecological status’ can be measured. These ecological objectives -and their associated indicators will be used to evaluate the effective- -ness of existing environmental measures, and to identify where more -measures are needed. The socio-economic component of BSAP evalu- -ates the benefit of the measures proposed (including cost-effectiveness -and cost-benefit analyses) compared to the socio-economic cost of -inaction leading to further degradation of marine environment. - -BSAP distinguishes between measures that can be implemented at re- -gional or national level, and measures that can only be implemented at -EU level (e.g. Common Fisheries Policy, Common Agricultural Policy, -controls over the marketing and use of chemicals) or globally (e.g. the -shipping controls defined by the International Maritime Organisation). -Actions that need to be taken at European or global level must be ad- -dressed by HELCOM through the related international forums. -BSAP has been prepared with the active participation of all major -stakeholder groups in the region, including governments, industry and -NGOs, as well as individual citizens living on the shores of the Baltic -Sea. The participation included two open stakeholder conferences in -2006, where elaboration of the plan was officially started and 2007, -where the first draft set of actions to be included was unveiled. Stake- - -holder conferences will continue during implementation of the plan. -Such participation scheme ensures that the plan is relevant and can be -effectively implemented in practice. - -5.3. Relevant EU Legislation and Policies in Finland -Valid EU legislation partly directed towards better protection and -management of the marine environment is in place and transposed -to national legislation or in preparatory phase. This EU legislation -includes Nitrates Directive, Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, -Habitats Directive, Water Framework Directive, Integrated Pollu- -tion Prevention and Control Directive and proposed Marine Strategy -Framework Directive. - -In addition to the relevant EU legislation that has been transposed to -national legislation, EU common policies regulate some marine-related -affairs on Community level. The most important of them are already -above mentioned Common Fisheries Policy and Common Agricul- -tural Policy. The Commission is currently preparing also a Common -Maritime Policy. - -6. EU Marine Strategy and Marine Strategy -Framework Directive -European Union has adopted an ambitious strategy to protect more -effectively the marine environment of EU seas, with an aim to -achieve good environmental status by 2021. The Marine Strategy will -constitute the environmental pillar of the future EU maritime policy. -The adjacent Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSD, Directive -2008/56/EC) has entered into force in July 2008. - -The Directive is using Ecosystem Approach to management and aims -to holistic and well coordinated management and protection of EU -seas. MSD will establish European Marine Regions on the basis of -geographical and environmental criteria (the Baltic Sea, NE Atlantic, -the Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea) and applies to marine waters under -sovereignty and jurisdiction of the EU member states. Each member -state is required to develop a detailed marine strategy for its waters -in close co-operation with other member states and third states in the -region (e.g. with Russia in the Baltic Sea). - -The Marine Strategies will contain a detailed assessment of the state -of the environment, a definition of “good environmental status” at -regional level and the establishment of clear environmental targets and -monitoring programmes. The directive will define generic descriptors -for “Good Environmental Status”. These descriptors are to be ”disas- -sembled” into indicators in Marine Regions. To support member states, -European Environmental Agency (EEA) is preparing a pan-european -set of indicators that can be used in the assessments. Each member -state will draw up a programme of cost-effective measures. Impact as- -sessments, including detailed cost-benefit analysis of the measures pro- -posed, will be required prior to the introduction of any new measure. -Where it would be impossible for a member state to achieve the level -of ambition of the environmental targets set, special areas and situ- -ations will be identified in order to devise specific measures tailored -to their particular contexts. The Marine Strategy is consistent with -EU water framework directive from 2000 which requires that surface -freshwater and ground water bodies achieve a good ecological status -by 2015 and that the first review of the River Basin Management Plan -should take place in 2021. - -The original MSD proposal, prepared by the European Commission -was released in October 2005. The proposal was scrutinized in the -European Council and European Parliament in 2006. Political agree- -ment in the European Council was attained in December 2006 under -the Finnish Presidency, and after negotiations and amedments by the -European Parliament. the directive was adopted on June 17th 2008 and -entered into force in July 2008. Directive texts are available electroni- -cally at Eur-Lex service (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexU- -riServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008L0056:EN:NOT). - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -42 - -7. Conclusions -Finland is surrounded by the Baltic Sea, which is a temperate, brack- -ish-water sea basin sharing many characteristics and anthropogenic -pressures with the Arctic Ocean. Compared to Arctic Ocean, the Baltic -Sea is small and heavily influenced by human activities. -Shipping is the major offshore activity in the Baltic Sea and also most -of Finland’s foreign trade is dependent on it. Other activities include -construction and sand and rock abstraction. In Finland, all offshore -activities expect shipping are subject to environmental impact as- -sessments and permits. Fisheries remain a valuable part of people’s -livelihood and the Baltic Sea is also a recreational resource of growing -value. - -The environmental status in the Baltic Sea has drastically deteriorated -over recent decades. Of the many environmental challenges, the most -serious and difficult to tackle with conventional approaches is the -continuing eutrophication (i.e. overload of plant nutrients into the sea). -Inputs of hazardous substances also affect the biodiversity of the Baltic -Sea and the potential for its sustainable use. Clear indicators of the -declining environmental status of the Baltic Sea marine environment -include problems with algal blooms, dead sea-beds and overfishing. -To protect the Baltic Sea environment trough intergovernmental co- -operation the Baltic countries have adopted the Helsinki Convention. -The Convention aims to prevent pollution from ships (including dump- -ing), pollution from land-based sources and pollution resulting from -the exploration and exploitation of the seabed and its subsoil. Helsinki -Commission (HELCOM) is a governing body of Helsinki Convention. -In this chapter, Integrated Oceans Management in Finland is treated -in the larger context of the Management of the human actions in the -entire Baltic Sea under the auspices of HELCOM. Also other relevant -international processes applying Ecosystem Approach to management -of human activities aiming at protection of the Baltic Sea environment -are treated. - -Finland has relevant national legislation covering all sectors related -to the management of the Baltic Sea. The national legislation is har- -monized with the existing EU legislation, as well as with the Helsinki -Convention and numerous ratified IMO and UN international conven- -tions. The responsibilities on marine affairs are organized sector-wise, -with Ministry of the Environment being responsible for environmental -protection, Ministry of Trade and Industry for economic offshore -activities (including EEZ), Ministry of Transport and Communica- -tions for shipping issues and Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry -for fisheries. No permanent administrative body for coordination of -marine affairs and integrated management exists, but coordination is -done using normal administrative procedures and channels between -the sectors and ministries. - -To enhance protection of the Baltic Sea and inland waters, Finland has -developed a national Action Plan, which was adopted in 2005 and is -currently in implementation phase. The plan is organized to encompass -five main themes: 1) Combatting eutrophication, 2) Reducing risks -caused by hazardous substances, 3) Reducing the harmful impacts of -the use of the Baltic Sea, 4) preserving biodiversity and 5) Increasing -environmental awareness. All sections are coordinated with HELCOM -activities to ensure the national Action Plan’s compatibility and ap- -plicability for joint efforts under the auspices of HELCOM and EU in -protection of the Baltic Sea marine environment in the coming years. -HELCOM has developed an ambitious strategy to restore the good -ecological status of the Baltic Sea, called the Baltic Sea Action Plan -(BSAP). The plan was approved by HELCOM countries in a ministe- -rial meeting in Krakow, Poland on 15th November 2007. With BSAP -HELCOM continues its central role in marine environmental protec- -tion in the Baltic Sea area. As one of the first schemes to implement -the ecosystem approach to the management of human activities, BSAP -will lead to profound, innovative changes in the ways the marine envi- -ronment in the Baltic Sea region is managed. BSAP enables wide-scale -and decisive actions to achieve healthy marine environment, with good -ecological status and supporting a wide range of sustainable human -activities. This vision sets a very ambitious target of achieving a good -ecological status for the Baltic Sea by 2021. BSAP is essentially a joint - -regional policy, with common objectives, common actions, and com- -mon obligations. Successful implementation of the plan will largely -depend on how all the coastal countries can co-operate to achieve the -goal of a healthy Baltic marine environment. - -The European Union has adopted an ambitious strategy to protect -more effectively the marine environment of EU seas, with an aim to -achieve good environmental status by 2021. The Marine Strategy will -constitute the environmental pillar of the future EU maritime policy. -The adjacent Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSD) has been -adopted and entered into force in July 2008. The Directive is using -Ecosystem Approach to management and aims to holistic and well -coordinated management and protection of EU seas. - -MSD will establish European Marine Regions on the basis of geo- -graphical and environmental criteria (the Baltic Sea, NE Atlantic, the -Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea) and applies to marine waters under -sovereignty and jurisdiction of the EU member states. Each member -state is required to develop a detailed marine strategy for its waters -in close co-operation with other member states and third states in the -region (e.g. with Russia in the Baltic Sea). Implementation of national -action plan and BSAP are coherent with the requirements of MSD and -aimed at to be a part of MSD implementation in the future. - -In conclusion, Finland, by harmonized national, HELCOM and EU -ecosystem approach-based processes now has appropriate framework -for ecosystem-based management of human actions relevant to the -marine environment. Implementation of HELCOM Baltic Sea Action -Plan and MSD is just in initial phase and evaluation of these new -instruments remains a future task. - -References -HELCOM (2007) HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan. 103 pp. ISBN 979-952- -923231-4. ISBN 978-952-92-3232-1 (PDF). Available at www.helcom.fi -Backer H, Leppänen J-M (2008) The HELCOM system of a vision, strategic -goals and ecological objectives: implementing an ecosystem approach to the -management of human activities in the Baltic Sea. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw -Ecosyst 18:321-334. - -Ministry of the Environment (2005) Action Plan for the Protection of the Baltic -Sea and Inland Watercourse. The Finnish Environment 771en, Environmental -Protection, p.51. URN:ISBN:952-11-2294-3. ISBN 952-11-2294-3 (PDF). Also -available in print (952-11-2293-5). - -Ministry of the Environment (2002) Finland´s Programme for the Protection -of the Baltic Sea The Finnish Government´s decision-in-principle. The Finnish -Environment 570, Environmental Protection, p. 20. ISBN 952-11-1621-8 (PDF). -Also available in print (952-11-1204-2). - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -43 - -Norway and Integrated Oceans -Management – the Case of the -Barents Sea - -Alf Håkon Hoel -University of Tromsø/Norwegian Polar Institute - -Cecilie H. von Quillfeldt -Norwegian Polar Institute - -Erik Olsen -Institute of Marine Research - -REPORT SERIES NO 129 - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -44 - -1. Introduction -In 2002, the Norwegian Storting (parliament) adopted a White paper -laying out the future oceans policy of the country (St.meld. nr. 12, -2001-2002). The White paper signaled the introduction of integrated -oceans management, based on an ecosystems approach. The de- -velopment of integrated oceans management plans is central to the -implementation of this policy, and the first such management plan for -a Norwegian sea area, the Integrated Management of the Marine Envi- -ronment of the Barents Sea and the Sea Areas off the Lofoten Islands -(BSIMP) was adopted in 2006. - -The waters under Norwegian jurisdiction range from 55° N latitude -in the North Sea to 85° N latitude north of the Svalbard archipelago -in the Arctic Ocean a distance of more than 3300 kilometers. 1 More -than two — thirds of the waters under Norwegian jurisdiction are -north of the Arctic Circle. The Norwegian Sea borders the Barents -Sea off northern North Norway and Russia to the east (Fig. 1– map). -About 10% of Norway´s population of 4,7 million people live in the -three northern counties: Nordland, Troms and Finnmark. The Svalbard -archipelago is part of the Kingdom of Norway. Due to the influence of -the Atlantic current, the climate in the Norwegian Arctic is more be- -nign than at corresponding latitudes in North America (Loeng, 1991). - -This chapter addresses the development, introduction and implementa- -tion of the Integrated Management of the Marine Environment of the -Barents Sea and the Sea Areas off the Lofoten Islands (BSIMP) in the -context of the overall Norwegian oceans policy. The management plan -area includes the coastal ecosystems off North Norway and parts of the -Norwegian Sea, in addition to the Norwegian part of the Barents Sea. -The Barents Sea falls partly under Norwegian, partly under Russian -jurisdiction. An area in the central Barents Sea is beyond 200 nautical -miles and therefore high seas. - -2. Background -The Barents Sea – Lofoten area is a clean, rich marine area of major -economic significance for Norway. It is a nursery area for fish stocks -that provide the basis for significant fisheries and food for important -seabird colonies. A number of marine mammal populations live in -the region. The area has a rich benthic fauna including coral reefs and -sponge communities (Føyn, et al, 2002). - -The Barents Sea–Lofoten area is crossed by important transport routes, -and is believed to contain commercially viable petroleum resources. In -recent years there has been considerable growth in tourism. The fisher- -ies in the area are internationally significant and play an important role -in the economy of North Norway. The sea and the fisheries are vital -for coastal communities, and this is reflected in the ways of life and -identity of the population. - -The ecosystem -The components of the ecosystems in the Barents Sea–Lofoten area -are closely linked. For a more detailed description see Føyn, et al. -2002. Seabirds transfer nutrients from marine to terrestrial ecosystems. -Fish live on the plankton production, and transfer nutrients between -marine ecosystems as they migrate from the open sea to coastal waters. -The area covered by the management plan consists of several naturally -delimited ecosystems that interact and influence each other: -the Barents Sea itself, the rest of the area covered by the management -plan (Fig. 1), which can be divided into three ecosystems: the area -south of Tromsøflaket, the area around Svalbard, and parts of the deep- -sea areas of the Norwegian Sea. - -There are large natural fluctuations in environmental conditions -throughout this area, for example in the inflow of Atlantic water. -Economic activities create anthropogenic pressures on the marine -ecosystems, as do external pressures such as long-range transboundary -pollution. Other important potential stress factors include oil pollution -and the spread of alien species. - -The Barents Sea is relatively shallow, with an average depth of 230 -m. It is bordered in the west by the Norwegian Sea, which is more -than 2500 m deep, and in the east by the coast of Novaya Zemlya, and -stretches from the Norwegian and Russian coasts at its southern edge -to about 80°N. It covers an area of about 1.4 million km2.. Several ma- -jor fish stocks in the North-east Atlantic spend part of their life cycle in -the Barents Sea. - -The inflow of warm Atlantic water supports high biological produc- -tivity and keeps large parts of the Barents Sea ice-free year-round. -Because the water is shallow, vertical mixing normally goes down to -the bottom in winter, bringing nutrients up to the productive surface -waters where they sustain biological production in spring. Variations -in environmental conditions result in large seasonal and inter-annual -fluctuations in the production of phyto- and zooplankton and therefore -in the food for fish, seabirds and marine mammals. Therefore, recruit- -ment to these populations varies from year to year. The food chains in -the Barents Sea are often relatively short, with few but robust species -that are well adapted to the environment. There are large populations -of individual species, and they may have wide distribution ranges. -Even though individual species are robust, the environmental press- -ures may have significant impact when food chains are short. Some -fish species, such as herring and cod, spend parts of the year or part -of their life cycle in the Barents Sea and the rest along the Norwegian -mainland coast and in the Norwegian Sea. For polar cod and capelin, -the Barents Sea is a spawning ground, nursery area and feeding area. -When the inflow of Atlantic water is high, the temperature in the -Barents Sea rises. This allows fish such as herring and cod and other -marine organizms whose distribution to a certain degree is limited by -low temperatures to expand their ranges. Cooling of the Barents Sea, -on the other hand, is favorable for capelin. - -The marginal ice zone can be considered as a separate ecosystem that -retreats gradually northwards in spring and summer. This creates par- -ticularly favorable conditions for phyto- and zooplankton production. -Capelin feed on these organisms, and transport energy from biological -production in the marginal ice zone to coastal waters further south -where they spawn. Thus, seabirds and other species associated with -coastal areas also benefit from production in the northern parts of the -Barents Sea. - -The high production of plankton and fish in the Barents Sea supports -some of the largest seabird colonies in the world, totally about 25 mil- -lion birds. Most of these migrate out of the region in winter. A number -of marine mammals forage in the Barents Sea and calve in temperate -waters further south (minke whale, humpback whale, fin whale), while -some spend their whole lives in the Arctic (beluga whale, narwhal). -The large populations of harp seal and minke whales consume consid- -erable quantities of cod, herring and capelin. Russian scientists have -estimated that the total biomass of benthic animals in the Barents Sea -is about 150 million tons, with an annual production of 25–30 million -tons. About 3000 marine species have been recorded. Relatively little -is known about the distribution of benthic animals. Sponges and corals -dominate the seabed in certain areas. - -Commercial activities -The main commercial activity of the management plan area is fisher- -ies. The Barents Sea is one of the world’s most important fishing areas. -Fishing of North-east Arctic cod, North-east Arctic haddock, capelin, -herring, tusk, ling, wolf-fish, deep-sea redfish, North-east Atlantic -Greenland halibut and shrimp and king crab trawling is/had been car- -ried out in the area. Most fisheries in the Barents Sea are sustainable -(IMR 2008:11). North-east Arctic cod (510 000 tons in 2007 is the -most important fishery. Overfishing has been substantial, but has been -declining since 2006. Overfishing of biological resources has negative -consequences for the ecosystems of which those resources are integral -parts. In addition, benthic communities may be disturbed by trawls. -Also, by-catches of seabirds and marine mammals can be a problem in -certain areas and at certain times of year. - -Minke whales (the quota for 2008 was 900 animals in the North- -eastern stock area, of which 535 were caught,) is the only species of -whale hunted for commercial purposes in the management plan area. -Some seals (common, grey, bearded and ringed) where some indi- - -1 In addition, the Jan Mayen Island to the north of Iceland and east of Greenland is - under Norwegian sovereignty. Norway is the only country with territorial interests in - both the Arctic and the Antarctic. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -45 - -viduals are taken by local hunters and residents in the settlements of -Svalbard and northern Norway. The commercial hunting grounds for -harp and hooded seals lie outside the management plan area. - -Petroleum-related activities are growing in the management plan -area. Seismic surveys and exploration drilling for oil and gas began in -1980. Up to 2008, about 80 exploration and appraisal wells have been -drilled. Discoveries are mainly gas, but also some oil. The gas and -condensate field “Snøhvit” northwest of Hammerfest came on stream -in 2007. The Ministry of Petroleum and Energy expect to receive a -plan for the development of the oil field Goliat in 2009. The Barents -Sea North of 74° 30’ is not open for petroleum prospecting. - -Also transportation is a major activity in the management plan area. -Traffic involving fishing vessels, cargo vessels and passenger ships -can have adverse impacts on the environment through operational -discharges to water and air, releases of pollutants from anti-fouling -systems, noise, the introduction of alien species via ballast water or -attached to hulls and local discharges from zinc anodes in ballast -tanks. In addition, an increase in maritime transport will increase the -risk of accidental spills of oil and chemicals. From 2002 to 2020, it -is estimated that the total distance sailed will rise by 27.7 per cent for -cargo ships, 22.7 per cent for passenger ships and 9.4 per cent for fish- -ing vessels. - -Tourism has its most important effects on land. Marine systems can -however also be affected, for example by disturbance of seabird nest- -ing areas and moulting and birthing sites for seals. Cultural remains -associated with old hunting sites exist in these areas. According to the -office of the Governor of Svalbard, the total number of tourist landing -sites outside the settlements and Isfjorden has increased from 56 in -1996 to 168 in 2007. - -The scale and frequency of pressure factors and the vulnerability of the -environment will determine the extent of the impacts. - -3. Institutions and policy -Regulatory frameworks have been developed for most marine policy -areas with the establishment of ministries, agencies, and legislation in -the period after World War II. The domestic oceans regime is based on -the 1976 Economic Zone Act, which extends jurisdiction over living -marine resources to 200 nautical miles and reserves the utilization of -those resources for Norwegian vessels. The continental shelf resources -and their exploitation are regulated by the 1996 Petroleum Act. Still -other acts elaborate the regulatory framework for petroleum resources, -fisheries, and the environment. The acts provide for enabling legisla- -tion to facilitate the adaptation of regulations to changing circum- -stances. - -The EEZ off the Norwegian mainland was established on 1 January -in 1977 (Fig. 1). In 1978 a 200 nautical mile fisheries protection zone -was established around Svalbard. The extension of jurisdiction brought -jurisdictional issues with neighboring countries. In the Barents Sea, -talks to establish a boundary there have been held between Norway -and Russia since the mid-1970s.2 A second jurisdictional issue con- -cerns the fishery protection zone around Svalbard. - -Most of the Norwegian fisheries occur on stocks that are shared with -other countries. International cooperation is therefore critical to their -management. A number of bi- and multilateral agreements have -therefore been negotiated with neighboring countries to provide for -the management of shared fish stocks, the most important of which -are those with Russia and the EU. Norway is also party to the North -East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), which manages the -fisheries at the high seas in the region. The Joint Norwegian-Russian -Fisheries Commission meets annually to agree on total allowable -catches (TACs) of shared stocks and on the allocation of quotas for the -major fisheries in the Barents Sea. About ten per cent of the total quota -is traded to third countries. The cooperation also includes fisheries - -research and enforcement of fisheries regulations. The Commission in -2002 adopted a management strategy with multi-annual quotas based -on a precautionary approach. -The fisheries policy include limits to access to fisheries, restrictions on -catches (quotas), and technical regulations on fishing gear to be used -and fishing seasons and areas. Important aspects are discard bans and -flexible closures of areas with juvenile fish. There are virtually no open -access fisheries in Norway. The enforcement of fisheries regulations -occurs both at sea and when the fish is landed. The Coast Guard (a -service in the Navy) is responsible for inspecting fishing vessels at sea. -The sales organizations buying the fish and the Directorate of Fisheries -control landings. - -IUU fishing is a challenge to enforcement of fisheries regulations - -in Norway, as elsewhere.3 Ships flying flags of convenience and -transshipment of cargo on the high seas make enforcement difficult. -Increased international cooperation on enforcement has been important -in coming to grips with this. - -The management of marine mammals is vested in the International -Whaling Commission (IWC), the North Atlantic Marine Mammals -Commission (NAMMCO), and the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries -Commission. Controversies over whether whales should be subject to -harvest have paralyzed the IWC, which has not set quotas for commer- -cial fisheries for more than two decades. Since 1993 Norway has set -unilateral quotas for the take of minke whales on the basis of the work -in the IWC Scientific Committee. - -As with fisheries, maritime transport is to a large extent regulated by -international rules that provides a framework for how Norway can -regulate transport activities in its waters. The Coastal Administration -has the operational responsibility for the governmental emergency -response system for acute pollution. It is also tasked with ensuring -that the damage-reducing measures implemented by other bodies are -adequate. - -The chief objective of the Norwegian petroleum policy is to maximize -the returns from the industry for the good of the society. National -control over the industry, the development of a domestic petroleum -industry, and participation by the state are key elements of the policy. -The development of a comprehensive institutional framework has -been critical to the achievement of the objectives. The 1996 Petroleum -Act provides for a licensing system that is the core of the regulatory -regime. The act empowers the government to regulate all aspects of -the industry. - -Petroleum activities are subject to a strict regulatory regime: Explora- -tory drilling has to be approved by the Petroleum Directorate and the -State Pollution Control Authority. New fields to be developed and -the laying of pipelines require the consent of parliament or govern- -ment, depending on the scale of the project. Also, operators have to -undertake environmental and socio-economic assessments and subject -them to public hearings before government approval is granted. The -petroleum industry is a major contributor of emissions to air. For -CO2, 28 per cent of the national emissions stem from the petroleum -industry’s production of energy at the petroleum installations. In 1991 -Norway introduced a CO2 tax, aimed at reducing emissions. The 1981 -Pollution Control Act imposes a number of restrictions on emissions -and discharges. - -The petroleum industry is taxed in the same way as other businesses, -i.e. a 28 per cent tax on net income. A special tax of 50 per cent, -justified by the super-profitability from resource rent, is levied on top -of that. The income from the petroleum activities is of great signifi- -cance to the public finances. To maintain the level of revenue gener- -ated by the industry and the activity in associated industries, new fields -have to be found and brought into operation at regular intervals. The -southern part of the Norwegian continental shelf is now relatively well -explored, and activity is therefore moving northwards in search of new -fields. Developments in technology are making operations in Arctic - -2 The entire Barents Sea is a continental shelf area and will eventually be divided - between Russia and Norway. As to the waters, there is an enclave of the high seas - known as the “Barents Sea Loophole.” - -3 In recent years, IUU fishing in the Barents Seas is estimated to have been 100,000 - tons or more annually. Since 2006 these figures have been declining and are now a - fraction of that. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -46 - -waters feasible. The price of oil and gas is also an important factor in -this regard. - -Environmental concerns are generally considered an important issue -in the Norwegian polity. Ministries are required to check their policies -against specific environmental standards. The constitution of Norway - -explicitly states the right to a good environment4 The Ministry of the -Environment has several designated agencies,5 and several important -Acts regulate use and protection of the marine environment. The -primary international environmental agreements are the OSPAR -cooperation on the marine environment in the north-east Atlantic -and the Kyoto Protocol, as well as IMO-agreements and the London -Dumping Convention. Organic compounds, oil, and chemicals used in -petroleum production are the most significant discharges to the sea in -Norwegian waters. Domestic regulation of such emissions is largely -mandated by OSPAR, and includes the objective of zero harmful -discharges to the sea. - -4. The process of introducing ecosystem-based -oceans management -During the debate on the white paper on the marine environment -(Report No. 12 (2001–2002) Protecting the Riches of the Sea, the -Storting endorsed the need for integrated management of Norwegian -maritime areas based on the ecosystem approach. This is in line with -international developments in regional cooperation in the north-east -Atlantic within the framework of OSPAR, the Arctic Council, and the -North Sea Conferences. - -The decision-making process and stakeholder involvement -All major policy sectors in the marine realms have strong international -dimensions. The most significant pollution problems in Norway are -brought from abroad by ocean currents and winds. Major fish stocks -are shared with other countries. And due to the small domestic market, -fisheries products as well petroleum production have to be exported. -The international aspects of marine policy in Norway can therefore -hardly be overstated. - -Norway is a parliamentary democracy. The government remains in -power as long as it has the confidence of the majority in parliament, -the “Storting”. Its political system includes a strong tradition for -participation of organized interests in the formulation and execution of -public policies (Olsen 1983), a comparatively high degree of centrali- -zation of decision-making power, and a relatively consensual political -process (Heidar 2001) where the differences between political parties -may be difficult to discern as viewed from abroad. The implication is -that policy-making in the marine sectors tends to involve interests that -are likely to be affected by decisions, which is also a legal require- -ment. The ministries are the hubs of decision-making, with little or no -powers devolved to regions.6 - -The Saami Parliament has entered into a consultation agreement with -the Norwegian government. This mandates a consultation procedure -on all matters pertaining to Saami culture, and requires that its Parlia- -ment should have real influence on decisions affecting its remit. The -Saami Parliament is however not satisfied with the actual use of the -procedure, and has noted that there were no consultations on the Bar- -ents Sea Management Plan.7 It was however part of the regular hearing -process in advance of the adoption of the plan. Following the adoption -of the plan the Saami Parliament has been invited to the meetings of -the Reference Group that considers the implementation of the -management plan. - -Marine issues are important in the domestic political debate, due -to their economic significance and political salience. In addition to -economic interests, non-state actors such as environmental non- -governmental organizations (NGOs), regional political bodies, and in- -digenous groups are increasingly engaged in issues relating to marine -policies. This is a development that tends to bring increased levels of -controversy. In fisheries, stakeholders are involved in decision-making -through a Regulatory Meeting arranged regularly by the Fisheries -Directorate. - -An important part of the decision-making context is that as the -management plan was developed, new legislation was developed -pertaining to ocean resources and biodiversity conservation, respec- -tively. The new Oceans Resources Act was adopted by the Storting -in May 2008. The act consolidates all relevant provisions for the -management of living marine resources into a single act, thereby -facilitating its implementation. Its overall objective is to ensure an -economically and ecologically sustainable management of wild marine -living resources (including genetic resources) by sustainable use and -long-term conservation of the resources. The act states that the natural -resources are the property of the state as long as they are in the wild. -The act also lists principles and concerns to be taken into considera- -tion in the management of resources, among them the precautionary -approach, an ecosystem-based approach, implementation of inter- -national law, transparency in decision-making, and regard for the -Saami culture. The act makes explicit the legal basis for marine -protected areas. It also provides that in implementing an ecosystem- -based approach, precise resource management objectives can be -established. The act therefore provides a more modern and appropriate -basis for the management plan than previous legislation. - -A new act on biodiversity conservation is also in the works, intended -to be submitted to parliament in 2009. The principle of sustainable -use is central to the law, and it is to be implemented through the -establishment of conservation objectives for nature types and species, -and through the enactment of certain environmental principles: the -precautionary principle, the polluter pays principle, and the principle -of responsible technologies and practices. - -Knowledge -In fisheries, the basis for resource management is the scientific advice -provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea -(ICES). Based on inputs from research institutions in the member -countries, ICES assess the status of fish stocks and marine ecosystems -and provides scientific advice on conservation measures to member -states and regional fisheries management organizations. The primary -marine research institution in Norway is the Institute of Marine Re- -search. - -In the context of the development of the Management Plan for the -Barents Sea the task of knowledge development was complex and de- -manding. Large and challenging knowledge gaps were identified that -have to be filled to enable the design and long-term implementation -of scientifically sound and adequate monitoring of essential elements -of the Barents Sea ecosystem. The knowledge gaps were categorized -as monitoring, research and mapping needs. During the process there -have been a unanimous call for the development and implementation -of better procedures for how new knowledge gaps can be identified, -prioritized and filled as well as finding good procedures for handling -scientific uncertainty. - -Interagency cooperation and the development of the plan -A multi-sector approach lies at the core of the ecosystem approach, -as multiple concerns and economic sectors have to be coordinated -and reconciled. Work on the management plan started in 2002 after -the adoption of the white paper on the marine environment, and was -organized through an inter-ministerial Steering Committee chaired by -the Ministry of the Environment. Other members of the Steering Com- -mittee were the Ministry of Labor and Social Inclusion (from June -2005), the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, the Ministry of -Trade and Industry (from November 2005), the Ministry of Petroleum -and Energy and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The analytical work -started in 2002, and was carried out by government directorates and -institutions under the four Ministries as well as some external institu- -tions. The Institute of Marine Research and the Norwegian Polar Insti- -tute were leading several of the assessments and analyses. Fig. 2 gives -an overview of the development process, which essentially evolved -through three phases. - -The initial scoping phase entailed the production of status reports for -various economic sectors in the region, valuable areas, the - -4 Paragraph 100b of the 1814 Constitution. Norges Riges Grundlov , Eidsvoild 17de Mai - 1814. Ministry of Justice, Oslo. - -5 These agencies include pollution control, nature management and polar affairs. - -6 Coastal zone planning is an exception. The municipal authorities have substantial - powers to plan and execute local policies regarding use of the coastal zone. - -7 The Saami Parlimament´s supplementary report regarding the ILO Convention no. 169, - Resolution 026/08. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -47 - -socio-economic situation, and the environment and natural resources. -The second phase consisted of assessments of potential impacts of -petroleum activities, shipping, and fisheries, as well as the impact -of external stressors as for example climate change. This phase also -entailed consultation with relevant stakeholders. The final phase in the -development of the plan included aggregate analyses, assessing the -total impact on the environment, identifying valuable and vulnerable -areas, defining knowledge gaps, and the setting of management goals. -Also, in this phase a stakeholder conference with broad participation -was held. - -A key challenge during the development of the plan was to integrate -work across institutional sector barriers at both ministry and agency -levels. Success depended in large measure on allowing non-specialists -to have a say in how a specific sector was to be managed, or how to -assess the impact of that sector in relation to the ecosystem. This was a -difficult process, requiring care and time, but in the end it succeeded. - -Adoption of the plan -The Management Plan for the Barents Sea was presented to the Stort- -ing as a government white paper in March 2006 (Report No. 8 -(2005-2006) to the Storting), and was adopted in June the same year. -While the process leading up to the adoption of the plan was sur- -rounded by some controversy over the extent of limitations to be -placed on petroleum-related activities in the plan area, the actual work -of developing the plan, which implied cross-sector collaboration, was -relatively uncontroversial. - -Geographical area -The Management plan area covers the Norwegian Economic Zone and -the fisheries protection zone around Svalbard (Fig. 1), limited to the -east by the border with Russia. The plan area extends southwest to in- -clude the Lofoten area, and west past the continental shelf break in the -Norwegian Sea. The areas closer than 1 nautical mile to shore are to -be managed according to the EU Water Management directive. Inside -the area the plan aims to lay the overall foundations for the integrated -management of all human activities, in order to ensure the continued -health and safety of the entire marine ecosystem and the human com- -munities dependent on its functions. - -5. Implementation of the integrated management -plan for the Barents Sea - -The government white paper -The notion of an ecosystem approach implies that different types of -uses of the ocean environment have to be reconciled, in order to realize -the objective of sustainable use of the oceans. While this understand- -ing of the ecosystem-based approach to oceans management may -appear uncontroversial, decisions will in fact have to be made that -favor certain interests at the expense of others. The approach taken -in Norway through the integrated management plan is rather techni- -cal: ordering of priorities, selection of criteria and collection of data -to assess against them. On the basis of that the optimal choice can be -derived. - -Sector based actions -Fisheries have a substantial impact on the ecosystem in the Barents -Sea. The fishery authorities’ responsibility is to continue to develop -an ecosystem-based approach for that particular sector. Initiatives -and measures here include bringing down illegal, unreported and -unregulated fishing (IUU fishing), rebuilding certain fish stocks that -have been depleted, increasing the general knowledge of distribution -and ecology of relevant species, reduction of by-catches and damag- -ing of benthic communities by fishing gears, and the development of -selective fishing gear such as sorting grids. In the petroleum sector, -comprehensive legislation and control and enforcement procedure en- -sure that the impact of petroleum activities on the environment and any -inconvenience to other industries are dealt with. The decision to open -an area for petroleum activity is made by the Storting. Specifically for - -the management plan area and the North, is the requirement that -drilling operations in the north are required to have zero discharges.8 -The plan also places significant restrictions on when and where -petroleum-related activities can take place (Fig. 5). The 2006 white -paper on the management plan summarized the general negative -effects the oil and gas industry can have on the environment through -operational discharges of chemicals and oil to the sea, mechanical -disturbance of the seabed, the effects of seismic surveys on fish and -marine mammals, and emissions of NOx, VOCs and CO2 to air. -However, the conclusion was that given the strict standards that apply -to petroleum activities in the Barents Sea, discharges to the sea and -mechanical disturbances of the seabed are not expected to have -significant environmental impacts. That leaves possible negative -effects of larger accidental oil spills as the only potential significant -environmental impact. - -The relationship between fisheries and petroleum activities is a major -environmental issue. The general experience from the North Sea is -that fisheries and the petroleum industry can coexist. The increase in -petroleum-related activities in the north has, however, brought a new -awareness of the interactions of petroleum activities and fisheries. -Among the contentious issues are the effects of seismic surveys on -fisheries. A number of measures have been devised to limit potential -damage from potential oil spills. - -Policy tools for integrated oceans management -The plan itself establishes a number of policy tools: area-based -management, species management, ecosystem indicators, and risk -evaluation. In addition, the concept of valuable and vulnerable areas is -a centerpiece of the plan. - -Area-based management -Area-based management is a major policy tool in the context of the -management plan. For areas identified as particularly valuable and vul- -nerable (Box below), special caution will be required and special con- -siderations will apply to the assessments of standards for and restric- -tions on activities. In these areas activities should be conducted in such -way that all ecological functions and biodiversity are maintained. In -addition, a network of marine protected areas, including the southern -part of the management area, will be established in Norwegian waters, -at the latest by 2012 in order to maintain biodiversity and keep certain -areas undisturbed.9 The Nature Conservation Act provides the legal -basis for permanent and general protection of areas against activities -that have an impact on the environment and natural resources. - -In the management plan area, several sub-areas are identified as par- -ticularly valuable and vulnerable (Fig. 4). Vulnerability is -assessed with respect to specific environmental pressures such as oil -pollution, fluctuation in food supply and physical damage.When -assessing vulnerability, type of impact and duration has been consid- -ered. Differentiating between natural and human-induced pressures on -the environment is however difficult. Furthermore, an area is usually -not equally vulnerable all year round, and all species in an area will -not be equally vulnerably in relation to a specific environmental -pressure. Vulnerability can be measured at individual, population, -community and ecosystem level. - -8 Except for those resulting from the drilling of the top-hole section for surface casing. - -9 A plan for marine protected areas has been drawn up, but the final selection of areas will - be decided by the Ministry of the Environment, in cooperation with the Ministries of - Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, Trade and Industry, and Petroleum and Energy. - -The most important criteria for selecting the valuable and -vulnerable areas were: - -Ÿ whether it supports high production and high concentration of - species - -Ÿ whether it includes a large proportion of endangered or - vulnerable habitats - -Ÿ whether it is a key area for species for which Norway has a - special responsibility or for endangered or vulnerable species - -Ÿ whether it supports internationally or nationally important - populations of certain species all year round or at specific times - of the year - -Negative pressures in these areas will in some cases affect a great -deal of a population or a great deal of the ecosystem and might -persist for many years. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -48 - -An example of area-based management in effect is the framework for -petroleum activities based on an evaluation of the particularly valuable -and vulnerable areas and an assessment of the risk of acute oil pollu- -tion (Fig. 5). In some areas no petroleum activity will be permitted at -all, while in others no new activity will be permitted or it can occur but -not between 1 March and 31 August. Based on new knowledge gained -through research, monitoring and ongoing activities this framework -will be re-evaluated when the management plan is updated in 2010. - -Another example of areas-based management is the mandatory routing -and traffic separation scheme for maritime transport 30 nautical miles -from the coast. This arrangement is precautionary, to reduce the risk -of acute oil pollution from ships. This is still close enough to be within -the coverage area of a special system for traffic surveillance and con- -trol (the Coastal Administration’s AIS system), but at the same time far -enough out to allow a certain response time in case of an oil spill. - -A third example involving area-based management is temporary or -permanent closure of areas to for example certain types of fishing gear -motivated by the type of benthic community, underwater cultural herit- -age, or unwanted changes in commercial fish stock sizes and the size -and age structure of these stocks. Marine protected areas have been -established under the fisheries legislation to protect coral reefs from -damage caused by bottom trawling in the Barents Sea – Lofoten Area. - -Species management -Another important policy measure is species management. Norway -has signed a number of international agreements and conventions on -species protection and management, e.g. the Convention on Biological -Diversity (CBD), the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of -Wild Animals (CITES), the Convention on the Conservation of Migra- -tory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), the Agreement on North Atlantic -Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO), the Agreement on the -Conservation of Polar Bears and their Habitats, etc. To implement -these, the Government has established a set of objectives for species -management in the Barents Sea – Lofoten area. They are listed in the -white paper on the management plan (Report No. 8 (2005-2006) to the -Storting): - - Naturally occurring species will exist in viable populations and - genetic diversity will be maintained. - - Harvested species will be managed within safe biological limits so - that their spawning stocks have good reproductive capacity. - Species that are essential to the structure, functioning, - productivity and dynamics of ecosystems will be managed in such - a way that they are able to maintain their role as key species in the - ecosystem concerned. - - Populations of endangered and vulnerable species and species - for which Norway has a special responsibility will be maintained - or restored to viable levels. Unintentional negative pressures on - such species as a result of activity in the Barents Sea – Lofoten area - will be reduced as much as possible by 2010.The introduction of - alien species through human activity will be avoided. - -Ecosystem indicators -A third policy tool is ecosystem indicators. It is desirable to be able to -evaluate the state of the ecosystem, i.e. ecological quality, at any given -time. In order to do so a set of indicators have been identified. It is -important to choose indicators that give information about the state of -a particular part of the ecosystem at a given point in time. Relevance to -ecosystem management, relevance in relation to Norway’s internation- -al obligations, feasibility in practice, and their role in the ecosystem -are criteria used here. The indicators can be grouped into those which -reveal something about the physical state of the water bodies in the -Barents Sea and the production of phytoplankton and zooplankton, and -indicators for components of the ecosystem that live on this -production. - -A satisfactory evaluation of environmental status is only possible when -different indicators are combined with background information, like -distributions maps for various species, information about ecology etc. -One challenge is to distinguish between the effects of human activity -and natural fluctuation in the ecosystem. - -Based on the chosen indicators, a monitoring system is set up. The -management plan emphasize that the system must be dynamic and -flexible enough to be changed and updated in the light of new knowl- -edge. Furthermore, additional ongoing monitoring in the Barents Sea -will also be used in the yearly evaluation of the state of the ecosystem -carried out by the Advisory Group on monitoring of the Barents Sea. - -Risk evaluation -There will always be a risk connected to petroleum activities and -maritime transport in the Barents Sea. Risk evaluation is therefore -important in the assessment of policy measures. Maritime transport -contributes considerable more to the overall risk of acute oil pollution -than the oil and gas industry in the management plan area. However, -in spite of an expected increase in the volume of maritime transport by -2020, the implementation of measures such as the already mentioned -minimum sailing distance from the cost, traffic separation schemes and -vessel traffic service centers will reduce the risk of oil spills associated -with maritime transport by half from 2003 to 2020. - -Based on risk identification and understanding of possible accidents -scenarios and their consequences appropriate emergency response -systems can be put in place. Based on an evaluation of whether there -is adequate basis for decision-making or not, possible actions to -reduce uncertainty etc., risk-based decisions are taken. Models and -risk analysis are being used as tools to estimate risk. They focus on -different aspects of risk, e.g. the probability of accidental discharges, - - The most important criteria for selecting the valuable and - vulnerable areas were: - whether it supports high production and high concentration of - species - - whether it includes a large proportion of endangered or vulnerable - habitats - - whether it is a key area for species for which Norway has a - special responsibility or for endangered or vulnerable species - - whether it supports internationally or nationally important - populations of certain species all year round or at specific times - of the year - - Negative pressures in these areas will in some cases affect a - great deal of a population or a great deal of the ecosystem and - might persist for many years. - -Elements of the monitoring system as they are defined in the -white paper on the management plan include the following -concepts: - -Ecological quality -The ecological quality of an ecosystem is an expression of the -state of the system, taking into account the physical, biological -and chemical conditions, including the effects of anthropogenic -pressures. - -Indicators -An indicator is a variable that in present context provides specific -information about a particular part of the ecosystem. Indicators -will be used to assess how far the management goals have been -reached and whether trends in the ecosystem are favorable. - -Reference values -Reference values correspond to the ecological quality expected -in a similar but more or less undisturbed ecosystem, adjusted for -natural variation and development trends. Precautionary reference -values are used for harvestable stocks. - -Action thresholds -The action threshold is the point at which a change in an indicator -in relation to the reference value is so grate that new measures -must be considered. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -49 - -the probability of oil contamination, the risk of damage and potential -damage-related costs. It is however, important to be aware of the pros, -cons and limitations of these tools. Risk will also change over time due -to change in traffic volume, implantation of measures, lessons learned -from accidents, new technology etc - -6. Conclusions -The Management Plan for the Barents Sea provides a foundation for -co-existence of industries as well as measures for addressing the main -challenges relating to pollution and the maintenance of biodiversity. -Ecosystem-based management calls for cooperation across sectors, -both with respect to monitoring, mapping and research. - -The responsibility for increasing knowledge about the different pres- -sures on the environment, as well as the implementation and enforce- -ment of regulations and laws relating to the management plan, resides -with the sector-based ministries and agencies. Norway is a relatively -small country with an efficient and homogenous central administration, -and coordination can be achieved between ministries and agencies -from different sectors. The overall responsibility for the implementa- -tion of the plan however resides with the Ministry of the Environment. - -Also, the implementation of the management plan is based on existing -legislation. Recently, new legislation for the management of oceans -resources have been adopted, and new legislation on the conserva- -tion of biodiversity are in the process of being developed. These acts -emphasize the ecosystem approach to the management of marine -ecosystems and the natural resources there. - -A close international cooperation, particularly with Russia, is a -premise for satisfactory management of the Barents Sea. In fisheries -management, Norway and Russia has had a bilateral cooperation in a -Joint Fisheries Commission since 1975.10 In environmental manage- -ment, Norway and Russia has had a Joint Commission on Environ- -mental Protection since 1988. In 2005 a Marine Environment group -was established under this commision, with the aim of enhancing -cooperation on ecosystem-based management of the Barents Sea. A -team of Norwegian and Russian scientists is currently preparing a joint -assessment of the state of the environment and biological resources -for the whole of the Barents Sea, as a basis for further cooperation on -ecosystem-based management. - -Permanent working groups -The actual work of implementing the management plan relies heav- -ily on a tight integration between science and relevant management -agencies. In response to the adoption of the management plan three -permanent working groups have been established: - -Ÿ An advisory group on monitoring to assist in coordination of the - system proposed by the Government for monitoring the state of the - environment - -Ÿ A forum on environmental risk management focusing on acute pol - lution in the area, which will provide valuable input to - environmental risk assessments - -Ÿ A forum responsible for the coordination and overall - implementation of the scientific aspects of ecosystem-based - management - -The different groups have a broad membership, with representatives -from the relevant public institutions with responsibility for and exper- -tise in the various sectors, but will also draw on expertise from other -sources as necessary. The groups report to a Steering group headed -by the Ministry of Environment and in which relevant Ministries par- -ticipate. In order to make sure that that the various business, industry, -environmental organizations and Sami groups have their say on the im- -plementation of the plan, a reference group has been established. The -meetings of the reference group are open and all relevant stakeholders -have an opportunity of be informed of the work and let their voice be -heard in this regard. - -10 Scientific cooperation in the Barents Sea goes at least back to the 1950s. - -Updating the plan -While the plan was adopted in 2006, it is now under revision to take -into account new knowledge and changing situations. None of the -regulations are set in stone, but up for revision as new and better -knowledge becomes available. The first revision of the plan will take -place in 2010, while a new management plan also for the Norwegian -Sea will be adopted in 2009. Following the first update of the plan in -2010, there will be an updated version of the whole Barents Sea man- -agement plan in 2020 with a time frame up to 2040. - -Grey zone - -Norways economic zone and -Svalbard fishery protection zone - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -50 - -Figure 1. The Barents Sea. -Plan area for the management -plan (black line), Area of over- -lapping claims (grey hatched). - -Figure 2. Development of the -management plan from 2002 to -2006. The work was led jointly -by four ministries, while the -analyses and assessments were -carried out by government -directorates and institutes. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -51 - -Figure 4. Particularly valuable and vulnerable areas in the -Barents Sea – Lofoten Area. - -Figure 3. Human activities in the -Barents Sea – Lofoten region. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -52 - -Figure 5. Framework for petroleum activities in the -Barents Sea –Lofoten area for the period 2006 – 2010. - -References -Anon. (2001). Politisk grunnlag for en Samarbeidsregjering (Sem Erklæringen). - (Sem Erklæringen). 2001. Oslo. -Anon. (2005). Arealvurderinger. Sårbare områder og interessekonflikter. Rapport - fra arbeidsgruppe under forvaltningsplanen for Barentshavet. 88 p. - -Anon. (2006). St.meld.nr. 8 (2005-2006) Helhetlig forvaltning av det marine - miljø i Barentshavet og havområdene utenfor Lofoten (forvaltningsplan). - 2006. Oslo, Minstry of environment. -Browman HI, Stergiou KIe (2004) Perspectives on ecosystem-based approaches - to the management of marine resources Marine Ecology Progress Series - 274:269-303 - -Browman HI, Stergiou KIe (2005) Politics and socio-economics of ecosystem- - based anagement of marine resources. Marine Ecology Progress Series - 300:241-296 - -Føyn L, von Quillfeldt C, Olsen E (2002) Miljø- og ressursbeskrivelse av - området Lofoten – Barentshavet. Fisken og havet nr 6. 84 sider. -Garcia SM, Cochrane KL (2005) Ecosystem approach to fisheries: a review of - implementation guidelines. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62:311-318 - Government of Norway. 1976. Act No. 91 of 17 December 1976 relating to - the Economic Zone of Norway. - -Heidar, K. 2001. Norway. Elites on Trial. Boulder: Westview Press. - -Institute of Marine Research (IMR) 2008: Havets ressurser og miljø 2008. IMR, - Bergen. - -Loeng, H. 1991. Features of the physical oceanograpic conditions of the Barents -Sea. Polar Research 10(1):5-18 -Ministry of the Environment. 2002. Rent og rikt hav (Protecting the Riches of the - Sea). Stortingsmelding nr 12 (2001-2002). Oslo: Ministry of the - Environment. - -Ministry of Fisheries. 1997. Perspektiver på utvikling av norsk fiskerinæring - (Perspectives on the development of Norwegian Fisheries Sector). - - Stortingsmelding nr 51 (1997-1998). Oslo: Det Kongelige - Fiskeridepartement. - -Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2003: Om lov om Norges territorialfarvann og - tilstøtende sone. Ot.prp. nr 35 (2002-2003). Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Oslo. -Olsen E, von Quillfeldt CH (eds) (2003). Identifisering av særlig verdifulle - områder i Lofoten – Barentshavet. Rapport fra arbeidsgruppe under - forvaltningsplanen for Barentshavet., 72 p - -Olsen, J. P. 1983. Organized Democracy: Political Institutes in a Welfare State– -The Case of Norway. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. -United Nations. (2002). Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on - sustainable Development (Johannesburg declaration). 2002. New York, - United Nations. - - -von Quillfeldt, CH (ed.) (2002) Marine verdier i havområdene rundt Svalbard - (with English summary and figure legends). Norsk Polarinstitutt, Rapport no. - 118. 100 p. - -von Quillfeldt CH, Dommasnes A (eds) (2005) Proposals for indicators and - environmental quality objectives for the Barents Sea. Report from a - sub-project under the management plan for the Barents Sea. 166 p. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -53 - -Iceland - -REPORT SERIES NO 129 - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -54 - -1. Introduction -The waters around Iceland, fed by the warm Gulf Stream, offer excep- -tional conditions for fish stocks to thrive, making Iceland’s exclusive -fishing zone of 758,000 km2 some of the richest fishing grounds in the -world. The currents and topography around Iceland provide oceano- -graphic conditions that give relatively closed system on the continental -shelf around the island. The geographical position of Iceland on the -ocean ridges means that the country is in the vicinity of mixing areas -of the warm and cold currents. The warm North Atlantic current origi- -nating in the Gulf of Mexico meets with the polar East Greenland cur- -rent, flowing south along the East Greenland coast. Close to the coast -there is a coastal current which flows clockwise around Iceland and is -formed by mixing of warm oceanic water with fresh water from land. -Due to these rather well defined conditions the area around Iceland has -been defined as one of the large marine ecosystems (LME). - -Icelandic policy on ocean issues is based on maintaining the future -health, biodiversity and sustainability of the oceans surrounding -Iceland, in order that it may continue to be a resource that sustains and -promotes the nation´s welfare. This means sustainable utilization, -conservation and management of the resource based on scientific -research and applied expertise guided by respect for the marineeco- -system as a whole. The health of the ocean and sustainable utilization -of its living resources provides one of the main basis for Iceland´s -economic welfare. - -Understanding the marine ecosystem is the foundation of sensible and -sustainable harvesting of the resources. The fishing industry is one of -the main pillars of the Icelandic economy. Responsible fisheries at the -Icelandic fishing grounds are the prerequisite for the Icelandic fishing -industry continuing being a solid part of the Icelandic economy and a -principal pillar in Iceland’s exports. - -Icelanders have structured a fisheries management system to ensure -responsible fisheries, focusing on the sustainable utilisation of the fish -stocks and good treatment of the marine ecosystem. The fisheries man- -agement in Iceland is primarily based on extensive research on the fish -stocks and the marine ecosystem, decisions made on the conduct of -fisheries and allowable catches on the basis of scientific advice, and ef- -fective monitoring and enforcement of the fisheries and the total catch. - -2. The Icelandic government policy -In light of the importance of marine resources for Iceland, the govern- -ment has adopted a clear and responsible long-term policy. - -The principal objectives of Icelandic policy on the ocean are to -maintain the ocean´s health, biodiversity and productive capacity, in -order that its living resources can continue to be utilised sustainably. -This means sustainable utilisation, conservation and management of -the resource based on research, technology and expertise, directed by -respect for the marine ecosystem as a whole. - -The policy is based on three pillars. Firstly, on the UN Convention -on the Law of the Sea, which provides a legal framework for ocean -issues and, a basis for the management, conservation and utilization -of the ocean area both within and beyond the Icelandic jurisdiction. -Secondly, on the principle of sustainable development, the basis of -which was established at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment an -Development in Rio de Janeiro. Thirdly, on the principle that responsi- -bility for the conservation and utilization of marine ecosystem is best -placed in the hands of those States directly affected by decisions taken -and have the greatest interests at stake. - -3. The public sector -Ministry of Fisheries -The Ministry of Fisheries is responsible for the conservation and utili- -zation of the living marine resouces, which encompasses the duty to -respect and take into account environmental concerns. It addresses -these concerns through its policies and legislation as well as through -its commitment to the UNCLOS. The Ministry for Environment i.a. -sees to concerns pertaining to the prevention of pollution of the ocean, -matters pertaining to toxic and hazardous substances and conservation -of biodiversity. - -The Ministry is responsible for management of fisheries in Iceland, -and the implementation of legislation, and issues regulations to this ef- -fect. The Ministry´s duties are general administration, long-term plan- -ning and relations with other fisheries institutions at the international -level. Three bodies assist the Ministry of Fisheries in management -and general administration tasks: Directorate of Fisheries, The Marine -Research Institute and The Coast Guard. - -Directorate of Fisheries -The Directorate of Fisheries is an Icelandic Government institution -under the ultimate responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries. The -Directorate is responsible for implementing government policy on -fisheries management and handling of seafood products. - -The Directorate enforces laws and regulations regarding fisheries man- -agement, monitoring of fishing activities and imposition of penalties -for illegal catches. The Directorate allocates catch quotas and issues -fishing permits to vessels. Furthermore, the Directorate is the compe- -tent authority responsible for the operation of border inspection posts. - -Collection, processing and publication of fisheries data is also the -responsibility of the Directorate of Fisheries in collaboration with -Statistics Iceland. - -The Marine Research Institute -The Marine Research Institute (MRI) is a government institute under -the auspices of the Ministry of Fisheries. MRI conducts various marine -research and provides the Ministry with scientific advice based on its -research on marine resources and the environment. The institute has -around 170 employees, 2 research vessels, 5 branches around Iceland -and a mariculture laboratory. - -The three main areas of activities of the MRI are the following: To -conduct research on the marine environment around Iceland and its -living resources, to provide advice to the government on catch levels -and conservation measures and to inform the government, the fishery -sector and the public about the sea and its living resources. - -MRI’s avtivities are organized into three main sections: Environment -Section, Resources Section and Advisory Section. - -Marine Environment Section -A large part of the section´s work deals with environmental conditions -(nutrients, temperature, salinity) in the sea, marine geology, and the -ecology of algae, zooplankton, fish larvae, fish juveniles, and benthos. -The available data on fishing effort of the Icelandic fleet is very ac- -curate and have made it possible to map in detail the distribution of -otter trawl effort around Iceland. Priority have been given to map the -distribution of benthic assemblages and habitats which are considered -to be sensitive to trawling disturbances. Such information are impor- -tant in order to predict which species and habitats are being at risk of -being damaged by fishing activites and for protection of important -marine habitats. The closure of five vulnerable coral area are one of the -results from this work. Amongst the larger projects undertaken within -the Environmental Section are investigations on surface currents using -satellite monitored drifters, assessment of primary productivity, over- -wintering and spring spawning of zooplankton, studies on spawning of -the most important exploited fish stocks and seabed mapping. - -Marine Resources Section -Investigations are undertaken on the exploited stocks of fish, crus- -taceans, mollusks and marine mammals. The major part of the work -involves estimating stock sizes and the total allowable catch (TAC) -for each stock. Examples of some large projects within the Marine -Resources Section are annual ground fish surveys covering the shelf -area around Iceland and surveys for assessing inshore and deep-water -shrimp, lobster, and scallop stocks. The pelagic stocks of capelin and -herring are also monitored annually in extensive research surveys -using acoustic methods. Further, in recent years an extensive program -concentrating on multi-species interactions of exploited stocks in -Icelandic waters has also been carried out. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -55 - -The Fisheries Advisory Section -The Fisheries Advisory Section scrutinizes stock assessments and -prepares the formal advice on TAC´s and sustainable fishing strategies -for the government. - -The Coast Guard - -The Iceland Coast Guard, which falls under the auspices of the Min- -istry of Justice, is responsible for patrol and monitoring in Iceland´s -EEZ as well as on the high sea outside Iceland’s EEZ where Iceland -has direct fishing interests such as in the NEAFC area. Additionally the -Coast Guard inspects fishing gear noting whether it fulfills the require- -ment of regulations. - -4. The fishing industry -The fishing industry is the mainstay of the national economy, however -it does not receive any subsidies. The Icelandic fishing industry is quite -competitive and has expanded its operation to other countries. It has a -stake in the sustainable use of the marine resources. - -The total Icelandic catches amount to 1.3 – 2 million tons annually. -Figure 1 shows Icelandic fish catch for all major species in 1905-2006. -The importance of the fishing industry peaked during the 20th century. -The main reason for the increase in volume of the Icelandic fisheries, -starting around 1970s, is the start of capelin fisheries and in recent -years increased herring and blue whiting fisheries. - -The fishing fleet consists of several vessel types. Officially they are -divided into trawlers, decked vessels and undecked small vessels. Not -all fishing vessels registered in Iceland are active but may lay idle, e.g. - -in 2005 only 1 449 vessels out of 1 752 registered were active. With -the implementation of the ITQ (individual transferable quota) system, -overcapacity in the fisheries was not an issue in itself anymore as it -is up to the operator of the vessel to conduct the fisheries in its most -efficient way. - -The fisheries sector in Iceland provides over 50% of earnings of -exported goods, making the annual market value of seafood around 2 -billion US dollars. Fisheries have and will continue to play a great role -for the economic survival of the nation even though it’s share is reduc- -tive as other industries are growing fast. The most important market -for Icelandic export of marine products is the European Economic -Area amounting 70-80% of the total value with UK as the biggest sin- -gle market reaching over a quarter of the total export value of marine -products in some years. - -5. The fisheries management system in Iceland -The Fisheries Management Act from 1990 is the cornerstone of the -current system of fisheries management in Icelandic waters. The Act -aims at promoting the conservation and efficient utilisation of fish -stocks, thereby ensuring stable employment and settlement throughout -the country. The Act is intended to provide the principles for fisher- -ies management and to create a foundation for efficient, rational and -sustainable utilisation of fish stocks, in order to provide maximum -resource yield for the country as a whole. These targets thus fit in well -with the concept and objectives of sustainable development. -The catch limitation system is the basis of the Icelandic fisheries man- -agement system. The system is intended to limit the total catch and to -prevent more fishing from the fish stocks than the authorities allow at -any given time. The catch limitation system is based on the catch share - -Figure 1. Icelandic Catch -1905 - 2006 -Source: Statistic Iceland. -Notes: 1905-1944 catch -from Icelandic grounds -(ICES area Va) / 1945- -2006 Icelandic catch from -all grounds. - -Figure 4. Percentage of -value of exported goods -Source: Statistics Iceland. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -56 - -allocated to individual vessels. Each vessel is allocated a certain share -of the total allowable catch (TAC) of the relevant species. The catch -limit of each vessel during the fishing year is thus determined on basis -of the TAC of the relevant species and the vessel’s share in the total -catch. The catch share may be divided and transferred to other vessels, -with certain limitations. - -It was in 2004 the fisheries management system became a uniform -quota system. The small vessels that were still in a system of fishing -days were then issued a catch quota in accordance with their fishing -permit. This final merging of the days at sea system and the quota sys- -tems resulted in a comprehensive system that ensures that fishing is in -accordance with the decision of the Minister of Fisheries and supports -sustainable utilisation of the natural resource. - -The management has three pillars, firstly the general individual trans- -ferable quota system (ITQ), secondly the small vessels ITQ, where -there are restrictions on use of gear and selling of quota is limited to -that part. Thirdly there are regional policy instruments, where a limited -quantity of quotas are allocated to vessels in communities that are -dependent on fisheries and have been adversely affected by national -fluctuations or other shocks. Fishing vessels are allocated a fixed quota -share of the species subject to TAC. The combined quota share for -all vessels amounts to 100% of each species. All commercial fishing -activities are subject to these quotas - -In addition to the ITQ system which, together with the TAC alloca- -tion, is the cornerstone of Iceland’s fisheries management, there are a -number of other measures that are integral to the overall management -system. - -Deciding the total allowable catch (TAC) based on scientific -grounds - - -The Minister of Fisheries is obliged by law to take recognition of the -advice from the Marine Research Institute before determining the -annual TAC. The Minister of Fisheries determines the annual TAC of -every species subject to quota regulation. A scientific assessment of the -state of the fish stocks and the condition of the ecosystem constitutes -the main basis of determining the TAC each year. Conformity between -the scientific fisheries advice and the authorities’ decisions on the TAC -is a principal factor for ensuring responsible fisheries management. -The authorities’ decisions on the maximum catch are based on social -and economic factors, yet always focused on ensuring the long-term -renewal of the fish stocks. For instance the Minister decided to cut -down the TAC in cod in 2007 ca. 30% according to the advice of the -MRI. The Icelandic authorities have implemented a utilization strategy -with the long-term objective of ensuring sustainable fisheries. - -The catch rule -There are different ways to implement a precautionary approach in -fisheries. In 1995 Iceland adopted a catch rule for cod, and catch rules -for capelin and herring had been adopted previously. The catch rule -was a result of extensive work by marine biologists and economists -who provided advice on maintaining stability in the fishing sector, the -most favourable stock size and efficient rebuilding of the cod stock, -among other things, taking into account the relationship between cod, -capelin and shrimp stocks. - -Figures 2 and 3 show the development in the management in cod and -the capelin fisheries as well as catches from these fisheries during the -period 1988-2006/7. Since 1995 the TAC in cod fisheries follows a -catch control rule which allows for a certain percentage of the fishable -stock to be fished. The rule has been amended couple of times and the -percentage lowered to ensure the sustainability of the stock. - -As there is a strong connection between the cod and the capelin stock -the management advice for capelin takes into consideration the need of -the cod stock for capelin as fodder. - -Effective catch control and enforcement - - -Effective control is an inseparable part of the responsible fisheries -management and ensures that the catches in Iceland are well in con- -formity with the TAC every fishing year. The Directorate of Fisheries -is responsible for the implementation of laws and regulations regarding -fisheries management in Iceland and for monitoring and enforcement -regarding the fisheries operation and the fish processing. All com- -mercial fisheries are subject to authorization by the Directorate of -Fisheries. - -The fisheries inspectors of the Directorate of Fisheries monitor the -correct weighing and registration of the catch. Information on each -vessels allowable catch and quota use is regularly updated and made -public and accessible to all on the Directorate’s web-site, as mandated -by law, thus ensuring transparency. Any catch brought ashore is to be -weighed by accredited harbour officials. Upon completion of weigh- -ing, the relevant harbour authorities register the catch in the central -database of the Directorate of Fisheries, which ensures a steady over- -view of the status of the allowable catch of every vessel and how much -has been taken from the fisheries quota. After the information about -the catch has been entered into the database it is accessible to everyone -on the Internet. This arrangement provides a great deal of transparency -and ensures better control and inspection of the fishing and catch posi- -tion of Icelandic boats and vessels. - -The fishing gear is subject to effective monitoring, as well as the com- -position of the catch and its handling onboard the fishing vessels. The - -Figure 2. Management and -fisheries for cod -1988-2007/08. -Source: Directorate of -Fisheries, MRI. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -57 - -inspectors have access to the catch logs, which state the location of the -fishing activity, the day of the catch, the type of fishing gear used and -the catch quantity. If such control reveals the presence of much small -fish or juveniles at the fishing grounds, the Marine Research Institute -temporarily closes the relevant fishing grounds without delay. - -Reliability of catch information ensured -The effectiveness of monitoring of the fisheries and catch control -is reflected, among other things, in the observed good conformity -between the TAC and the real catch every year. Anyone purchasing -and/or selling catches is obligated to present reports to the Directorate -of Fisheries, containing information on the purchase, sale and other -disposition of fish catches. If discrepancy materializes in the database -of the Directorate of Fisheries between the information stated in the -reports and the information received from the harbour weighing, -measures are taken when this is deemed appropriate. This ensures -independent checking of the accuracy of information about the catches -that are brought ashore. Experience shows that there is good conform- -ity between the catch information of the Directorate of Fisheries and -the information about the total fish export as registered elsewhere. This -conformity illustrates the reliability of the catch information. - -Severe penalty for breaches of the fisheries management -legislation -Breaches of the law and regulations on fisheries management are sub- -ject to fines or revoking of the fishing permit, irrespective of whether -such conduct is by intent or negligence. Major or repeated intentional -offenses are subject to up to six years imprisonment. If the catch of -a vessel exceeds the allowable catch of the said vessel of individual -species, the relevant fishing company must obtain an additional catch -quota for the relevant species. If this is not done within a certain time- -frame, the fishing permit may be revoked as well as a charge having to -be paid for the illegal catch. - -Special measures for protecting small fish and the -ecosystem -In addition to the ITQ system which, together with the TAC (total -allowable catch) allocation, is the cornerstone of Iceland’s fisheries -management, the management system is supported by other manage- -ment measures such as closure of areas to protect juveniles, stringent -restrictions on fishing gear, and use of protected areas to conserve -important vulnerable habitats. The closures may apply to specific -fishing gear, fishing-vessel size or all fishing for certain periods of -time. Annually, such temporary closures of areas are in force to protect -spawning grounds of cod and other demersal species. These closures -aims at conserving certain biological resources, spawning grounds, -juveniles or unwanted bycatches. - -The regulations concerning the type of fishing gear permitted, include -the minimum mesh size, fishing with trawls is prohibited in large areas -near the coast which serve as spawning and nursery areas. Grids in -fishing gear are obligatory in certain fisheries to prevent catches of -juvenile fish. - -Extensive provisions are made for temporary closures of fishing areas -to protect spawning fish from all fishing. In addition, the Marine -Research Institute (MRI) has the authority to close fishing areas tem- -porarily without prior notice if the proportion of small fish in the catch -exceeds certain limits. If small fish or by-catch repeatedly exceeds -guideline limits, the relevant area is closed for a longer period of time. -Additionally, in some areas the use of bottom contact fishing gear is -totally prohibited to protect vulnerable habitats, e.q. corals. In a 2005 -report on the protection of vulnerable marine areas, three areas south -of Iceland in total 73 square kilometers were considered in need of -a special protection and a need for further electronic mapping of the -seabed identified. The fisheries sector was given the opportunity to -comment or amend these proposals before the Minister decided upon -them. In the process the protected areas were extended to cover some -80 sq.km, including five coral reefs. A new regulation adressing espe- -cially vulnerable benthic habitats provides for prohibition of fishing -activities with bottom contacting gears. - -The closures of the coral reefs were done with acceptance of the fish- -ing industry. The gathering of information and definitions of areas to -be closed or protected were work of cooperation between the main -stakeholders, i.e. the fishing industry, authorities and the scientific -authority. - -Clear rules on discards and the disposition of by-catch -Collecting and bringing ashore any catches in the fishing gear of fish- -ing vessels is obligatory according to law. Discarding catch overboard -is prohibited and such conduct is subject to penalty according to law. If -a vessel catches any species in excess of its fishing permit, the relevant -fishing company has the option of obtaining additional quota within a -certain period of time after landing the catch. - -A part of the criticism of the quota system has been that it creates -incentives for fishermen to throw away valuable catch when they don’t -own the necessary quotas. As a response to this criticism the Icelandic -Parliament decided that every operator could land up to 5% in excess -of his annual catch quota (0.5% for pelagic species). This excess catch -must be registered and weighed separately, sold at an auction market -and the proceeds go to a research fund that supports marine research. - -Another feature of the legislation that helps against discards is that the -fishermen can land up to a certain limit small or undersize fish with -only 50% of the weight being charged against the annual catch quota. - -Figure 3. Management -and fisheries for sapelin -1988-2007/07 -Source: MRI - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -58 - -The limit is generally 10% for each species in each landing. The -smaller fish is normally sold for a lower price so the fishermen don’t -have the same incentive to throw it away. - -The Directorate of Fisheries and the Marine Research Institute conduct -research and estimate discarded catches. The results indicate insignifi- -cant discards by the Icelandic fishing fleet. - -6. Ecosystem-based fisheries management in -Iceland -Sustainable utilisation of resources is the key to a rational and respon- -sible conservation and management of living marine resources. The -marine ecosystem are being examined by using a holistic approach, in -order for Icelandic policy to include all aspects of marine life. - -In Iceland the Marine Research Institute carries out research on the -ocean’s commercial stocks and provides the authorities with fisheries -advice. The Marine Research Institute is an independent institution that -falls under the auspices of the Ministry of Fisheries and is the main -research body in Iceland conducting marine and fisheries research. -Stock assessments are based on systematic research of the size and -productivity of the fish stocks and the marine ecosystem. Additionally, -the institute investigates fishing gear and its impact on the ecosystem, -including bottom trawl, line, net and mid-water trawl fisheries and the -fishing gear’s selectivity. Research on the impact of fishing gear is -among other things aimed at minimizing to the extent possible such -impact on the ocean’s ecosystem. - -Active collaboration with international scientific organisations ensures -that the focus is on internationally acknowledged research methods -that provide the best available information on the condition of the fish -stocks around Iceland at any time. Stock assessments and scientific -fisheries advice are the main foundations of the decisions made by -the authorities on the TACs each year. Prior to the Marine Research -Institute’s advice on the total catch being published, the institute’s as- -sessment of the size and condition of the main fish stocks is presented -to and evaluated by relevant committees of the International Council -for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). Additionally, there is collabora- -tion with other multi-national organizations, including NEAFC -(Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission) and NAFO (Northwest -Atlantic Fisheries Organization), when addressing stocks occurring -beyond the Icelandic Exclusive Economic Zone. - -Management of the utilisation of living marine resources in in Icelan- -dic waters has to a significant extent reflected the elements comprising -the ecosystem approach. Emphasis has been placed on research and -harvesting advice having regard to the interaction and interconnec- -tions between different stocks and species in marine ecosystem. Many -research activities in recent years have been directed towards a more -holistic view such as bottom trawl surveys and other resource surveys -that were initially targeted at certain important fish stocks but are now -also valuable source of information on any related or non-tareted, -often, non-commercial species. The governement of Iceland has pub- -lished an official policy document on ocean matters with ecosystem -approach to fisheries as part of the portfolio. - -In Reykjavík an international conference on responsible fisheries in -the marine ecosystem was held in the year 2001. The conference was -held in preparation for the Johannesburg Summit on Sustainable De- -velopment. The Conference was held by FAO at the invitation of the -Icelandic government and with support of the Norwegian government. -The Conference was a major player in introducing the content and -concept of an ecosystem approach into fisheries management. This ap- -proach implies that utilisation of marine resources should be managed -from a wider perspective than that of simply considering commercial -fish stocks. The Conference resulted in the Reykjavík Declaration on -Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem. The declaration was -introduced and discussed at the Johannesburg Summit. - -At the scientific symposium held in conjunction with the Reykjavík -meeting it was concluded that many of the measures that are being -implemented under single-species management shemes are in the spirit -of ecosystem approach. As experience and circumstances allowed, -improvement should be made on the existing methods in a stepwise - -process. Since then a the process has been good, but to determine -objectives, criteria and appropriate/relevant indicators is complicated, -and in general the matter is still at a design or development stage. -While this development has taken place, many countries have contin- -ued to elaborate on single-species approach with standard ingredients -such as those that have been developed and improved in Iceland and -elsewhere in recent years. These comprise TAC´s to limit total fish -removals, fishing gear, spatial/temporal restrictions, restrictions on -vessel sizes, selective mesh size and gear, season length and timing, -multispecies interactions and area closures, short or long-term. All -these elements are essential and in the spirit of ecosystem approach to -fisheries. - -By weighing one resource against another authorities and stakehold- -ers in Iceland have, with help of harvest control rule, managed the -economically valuable cod stock, that feeds on capelin and shrimp. -Every year sufficient quantity of capelin is left as fodder for the cod -and sufficient quantity is left of capelin to spawn. Due to the close de- -pendence of capelin as food for cod, short-term predicitions for cod are -significantly linked to predictions of the development of capelin stock -in the following year. And since cod is valuable in economic terms, the -long-term strategy was to build up the cod stock at the cost of lower -shrimp yields. Likewise, in terms of biomass, whales constitute a -major component of marine life in Icelandic waters and may signifi- -cantly influence the yield of the interacting fish stocks, different views -arise as to how to value and manage the whale stocks. Weighing of -components provides in this case like the other a basis for longer term -management strategies. - -A well founded framework of ecosystem approach to fisheries is an -appropriate tool to weigh these resources and take a well balanced -management action with predicted consequences. - -A pragmatic approach is under development at the MRI, to be applied -in the current single stock fish assessments. For each species and a -stock that is assessed, the aim is to map relevant information both for -research and management purposes: - -1. The quality and nature of the assessment techniques used. - The quality of the data. Stocks may be assessed with the help of - age-based techniques and managed on the basis of a well defined - long-term management strategy, they may be assessed with - age-based techniques or length-based techniques and catch data, - and managed on ad hoc basis. In data poor situations, one would - normally require special caution and notation of this would be - relevant in this context. - -2. The effects of the given fishery on the target stock. - - i) Further, the effects of the fishery in question with respect to dis - cards of target and non-target species by gear and area will be - mapped. Indirect mortalities of target and non-target species would - be examined. An assumed level of impact would be noted, - availability of estimates and monitoring series, and whether there is - a specific need for actions to be taken. - - ii) The potential effects of the fishery in question on the physical - environment by area, e.g. fish and benthic habitats (spawning - grounds, nursery grounds and coldwater corals). - - iii) The potential effects of the fishery in question on different - ecosystem components or species/stock complexes. This includes - examination of benthic and zooplankton communities, sea birds, - marine mammals and fish communities. Examination of whether - the exploitation of the target species affects the livelihood of other - biological resources, e.g. due to lesser predation or competition. - e,g. fish and benthic habitats (spawning grounds, nursery grounds - and coldwater corals). - -Several other factors have to be taken account of in this appraoch -which can be applied for each species caught in a single-species -management scheme. - - 3. Relevant, multispecies considerations will be noted. Availability - of food-web data and modelling. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -59 - - 4. A special attention will be given to potential effects of - enviromental changes on the target stock in question, since the - concern is not only on the human activities on the ecosystem. - - 5. A routinely considerations for some special management, where - they may seem needed. Operational factors have to be noted and - taken account of, e.g. change in markets or technological shift in - the fisheries. Change in the distribution of stocks. - -All these additional ecosystem considerations would cast light on -aspects that are relevant for ecosystem approach to fisheries. This -would be reflected in the assessment work itself, and in future plans of -investigations. In addition to conventional advice to authorities on -recommended TAC´s, a qualitative statement on important or relevant -issues in ecosystem context would follow, that would put the advice -into a wider ecosystem approach to fisheries context than conventional -advice. - -By taking account of the circumstances in the waters around Iceland -the Marine Research Institute is step by step adding important compo- -nents to the already functioning single-species scheme and by doing -that improving and building up an ecosystem approach to fisheries. -The framework for fisheries management is gradually being adapted -to fit the objectives of the ecosystem approach that is being built in -step by step in the assessment scheme that is aready being used. This -framework is built on a national priorities that can be diverse in objec- -tives from other national or regional frameworks, taking account of -different circumstances. - -An important objective and implementation strategy of an ecosystem -approach is that it must be developed in consultation between govern- -ments, scientists and stakeholders. The cooperation between scientists -and the industry has long history in iceland as part of the fishing fleet -has been involved in scientific work every year for decades. The -examples above on multispecies management system, the relation- - -ship between cod, capelin and shrimp and the influence of whales are -cases worth referring to when discussing EAF. In this cases scientist -and fishing industry have been heavily involved. The closure of five -vulnerable marine habitats (coldwater corals) was developed in good -cooperation with stakeholders. In the scientific work of location, fish- -ermen supplied valuable information on locations of coldwater corals -which led to the above mentioned closure of five areas. The closure -was done with acceptance of the industry. - -Ecosystem approach to fisheries is based on existing management -practices, knowledge and structure, it uses the principles and instru- -ments of conventional fisheries management and develops them to -further incorporate ecosystem consideration. Increased scientific -knowledge is the fundamental tool for continual development of the -ecosystem approach to fisheries. Ecosystem approach is therefore an -adaptive process. At the MRI the development of a practical applica- -tions of the ecosystem approach to fisheries is in work. By maintaining -the current emphases and objectives, increased knowledge are being -used to improve resource management methods step by step. A broad- -ened single-species considerations may provide a pragmatic approach -to move stepwise forward in this respect. - -7. International agreements and regional -co-operation -The main share of Icelandic catches are fished inside the Icelandic -EEZ from stocks that are solely managed by Icelandic authorities, e.g. -almost all cod processed and exported from Iceland is fished according -to the Icelandic management system. Several stocks are joint stocks -managed by Iceland in co-operation with other nations, as they occure -both inside and outside Icelandic EEZ. Fishing from joint stocks are -managed either by bilateral agreements beetween states or multilat- -eral agreements often performed in the regional fisheries managment -organizations. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -60 - -The United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA) is the basis for -international fisheries management and for conservation of straddling -and highly migratory fish stocks. Iceland regards the UNFSA as of a -paramount importance, as it strengtherns considerably the framework -for conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly -migratory fish stocks by regional fisheries management organizations -(RFMOs). The RFMOs are highly relevant for co-operation between -coastal states and high seas fishing states as well are other regional -arrangements for the conservation and management of fishing from -such stocks. It is intended to ensure their long-term conservation and -sustainable utilisation. - -It is the view of Icelandic authorities that competent regional organi- -zations are the preferable forum to solve a management issues when -several states utilize a common resource. - -Iceland is a party to various of regional arrangents on fisheries man- -agement in the North Atlantic, including Northeast Atlantic Fisheries -Commission (NEAFC) and Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization -(NAFO). In both these RFMOs a holistic view is taken to the utiliza- -tion of the marine resources in the high sea. - -Iceland has emphazised the role of the Food and Agricultural of the -United nations (FAO) in the field of fisheries. Iceland has been actively -taken part in the development of guidelines for deep-sea fisheries in -the high seas and made financial contribution to this important work -of FAO. Furthermore, Iceland has put effort in the work of COFI of -effective measures against vessels enganged in IUU fishing on the high -seas. - -8. Steady improvements -Fisheries management in Iceland has a long history and the fisheries -management system has been under development for decades with a -focus on the fisheries being both economical and sustainable with re- -spect to the natural resources’ utilization and renewal. In recent years, -measures have been taken in strengthening an ecosystem approach to -the fisheries management in Iceland. Increasing emphasis is placed -on research and development of methods in this field, and on fisheries -advice that takes into account various interrelated factors in the eco- -system, such as the interaction of the species, environmental change -and multi-species impacts. The focus is furthermore on strengthening -research on the effects of fishing gear on the ecosystem, particularly on -the seabed and the living bottom communities. - -Icelanders have the ambition to be in the forefront of responsible -treatment of the natural resources of the ocean. Hence, steady im- -provements are made of the fisheries management in Iceland and its -scientific basis and measures are taken to strengthen the dissemination -of information on the Icelandic fisheries. - -References -The Ocean. Iceland´s Policy, 2004. Ministry of Environment, Minstry of Fisher- -ies and Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Reykjavík. -State of Marine Stocks in Icelandic Waters 2006/2007. Prospects for the Quota -Year 2007/2008, 2007. MRI. Reykjavík. -Friðun viðkvæmra hafssvæða við Ísland, 2004. Ministry of Fisheries. [Conserva- -tion of vulnerable marine habitats in Icelandic waters]. -Close to the Sea, 2004. Ministry of Fisheries. Reykjavík. -Jóhann Sigurjónsson, 2006. Ecosystem-based fisheries management in Iceland. -Implementation and practical considerations. http://www.un.org/Depts/los/con- -sultative_process/documents/7abstract_sigurjonsson.pdf; -http://www.un.org/Depts/los/consultative_process/documents/7_sigurjonsson.pdf -The Marine Research Institute. http://www.hafro.is/index_eng.php - -Responsible Fisheries. Information Centre of Icelandic Ministry of Fisheries. -http://www.fisheries.is - -Ministry of Fisheries. http://www.eng.sjavarutvegsraduneyti.is/english -Directorate of Fisheries. http://fiskistofa.is/en/ -The Icelandic Coast Guard. http://lhg.is/english - - -Statistics Iceland. http://www.statice.is/ - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -61 - -REPORT SERIES NO 129 - -Greenland - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -62 - -Summary -In Greenland elements of ecosystem-based ocean management have -been introduced, but an integrated ecosystem-based ocean manage- -ment is still to be developed. Practices in management of fisheries and -hunting, sea traffic, mineral resources, and nature conservation are -predominantly management by single species or single activities with -elements of stakeholder involvement. - -The important success element in moving towards integrated ecosys- -tem-based ocean management is the achievement of sustainable use of -natural resources. - -Currently, the main obstacle is the lack of a national strategy for the -use of ecosystem-based management, including a strategy for nature -conservation and species management in Greenland. There is a need -to develop desired aims for nature conservation and species manage- -ment in line with international conventions and national policies. -Furthermore, strategies on monitoring and stakeholder involvement, -and guidelines on ecosystem-based management in relevant sectors are -to be developed. - -8.1 Greenland and the marine ecosystems -Greenland covers an area of 2.166.086 km2 and more than 80 per cent -of the island is covered by the Greenland Ice Sheet. The northernmost -point is Cape Morris Jesup, only 740 km from the North Pole, while -Cape Farewell in the south shares latitude with Oslo, Norway. - -Atlantic and Arctic waters surround the island of Greenland. To the -south Greenland meets the North Atlantic Ocean and to the east the -Greenland Sea and the 240 km wide Denmark Strait between Green- -land and Iceland. The west coast of Greenland meets the Davis Strait -and Baffin Bay, and north of Qaanaaq Smith Sound and Nares Strait, -waters that separates Greenland from Ellesmere Island, Canada. In -Nares Strait a mere 26 kilometres separate Greenland from Canada. -North of Greenland lays Lincoln Sea and Wandels Sea, both within the -Arctic Ocean. - -The Greenland coastal line covers 44.087 km. The coast is dominated -by deep fiords and archipelagos, and conditions for marine activities -can be challenging as icebergs, sea ice and storms are common. - -Climate and the effects of climate change -In the Arctic region the low temperature is the greatest challenge fac- -ing organisms. Climatic conditions define the physical framework for -the existence of life in an area. - -The high arctic zone, with average temperature during the warmest -months of the year below 5°C, covers the entire Greenland Ice Sheet -and the costal region of northern Greenland. The high arctic zone -borders with the towns of Upernavik and Uummannaq on the west -coast and Ittoqqortoormiit on the east coast of Greenland. But inland -the high arctic zone reaches as far south as 61°N. - -The low arctic zone, with average temperatures during the warmest -months of the year between 5°C and 10°C, covers the coastal areas on -both the east and west coast from Cape Farewell to 72°N. The open -sea area in the south brings relatively cool summers and mild winters -to this area. In the valleys of the deep fiords the average temperature -may climb above 10°C in the summer categorizing these as small and -isolated areas with a subarctic climate. - -Travelling north the average rain fall decreases dramatically. In South -Greenland the annual average rain fall is 800 to 1400 mm while north- -ern regions and the Greenland Ice Sheet only receive 200 mm. The -Peary Land area in northern Greenland can be categorized as an arctic -desert with virtually no rainfall. - -Changes in climate are fast and dramatic in the Arctic. The Arctic -Climate Impact Assessment (2004) forecasts increases in average -temperatures by 2°C in the low arctic areas of South Greenland over -the next century, and along with an increase in rainfall the lengthened -growing season will bring a more vigorous plan cover. In North Green- -land the average winter temperature will increase by 6 - 10°C, but -dramatic changes in the average summer temperature are not expected. - -According to the ACIA report Greenland will see an increase in rain- -and snowfall by 10 to 50 per cent. - -In Greenland the effects of climate change are visible and have there- -fore received attention in the international climate debate. Warmer -winter presents a challenge to traditional ways of life as unstable ice -conditions makes it difficult for hunters and fishermen to perform -traditional ice fishing and hunting. As new waters open the dog sledge -may be replaced by boat covering larger hunting grounds. - -The changes in temperature will affect the wildlife in Greenland. The -northeast population of musk ox (Ovibos moschatus) and caribou -(Rangifer tarandus) might be threatened by the climatic changes, -while the population in South Greenland is likely to prosper from a -more vigorous vegetation cover. Researchers expect the population of -polar bear (Ursus maritimus) in Northeast Greenland to be challenged -by the climatic changes. - -Melting permafrost is a future challenge to infrastructural planning -and development. Asiaq/ Greenland Survey participates in a project -surveying the melting of the permafrost in Alaska and on 6 locations -in West Greenland. Based on climate models the researchers hope to -predict the extent of melting permafrost in 2050. Generally, housing is -based on bedrock, but the melting permafrost is a challenge infrastruc- -ture, i.e. roads, runways and sewage systems. - -However, the effects of climate change also bring new opportunities -to the Greenlandic society. Retreating ice is exposing ancient bedrock -enriched with minerals, including diamonds, olivine and zinc, and -Greenland is experiencing an increase in mineral exploration activi- -ties. The economy largely depends on fisheries and tourism, but new -industries are developing with the mineral activities and the plans for -an aluminium smelter on the island of Maniitsoq. In South Greenland -agriculture is developing as more vegetables can be grown and in -the future small scale forestry might develop and current livestock of -sheep might be supplemented by cattle. - -The international focus on climate change in the Arctic has also -brought an increased number of tourists. But the fishing industry is still -predominant in the economy of Greenland. Changes in stocks calls for -a re-orientation of the industry as northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) -has started to disappear from the waters off South Greenland, while -large stocks of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) are reappearing. - -8.2 Marine ecosystems and marine protected areas -The marine ecosystems in Greenland are characterized by seasonal ice -cover and marked fluctuations in temperature and light. In parts of the -region ice cover occurs seasonally, the ice and ice melt have large in- -fluence on ecological conditions. When the ice melts, there is typically -a sudden increase in light and a burst of plant growth in the form of an -ice edge bloom in spring and summer. This supports large populations -of fish, marine mammals and birds. - -Another typical feature of the marine Arctic is the way in which sea -ice, melt water and ice scours physically affect bottom plants and ani- -mals on or near the coast. Iceberg scour can cause damage to bottom -fauna to depths of 500 meters. Sea ice limits the penetration of light -into the ocean, but also curtails the ability of wind to stir up the water. -The changes in seasons with freezing and thawing of the ice have pro- -found effects on the hydrographic conditions in the uppermost 50 to -200 meters of the water column and therefore on primary production. -In spring a fresh surface layer is formed and augmented by freshwater -runoff from rivers and streams. Especially near the coastline a thick -layer of fresh water can form, driving away fish. - -8.2.1 Large Marine Ecosystems in Greenland -The data presented in the section below is based on research and -information made available by the Sea around Us project, based at -the University of British Colombia and the National Oceanic and -Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and on recent LME studies as -published in an article on the West Greenland Shelf LME and the East -Greenland Shelf LME respectively, published by researchers Aquarone -and Adams on the LME portal of the NOAA in the autumn of 2008. -The West Greenland Shelf LME and the East Greenland Shelf LME - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -63 - -Figure 2. The East Greenland Shelf LME (approximate location). Source: Based on information -from NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USA. Map copyright of NASA Vis- -ible Earth, the SeaWiFS project, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Centre, and ORBIMAGE. - -Greenland waters cover two Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs); the -West Greenland Shelf LME (LME no. 18) and the East Greenland -Shelf LME (LME no. 19). Both LMEs are considered Class III low -productivity ecosystems (< 150 gC/m2-yr) based on primary produc- -tivity estimates from SeaWiFS. - -The West Greenland Shelf LME (see Fig. 1) begins -at Eirik Ridge in Southern Greenland and extends -along Greenland’s west coast. This LME covers -area of 375.000 km2 of which 1.37 per cent is -protected. The LME is characterized by its subar- -ctic climate as well as by ice cover in the winter. -Greenland shares jurisdiction of the West Greenland -Shelf LME with Canada. - -The West Greenland Shelf LME is closely con- -nected with the East Greenland Shelf LME. The -strong Irminger current of the Greenland Sea carries -water down the Greenland east coast and around the -southernmost Cape Farewell. - -The East Greenland Shelf LME extends along -Greenland’s east coast to the Eirik Ridge, covering -an area of approximately 319.000 km2, of which -some 13 per cent is protected. The continental shelf -varies in width from 750 km in the north to a mere -75 km in the south, and the costal line is dominated -by a large number of fiords. - -This LME is influenced by the cold East Greenland -current, which flows south along the coast from the -polar sea area. The LME is characterized by sub- -arctic climate, seasonal ice cover and marked fluc- -tuations in salinity, temperature and phytoplankton. - -A low productivity ecosystem, changes in both sea -and air temperature is principal physical driving -force of the East Greenland Shelf LME. These -climatic variations cause large variability in ice and -hydrographic conditions within a year. Therefore -plankton production and fish recruitment is affected -and brings variations in annual catches of cod and -small pelagic fish. - -In the summer the melting of the ice has significant -effects on ecological conditions, causing large -amounts of nutrient salts to be transported into -the waters around East Greenland. Owing to these -climatic factors and to the high latitude of this LME -the seasonal phytoplankton production is of short -duration and of limited extent. Primary production -is conveyed efficiently to higher tropic levels and -supports large populations of fish, marine mammals -and seabirds. - -There is a relatively long time series of plankton -and hydrographic samples allowing an exploration -of the links between climate, physical oceano- -graphy and abundance of major zooplankton and -ichtyoplankton species. - -Currents carry cod eggs and larvae around Cape -Farwell in southern Greenland, as seen in the influx -of cod larvae from Iceland in 2001. There is a need -to learn more about the patterns of occurrence of -fish larvae and zooplankton over time and space. -As part of the monitoring programme NuukBasic, -managed by the Centre of Marine Ecology and -Climate Effects at the Greenland Institute of Natu- -ral Resources, studies on selected fish larvae and -zooplankton in relation to hydrographic features are -undertaken. - -The Health of the LMEs - The waters of the West Greenland Shelf LME are -little polluted according to Aquarone and Adams -(2008). The population density is generally low and -strong currents rapidly remove all waste. No waste -water treatment plants are established in Greenland -and solid waste is either burned in incineration -facilities or depositioned at the open refuse dumps. - -Figure 1. The West Greenland Shelf LME (approximate location). Source: Based on information -from NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USA. Map copyright of NASA Vis- -ible Earth, the SeaWiFS project, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Centre, and ORBIMAGE. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -64 - -Localized elevated levels of lead and zinc have been found in sedi- -ments and biota near the Maarmorilik mining area near Uummannaq. - -Owing to the remoteness and the low population density, the environ- -mental conditions within the East Greenland Shelf LME are generally -good - -Studies indicate that the cold Arctic climate creates a sink for mercury -and Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), and that the already high -levels of mercury in the Arctic are not declining despite emission -reductions in Europe and North America. Around eastern Greenland -levels of some Persistent Organic Pollutants (PCB and DDT) are rela- -tively high in both biotic and abiotic media. - -Studies under the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme -(AMAP) of the Arctic Council prove that levels of certain heavy -metals and POPs are relatively high in a number of marine mammals -living in Greenland waters, i.e. ringed seal (Phoca hispida), harp seal -(Phoca groenlandica), minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), -beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) and narwhale (Monodon -monoceros). Mercury and cadmium can be found in the intestines -of these mammals, and the POPs bio-accumulate in both human and -animal tissue. The National Environmental Research Institute studies -the polar bears and special attention has been drawn to the health of -the East Greenland population of bears as the animals here have the -highest levels of POPs. - -Studies of marine pollution and the effects on human -health are also conducted as traditional Greenlandic -food is rich on fish, seal and other marine mammals. -Studies of human health prove that there is a great -variation in the concentration of pollutants in human -blood in Greenland, and generally the population liv- -ing off the sea show high concentrations of both DDT -and PCB. - -The variations in DDT and PCB levels are explained -by a number of factors. Researchers see increased lev- -els of POPs in marine mammals in the waters of East -Greenland compared to the waters of West Greenland. -But the researchers also find important differences in -lifestyles in the towns of Southwest Greenland com- -pared to the small towns and settlements in Northeast -and Northwest Greenland. Traditionally, meat from -polar bear has been part of the East Greenland diet, -whereas the north-western diet includes more whale. - -Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems -The knowledge about the existence of Vulnerable -Marine Ecosystems (VME’s) is very limited. Organ- -isms, e.g. Gorgonian corals, have been found on both -the West and East coast. The distribution of - -accumulations of large sized sponges is patchy and the presence -depends to a great extent on the local topography. Some sponge fields, -also known as ostur, are known from the east coast (Klitgaard and -Tendal 2004). - -Through their presence, species like corals and sponges increase the -physical heterogeneity of the bottom and the associated fauna is very -rich. Intensive trawling rapidly leads to severe depletion of these -features. VME’s are at present not considered when designating areas -closed to trawling. - -“VME features may be physically or functionally fragile. The most -vulnerable ecosystems are those that are both easily disturbed and -very slow to recover, or may never recover” -Source: International guidelines for the Management of Deep-Sea -Fisheries in the High Seas. FAO. 2008 - -8.2.2 Marine Protected Areas -Greenland and Denmark jointly participates in international forums -where discussions, works and agreements may influence Greenlandic -public affairs. - -Greenland has ratified a series of international conventions on protec- -tion of wildlife, flora and fauna, e.g. the Convention on Wetlands -(RAMSAR), the Convention on International Trade on Endangered -Species of wild flora and fauna (CITES), and the Convention on -Biological Diversity (CBD). To help ensure mechanisms for protecting -the environment and the marine environment the following conven- -tions have been ratified: the London convention on prevention of -marine pollution by dumping wastes, the MARPOL convention for the -prevention of pollution from ships (excluding annex 4 on wastewa- -ter from ships and annex 6 on emissions), the OSPAR convention -for the protection of the maritime area against the adverse effects of -human activities, the Basel convention on transboundary movements -of hazardous wastes and their disposal, the Espoo convention on the -assessment of impacts on the environment in a transboundary context -(excluding the protocol on strategic environmental assessments), and -the Climate convention and the Kyoto protocol on reduction of green- -house gas emissions. - -1 The protected area and year when the conservation was first - introduced: Lyngmarken (1954/1986), the National Park of North - and East Greenland (1974), the Melville Bay (1980), Arnangar - nup Qoorua/Paradisdalen (1989), Akilia (1998), Ilulissat Ice - Fiord/ Kangia (2003), Uunartoq (2005), Qinngua (2005), Aust - manna valley (2008) and Kitsissunnguit Islands/ Grønne Ejeland - - DDT PCB -Northeast Greenland 1.720 4.325 -Northwest Greenland 600 1.045 -Southwest Greenland 265 360 - -Greenland, average 610 950 - -Faroe Islands 600 1.050 -Denmark 155 210 - -Table 1. -Concentration of DDT and PCB in human tissue -Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane and Polychlorin- -ated biphenyls measured in µg per gram of human fat. -Women aged 18 to 49. -Source: Johansen and Rydahl, 2007, p. 54. - -Figure 3. Five protected areas. Map copyright of NASA Visible Earth, the SeaWiFS project, -NASA/Goddard Space Flight Centre, and ORBIMAGE. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -65 - -Besides protected areas, protected wetlands there are thirteen bird -protection areas listed in the Home Rule Government Order no. 5 of 29 -February 2008 on the Conservation of Birds. In these areas activities -are regulated to protect birds in important areas for resting, breeding, -moulting etc. General regulation of activities near cliffs and islands -important to populations of birds apply nationally. - -In ecosystem-based oceans management attention must be brought -to the following protected areas that include marine habitats: The -National Park of North and East Greenland, the Ilulissat Ice Fiord, the -Melville Bay, the Ikka Fiord, and the Kitsissunnguit Islands. -The National Park of North and East Greenland - -The National Park was laid out in 1974 by the Danish Parliament on -recommendation of the former Greenland National Council. In 1988 -the National Park was extended westwards and today it covers 972.000 -km2. The southernmost point of the National Park is located at 71°N -in Scoresby Sound Fiord, while the northernmost point on the island of -Odaaq is at 84°N. The National Park today borders on the traditional -hunting communities of Ittoqqortoormiit on the east coast and Qaanaaq -in northwest Greenland. - -Towards the Arctic Ocean and the Greenland Sea the borders run three -nautical miles off the baseline, i.e. the line connecting the extreme -points of the coast. - -The International Court of Justice in 1933 recognized Danish sover- -eignty and more importantly, recognized that Greenland is one society -united by culture and language. Based on the ruling of the Internatio- -nal Court of Justice, the Second World War and thereafter the Cold -War, the Danish Defence has patrolled the uninhabited areas of -northern and eastern Greenland. During the war patrols travelling - -by dog sledges managed to localize German -weather stations, and since 1952 the Sirius -Patrol of the Danish Defence has patrolled the -National Park area. From a base in Daneborg -a patrol of 12 men travels the entire coastline -each year. - -Stations used by the Ministry of Defence are -placed along the National Park coast: Station -Nord, Daneborg, Mestersvig, Ella Ø, Danmark- -shavn, Kap Moltke and Brøndlund Hus. - -In locations within the National Park there -are a number of research facilities, e.g. the -Zackenberg Research Station, which is an -ecosystem research and monitoring facility -north of Daneborg in East Greenland, and the -US Summit Station, home of the Greenland -Environmental Observatory. In 2008 a new -series of ice core drillings began at the NEEM -Station on the Greenland Ice Sheet just off the -National Park border. - -The National Park of North and East Green- -land is a Managed Resource Protected Area - -in accordance with International Union for Conservation of Nature -(IUCN) guidelines for protected area management. The National Park -is covered by the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme. - -The Home Rule Government has issued the Home Rule Government -Order no. 7 of 17 June 1992 on the National Park of North and East -Greenland, with later amendments. The aim of the order is to ensure -eco-system conservation, i.e. protecting landscapes, geology, sites of -historical or cultural value, and flora and fauna, and to regulate -recreational use of the National Park. - -The Ilulissat Ice Fiord -The Ilulissat Ice Fiord is the sea mouth of Sermeq Kujalleq, one of -the few glaciers through which the Greenland Ice Sheet reaches the -sea. Sermeq Kujalleq is one of the most active glaciers in the world -and it calves large volumes of ice annually. On an average the Sermeq -Kujalleq calves over 35 km3 of ice annually, but large variations apply. - -Protected areas -Measures are taken to protect areas both in land and within the 3 nauti- -cal mile sea territory where they are of considerable natural, cultural or -historic value. - -The status on protected areas in 2008: - 11 protected areas (Nature Conservation Act) - 11 RAMSAR sites (RAMSAR convention) - 13 bird protection areas (Government order on the Conservation - of Birds) - -In eleven areas the Home Rule Government has enforced conservation -in accordance with chapter 5 of the Nature Conservation Act, no. 29 of -18 December 20031, while other eleven areas have been designated as -protected wetlands in accordance with the RAMSAR convention -These areas have international ecological significance and special be -taken in protection. - -Figure 5. The Ilulissat Ice Fiord and the Sermeq Kujalleq glacier edge, 1850 – 2006. -Source: Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, GEUS. - -Figure 4. The National Park of North and East Greenland - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -Export 2000 2007 - -Greenland, total value of export 296.000 327.000 -Value of export, fish 283.000 285.000 -Northern shrimp 181.000 179.000 -Atlantic cod 6.000 11.000 -Greenland halibut 49.000 63.000 -Crab 31.000 14.000 -Other 16.000 18.000 - -Table 1 Value of export in 2000 and -2005 (in 1.000 €). -Source: The Annual Economic Report of -the Greenland Home Rule, 2007. - -66 - -Being an object for scientific attention for 250 years, the Sermeq -Kujalleq glacier has helped to develop our understanding of Ice Sheet -glaciology and climate change. The illustration below (Fig. 5) marks -the retraction of the glacier edge since 1850. - -The Melville Bay - - -The Melville Bay borders with the coast of Northwest Greenland, -opening to the south-west into Baffin Bay. - -Home Rule Government Order no. 21 of 17 May 1989 on the nature -reserve in Melville Bay, protects the coast and waters of Melville -Bay. The border of the nature reserve covers the area between 76° 22’ -30’’N / 64° 01’ 00’’W and 75° 40’ 30’’N / 57° 56’ 00’’W, but within -the nature reserve of Melville Bay an area is laid out as fully protected -(zone II). - -The Ikka Fiord - - -Home Rule Government Order no. 11 of 25 April 2000 on the conser- -vation of the inner waters of the Ikka Fiord, protects the waters of the -fiord and the remarkable submarine columns formed from ikaite found -growing on the bed of the Ikka Fiord. Early research indicates that the -water leaking from the columns is meteoric in origin and shows signs -of enrichment in the chemicals necessary for ikaite formation during -its passage through the Grønnedal Ika complex. - -The protected area covers the inner parts of the fiord, from 61°11’N. -The public has access to the ikaite columns, but only if measures are -taken to protect the columns and the ecosystem. Sailing is permit- - -ted if slow and in a boat with narrow drought, but within 50 m of the -columns only kayaks and the like can be used. - -The Kitsissunnguit Islands -In April 2008 the Home Rule Government issued Order no. 11 of 17 -April 2008 on the Conservation of the Kitsissunnguit Islands. - -The Kitsissunnguit Islands in the Disko Bay region was designated -as a RAMSAR site (site no. 388) in 1988 and the order was issued to -promote the protection of the ecosystem and the biodiversity of the -islands, in particular the important colony of Arctic tern. - -The Institute for Natural Resources in Nuuk and the National Environ- -mental Research Institute have monitored the population of Arctic tern -during the last 6 years. The population of Arctic tern on the Kitsis- -sunnguit Islands is important and relatively large, covering approxi- -mately one-third of the total population in Greenland. Furthermore, the -Kitsissunnguit population is well documented as it has been studied -for decades. In 1946 the population was assessed at 50.000 pairs, but -today only 18.000 pairs of Arctic tern inhabit the islands. In 2002 re- -searchers found that many chickens died or was weakened by the lack -of food, while collection of eggs still took place despite regulations -to protect birds. Based on this information and a long process of local -stakeholder involvement the conservation of the Kitsissunnguit Islands -was introduced in 2008. - -8.3 Commercial and non-commercial marine activities -A wide range of activities may influence the marine environment. -Below attention is drawn to activities within the fisheries and hunting, - -Figure 6. Stock-Catch Status Plots for the West -Greenland Shelf LME; showing the proportion of -developing (green), fully exploited (yellow), over- -exploited (orange) and collapsed (purple) fisheries -by number of stocks (top) and by catch biomass -(bottom) from 1950 to 2004. Note that (n), the -number of “stocks”, i.e.., individual landings time -series, only include taxonomic entities at species, -genus or family level, i.e.., higher and pooled -groups have been excluded (See Pauly et al, for -definitions) - -Source: Aquarone, M.C. and S. Adams. 2008. West -Greenland Shelf – LME #18; published by NOAA -onto the LME Portal and in Sherman, K. and -Hempel, G. (Editors) 2008. The UNEP Large -Marine Ecosystem Report: a perspective on -changing conditions in LMEs of the world’s -Regional Seas. UNEP Regional Seas Report and -Studies No. 182 (figure XlX-58.8, p 782). See -Pauly et al. Fisheries in Large Marine Ecosystems: -Descriptions and Diagnosis for definitions. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -67 - -mineral resources activities, the transportation of goods and passengers -at sea, cruise tourism and finally non-commercial activities with an -influence on the marine environment. Regulation and management of -these activities will be addressed in sections 8.5.1 - 8.5.6. - -8.3.1 Fisheries -The fishing industry has immense importance to Greenland’s economy. -In 2000 the export of fish and fishing produce made up 95 per cent -of the total value of export. Since 2000 the total value of export has -increased, leaving the value of export of fish to drop to less than 90 per -cent of the total value of export. Employment in the fishing industry is -made up by some 2.000 individuals employed with fishing and 3.500 -in processing and distribution. - -Over the last century the industry has seen important changes as stocks -of the most important fish species have fluctuated, as illustrated in -figures 6 and 7. The most important commercial species are northern -shrimp (Pandalus borealis), Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hip- -poglossoides), Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), northern crab (Chio- -noecetes opilio), lumpfish (Cyclopterus lumpus) scallop (Chlamys -islandica), redfish (Sebastes mentella and Sebastes marinus), and -capelin (Mallotus villosus). - -The Stock-Catch Status Plots, as presented by Aquarone and Adams, -indicate that more than 70 per cent of commercially exploited stocks in -the West Greenland Shelf LME have collapsed (Fig. 6, top). However, -with 90 per cent of the landings still from fully exploited stocks, spe- -cifically from the northern shrimp (Fig. 6, bottom). - -Reported landings of commercial fish species show dramatic changes -as the importance of Atlantic cod, which dominated the fisheries from -1950 to 1970, has been replaced by the landings of northern shrimp. -Today northern shrimp represents more than two-thirds of the reported -total catches. - -In the 1960s Atlantic cod was the most important fish species in Green- -land and annual catches peaked at levels between 400.000 and 500.000 -tons in the 1960s. Since then the cod fishing industry has collapsed -and according to NOAA low recruitment played an important role in -this. While the catches of Atlantic cod declined, however, catches of -Greenland halibut and northern shrimp increased. - -The periodic fluctuations of cod stocks have been linked to changes -in both sea and air temperature. According to Aquarone and Adams a - -long-term warming of the West Greenland Shelf LME was interrupted -by cold events that peaked in 1970, 1983-84 and again in 1996. The -decline in cod stocks coincide with cool periods while warmer periods -are paralleled by higher stocks. Overfishing and its effects on stock -size and stock interactions appear to coincide with climatically-driven -variability (Aquarone et al.). Scientists have hypothesised both that -variation in larval and juvenile drift to recruitment variability in the -West Greenland waters (Buch et al., 1994, Pedersen, 1994), while -others find that the present abundance of northern shrimp in the West -Greenland Shelf LME may partly be a result of a lower abundance of -Atlantic cod and redfish (Horsted 1989). According to a third hypoth- -esis the large by-catch of redfish, Greenland halibut, Atlantic cod and -others were caught and discarded in the shrimp fishery of this LME -(Pedersen and Kanneworff, 1995). - -Introduction of the sorting grid in the shrimp fishery in 2000 limited -the bycatch drastically. The shrimp fishery is a relatively clean fishery -today and bycatch must be reported in the logbook by kilo. Some ves- -sels in the inshore shrimp fishery are still exempt from the sorting grid. - -Greenland halibut is mainly fished in the northern fjords, parts of the -fishery is small scale dinghy fishery. Greenland halibut is fished from -the ice using dog sledges or snowmobiles in northern Greenland. -Northern crab is fished by a few large vessels and numerous smaller -ones. The fishery peaked in 2002 and has declined sharply since then. - -According to The Sea around Us project (2007) Greenland accounts -for the largest share of the ecological footprint in the West Greenland -Shelf LME, although a number of European countries accounted for -the majority of the footprint in the 1950s and 1960s, where large Euro- -pean fleets fished Greenlandic waters. - -Annual landings off the East Greenland coast have seen even more -dramatic fluctuations. Reported landings have fluctuated from a low -of 11.000 tonnes in 1983 to a high of 225.000 tonnes in 1996. Until the -early 1970s the reported landings were dominated by cod (with a small -peak again in the 1990s) until the collapse of the stock. Today the com- -mercially fished species are mainly shrimp, capelin and redfish. - -The stock-Catch Status Plots indicate a high proportion of collapsed -stocks in this LME (Fig. 7, top), and a high contribution of these -stocks to the reported landings biomass (Fig. 7, bottom). The jagged -appearance of the latter plot reflects fluctuations in the reported -landings. - -Figure 7. Stock-catch status plots for the East -Greenland Shelf LME; showing the proportion -of developing (green), fully exploited (yellow), -overexploited (orange) and collapsed (purple) -fisheries by number of stocks (top) and by catch -biomass (bottom) from 1950 to 2004. Note that -(n), the number of “stocks”, i.e.., individual land- -ings time series, only include taxonomic entities -at species, genus or family level, i.e.., higher and -pooled groups have been excluded (See Pauly et -al, for definitions) - -Source: Aquarone, M.C., S. Adams, D. Mikkelsen -& T. J. Pedersen. 2008. East Greenland Shelf – -LME #59; published by NOAA onto the LME Por- -tal and in Sherman, K. and Hempel, G. (Editors) -2008. The UNEP Large Marine Ecosystem Report: -a perspective on changing conditions in LMEs of -the world’s Regional Seas. UNEP Regional Seas -Report and Studies No. 182 (Figure Xlll-39.7, p. -549). See Pauly et al. Fisheries in Large Marine -Ecosystems: Descriptions and Diagnosis for -definitions. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -Terrestrial mammals 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007* -Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) 16.901 18.951 15.248 13.715 15.002 11.463 -Musk ox (Ovibos moschantus) 1.478 1.669 1.779 1.955 2.393 2.352 -Polar hare (Lepus arcticus) 2.740 2.436 2.183 1.956 2.473 1.357 -Arctic fox (Alopex lagopus) 2.428 2.610 1.975 2.234 2.681 1.370 -Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) 193 264 225 223 118 156 - -68 - -Projections suggest that climate change over the next century is likely -to benefit the most valuable fish stocks at Greenland. This is particu- -larly likely to be the case for the stock of Atlantic cod, which is likely -to experience a revival to a level, seen during the warm periods of -the 20th century, where it could yield up to 300,000 t on a sustainable -basis. However, climate change and increased predation by Atlantic -cod could lead to a dramatic fall in the sustainable harvest of northern -shrimp by up to 70.000 t. as illustrated below. - -Fishing territories -Fishing takes place along most of the Greenland coast with varieties in -catches depending on local resources. The larger vessels for offshore -fishing (80 BRT or more) are primarily on the west coast of Greenland, -covering the Paamiut, Nuuk, Maniitsoq and Sisimiut area. Some 85 per -cent of the offshore fishing capacity is placed here. The remaining 15 -per cent of the offshore fishing fleet is primarily found in - -Table 2. Reported wildlife game in Greenland (terrestrial mammal, individuals), 2002 – 2007. -Source: Piniarneq (2009), the Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture. The Piniarneq statistics are available -on the Greenland Home Rule homepage, www.nanoq.gl. *Data for the 2007 season only covers the months of -January to September 2007. - -Table 3. Reported wildlife game in Greenland (whales, individuals), 2002 – 2007. - -Source: Piniarneq (2009), the Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture. The Piniarneq statistics are available on -the Greenland Home Rule homepage, www.nanoq.gl. -* Data for the 2007 season only covers the months of January to September 2007. -** Data on fin whale and minke whale covers the months of January to December 2007. -*** Data on white whale and narwhale for both 2006 and 2007 is provisional. - -Whales 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 * - -Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) 2.132 2.323 2.963 3.214 2.923 2.549 -Killer whale (Orcinus orca) 21 5 14 2 0 3 -Pilot Whale (Globicephala melaena) 38 195 265 345 46 230 -Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) 13** 9 13 14 10 12 -Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) 149** 198 190 180 181 169 -Beluga/ White whale (Delphinapterus leucas) 430*** 430 247 157 137 88 -Narwhal (Monodon monoceros) 684*** 666 595 46 411 383 - -Table 4. Reported wildlife game in Greenland (seals, individuals), 2002 – 2007. -Source: Piniarneq (2009), the Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture. The Piniarneq statistics are available on the -Greenland Home Rule homepage, www.nanoq.gl. -*Data for the 2007 season only covers the months of January to September 2007. - -Northern Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) -Eggs from Northern Fulmar -King Eider (Somateria spectabilis) -Common Eider (Somateria mollissima) -Brünnich’s guillemot (Uria lomvia) -Black guillemot Cepphus grylle) -Little Auk (Alle alle) -Eggs from Little Auk -Great black-backed gull (Larus marinus) -Eggs from Great black-backed gull -Glaucous gull (Larus hyperboreus) -Eggs from Glaucous gull -Riden (Rissa tridactyla) -Rock Ptarmigan/ Grouse (Lagopus mutus) - -Birds (selected species) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007* -46 - -7.132 -19.788 - -117.669 -18.369 -43.816 - -69 -66 -65 - -11.612 -34.391 - -942 -59 - -6.096 -21.788 -97.047 -18.187 -28.003 - -180 -296 -186 -195 -408 - -16.157 -19.910 - -860 -95 - -5.816 -18.376 -80.868 -16.383 -14.408 - -220 -275 - -2.168 -413 -683 - -8.353 -22.547 - -750 -34 - -4.940 -20.871 -83.061 -16.235 -21.336 - -528 -207 - -2.124 -474 -948 - -8.832 -17.440 - -1.521 -6 - -4.623 -10.383 -87.449 -16.699 -23.841 -2.175 -1.006 -3.470 - -804 -1.001 -8.199 - -16.757 - -867 -54 - -1.977 -9.961 - -28.391 -3.916 - -23.970 -945 -685 - -2.597 -456 -834 - -5.635 -12.496 - -Table 5. Reported wildlife game in Greenland (selected species of birds, individuals), 2002 – 2007. -Source: Piniarneq (2009), the Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture. The Piniarneq statistics are available on the -Greenland Home Rule homepage www.nanoq.gl -*Data for the 2007 season only covers the months of January to September 2007. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -69 - -Qasigiannguit, Ilulissat and Upernavik on the west coast, and in Tasii- -laq on the east coast. These trawlers are normally larger than 80 BRT -and the majority of them fish Northern shrimp. Many trawlers have -production facilities on board, but the fishery regulation calls for 25 -per cent of the catch to be processed in land. - -Most middle sized vessels (less than 80 BRT) travel to local fishing -areas not too far off the coast. - -Small scale fishing and hunting of seal and whale from open boats -takes place along the entire coast and in the fiords. These boats travel -to local and regional fishing areas just off the coast. The catch is either -traded at the local fish market or used for private consumption. - -The Greenland Fisheries Licence Control Authority only registers -vessels used for commercial fishing. In accordance with ministerial -order no. 5 of January 31 2002 on fishery licence, fishing vessels are -registered as either larger vessels for offshore fishing (longer than 24 -m) or smaller vessels for fishing inshore (less than 24 m). In 2008 the -Greenland Fisheries Licence Control Authority registered 53 vessels -for offshore fishing and 519 small and middle sized boats. - -8.3.2 Hunting -Locally, hunting is both economically and socially important, but hunt- -ing does not contribute extensively to the Greenland national economy. -But traditional hunting is of tremendous cultural value to the people -of Greenland, passing on from one generation to another the skills and -knowledge once needed to survive in the Arctic. Furthermore, hunting -supports the traditional diet of Inuit as much meat from wildlife cannot -be found in convenient stores. - -In a report on occupational hunting, the formal and informal value -of hunting to the Greenland economy is estimated at € 52.200.000 -annually, making up for less than 4 per cent of the Greenland GDP -(Rasmussen, 2005). But full time hunting in common in the northern -and eastern parts of Greenland and locally the income from hunting is -important to the wellbeing of a community. - -A little more than half the value of hunting is registered as trade of -bag, either when traded in at the local production facility or sold at -the local fish and wildlife market. In the 2005 report the contribution -of hunting to the informal economy is some € 25.000.000, as hunting -bag generally is used to supplement the family diet, is used as a gift for -friends and family or is exchanged in the informal economy. - -Hunting statistics -The Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture prepares an annual -report on hunting activities in Greenland, the Piniarneq. Hunting is -regulated and managed by licences, and information in the Piniarneq -report is based on the statutory reports on bag by all licensed hunters. -In the tables below (Table 2 to Table 5) information on game of -terrestrial mammals, whales, seals and selected birds are presented for -the years 2002 – 2007. - -8.3.3 Oil, gas and mineral activities -The Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum (BMP) administers hydrocar- -bon and mineral activities in Greenland. The bureau handles applica- -tions for either mineral, oil or gas licences with a one-door process -making it unnecessary for applicants to contact other agencies within -the Home Rule Government or the Danish Government. - -Mineral exploration and exploitation -The Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum has granted three exploita- -tion licences for mineral activities, but there are expectations of more -licence areas in near future. As illustrated below activities are focused -in a number of locations on the west coast from Cape Farewell to the -Nuussuaq Peninsula, and on the east coast north of Ittoqqortoormiit. -Generally, exploitation licences cover small areas of 5 - 8 km2, while -exploration licences may cover larger areas. - -The Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum use the best international -practises. An application for an exploitation licence is based on an EIA -report, an environmental monitoring plan and a plan on closure. The -latter includes an escrow account with funding for the clean up and -re-establishing of the area. - -Oil and gas exploration - Greenland has no exploitation of hydrocarbon resources today, but -exploration is taking place in 13 offshore licence areas, including an -area in the northeast part of the Davis Strait and in the southeast Baffin -Bay, an area west of Nuuk and an area to the south and west of Cape -Farwell. - -Activities related to oil and gas exploration in the above mentioned -licence areas, which are expected to have some effect on traffic and -navigation security in the West Greenlandic waters, are offshore seis- -mic data acquisition as well as exploration drilling. - -Offshore seismic data acquisition is routinely used to identify and -assess subsurface geological structures, and the potential presence and -extent of any associated hydrocarbon deposits. Data acquired during -initial seismic exploration typically assist in defining more prospec- -tive areas. This then can identify prospective geological structures and -identify the best locations for exploration drilling. - -Exploration drilling is an extensive activity which typically will take -place during the summer months, using either a drilling ship or a drill- -ing rig. An exploration drilling in the waters off West Greenland will -take place in 2010 to 2014 at the earliest. - -Figure 9. Exclusive exploration and exploitation licences for mineral activities, -November 2008. Source: Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum, 2008. - -Exclusive exploration -and exploitation licences - -Figure 8. Catch of cod and shrimp from 1900 to 2060, in thousand of tonnes. -Source: Emmett (et al.) (2007), based on data from ACIA. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -70 - -Of special interest is the effect shipping of oil and gas will have on the -overall navigation security and traffic pattern in Greenlandic waters. -However, the time frame for a possible hydrocarbon production from -an oil field in the waters off West and Southwest Greenland is more -than 15 years. Oil and gas exploitation are most likely to develop in -a limited area, but it is possible that oil and gas exploitation from one -of the present offshore exploration and exploitation licences can lead -to conditions comparable to the North Sea today, where a number of -exploitation facilities are dispersed in a larger area. - -Mineral resource activities in protected areas In Greenland there is -broad political consensus that measures should be taken to develop the -mineral resource sector into one of the mainstays of the economy. - -Environmental and nature considerations in connection with mineral -resources activities are regulated in accordance with order no. 368 of -June 18 1998 on the Act on Mineral Resources in Greenland, generally -referred to as the Mineral Resources Act. Current legislation on the -protection of environment and nature specifically exempt the regula- -tion of activities in connection with exploration and exploitation of -mineral resources. Therefore, it is possible to perform mineral resource -activities in protected areas. However, in some cases the Mineral -Resources Act has stronger protection measures than exclusive nature -conservation legislation, for example by designating areas where -mineral resource activities are regulated to address conservation needs, -e.g. protection of areas important in breeding, calving, moulting and -resting. - -The Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum has stipulated a set of rules -for regulation of environmental and nature considerations of mineral -projects in Regulation on Field Work in Greenland. - -8.3.4 Transportation -Historically travelling by sea has been the primary way for people to -interact, to do trade and most importantly, to make a living. The kayak -was used both for travelling and for hunting of marine mammals, - -while the umiaq, a family size rowing boat, was used for transportation -between the winter and the summer settlement. Where ice cover was -common dogs and sledges were used both in connection with ice fish- -ing and hunting of marine mammals. - -Currently 56.000 individuals live in Greenland, and four in five -Greenlanders live in one of the 18 towns along the coast. Only one -in five individuals lives in a settlement. The west coast towns and -settlements are scattered from the southernmost point to the Melville -Bay area north of Upernavik and in the very north around the town of -Qaanaaq. By comparison, the east coast is sparsely populated by some -3.500 individuals living in two towns, Tasiilaq and Ittoqqortoormiit, -and a small number of settlements. The isolated communities along the -Greenland coast are connected by both sea and air traffic. Air Green- -land operates a net of routes that connects the regions, but sea traffic is -still an important element of the infrastructure. - -All vessels registered in Greenland are regulated by the Danish Mari- -time Authority. - -Shipping -Royal Arctic Line serves the entire coast of Greenland with a fleet -of five container ships, four general cargo ships, one container and -general cargo ship, and a second container and general cargo ship in -long-term charter. The main service is between Aalborg, Denmark, and -the three major ports on the west coast: Nuuk, Sisimiut and Aasiaat. - -On an annual basis Royal Arctic Line travels 140 times between Den- -mark and Greenland, carrying fish and fishery produce to Europe and -bringing back petroleum products, food, manufactured goods, machin- -ery and transporting equipment. Greenland is dependent on imported -oil and petroleum products to cover 90 per cent of the energy supply. - -In 2006 the value of the export was € 325.000. The primary export; -fish and fishery produce is mainly traded within the European market. -The value of the 2006 import was € 464.250. The primary import -markets are Denmark and Sweden, which make up for 97 per cent of -the annual import, while 2 per cent of the import is from the North -American market. Icelandic Eimship operates in the waters between -Iceland, Canada and the USA, and Royal Arctic Lines serves the route -between Reykjavik, Iceland, and Greenland. - -Nationally, containers are carried from Nuuk, Sisimiut or Aasiaat to -the towns of the west coast. In spring and the early summer the sea -ice from the east coast drifts to the waters of South Greenland, creat- -ing difficult conditions for shipping, while the north-western waters -experience sea ice from December until May or June. Tasiilaq on the -east coast is served seven times a year, while Ittoqqortoormiit on the -north-eastern coast and the north-western communities of Qaanaaq are -only served twice every summer. - -Greenland experiences an increase in shipping. Royal Arctic Line -has seen an increase in activities by 30 percent within five years. The -increase is due to both an increase in the export of fish and shrimp and -an increase in the import of consumer goods, machinery and materials -for construction. - -Beside the Royal Arctic Line service other shipping operators use bulk -carriers to carry ore from the mining operations to facilities outside -Greenland. Currently there are two mines in operation: Nalunaq Gold -Mine in Maarmorilik in the Uummannaq region and Minelco Olivine -mine near Maniitsoq. However, the Nalunaq Gold Mine is scheduled -to close in 2009. - -The Home Rule Government expects increases in shipping as the -decline in ice cover, due to climatic changes, open new sailing routes. -Furthermore, the planned re-opening of the Black Angle lead and zinc -mine in Uummannaq, the plans for a new molybdenum mine in the -Malmbjerg area in north-eastern Greenland, and the planned produc- -tion of aluminium on the island of Maniitsoq are activities which are -most likely to further an increase in shipping in Greenlandic waters. -For construction large quantities of materials will be imported to built -the smelter, two hydropower plants and infrastructure, and when the -smelter opens carriers will be needed to ship bauxite to the smelter and -to bring aluminium to the markets in both North America and Europe. - -Figure 10. Exclusive oil and gas license areas in West Greenland, 2008. -Source: Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum, 2008 - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -71 - -Sea travel - Even if air travel predominates in modern Greenland, ferries and small -boats still play an important role in connecting communities. In 2008 -one ferry and 11 passenger boats travel in Greenlandic waters. These -vessels are regulated by the Danish Maritime Authority’s regulations -for small vessels carrying passengers. - -Arctic Umiaq Line operates the only long distance ferry service on the -west coast of Greenland, from Narsarsuaq in the south to Ilulissat in -the north, visiting 12 towns and settlements on the way. The service -operates from April to December, while the ice cover brings the serv- -ice to a stand-still in the last months of the winter and the early spring. - -In the Qaqortoq and Narsaq area and in the Disco Bay area local -ferries connect towns and settlements, but operations are sometimes -challenged by sea ice. Settlements are served by smaller boats carrying -both goods and passengers. Disko Line has 6 passenger boats serving -the Ilulissat, Aasiaat and Qeqertarsuaq and even smaller services con- -nects settlements. Royal Arctic Settlement Service provides a service -from Qeqertarsuaq to Kangerluk in the Disco Bay area, from Arsuk to -Sarfannguaq in Southwest Greenland and in the Tasiilaq district on the -east coast. However, privately owned small boats are often used for -both fishing and commuting. - -8.3.5 Tourism -Tourism activities at sea can be divided into three main categories; -man-powered activities at sea, small passenger boat activities and sea -cruise activities. The text below focuses on sea cruise activities as they -are likely to have the largest consequences for the marine environment -in Greenland. - -Man-powered activities at sea -Sea kayaking in small groups or in cooperation with a local operator -is the primary form of man-powered activities at sea. Generally, sea -kayakers and operators have very high standards regarding waste treat- -ment and will leave no sign of their presence, but as sea kayakers can -go everywhere with very few limitations there are no actual regula- -tions along most of the south-east and west coast. - -Greenland Tourism & Business Council estimates that there are -between 500 - 700 sea kayakers per year doing multiple day trips. - -Small passenger boat activities -A large number of small motor vessels, often carrying less than 50 -passengers, are operated by local tour operators. They usually operate -within 50 nm of their base, but some vessels are chartered to travel -along the coast. Fishing tourism in the fiords is only carried out on a -limited basis. - -The Danish Maritime Authority’s regulations for small vessels carry- -ing passengers apply to these activities. - -Sea cruise activities -Greenland has experienced an increase in cruise tourism over the last -decade. This interest has been sparked both by the effort made by -Greenland Tourism & Business Council to promote cruise tourism -in Greenland and by the international focus on climate change in the -Arctic. - -Cruise tourism covers a wide range of vessels from small expedition -type vessels of 50 to 100 passengers to large ships carrying up to 4.000 -passengers. In 2008 more than 50.000 passengers and crew members -visited Greenland waters, making more than 350 calls. - -Cruise tourism is common all along the coast, but activities are con- -centrated in the south-western regions from Qaqortoq to Ilulissat. Dur- -ing summer an increasing number of transatlantic cruises from Europe -to North America include Greenland calls. Other transatlantic routes -run from Canada to the very north of Greenland or from continental -Europe via Svalbard in Norway, the Faroe Islands or Iceland across -Denmark Strait to the east coast of Greenland. - -However, most cruise ships travel within Greenlandic waters. The -busiest ports are currently Qaqortoq, Nuuk, Sisimiut and Ilulissat, -but Nanortalik, Narsarsuaq, Qeqertarsuaq and Uummannaq are also - -frequently visited. An increasing number of turnarounds are done in -Kangerlussuaq. - -Another area of interest is the east coast of Greenland, where It- -toqqortoormiit had 19 arrivals and Tasiilaq 6 arrivals in 2008. North -of Ittoqqortoormiit is the National Park, where access is restricted and -permits must be attained prior to arrival. Cruise ships can however -travel in waters 3 nm off the coast without any permit. - -The high north of West Greenland has experienced an increase in -cruise ship activities over the last years. Traditionally, the Upernavik -and Qaanaaq area has not seen much tourism, but in 2008 10 of the 43 -cruise ships in Greenland waters were scheduled to cruise the northern -waters. - -8.3.6 Non-commercial marine activities -A number of non-commercial activities may influence the marine envi- -ronment. Some of these activities are of small scale and do not impact -the marine environment, while other activities may influence marine -environment and nature and may call for measures of protection. - -Research activities -Due to a wide range of factors, e.g. the increase in mineral resource -activities, the increased awareness of the climate change and the -consequences in the Arctic, and research during the International Polar -Year (IPY), the number of researchers working in Greenland have -increased. Generally, research activities have only a small effect on -the marine environment as researchers and expedition teams generally -observe high standards of environmental protection. - -Research focuses on the marine ecosystems in waters sparsely covered -today. When findings are made available to the authorities Greenland -benefits from these research activities as management is based on -better data. But an effort must be made in order to make research and -findings available to the general public. - -Small boat ownership -Small boats are used for non-commercial transportation and fishing. -There is no register on private ownership of boats, but the Home Rule -Government has information on 3.000 – 5.000 small boats and open -dinghies (weight < 5 BRT) in use. These boats pose a minor threat -to the marine environment and nature while in use, but disposing off -small boats, fishing vessels and even tankers is a challenge as there is -no national recycling industry. - -The authorities receive reports on illegal dumping of boats 2 to 4 times -a year. - -Waste water - - -There are no waste water treatment plants in Greenland today. Waste -water produced both on land and at sea is disposed off into the ocean. -Most households have drains that connect with public sewers, but there -are still households with no access to sewerage. These houses often -have an open waste pipe allowing washing water to run into the ter- -rain, while toilet water is collected and disposed off into the ocean. - -Industrial waste water from the small scale industry is also disposed -off into the ocean. -The Environmental and Nature Agency prepares regulations of waste -water management and regional waste water planning to be issued in -2009. - -8.4 The Greenland Home Rule Government and institutions -The public administration of Greenland consists of a national admin- -istration and an extensive local administration, both led by elected -assemblies. - -8.4.1 The Greenland Home Rule - Namminersornerullutik Oqartussat - - -For almost thirty years the relationship between Greenland and Den- -mark has been regulated by the Greenland Home Rule Act no. 577 of -29 November 1978. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -72 - -The Home Rule was introduced on 1 May 1979 and the Home Rule -authorities, i.e. the Greenland Parliament (Inatsisartut) and the cabinet -(Naalakkersuisut), still conduct affairs in accordance with the provi- -sions laid down in the act of 1978. - -The Greenland Home Rule Government is divided into seven min- -istries: the Premier’s Office, the Ministry of Finances and Foreign -Affairs, the Ministry of Industry and Labour, the Ministry of Education -and Culture, the Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture, the -Ministry of Family Affairs, and Health and the Ministry of Infrastruc- -ture and Environment. Within each ministry there are a number of -agencies and departments. - -The Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum manages all activities related -to the exploration and exploitation of oil, gas and mineral resources. -The bureau refers to the Greenland Home Rule Government and to the -Danish Government via the Joint Committee on Mineral Resources in -Greenland. - -In relation to oceans management, the Greenland Home Rule has -jurisdiction over activities within 3 nautical miles off the coast, e.g. -fishing and shipping, activities related to national and regional plan- -ning, infrastructure and transportation, hunting and agriculture, and the -conservation and protection of the environment and nature. - -Outside the Greenland territory, 3 nm off the coast, ocean management -is under Danish jurisdiction. - -In ocean management the government seeks advice from a wide range -of independent institutions, including Greenland Institute of Natural -Resources, Asiaq/ Greenland Survey, and the Danish National Envi- -ronmental Research Institute (NERI). The administration also has a -strong tradition of dialog and exchange of knowledge with the Danish -administration. - -Home Rule is succeeded by Self-Government -The Danish-Greenlandic Commission on Greenlandic Self-Govern- -ment, which was established in 2004 to discuss the future relationship -between Denmark and Greenland and to identify fields of responsibil- -ity that could be transferred to Greenland, concluded its work in 2008. -The commission presented to the public a detailed commission report -and a draft for an Act on Greenland Self-Government to succeed the -Greenland Home Rule Act of 1979. - -The people of Greenland endorsed the draft Self-Government Act at -a public referendum on 25 November 2008. The Greenland Home -Rule is likely to be succeeded by the new Self-Government on 21 June -2009, celebrated as the National Day in Greenland. - -The new act recognizes the people of Greenland as a people pursuant -to international law with the right to self-determination and includes -a provision establishing Kalaallisut, the Inuit language spoken in -Greenland, as the official language. Furthermore, the draft act on -Self-Government states that Greenland can have jurisdiction and -financial responsibility of all aspects of public affairs if the parliament, -Inatsisartut, so decides. However, a self-governed Greenland will still -be part of the Kingdom of Denmark and share foreign policies with -Denmark and the Faroe Islands. - -The Self-Government Act also outlines the future economic relation- -ship between Greenland and Denmark. The Danish-Greenlandic Com- -mission agreed that Greenland has the right to the mineral resources -in Greenland. In § 5 of the draft Self-Government Act, Greenland -will still receive an annual grant of € 430.000.000. But if, in the years -to come, the income from activities related to the exploitation of oil, -gas or mineral resources climbs to more than € 10.000.000 annually, -Greenland will see a 50 cent reduction in the grant for every additional -€ 1 earned from these activities. - -In accordance with the Self-Government Act financial independence -from Denmark is realized when the activities in the oil and mineral -industry reach € 860.000.000 a year. Talks on the future relationship -between Greenland and Denmark will then commence. The people of -Greenland can, in accordance with § 21 of the Self-Government Act, -decide on independence in a future referendum. - -8.4.2 The local administration of municipalities and regions - At the local level, the administrative structure resembles the structure -of the national level. Since 1979, Greenland has been divided into 18 -municipalities governing local affairs, e.g. schools, waste management, -local planning. Each municipality, covering one town and a number of -settlements, was governed by a municipal council. In 2009 a structural -reform merged the 18 municipalities into 4 regions. The aim of the -reform is primarily to reduce public spending and to provide better -service to the citizens. - -The small municipalities of the northern region are merged with the -more populous and prosperous Disco region into the new Qaasuitsup -Kommunea (Fig. 11: Avannaa), while Ammassalik and Ittoqqor- -toormiit will merge with Paamiut and Nuuk in one large region, the -Kommuneqarfik Sermersooq (Fig. 11: Kangia-Kitaa). The Qeqqata -Kommunea is formed around Sisimiut and Maniitsoq (Fig. II: Qeqqa) -and in the south Qaqortoq, Narsaq and Narsarsuaq will merge into -Kommune Kujalleq (Fig. 11: Kujataa). - -In relation to the marine environment, the municipalities are responsi- -ble for the management of waste and sewerage locally and for protec- -tion of the marine environment close to the towns and settlements, i.e. -the handling of oil spills. - -8.4.3 Greenland’s economy - - -The Greenland fishing industry developed late compared to other fish- -ing nations in the Atlantic, e.g. Iceland. Therefore, the Greenland fish- -ing activity was relatively insignificant during the first half of the 20th -century, even when compared to the rest of the Greenland economy. -But based on underexploited fish stocks, the Greenland fishing indus- -try expanded smoothly until the 1980s. The cod fishery experienced -a major expansion in the latter half of the 1970s due to reduction in -foreign fisheries activities following the extension of the Greenland -fisheries jurisdiction to 200 nautical miles. However, in 1981 there -was a major contraction of the cod fishery due to overfishing and low -export prices. For three years the Greenland gross domestic product -(GPD) decreased by 9 per cent annually. From 1985 there was a -second short-lived boom in the cod fishery that led to a corresponding -boom in the economy, but this boom was followed by another depres- -sion during which the GDP decreased by over 20 per cent. -Time series data for the export value of the fishing industry are avail- -able from 1966 till today. These data have been used to estimate the - -Figure 11. The 2009 reform and the four new regions; the North region now -named Qaasuitsup Kommunia, the mid region Qeqqata Kommunia, the -East-West Kommuneqarfik Sermersooq and the southern Kommune Kujalleq. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -73 - -form and parameters of relationship between GDP and the real export -value of the fish products. It is projected that a 1 per cent increase in -the export value of fish products will lead to a 0.29 per cent increase -in the GDP of Greenland. This equation can be used to predict the -economic impact of a change in fish stock availability resulting from -climate change. - -Scenarios for the future -Emmett Duffy discusses three scenarios for the future of the fisher- -ies and thereby the future of the Greenland economy (Emmett Duffy, -2007). The pessimistic scenario assumes that despite favourable -habitat conditions the Atlantic cod will not re-establish permanently -in Greenland waters. Instead, there will be periodic highs in the cod -fishery followed by lows, and corresponding changes in shrimp fisher- -ies. In the moderate scenario as described by Emmett Duffy, Greenland -will see a modest and gradual return of Atlantic cod to Greenland, -which in 20 years will be capable of yielding 100.000 t. / year. The -increase in the availability of fish leads to a moderate long-term -increase in GDP of 6 per cent. A third, optimistic scenario, assumes a -return of the Greenland cod stock, initially generated by Icelandic cod -larval drift to the levels of the 1950s and 1960s. A full revival would -take some decades, but in 30 years the cod stock would be capable -of producing an average yield of 300.000 t. a year. This scenario will -lead to an ultimate increase in GDP of 28 per cent compared with what -would otherwise have been the case. - -The social impacts of these future scenarios are important. If the op- -timistic scenario was to occur and the increase in Atlantic cod harvest -was mainly caught by Greenland fishermen and processed for export -in Greenland, it would remedy the unemployment situation and create -an income for the large group of self- employed fishermen and hunters. -A climb in cod fishery might lead to large scale fish processing plants -being established in some of the more densely populated regions of -Greenland. - -The economic and social impacts of changes in fish stock availability -depends on the direction, magnitude and rapidity of these changes, but -also on society’s ability to respond and adjust to new conditions and -thereby mitigate the negative impacts of change. - -Within the next decade changes are expected in sectors besides the -fisheries. American Alcoa plans to open an aluminium smelter in Ma- -niitsoq in 2015, creating employment in both construction and in the -operation of the smelter. Establishing an industrial facility in a small -community will dramatically increase activities in both Maniitsoq -and in the neighbouring communities as the need for both goods and -services will increase. In the mineral industry exploration licences may -result in new mines being opened, while in the tourism sector steps are -taken to maintain the interest in Greenland’s unique nature and culture. -Finally, more jobs will be created in the public sector if Greenland -continues on the road towards increased independence from Denmark. - -8.4.4. Enforcement of sea territories -Greenland has a 3 nm territorial sea boundary. The territory includes -fiords, harbours and waters within 3 nm off the extreme points of the -coast. These waters are protected by the regulations laid down in Act -no. 4 of 3 November 1994 on Marine Protection, with later amend- -ments. National Park regulations protects the waters of the National -Park area to the 3 nm territorial sea boundary too. - -Participating in the monitoring and protection of the sea is Danish -Ministry of Defence, i.e. Island Command Greenland and the Sirius -Patrol in the National Park, MRCC Groennedal, the Danish Polar -Centre, the Environmental and Nature Agency of the Greenland Home -Rule, and local authorities. - -The Environmental and Nature Agency, in close cooperation with -local authorities, run pollution control and clean up after oil spills -etc. Contingency plans have been established and the Home Rule has -provided oil spill equipment, including oil skimmers, floating barrages, -oil absorbent granulate or textile, storage tanks etc. in 11 towns on the -West coast and Tasiilaq on the East coast. Currently, the oil spill equip- -ment can only handle small and medium sized spills, and distances and -weather conditions are important in managing spills. - -Island Command Greenland, based in Groennedal, offer assistance -in rescue operations and environmental operations at sea within the -Greenland sea territory too. - -The Danish sea territory extents from the 3 nm zone to the 200 nm -Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ line). This territory is protected by the -Danish Marine Protection Act from 1993 with later amendments. The -Danish sea territory is guarded by the Danish State, in particular the -Danish Ministry of Defence and Island Command Greenland. Island -Command Greenland operates inspection vessels and helicopters to -control the territory, participate in rescue operations and the clean up -of spills at sea. The Sirius Patrol of the Ministry of Defence monitors -activities in the National Park area. The Maritime Rescue Coordination -Centre, MRCC Groennedal, monitors sea traffic via the GREENPOS -positioning system and initiate rescue operations. - -8.5 Policies and approaches in oceans management -Below is a description of applied ocean management policies and -approaches in fisheries, in the management of oil, gas and mineral -resources, in shipping and tourism and finally in management of nature -and wildlife. - -8.5.1 Fisheries practices and management status -Fishing and hunting is regulated by the Ministry of Fishery, Hunting -and Agriculture. The Greenland Fisheries Licence Control Authority -conducts fishery inspection while the Greenland Institute of Natural -Resources monitors stocks. The fishing industry tries to balance the -possibilities of modern fishing technology with the need to sustain the -natural resources. The quota system managed by the Ministry of Fish- -ery, Hunting and Agriculture is a two-tier system which differentiates -inshore fishery from offshore fishery of northern shrimp, Atlantic cod -and Greenland halibut.Management of the Greenland fisheries focuses -on individual species. Greenland has not implemented ecosystem- -based management systematically, but measures such as periodical and -geographical restrictions apply in some fisheries. - -Aim of the management of fisheries -The overall purpose of the current management scheme is to secure -a sustainable and responsible fishery that considers the interest of as -many as possible. - -Central to the management scheme is a quota system, based on annual -Total Allowable Catches (TAC’s) and biological advice, and rules -regarding ownership of fishing vessels. Current management prin- -ciples inhibits introduction of new fishing capacity, although it does -not inhibit enhancement of existing capacity through technological -improvements. - -For commercial fishing one has to apply for a licence and a quota. -Each licence includes restrictions, e.g. maximum quota, time of year, -geographical access and technical requirements following the Fisheries -Act and government orders of the Home Rule. - -Setting the TAC level - In order to keep harvest levels within sustainable limits, TAC’s for in- -dividual species are based on biological advice from the researchers of -the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources. The advice makes use of -the best available knowledge and is often based on recommendations -from regional and scientific organizations. - -The Minister for the Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture recommends -annual TAC’s to the government and thereafter the government agrees -to accept the recommendations or to suggest alterations. - -Stakeholder involvement -Stakeholder involvement is central to the activities of the Fisheries -Council. The Fisheries Council brings together representatives from -the costal and the offshore fisheries organizations, the workers union -(SIK) and the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources. - -When a decision cannot be made based on current legislation the -stakeholders are involved via the Fisheries Council. But the council -also meets on a regular basis to discuss themes relevant to the council - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -74 - -and to bring forward recommendations and opinions to the political -level. - -Economic modelling -To improve consequence analysis of the Greenland fisheries, an effort -is made to develop better economic models these years. Currently, -a model for the financially important fishery of northern shrimp is -developed to include the fishery of Greenland halibut too. The models -seek to cover as many socio-economic factors as feasible, using the -best available knowledge. Stakeholders like the Fisheries Council, -representatives from the industry and the unions of both employers and -employees are involved in providing accurate data for the models. - -International cooperation -Greenland is a member of a number of regional organizations and -cooperates further through bilateral agreements on both stocks and -control issues. The most important organizations are mentioned below: - -The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization - (NAFO): The NAFO convention area covers the entire west coast -of Greenland where most of the Greenland fishery resources are -harvested. NAFO is in the process of modernizing its convention to -include principles of ecosystem management. At the 29th annual meet- -ing in Lisbon, NAFO members approved this modernization and each -member is now in the process of ratifying the updated convention. - -The North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission -(NEAFC): The NEAFC convention area covers the east coast of -Greenland and has also been modernized recently to focus more on -ecosystems. - -The North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization -(NASCO): The NASCO works to promote the conservation, restora- -tion and management of salmon stocks. The organization focuses on a -single species. Greenland has agreed not to utilize wild salmon stocks -commercially. - -Cooperation on fisheries management is also facilitated through the -North Atlantic Fisheries Ministers Conference (NAFMC) and through -the Nordic Council of Ministers (NCMS). Greenland is a member of -both forums. - -Greenland has bilateral agreements on the exchange of quotas with -Norway, Iceland, The Faroe Islands and Russia. Furthermore, Green- -land has a fish-for-money agreement with the EU. These agreements -include cooperation on control and enforcement issues mainly in the -exchange of data. Currently negotiations are ongoing with Canada to -engage in formal cooperation. - -8.5.2 Oil, gas and mineral practices and management -The mineral resources system establishes that the political respon- -sibility for the mineral resources area is a joint Danish-Greenlandic -concern. This infers that Greenland and Denmark have joint decision -competence for significant dispositions in the field of mineral resource. - -The Joint Committee on Mineral Resources in Greenland -The Joint Committee on Mineral Resources in Greenland has been es- -tablished as a political forum, consisting of politicians from Greenland -and Denmark, in which central issues concerning the mineral resources -are debated. - -The Joint Committee on Mineral Resources in Greenland consists of -five political members appointed by the Greenland Parliament (Inatsi- -sartut) and the Danish Parliament, respectively. In addition a chairman -is appointed by the Queen after common nomination from the Govern- -ment and the Greenland Home Rule Government for four-year terms. - -The purpose of the Joint Committee is to follow the development -in the mineral resources area and to submit recommendations to the -Government and the Home Rule Government in e.g. issues on granting -reconnaissance and exploitation licences. - -The detailed regulation on the mineral resources system are laid down -partly in the Greenland Home Rule Act and partly in the Act on Min- -eral Resources in Greenland, no. 368 of 18 June 1998. - -The Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum under the Greenland -Home Rule -The Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum under the Greenland Home -Rule is responsible for the management of the mineral resources area -in Greenland. - -The basis for the activities in the mineral resource sector is the ambi- -tious objectives to provide a basis for all mineral resources activities -so that these activities can be implemented in consideration of a sound -environment and in accordance with the highest international standards -for the purpose of protecting the vulnerable Arctic nature. On this -background the Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum draws on the ex- -pertise of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS), -the Danish National Environmental Research Institute (NERI) and the -Danish Energy Agency (DEA) within the Danish Ministry of Climate -and Energy. - -Environmental impact assessments -In connection with the opening of frontier areas with technologically -challenging conditions the Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum develops -Strategic Environmental Impact Assessments (SEIA) as part of the -basis of decision in relation to granting licences to the hydrocarbon -industry. The SEIA provides an overview of the environment in the -licence area and adjacent areas, which may potentially be impacted by -the hydrocarbon activities, and identifies major potential effects associ- -ated with future offshore hydrocarbon activities. Furthermore the SEIA -identifies gaps in knowledge and data, highlight issues of concern, -make recommendations for mitigation and planning and identifies -general restrictive or mitigative measures and monitoring requirements -that must be dealt with by the companies applying for hydrocarbon -licences. - -However, it is the responsibility of the license holding companies to -prepare Environment Impact Assessments (EIA) for their specific -activities. The company initiated EIA must cover the entire region that -might be affected, including land facilities. It also must cover trans- -boundary aspects, including the impacts of oil pollution on neighbour- -ing countries. The EIA shall include the full lifecycle of activities: -exploration, field development, production transport and decommis- -sioning. The EIA must be updated and further developed when needed, -e.g. when moving from the explorations to the production phase, or -if there is a change in the plans presented in the EIA. The initial EIA -related primarily to exploratory drilling shall focus on this activity, but -must include assessment of scenarios of possible activities related to -production, transport and decommissioning. - -The Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum has developed guidelines for -preparing an Environmental Impact Assessment report. In developing -these guidelines, information on the requirements to EIAs related to -hydrocarbon exploration, development, production, decommission- -ing and transport in other Arctic countries has been studied. Valuable -information was found in material from Alaska, Canada and Norway. -Furthermore, the guidelines are based on the Arctic Offshore Oil -& Gas Guidelines issued by the Arctic Council, and on the OSPAR -Guidelines for Monitoring the Environmental Impacts of Offshore Oil -and Gas Activities. - -Similar EIA guidelines have been prepared for mining companies -operating in Greenland. - -Environmental assessments of activities related to hydrocarbon -exploration offshore West Greenland was initiated in 1992, when the -National Environmental Research Institute made a review of the avail- -able data which could be used to assess activities related to hydrocar- -bon exploration in the eastern Davis Strait during summer (Boertmann -et al., 1992). Based on this review studies were initiated to improve -knowledge of seabird colonies (Boertmann et al. 1996), moulting -areas and offshore seabird concentrations (Durinck & Falck 1996, -Mosbech et al. 1996). The main ecological issues related to offshore -hydrocarbon exploration in Greenland were reviewed (Mosbech et al. -1995) and an initial assessment of potential environmental impacts of -hydrocarbon exploration in the Fylla area located in the Davis Strait -was conducted (Mosbech et al. 1996). The Fylla area is one of the -most productive regions in Greenlandic waters and it represents an im- -portant site for birds, marine mammals and fisheries. The most serious - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -75 - -potential impact of oil exploration in the Fylla area is a major oil spill, -especially if the spill reaches the coast. To minimize the environmental -risk of large oil spills during oil exploration, emphasis is put on plan- -ning of activities to avoid operations during the most sensitive periods -and in the most sensitive areas, and first of all to operate safely and -to prevent accidental spills. To enhance damage control during a spill -operational environmental oil spill sensitivity maps covering the West -Greenland coastal zone between 62°N to 68°N has been produced -(Mosbech et al. 2000). - -In continuation of these maps and as part of the preparations for -exploratory drilling offshore West Greenland an environmental oil spill -sensitivity atlas for the South Greenland costal zone was produced in -2004 (Mosbech et al. 2004a). The objective of this project was to pro- -duce an overview of resources vulnerable to oil spills, e.g. biological -resources, and to draft responses to oil spills in this region. Further- -more, there exists an environmental oil spill sensitivity atlas for the -region between 68°N and 72°N in West Greenland, including offshore -waters to the Canadian border (Mosbech et al. 2004b). - -Recently, a SEIA of activities related to exploration, development and -exploitation of hydrocarbon in the sea off West Greenland between -67°N and 71°N has been produced (Mosbech et al. 2007). The offshore -waters and coastal areas is the focus of this SEIA as they may be most -affected by activities related to hydrocarbon exploration, particularly -from accidental oil spills. The assessment area is very important in -an ecological context. Biological production in spring and summer is -very high, there are rich benthic communities and large and important -seabird and marine mammal populations. Fish and shrimp stocks in the -area contribute significantly to the fishing industry in Greenland, and -local communities utilise the coastal areas through subsistence hunting -and fishing. The assessment had identified where more knowledge is -needed to assess possible impacts of activities related to oil and gas -exploration and exploitation. A plan for supplementary background -studies to fill identified information gaps at the overall strategic level -has therefore been developed. - -The northwest Baffin Bay, which geologically is an important north- -ward extension of the region between 68°N and 72°N, is considered -opened for oil and gas exploration, and therefore another SEIA of this -region has been initiated. In that respect, background data are needed -and a series of new projects are in the planning phase, some of which -represent extensions to the projects from the region just south of the -Baffin Bay area. - -The East Greenland rift basins have recently been in focus due to the -U.S. Geological Survey’s assessment of expected undiscovered oil and -gas resources in the shelf region. The main targets for oil exploration is -from north to south the Danmarkshavn basin, the East Greenland basin -including the Jameson Land basin, and the less known Kangerlussuaq -basin. However, the Danmarkshavn basin offshore Northeast Green- -land is expected to contain the most of the undiscovered hydrocarbon -resources. - -In relation to a future licence call offshore Northeast Greenland the -Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum and the Danish National Environ- -mental Research Institute are working on the development of a SEIA -related to exploration, development and exploitation of oil and gas in -the sea off Northeast Greenland. Environmental background studies -were initiated in 2007 and the studies are expected to strengthen the -knowledge base for planning, mitigation and regulation of oil and gas -activities in the assessment area. The main issues and some of the pre- -liminary results and analysis from the background study programme -are to be incorporated into a preliminary SEIA by the end of 2008. The -final SEIA is to be issued in 2010. - -8.5.3 Management of shipping -The Maritime Rescue Coordination Center in Greenland, MRCC -Groennedal, monitors shipping along the Greenland coast using the -GREENPOS ship reporting system. Since 2002 all ships have been -obliged to report information, including vessel name and ID, position, -destination, personnel, and current weather and ice situation upon -entering Greenlandic waters. The ships report their position, course, -speed and actual weather information to MRCC Groennedal via - -GREENPOS every six hours while sailing in Greenland waters. When -no report is received and no radio or satellite contact can be made with -a ship, a rescue operation is prepared. A final report is sent to GREEN- -POS upon departure. Aasiaat Costal Radio is used for communication -at sea. - -Besides reporting to the GREENPOS system any ship registered out- -side the Kingdom of Denmark has to seek diplomatic clearance before -entering the 3 nm territorial waters. - -Safety at sea -The Danish Maritime Authority, the Danish Maritime Safety Admin- -istration and the National Survey and Cadastre in the 2006 report -Safe Shipping in Greenlandic Waters made recommendations on the -improvement of safety at sea. The recommendations included the use -of searchlights, updating charts and mapping of recommended sea pas- -sages, the use of ice guides/ local guides onboard, and the development -of electronic identification and tracking systems. - -Working groups were established to initiate the implementation of -the recommendations in Greenland. In 2009 the Danish Maritime -Authority plans to issue regulation on mandatory use of searchlights -to improve ice detection. Also national regulations, i.e. an order on -safety of navigation in Greenland waters, will be issued by the Danish -Maritime Authority in 2009. - -The National Survey and Cadastre will update charts of Greenland -waters in 2007 to 2012, and based on these charts recommended sea -passages can be mapped. Focusing on the safety at sea for small boats, -campaigns have addressed the importance of basic skills, including -landfall, the reading of maps and the use of emergency radios. - -8.5.4 Management of cruise tourism - - -As Greenland experience an increase in cruise ship tourism, the con- -sequences of these activities on both local communities and the Arctic -nature must be monitored. As large numbers of cruise ship tourists -visit the small communities of Greenland. They bring trade, but they -also necessitate an increased need for nature conservation and regula- -tion on access to vulnerable nature and the need for improved waste -management in towns and settlements. In developing cruise ship tour- -ism and in meeting the challenges of these activities the municipalities -are important as they provide services locally. - -Almost all cruise ships report planned calls well in advance to the local -port agents. In the annually published Cruise Manual Greenland Tour- -ism & Business Council recommends ports capable of handling ships -of a certain size, but ultimately the operators and the captains of the -cruise ships decide weather to follow these recommendations. - -The marine environment -The marine environment is protected by the Marine Protection Act, -no. 4 of 3rd of November 1994 with later amendments, while waters -outside the 3 nm zone is protected by Danish legislation. The Marine -Protection Act prohibits dumping of materials and waste and allows -for regulation on discharge of waste water from ships. The marine -environment within the National Park and the marine nature reserve in -Melville Bay are furthermore protected by the regulations issued for -these areas. - -Denmark is a member of the International Maritime Organization -(IMO), and international conventions on protection of the marine envi- -ronment are effective too. The operators of large cruise ships observe -the international conventions on marine protection. - -Greenland Tourism & Business Council states that most small expedi- -tion cruise operators that visit Greenland are members of the Associa- -tion of Arctic Expedition Cruise Operators (AECO). AECO members -agree that expedition cruises and tourism must be carried out with the -utmost consideration for the vulnerable environment, local cultures -and cultural remains as well as the challenging safety hazards at sea. -Greenland Tourism & Business Council and the Environmental and -Nature Agency of the Home Rule are involved in developing guide- -lines for expedition cruises in the Arctic. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -76 - -Cruise ships and safety at sea -The consequences of an accident involving a cruise ship at sea may -however be more important as both rescue operations and clean up can -be challenged by harsh weather conditions and long distances. Cur- -rently, measures are introduced to improve safety at sea, as described -above in section 8.5.3, and these measures are significant to cruise ship -operators too. - -Cruise ships report information on position etc. to Island Command -Greenland via the GREENPOS system, but there is no regulation -on routes. As some waters are still poorly charted Island Command -Greenland recommend that all ships sailing in these waters travel in -groups of two or more for safety reasons. This again is not a formal -regulation. - -8.5.5 Nature management -The administration of nature management is shared between the Min- -istry of Infrastructure and Environment and the Ministry of Fishery, -Hunting and Agriculture within the Greenland Home Rule. - -8.5.5.1 Wildlife management - -The Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture has issued a series -of regulations on hunting, including the Greenland Home Rule Act no. -12 of 29 October 1999 on hunting with later amendments, and a series -of ministerial orders regulating the quota regulated hunt for single -species, including the walrus, polar bear, white whale and narwhal. -Regulated are also the hunt for caribou (Rangifer tarandus), and musk -ox (Ovibos moschantus). - -At present, Greenland has not implemented ecosystem-based wildlife -management. Wildlife management today focuses on harvest manage- -ment of individual species. This, however, do involve some aspects of -ecosystem-based management through cross-sectoral involvement of -relevant authorities and stakeholder consultation. - -The Greenland government is in the process of developing procedures -for ecosystem-based management that will take account of available -financial resources and seek to meet the overall management aims for -Greenland’s living resources. - -International cooperation -Greenland is represented in a number of international forums that -provide recommendations for management of wildlife species. Only -recommendations made by the International Whaling Commission -(IWC) are legally binding. - -The International Whaling Commission (IWC): Greenland is repre- -sented in IWC via Denmark. The aim of the IWC is to conserve whales -and to ensure sustainable harvest levels. - -The North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO): -Greenland, together with Norway, Iceland and Faeroe Islands, is a -member of NAMMCO. NAMMCO works for regional protection, -rational management and research on marine mammals in the North -Atlantic. Canada is not a member of NAMMCO and it has therefore -been necessary to establish forums for bilateral collaboration on shared -populations of marine mammals, i.e. the Joint Committee for Narwhal -and Beluga between Canada and Greenland and the working group for -joint management of the polar bear. - -The Joint Committee for Narwhal and Beluga between Canada -and Greenland (JCNB): The JCNB provides biological and manage- -ment advice for shared populations of narwhal (Monodon monoceros), -beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) and walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) in -the sea between Greenland and Canada. - -The Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF): CAFF is -one of the six permanent working groups within the Arctic Council. -The aim of the working group is to address the conservation of Arctic -biodiversity and to promote practices which ensure the sustainability of -the Arctic’s living resources. Greenland chairs CAFF in 2006 - 2009. - -The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of -Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES): CITES was laid out by the -Washington Convention in 1977, and Greenland participates in CITES. -The CITES administration is managed by the Environmental and -Nature Agency of the Greenland Home Rule, and there is cooperation -with the Forestry and Nature Agency in Denmark. - -The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN): -Greenland participates in the IUCN. - -Bilateral agreements: Each year the Greenland Home Rule Govern- -ment provides mandate to bilateral consultations between Greenland -and other countries regarding common stocks of fish and marine -mammals. The Home Rule Government provides mandate for signing -agreements from case to case. - -Harvest management process -The management of Greenland’s living resources is divided between -three ministries: the Ministry of Fishery, Hunting and Agriculture, -who is responsible for the management of commercially exploited fish -species, terrestrial mammals and marine mammals (including polar -bears), the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment responsible -for international agreements and conventions regarding biodiversity -(ext. IUCN) and nature conservation, and the Ministry of Industry and -Labour, who is responsible for trophy hunting, sport fishing and other -tourism activities related to wildlife, e.g. whale watching. - -Biological advice on harvest management -The Greenland Institute of Natural Resources provides management -advice through participation in the scientific committees of the rel- -evant international organizations, such as IWC, NAMMCO or JCNB. -For populations not covered by international agreements, such as musk -ox and caribou, the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources provides -scientific advice upon request from the managing authority. - -Upon request from the managing authority, the Greenland Institute -of Natural Resources provides advice on sustainable harvest levels -and other regulatory mechanisms for all species under quota manage- -ment, except advice on larger whales as they are the responsibility of -the IWC. Advice on sustainable harvest levels makes use of the best -available knowledge and often it is based on recommendations from -international forums. - -Based on advice on sustainable harvest levels, harvest statistics and -user knowledge, the Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture -produces a first draft of suggested harvest management decisions. It -is the responsibility of the managing authority to decide how much -weight is put on the different knowledge sources. The relevant minister -has the final say and can overrule any harvest management suggestions -made by relevant administrations. - -Figure 12. Protection of the Ilulissat Ice Fiord -Source: The Ministry of Environment and Nature, Environmental and Nature -Agency in government order no. 10 of 15 June 2007. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -77 - -Stakeholder consultation in harvest management -The primary stakeholders are organized in the full time hunters’ or- -ganization (KNAPK), the organization for spare time hunters (TPAK), -but the organization for the Greenland municipalities (KANUKOKA) -is also involved. Other relevant agencies are the Ministry of Infrastruc- -ture and Environment, the Environmental and Nature Agency and the -Greenland Institute of Natural Resources. - -The first draft of harvest management decisions is subjected to an -internal hearing process through relevant departments within the Home -Rule administration. Relevant corrections are made and the second -draft is then presented to the Hunting Council, who provides recom- -mendations based on their discussion. - -The council consists of two representatives from KNAPK, one rep- -resentative from TPAK, and one representative form KANUKOKA. -Based on the recommendations of the council amendments are made -to the second draft. The third draft is hereafter subjected to an external -hearing process though the KNAPK, the TPAK, the KANUKOKA and -the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources. - -Final harvest management decision -Upon receiving answers from the external hearing process, final -harvest management decisions are made and approved by the Minister -of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture. Upon signing by the minister, -the harvest management decisions are presented in government, and if -accepted the management decisions are published on the Home Rule -website and through press releases. - -The Tulugaq campaign on sustainable use of the living resources -In 2002 – 2004 the Tulugaq campaign on sustainable use of the living -resources was issued by the Home Rule Government. The aim of the -campaign was to start a dialogue on the use of living resources in -Greenland based on scientific knowledge and to thereby to secure a -sustainable use of the 40 to 50 species generally hunted in Greenland. - -An important element of the campaign was to involve hunters along -the coast in the dialogue on and improvement of sustainable use of -living resources. Therefore seminars, meetings for local stakeholders -and authorities, and public town hall meetings were held locally. At the -seminars and meetings the need for both stakeholder involvement and -improved cooperation between agencies and scientists was mentioned, -as well as the need for a clear policy on the administration of licences -for hunting quota managed species, and improved training for hunters. - -As part of the Tulugaq campaign both folders and posters and a -homepage with information on sustainable use of living resources was -published, reaching out for both children and the general public. A se- -ries of factual folders was produced on 7 individual species; common -eider (Somateria mollissima), Brünnich’s guillemot (Uria lomvia), -Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea), narwhal (Monodon monoceros), white -whale (Delphinapterus leucas), walrus (Odobenus rosmarus), and -polar bear (Ursus maritimus). - -8.5.5.2 Nature conservation -An area can be registered as a protected area by the Home Rule -Government, but both local municipalities and non-governmental or- -ganizations working for the protection flora and fauna, can suggest for -an area to be designated as protected. The Environmental and Nature -Agency prepares a draft for the conservation of an area involving the -stakeholders, and sees that the plans are advertised in the media at -least two months before the conservation becomes effective. A plan -for a conservation of an area must illustrate the purpose and the extent -of the conservation, plans for monitoring and care, and details on the -future management of the area. -In the sections below attention is paid to the management of five -protected areas with marine habitats. - -The National Park of North and East Greenland -National Park management and monitoring is shared between authori- -ties in Greenland and Denmark: The Environmental and Nature -Agency of the Greenland Home Rule, the Danish Defence (MRCC -Groennedal and the Sirius Patrol) and the Danish Polar Centre in -Copenhagen. - -Access to the National Park -Access to the National Park and the Greenland Ice Sheet is regulated -by the Danish Executive order on access to and conditions for travel- -ling in certain parts of Greenland, no. 1280 of 7th of December 2006, -and guidelines on access, no. 113 of 7th of December 2006. - -The Danish Polar Centre administers access to the park for research- -ers and visitors, granting permits for any sailing in the National Park -and travels of more than 24 hours duration in the land areas. Perma- -nent residents can, however, access the park area for ordinary traffic -and travelling on the occasion of usual hunting and fishing activities -without a permit. The application for travel permits in the National -Park and areas regulated by the executive order must provide informa- -tion on travel route, supplies and equipment, planned activities etc. -Conditions aiming at avoiding any rescue operation, such as travel -restrictions in terms of time or geographical area, and the requirement -of bringing emergency equipment, may be stipulated in the permit. - -As many researchers visit the National Park and the Greenland Ice -Sheet valuable information on remote areas of Greenland are collected. -Therefore, researchers, participants in expeditions and tours are asked -to write a travel report. - -During the application process the Danish Polar Centre hear the Green- -landic authorities, through the Environmental and Nature Agency, -who involve other relevant institutions. When a project in the National -Park or on the Greenland Ice Sheet may have consequences for the -environment, an environmental operation permit is issued. In 2008, the -Environmental and Nature Agency has issued environmental opera- -tion permits to a number of research projects, including the recovery -of downed planes, ice core drilling projects and a traverse connecting -research camps on the Ice Sheet. In the permit the storage of fuel and -environmentally hazardous materials, the handling of waste and the -clean up of the area is regulated. - -The Home Rule in 2008 prepared a report on the future administration -of access to the National Park and the Greenland Ice Sheet. Recom- -mendations have been made to transfer the administration of access to -the National Park and the Greenland Ice Sheet, as regulated by Chapter -1 of the executive order, from the Danish Polar Centre to the Envi- -ronmental and Nature Agency of Home Rule Government as of 1st of -January 2010. - -Protection of the National Park -Protection of the National Park is administered by the Home Rule -Government. - -The Mineral Resources Act allows for exploration and exploitation -licences to be issued for an area within the park, but the National Park -committee can ask that measures are taken by the licence holder to -protect the nature and wildlife of the National Park. - -Other activities within the park are regulated by the National Park -government order. For instance fishery is only allowed by rod or pilke, -and only the personnel at the stations in the park, e.g. the Sirius Patrol -personnel, are allowed to hunt for seal, grouse and hare. Residents in -the municipalities near the park, Qaanaaq and Ittoqqortoormiit, can -engage in traditional activities like hunting using dog sledges, kayak or -motorized boats. But hunters must report on their activities to the local -authorities. And to protect the wildlife of the park mammals and birds -may not be disturbed by visitors in the park. No eggs can be collected, -and only dogs used for dog sledges may be brought into the park. -Mineral resources activities in the National Park Mineral resources -activities will not have a significant impact on nature protection in -all parts of the park, but the Bureau of Mineral and Petroleum notice -that there are vulnerable areas within the National Park. Exploitation -activities may lead to long term conflict with nature and environmental -considerations, but many conflicts can be reduced through the require- -ments laid down by the authorities in connection with approval of -planned activities. - -Management of biological nature protection interests can be carried -out using a model to designate biological protection areas – hot spots -– and buffer zones. Within the hot spots and buffer zones the National - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -78 - -Environmental Research Institute develop regulation mechanisms for -activities that must be either regulated or excluded for periods of time -where individual species are particularly vulnerable. - -The following initiatives are suggested with regard to mineral re- -sources activities in areas with a special need for nature protection: -existing background knowledge must be much better than it is today; -Environmental Impact Assessments must be carried out for the entire -life cycle of an activity from exploration and exploitation to closure; -and finally a computer-based GIS tool should be developed, integrat- -ing both nature protection interests and impacts from mineral resources -activities. - -The Strategy Plan for the National Park -In addition to conservation interests, there are other interests in the -National Park area, e.g. economic interests in relation to tourism and -the exploitation of mineral resources, traditional use interests and -recreational interests. Due to the many interests a strategy plan for the -National Park is being developed by the Environmental and Nature -Agency in cooperation with the Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum and -other agencies introducing zonation. - -As part of the Strategy Plan for the National Park, the Home Rule -Government is developing zonation of the National Park to ensure -conservation interests and prove opportunity for economic develop- -ment. In accordance with § 20, the National Park area can be divided -into separate zones: zone 1) especially valuable and vulnerable, zone -2) areas that are important and sensitive, zone 3) areas including a -site of cultural, historical or natural interest, and finally zone 4) open -water areas of ecological importance. The Home Rule Government can -regulate access to and activities within these zones. - -Research institutions provide the background data on nature, geology, -history and culture, and all relevant stakeholders are involved in the -zonation process. - -Management of the Ilulissat Ice Fiord -The Greenland Home Rule Government Order no. 10 of 15 June 2007 -on the protection of the Ilulissat Ice Fiord protects the scenic beauty -and the natural historic, cultural historic and other values of the area. -The 2007 government order replaced a less restrictive government -order, no. 7 of 25th of March 2003. - -In the government order zonation is applied in protection and manage- -ment. The area is divided into one land zone – zone A – and two -marine zones – zone B and zone C – as illustrated in Fig. 12. Restric- -tions apply to activities in zone A, but the area is open to the public -and visited by many guests each year. In zone B navigation is pro- -hibited, except for navigation in connection with commercial fishing -and hunting and search and rescue operations. And in zone C access -is restricted to vessels smaller than 1.000 GRT. Tourist operators must -bring guides with knowledge of the regulations protecting the flora and -fauna of the Ilulissat Ice Fiord when travelling in the protected areas. - -The Ilulissat Ice Fiord was accepted as a UNESCO World Heritage -area in 2004. Therefore a management plan for the Ilulissat Ice Fiord is -currently being developed. The purpose of the management plan is to -protect the area by various actions. Ilulissat Kommunea, the munici- -pality, monitors the area while the authority lies in the Environmental -and Nature Agency of the Greenland Home Rule. - -Commercial Greenland halibut fishing by small vessels is intensively -conducted in the Ilulissat Ice Fiord and the annual halibut quota is -determined by the Greenland Home Rule. The annual quota is deter- -mined by biological guidance presented to the Ministry of Fisheries, -Hunting and Agriculture, Greenland Home Rule. - -Management of the nature reserve of Melville Bay -The nature reserve is administered by the Environmental and Nature -Agency of the Home Rule Government. - -In the nature reserve access and activities are regulated. Travel by land -or boat, air travel in altitudes below 500 meters, and hunting, fishery -and collection of eggs is prohibited. But like the regulation of the - -National Park, traditional hunting of marine mammals from boats or -dog sledges is permitted in areas outside zone II. - -The only exception to the above is activities regulated by the Mineral -Resource Act. Exploration and exploitation of mineral resources can -be permitted, in accordance with § 9 of the government order on the -nature reserve in Melville Bay. - -Management of the Ikka Fiord -The Ikka Fiord is administered by the Environmental and Nature -Agency of the Greenland Home Rule. Access to the inner Ikka Fiord -is not regulated, but visitors are requested to assist in the protection of -the columns and to travel carefully in the fiord. - -Management of the Kitsissunnguit Islands -The Home Rule Government order on the conservation of the Kitsis- -sunnguit Islands was adopted in 2008, but in the process that led to -the conservation of the islands local hunters and fishermen, the local -communities, and researchers were involved. The many interests in the -area are reflected in the conservation as activities in the area are regu- -lated by zones, seasons and activities. By inclusion of interests and the -detailed zonation and regulation the Home Rule Government aim to -receive local support for the conservation and to secure among others -the population of Arctic tern and the rich biodiversity of the islands. - -The Kitsissunnguit Islands are still open to the public, but in spring -and summer access is restricted to smaller groups and only to the area -covered by zone 3, which covers the south-eastern islands. In the three -zones of the conservation are no hunting, fishing or collection of eggs -can be conducted from May till October, except for the fishery of one -single species in zone 3 from 1st of May till 10th of June. - -The conservation is administered by the Environmental and Nature -Agency, while the Ministry of Fishery, Hunting and Agriculture -administer and control fishery and hunting. Local authorities in Qasi- -giannguit and Aasiaat observe the regulations in the area. - -8.6 Conclusion: challenges in ecosystem-based -oceans management -Elements of ecosystem-based ocean management have been intro- -duced, but an integrated ecosystem-based ocean management is still -to be developed in Greenland. In the above passages the management -and practices in fisheries, shipping and tourism, mineral resources -activities, nature conservation and wildlife management is predomi- -nantly characterized as management by single species or activities with -aspects of stakeholder involvement. - -In fisheries and wildlife management as well as in nature protection -and conservation stakeholder involvement is decisive as stakeholders -often bring important data to the management process. Furthermore, -the involvement of stakeholders brings support to the implementation -of protective measures, i.e. restrictions on access and activities. In the -long process towards the conservation of the Kitsissunnguit stakehold- -er involvement was comprehensive. As a result of the dialogue diversi- -fied zonation protects vulnerable zones on the islands while leaving -the islands open to the public too. The effects of the conservation on -the health of the population of Arctic tern are still to be evaluated, but -hopes are that restrictions are observed. - -The important success element in moving towards ecosystem-based -ocean management is the achievement of sustainable use of resources. - -In wildlife management resources have been committed to implement- -ing a comprehensive plan on wildlife management, including aspects -of ecosystem-based management. Furthermore, a working group is -currently developing a strategy plan for the National Park of North and -East Greenland introducing zonation in management. But in moving -towards ecosystem-based management there is a need for both data -and resources to secure a long term wildlife monitoring. - -The main obstacle is the lack of a national strategy for the use of -ecosystem-based management in Greenland, including the lack of a -national strategy for nature conservation and species management. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -79 - -There is a need to develop desired aims for nature conservation and -species management in line with international conventions and na- -tional policies. - -Furthermore, there is a need to develop a strategy and a long term plan -for monitoring. A cost effective monitoring strategy which ensures the -best possible basis for management decisions using a variety of moni- -toring methods, i.e. scientific methods, harvest statistics, local based -monitoring etc, must be developed. As described in the above sections -stakeholder involvement is practiced in management, but in general -eco-systems based management is challenged by the lack of a strategy -on stakeholder involvement and the use of stakeholder information in -the management process. - -Guidelines on ecosystem-based management in all relevant sectors are -also to be developed. Central to these guidelines are elements such as -management aims, monitoring plans, stakeholder involvement, data -requirements, decision making processes and measures to ensure good -collaboration between agencies. - -References -Arctic Council & the International Arctic Science Committee. 2004. Arctic - Climate Impact Assessment. Retrieved December 2008. http://www.acia.uaf. - edu/ - -Aquarone, M.C., S. Adams, D. Mikkelsen & T. J. Pedersen. 2008. East - Greenland Shelf – LME #59. Published in Sherman, K. and Hempel, G. - (editors) 2008. The UNEP Large Marine Ecosystems Report: A perspective - on changing conditions in LMEs of the world’s Regional Seas. (Figure XlX- - 58.8 on p. 782), and by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric - Administration (NOAA) onto the LME Portal; retrieved December 2008. - www.lme.noaa.gov/Portal/LME_Report/lme_59.pdf. - -Aquarone, M.C. and S. Adams. 2008. West Greenland Shelf – LME #18. - Published in Sherman, K. and Hempel, G. (editors) 2008. The UNEP Large - Marine Ecosystems Report: A perspective on changing conditions in LMEs - of the world’s Regional Seas. (Figure Xlll-39.7 on p. 549), and by the - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) onto the LME - Portal. www.lme.noaa.gov - -Barnes, P. W. and Lien, R. 1988. Icebergs rework shelf sediments to 500 m off - Antarctica. Geology 16, 1130-33. - -Boertmann, D. 2005. Råstofaktiviteter og natur- og miljøhensyn i Grønland. - National Environmental Research Institute (NERI), Technical report no. 524. -Boertmann, D., Mosbech, A., Dietz, R. & Johansen, P. 1992. Mapping of oil spill - sensitive areas in the Davis Strait, West Greenland. Greenland Institute of - Natural Resources. - -Boertmann, D., Mosbech, A., Falk, K. & Kampp, K. 1996. Seabird colonies in - western Greenland (60°00’ – 79o30’N lat.). National Environmental - Research Institute (NERI), Technical Report no. 170. -Born, Erik W. & Jens Böcher. 2001. The ecology of Greenland. Ilinniusiorfik. -The Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum. 2000. Regler om feltarbejde. -The Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum. 2007. BMP guidelines for preparing - an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report for mineral exploitation in - Greenland. Published by the BMP on March 13 2007; retrieved February - 2009. http://www.bmp.gl/minerals/eia_guidelines.html - -Durinck, J. & Falk, K. 1996. The distribution and abundance of seabirds off - south-western Greenland in autumn and winter 1988-1989. Polar Research - 15 (1): 23-42. -Emmett Duffy (topic editor). 2007. Fisheries and aquaculture in the Central - North Atlantic (Iceland and Greenland). In Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. - Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, - National Council for Science and the Environment). Published in the - Encyclopedia of Earth April 24, 2007; retrieved December 2008. http:// - www.eoearth.org/article/Fisheries_and_aquaculture_in_the_Central_North_ - Atlantic_(Iceland_and_Greenland) -Greenland Home Rule, Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture. 2008. - Piniarneq 2009. Published by the Greenland Home Rule in 2008; retrieved - February 2009. http://dk.nanoq.gl/Emner/Erhverv/Erhvervsomraader/Fangst_ - og_Jagt/Piniarneq.aspx - -Johansen, P. and Rydahl, K. (eds.). 2007. Miljøgifte i Grønland. The National - Environmental Research Institute (NERI). -Klitgaard, A. B. and Tendal, O.S. 2004. Distribution and species composition of - mass occurrences of large-sized sponges in the northeast Atlantic. Progress in - Oceanopgraphy, 61 pp. 57-98 2004. - - -Mosbech, A., Anthonsen, K. L., Blyth, A., Boertmann, D., Buch, E., Cake, D., - Grøndahl, L., Hansen, K. Q., Kapel, H., Nielsen, S., Nielsen, N., Von Platen, - - F., Potter, S. & Rasch, M. 2000. Environmental Oil Spill Sensitivity Atlas - for the West Greenland Coastal Zone. Ministry of Environment and Energy, - the Danish Energy Agency. - -Mosbech, A., Boertmann, D. and Jespersen, M. 2007. Strategic Environmental - Impact Assessment of hydrocarbon activities in the Disko west area. National - Environmental Research Institute (NERI), Technical report No. 618. -Mosbech, A., Boertmann, D., Olsen, B. Ø., Olsvig, S., Von Planten, F., Buch, - E., Hansen, K. Q., Rasch, M., Nielsen, N., Møller, H. S., Potter, S., - Andreasen, C., Berglund, J. & Myrup, M. 2004a. Environmental Oil Spill - Sensitivity Atlas for the South Greenland Coastal Zone. National - Environmental Research Institute (NERI), Technical Report no. 493. -Mosbech, A., Boertmann, D., Olsen, B. Ø., Olsvig, S., Von Planten, F., Buch, E., - Hansen, K. Q., Rasch, M., Nielsen, N., Møller, H. S., Potter, S., Andreasen, - C., Berglund, J. & Myrup, M. 2004b. Environmental Oil Spill Sensitivity - Atlas for the West Greenland (68o-72 oN) Costal Zone. National - Environmental Research Institute (NERI), Technical Report no. 494. -Mosbech, A., Dietz, R. & Boertmann, D. 1995. Environmental Impact - Assessment of offshore oil exploration, production and transportation in the - Arctic, with emphasis on ecological impacts of oil spills. Proceedings of the - 14th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic - Engineering. Vol. IV Arctic / Polar Technology. - -Mosbech, A., Dietz, R. & Boertmann, D. & Johansen, P. 1996. Oil Exploration - in the Fylla Area. An Initial Assessment of Potential Environmental Impacts. - National Environmental Research Institute (NERI), Technical Report no. 156. -Egevang, C. & Boertmann, D. 2003. Havternen i Grønland – status og - undersøgelser 2002. National Environmental Research Institute(NERI), - Technical report no. 438. Published on the NERI homepage February - 18, 2004; Retrieved December 2008. http://ospm.dmu.dk/1_Viden/2_ - Publikationer/3_fagrapporter/abstrakter/abs_438_DK.asp - -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; J. Emmett Duffy (Topic - Editor). 2008. East Greenland Shelf large marine ecosystem in Encyclopaedia - of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental - Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment). - First published in the Encyclopedia of Earth March 10, 2008; Last revised - March 24, 2008; Retrieved December, 2008. http://www.eoearth.org/article/ - East_Greenland_Shelf_large_marine_ecosystem - -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Mark McGinley (Topic - Editor). 2008. West Greenland Shelf large marine ecosystem in Encyclopaedia - of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental - Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment). - Published in the Encyclopedia of Earth May 9, 2008; Retrieved December - 2008. http://www.eoearth.org/article/West_Greenland_Shelf_large_marine_ - ecosystem - -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – NOAA Fisheries. 2003. - LME 18: West Greenland Shelf. Northeast Fisheries Science Centre, - Narragansett Laboratory. Published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric - Administration (NOAA) onto the LME Portal; Retrieved December 2008. - http://na.nefsc.noaa.gov/lme/text/lme19.htm - -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – NOAA Fisheries. 2003. - LME 19: East Greenland Shelf. Northeast Fisheries Science Centre, - Narragansett Laboratory. Published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric - Administration (NOAA) onto the LME Portal; Retrieved December 2008. - http://na.nefsc.noaa.gov/lme/text/lme19.htm - -OSPAR commission on protection of the Northeast Atlantic Information - published by the OSPAR commission onto the commission homepage; - Retrieved December 2008. www.ospar.org - -Pauly et al. Fisheries in Large Marine Ecosystems: Descriptions and Diagnosis. - A background report to The UNEP Large Marine Ecosystems Report: A - perspective on changing conditions in LMEs of the world’s Regional Seas. - UNEP Regional Seas Report and Studies No. 182. United Nations - Environment Programme. Nairobi, Kenya. - -Sherman, K. and Hempel, G. (editors) 2008. The UNEP Large Marine - Ecosystems Report: A perspective on changing conditions in LMEs of the - world’s Regional Seas. (Figure Xlll-39.7 on p. 549 and figure XlX-58.8 on - p. 782).UNEP Regional Seas Report and Studies No. 182. United Nations - Environment Programme. Nairobi, Kenya. - -Rasmussen, Rasmus Ole. 2005. Analyse af fangererhvervet I Grønland. - Published by the Greenland Home Rule in 2005; Retrieved February 2009 - http://dk.nanoq.gl/Emner/Landsstyre/Departementer/Departement_for_ - fiskeri/~/media/95CEC05EEA7D40E6873BFDFF459E3AD2.ashx - -Schmidt, M. 2008. På enzymjagt i Ikkasøjlerne, in Aktuel Naturvidenskab no. 3, - 2008. Published in the online periodical Aktuel Naturvidenskab by the - University of Aarhus, Denmark. www.aktuelnat.au.dk/fileadmin/an/nr-3/ - an3ikka.pdf - -Søfartsstyrelsen, Farvandsvæsenet og Kor & Matrikelstyrelsen. 2005. Sikker - sejlads i grønlandske farvande. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -80 - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -81 - -REPORT SERIES NO 129 - -Ecosystem-based Ocean -Management in the Canadian Arctic - -Dr. Robert Siron (lead author), Fisheries and Oceans -Canada, Ottawa - -Dr. David VanderZwaag, Dalhousie University, Halifax - -Helen Fast, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Winnipeg - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -82 - -1. Overview of Canadian Arctic - -1.1 Natural environment and oceanography -Canada’s northern coastline, including Hudson Bay and James Bay, -has a total length of 180,000 km which counts for almost the three -quarters of Canada`s total coastline and makes Canada the country -with the world`s longest coastline. Over 1 million km2 of shelf waters -occur within Canada’s 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The -Arctic coast is characterized by a wide variety of cold climate eco- -systems, including salt marshes, tidal flats, fjord systems, river deltas, -and sea ice. The Arctic Ocean provides an important mixing function -between Atlantic and Pacific waters and many scientists believe it to be -a critical component in the global ocean circulation belt. The waters of -the western Artic Ocean mix directly with warm waters arriving from -the Pacific Ocean, while the waters of the eastern Arctic Ocean interact -with the Atlantic. Currents flowing in and out of the arctic are thought -to play a large role in determining global climate. For example, the -Baffin and Labrador currents, carrying large amounts of freshwater on -their surface from melting ice, help direct the warmer North Atlantic -current towards northwestern Europe which moderates their climate. -Major arctic currents include the clockwise gyre in the Beaufort; the -flow of polar water southeast through the Archipelago; the West Baffin -Current, which carries ice south along the east coast of Baffin Island in -summer; the counter-clockwise gyre in Hudson Bay; and the opposing -eastward and westward tidal currents in Hudson Strait. Locally, the -currents may maintain open water areas – polynyas – for much or all -of the year. The largest of these, the North Water in north Baffin Bay, -is large enough to allow an early and persistent phytoplankton bloom -(Welch, 1995). Marine mammals, such as narwhal and beluga that do -not migrate south, remain in the polynya during the winter months. -Sea ice provides a birthing and weaning habitat for ringed seals, -resting sites for walrus, and hunting grounds for polar bear. Arctic -polynyas provide an oasis for a multitude of arctic species, including -whales, seals, walrus and birds. The Canadian northern environment -is considered harsh, and its ecosystems are fragile and vulnerable to -perturbations and environmental forcers. The Arctic has long been con- -sidered the area where global climate changes will first be observed. -Freshwater input into Canadian arctic waters is primarily from the -Mackenzie River and the Nelson River drainages, respectively, the -second and fourth largest watersheds in North America. These drain- -ages carry some pollutants from agricultural, industrial and municipal -areas into the north although the majority of contaminants in the -north are still believed to be brought in via atmospheric long-range -transport. The Mackenzie River carries important nutrients that make -its delta and estuary one of the most productive in the Arctic. Naturally -occurring mercury released from thawing permafrost is thought to be -contributed to the Beaufort through the Mackenzie drainage. The long -arctic marine food chains encourage the bio-magnification of any pol- -lutants, especially in top marine predators. Compared to other parts of -the planet however, the Arctic Ocean remains relatively pristine. - -Canada’s North supports a variety of plants, birds, fish, mammals, and -other species that have adapted and thrived under northern condi- -tions. Cliff shorelines, salt marshes, tidal flats, and estuarine areas -provide the breeding, nesting and feeding grounds for colonies of -seabirds. Most of the Arctic’s lower trophic species (e.g., zooplankton, -arthropods, copepods, bivalves, and others) are wholly dependant on -the abundance and distribution of the ice algae, kelp, and phytoplank- -ton. Important marine and anadromous fish species include arctic cod, -several species of sculpin and arctic char. Invertebrate and fish species -in turn act as forage for marine mammals including walrus and several -species of seals and whales. - -Seabirds and marine mammals are the main biological products of Ca- -nadian arctic seas. Arctic cod are key to the arctic marine food web. It -has been estimated that 148,000 tonnes of cod are consumed annually -by seabirds and marine mammals in the Lancaster Sound region alone. -Arctic cod, amphipods, and herbivorous copepods are in turn eaten by -millions of seabirds concentrated in Jones and Lancaster sounds, on -the east coast of Baffin Island, and in Hudson Strait/northern Hudson -Bay, where thick-billed murres, northern fulmars, black-legged kitti- -wakes, black guillemots, gulls, dovekies, and loons feed. The majority -of these birds are colonial nesters on island cliffs, requiring special -protection from disturbance during the nesting season. A diverse bird -community uses coastal and offshore waters in the Beaufort Sea. Many - -species migrate long distances from wintering areas as far south as -the Antarctic to breed and fledge young in high-latitude regions. Six -major species groups are represented: ducks; geese and swans; murres -and guillemots; gulls; terns and jaegers; loons; and shorebirds. Seabird -abundance is lower than in the eastern Canadian Arctic, however the -region provides critical habitat for Arctic ducks and geese. Critically -important habitat for birds exists in both offshore and coastal areas -(DFO, 2008). - -Arctic cod and other prey also support several million resident ringed -seals and less abundant bearded seals throughout the Arctic, along with -migratory harp seals, beluga whales and narwhals in the eastern Arctic -and beluga whales in the western Arctic. Walrus feed on clams and sea -urchins throughout Hudson Bay and David Strait and in the high Arctic -area of Baffin Bay near Jones and Lancaster sounds (Welch, 1995; -DFO, 2008) - -Three discrete stocks of bowhead whales summer in Canadian waters, -including populations in Davis Strait, Foxe Basin/northern Hudson -Bay and the western Arctic. Bowhead whales filter-feed on zooplank- -ton, probably large copepods, chaetognaths, pteropods, and cteno- -phores Population size was most recently surveyed in 1993, with 8200 -bowheads estimated to be in the western Arctic stock. This comprises ->90% of the world’s bowhead whales (DFO 2008). Bowhead whales -have been harvested at the rate of one every two to three years in the -eastern arctic. However, the eastern arctic harvest may increase sub- -stantially in the near future due to a continued rebuilding of that stock -and new population estimates. There has been no harvest of bowhead -whales in the western arctic since 1996. - -Genetic analysis has identified numerous stocks of beluga whales from -the North American Artic, including seven stocks from Canada and -four from Alaska. The eastern Beaufort Sea stock, the largest in Can- -ada, is thought to be well over 20,000 animals. Beaufort Sea belugas -share common wintering areas in the Bering Sea with whales from -several other stocks (DFO, 2008). - -Polar bears have a circumpolar distribution, but they are not evenly -distributed throughout the Arctic. Of nineteen discrete populations of -polar bears in the Arctic, 14 occur in or are shared by Canada. Two -populations have been identified in the eastern Beaufort Sea. Their -distribution is determined by the presence and distribution of various -types of ice cover, and by the distribution and abundance of ringed -seals (DFO, 2008). - -The immense size of the Arctic Ocean results in a variety of ecological -features that vary from one region to another, depending on environ- -mental and climatic conditions as well as the direction of and distance -from prevailing oceans currents. Marine ecological regions (ecore- -gions) were delineated in Canada’s EEZ based on geological, physical -oceanography, biological and ecological criteria to support the imple- -mentation of the ecosystem-based integrated management national -approach (Powles et al., 2004). Six ecoregions were identified within -the Canadian Arctic Ocean (Fig. 1). The main ecological features that -characterize each of these ecoregions are summarized here after: - -Ÿ Arctic Basin Ecoregion - This area, devoid of any shoreline, is generally characterized - by having depths >1000m. The 200m depth contour close to the - adjacent High Arctic Archipelago ecoregion has been used to draw - the boundary between these ecoregions. Much of the area is - covered by permanent ice which results in low primary production - and the quasi-absence of marine mammals and seabirds in this - eastern part of the Arctic Basin. Very limited information is - available concerning fish and benthic communities (Welch 1995). - -Ÿ Beaufort–Amundsen–Viscount Melville–Queen Maud - Ecoregion - Most of the depths are <200m with some very shallow waters in - certain parts of the ecoregion. The northern part is characterized - by pack ice, whereas seasonal ice predominates in the southern - part. A characteristic of this region is the shallow waters between - Viscount Melville and Lancaster Sound. In the past, this feature - was associated with a permanent plug of ice that was thought to act - as physical boundary to the West-East movement of marine - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -83 - - mammal populations (narwhals, belugas). Permanent ice begins at - the northern edge of the ecoregion which also corresponds to a - general boundary for marine mammals and seabirds (Welch 1995) - -Ÿ High Arctic Archipelago Ecoregion - This ecoregion is characterized by a high degree of enclosure due - to the number of islands and narrow straits with relatively shallow - waters. The entire region is covered by permanent ice which - explains its low primary production. The ecoregion is also - characterized by a quasi-absence of top predators like marine - mammals and seabirds. Seals are only observed in the southeastern - part of the Archipelago and the species distribution of seals was - used to determine the boundary between this ecoregion and the - Lancaster Sound Ecoregion. There is also very limited information - on fish and benthic species inhabiting this region (Welch 1995). - -Ÿ Lancaster Sound Ecoregion - This ecoregion is characterized by depths <1000m. It is a relatively - enclosed area covered by seasonal ice. A large polynya starts at the - mouth of Lancaster Sound and extends northward along the Eastern - coast of Ellesmere Island. There are also several small recurrent - polynyas in this region. The primary production of the region is - relatively high and abundant marine mammals (belugas, narwhals) - and seabirds migrate seasonally to the Sound and the Eastern coast - of Baffin Island (Welch 1995). - -Ÿ Hudson Complex Ecoregion - This ecoregion is formed by Hudson Bay, James Bay, Foxe Basin, - Hudson Strait and Ungava Bay and is characterized by a high - degree of enclosure. Ice cover is seasonal and two major polynyas - have been observed in Hudson Bay and Foxe Basin. These - relatively shallow waters are under the influence of important tides - and huge amounts of fresh waters coming from the eastern part - (Québec) of Hudson Bay control mixing. Primary productivity is - relatively high, mainly in coastal areas, and supports a diversity of - fauna. Ecological assemblages of seabirds and marine mammals - indicate that Hudson Bay, Foxe Basin and Hudson Strait are three - natural sub-ecoregions that may eventually be considered for - planning and management purposes (Welch 1995). - -Ÿ Baffin Bay–Davis Strait Ecoregion - This ecoregion is delineated eastward by the continental shelf - line, which separates it from offshore deep waters (> 1000 m). The - ecoregion is covered by seasonal ice in winter and is influenced by - tides and fresh waters. Deep-water temperatures are relatively - colder than in the southern adjacent region. Primary production is - relatively high, mainly in waters surrounding the northern and - eastern part of Baffin Island, and generally declines when moving - offshore. Bottom water temperatures were used to identify the - southern boundary of this ecoregion because there is clear evidence - that this boundary corresponds to the distribution limits of - numerous species of shrimp, groundfish, marine mammal and - seabirds (Welch 1995). - -1.2 Social and economic context -Northern Canada, that portion of Canada north of 60o, contains ap- -proximately 40% of Canada’s landmass, yet its population base was -less than 0.3% of Canada’s total population of 31 million in 2003. The -majority of northern communities are concentrated along the Macken- -zie River watershed in the Northwest Territories (NWT), and along the -Hudson Bay and Baffin Island coastlines in Nunavut. - -Oceans have been a dynamic growth sector for the Canadian economy -over the last few decades. In the Canadian Arctic, transportation -(largely seasonal and local), oil and gas exploration, ecotourism, com- -mercial fishing and subsistence harvesting (i.e. fishing and hunting) all -contribute to the ocean-based northern economy. - -The marine sector consists of private industries, organizations, and -various levels of government that depend on the ocean environment -as a medium for transportation, operation, innovation or recreation, or -as a source of extractable resources. Impacts of the marine sector are -substantial—about 5% to 10% of the total NWT economy and more -than 10% of the Nunavut economy. Impacts in Nunavut are domi- - -nated by the subsistence or traditional sectors with 170 tons of marine -mammals and fish (edible weight) harvested in NWT and 1,450 tons -of marine mammals and fish (edible weight) harvested in Nunavut. In -addition, subsistence has great cultural and social value and provides -food, clothing, fuel oil and other necessities. The commercial fishery -for Greenland halibut and shrimp in the Baffin Bay-Davis Strait-Hud- -son Strait areas generate in excess of $12-14 million to the economy -of Nunavut with approximately $7.5-9.5 million entering the wage -economy (Brubacher Development Strategies, 2004). The seabed -holds substantial offshore oil and gas reserves. There is also a growing -industry surrounding arts and crafts, e.g. Inuit sculpture. - -There is not a comparable marine sector in Yukon as the northern -marine coastline of this Territory is largely unpopulated. However, -ecotourism has had an enormous impact in Yukon, particularly in the -increased number of tourists to Herschel Island Territorial Park and -Ivvavik National Park. It is expected that the marine sector will play -an enhanced role in the Yukon economy as future offshore oil and gas -activities increase. - -1.2.1 Public sector, including Aboriginal Governments and -Communities -Public governments, both federal and territorial, are some of the larg- -est investors in Canada’s northern territories. The federal government -is one of the largest single sources of expenditures made in the North -(GSGislason & Associates Ltd., 2003), and supports numerous man- -dated activities, including research. Federal departments with a strong -presence in the North include the Department of Indian and Northern -Affairs Canada (INAC), Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), -Transport Canada (TC), Environment Canada (EC), Parks Canada -Agency (PCA), and Department of National Defence (DND). - -Territorial departments with responsibility for fish and wildlife include -Environment and Natural Resources in the NWT, and Economic -Development (Fisheries and Sealing Division) in Nunavut. In addi- -tion, Inuit co-management and economic development activities are -addressed under land claims agreements (GSGislason & Associates -Ltd., 2003). The federal government has devolved responsibility for -all programs and services, including land and resources, to the Yukon. -Yukon’s Department of Environment has responsibility for fish and -wildlife and its Department of Energy Mines and Resources has -responsibility for onshore oil and gas. - -Aboriginal governments and communities in the territories have man- -agement responsibilities as well. Land claims settlements in the ter- -ritories have also provided governance structures. For example, under -the 1984 Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA), the Inuvialuit received sub- -stantial management and co-management responsibilities for marine -mammals, fish and wildlife in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR) -of the Western Arctic. The 1993 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement -(NLCA) was central to the creation of Nunavut as a territory on April -1, 1999 and includes provisions for resource co-management. Each -territory has a variety of aboriginal economic development agencies to -guide and enhance economic opportunities. (GSGislason & Associates -Ltd., 2003). In Yukon, 11 out of the 14 First Nations have negotiated -land claims and self-government agreements and have responsibility -for economic development within each of their jurisdictions. - -1.2.2 Private sector -The important private sector components differ in Canada`s three terri- -tories: the oil and gas industry is the major private sector marine sector -in NWT; arts and crafts, fisheries, and shipping are the major private -sector marine industries in Nunavut, and commercial ecotourism is the -main private marine activity occurring along the Yukon coast. - -Oil and Gas industry -The North is estimated to hold approximately 30% of Canada’s -remaining potential in oil and natural gas, or about 8.7 billion barrels -of oil and 163 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The Mackenzie Delta- -Beaufort Sea hydrocarbon basin in the Western Arctic is estimated to -hold 67% of northern potential for oil, and 36% of northern potential -for natural gas. Two-thirds of this total is offshore (Voutier, 2008). - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -84 - -Challenges to the development of this sector include responding to -regulatory requirements, meeting community expectations, addressing -environmental concerns, ensuring requirements for infrastructure are -met, and financial considerations. Legislation such as the Canadian -Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and the Species-at-Risk Act -(SARA) have introduced additional standards that impact performance -requirements for all aspects of oil and gas exploration and develop- -ment. The Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act -(YESSA) applies to the Yukon shoreline and certain defined nearshore -adjacent areas should future oil and gas activities onshore be direction- -ally drilled to offshore reserves. Typically, hydrocarbon development -requires extensive seismic activity, drilling in coastal and offshore -areas, the construction of artificial islands and pipelines systems, a de- -mand for granular deposits (i.e., gravel and sand), a dramatic increase -in all-season and winter roads, marine shipping and aviation, and risk -of pollution and oil spills. Development also results in an increased -need for waste disposal and sewage treatment in communities and -camps. Yet other challenges to industry will include addressing regula- -tory concerns related to impacts which might affect physical, chemical -and biological patterns such as changes in water circulation and the -introduction of aquatic invasive species (DFO, 2008; Voutier, 2008). - -Fisheries -Commercial fishery potentials in true polar Canadian waters are small. -The commercial fishery for arctic char is worth about $1.2 million -annually; the domestic char fisheries have an approximate equivalent -value. Greenland halibut, commercially called turbot, are found in -deep Baffin Bay and Davis Strait waters in commercial quantities and -support a successful shore-based winter fishery worth $1 million an- -nually out of Pangnirtung, south Baffin Island in Cumberland sound. -Two species of commercially valuable shrimp (Pandalus borealis and -P. montagui) are harvested from south Davis and Hudson strait waters. -Scallops have been found off south Baffin Island and in Hudson Bay, -although the commercial potential is probably small (Welch, 1995). -The value of the offshore turbot and shrimp fishery to Nunavut is es- -timated at $7.5-9.5 million and provides more than 300 seasonal jobs; -often in areas where few other employment opportunities exist. - -1.3 Marine transportation -Marine shipping in the Canadian Arctic is growing steadily. Population -growth is increasing the demand for deliveries of goods and materials. -Northern communities have the highest rate of population growth in -Canada, and one of the highest in the world: 16 percent per decade. -The mining sector is another major user of marine transport in the -Canadian North. Mining activity remains strong and is expected to -grow. Development of oil and gas resources in the Mackenzie Delta -will place additional demands on transportation. Canada is building up -its marine transport capacity to be the primary means for supplying its -communities and resource development activities in the North. Marine -transport is now a stable, independent commercial sector (Oceans -Futures, 2006). - -Given the changing climate it is expected that the ice will continue to -retreat farther from coastlines in summer, that it will break up earlier -and freeze up later, and will become thinner and more mobile. There -is a growing expectation that the reduction in sea ice will result in -longer navigable seasons, which in turn will allow increased access to -northern natural resources, and therefore increased economic activity. -However, a reduction in sea ice increases the risk of shipping accidents -and spills associated with an increased volume of shipping traffic. The -Northwest Passage (NWP) may also experience some ice-free periods -during which navigation would become relatively easy, opening -the possibility of the use of the Arctic as an efficient shipping route -between the northern Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (Brigham and Ellis, -2004). - -Legislation, governance and management -Management of activities within Canadian marine waters has largely -developed on a regional basis and is therefore diverse and not always -as integrated and coordinated as it should be. For example, there are -about 50 federal statutes directly affecting oceans activities and >80 -provincial laws affecting coastal and marine planning (Mageau et al. -in press). The Oceans Act (1996) was enacted to address this issue -and facilitate the development of a coordinated approach and policy - -framework to integrated ocean management in Canada. -Many areas of Canada’s North are managed though agreements -between the federal and territorial/provincial governments. As well, -Canada’s north is managed under agreements negotiated with the -Aboriginal residents. This new generation of treaties in Canada began -with the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement of 1975. They -are referred to as Comprehensive Land Claim Agreements (CLCA). -These agreements spell out the nature of the arrangement between the -Government of Canada and Aboriginal groups regarding such areas as -self-government powers (including control over social services such as -education and health), compensation payments, environmental assess- -ment, protected areas, land use regulations, and Aboriginal ownership -or co-management of land and resources in parts of the land under the -agreement (Berkes, 2007). - -Land claims agreements in Canada, including the Inuvialuit Final -Agreement and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, set up power and -responsibility sharing arrangements for the use of land and resources, -including marine resources. Many of the agreements have one or more -chapters that do this in some detail. They all set up co-management -bodies where the parties to the agreement come together (Berkes, -2007). - -Legislation aimed at protecting Arctic marine ecosystems and address- -ing conservation issues includes Federal, Territorial and Provincial -legislation. Federal acts include the Oceans Act, the Arctic Waters -Pollution Prevention Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Fisher- -ies Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the -Canada National Parks Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection -Act, 1999, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Canada -Wildlife Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, and the Spe- -cies at Risk Act. - -The main Federal authorities which have responsibilities in the man- -agement of activities, and protection of marine ecosystems and their -resources in the Arctic include the following: - -Ÿ Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): - DFO has the legal responsibility to conserve fish habitat and - commercial stocks in Canada under the Fisheries Act and by so - doing it discharges some of Canada’s national and international - obligations to maintain the integrity of arctic marine ecosystems. - Under the Oceans Act, DFO is mandated to protect and conserve - marine ecosystems, their biodiversity and productivity, including - the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs), and maintain - marine environmental quality, while promoting the integrated - management of human activities and sustainable development in - Canada’s estuarine, coastal and marine environments, including in - Arctic waters. - -Ÿ Canadian Coast Guard (CCG): - CCG is a National Special Operating Agency of the Department of - Fisheries and Oceans that provides essential marine safety and - environmental protection services to Canadians. The CCG - also provides the marine support needed by DFO and other federal - government departments for the protection of the marine and - aquatic environment, public safety and security on the water, - marine science and fisheries resource management and to meet - other Government of Canada maritime objectives. - -Ÿ Environment Canada (EC): - EC has the mandate to preserve the quality of the natural - environment; conserve Canada’s renewable resources and - biological diversity, as well as carry out meteorology and ice - services, prepare for and prevent environmental emergencies, and - report on the state of the environment. EC is also authorized to - manage and regulate the introduction of pollutants into the marine - environment, under the Canadian Environment Protection Act, and - section 36 of the Fisheries Act. The multi-faceted pollution - prevention effort in northern waters also includes controls on - disposal at sea and pollution from land-based sources. The - Department’s responsibilities pertaining to the conservation and - management of migratory birds under the Migratory Birds - Convention Act extend to the conservation and management of - Arctic seabirds. The Species at Risk Act provides the Minister - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -85 - - of the Environment with the authority to protect nationally listed - wildlife species at risk, and provide for the recovery of endangered - or threatened species. The Canada Wildlife Act enables the Depart - ment to establish Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, National Wildlife - Areas, and Marine Wildlife Areas to protect a wide diversity of - habitat of national and international importance. - -Ÿ Parks Canada Agency: - This federal agency, which reports to the Minister of Environment, - is mandated to protect and present nationally significant examples - of Canada’s natural and cultural heritage, and to foster public un - derstanding, appreciation and enjoyment of these special places. - This includes establishing representative systems of national parks, - national historic sites and national marine conservation areas. As - such, national marine conservation areas, as well as coastal and - marine components of national parks are an important component - of environmental protection in the Canadian Arctic. - -Ÿ Transport Canada (TC): - TC is responsible for oceans safety and pollution prevention. It - administers the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act which - include regulation of navigation, as well as ship source pollution - prevention, including control of ballast waters. Transport Canada - is also responsible for the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the - Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act and the Marine Liability - Act, all of which have implications for shipping in the Arctic. - -Ÿ Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC): - INAC is the principal federal department responsible for meeting - the federal government’s constitutional, political and legal respon - sibilities in the North, with legislative and policy authority over - most of the North’s natural resources, Yukon and Aboriginal - governments. Its role in the North is extremely broad and includes - settling and implementing land claims, negotiating self-government - agreements, advancing political evolution, managing natural - resources, protecting the environment and fostering leadership in - sustainable development both domestically and among circumpolar - nations. - -In the following sections, we detail the legal and policy framework -as well as major national initiatives that have been put in place by -the Government of Canada to implement the ecosystem approach to -integrated management in Canada’s three oceans, including the Arctic -Ocean. - -Oceans Act -The Oceans Act (1996), which entered into force in 1997, is really -the starting point for Canada’s Federal Government to develop a -nationally coherent oceans policy framework. The Act provides the -broad context for the development of an ecosystem approach for ma- -rine ecosystem conservation, and stresses the importance of maintain- -ing biological diversity and productivity in the marine environment. -The Act provides a mandate to develop related programs and regula- -tory instruments; e.g. integrated management of human activities in -oceans, designation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), and to develop -tools to maintain the marine environmental quality (e.g. MEQ objec- -tives, guidelines or standards). Department of Fisheries and Oceans -is the lead federal Department for implementing all the Oceans Act -programs and instruments. - -Canada’s Oceans Strategy and the Integrated Management -Policy -In addition, the Act calls for the development of an overarching -strategy for oceans management: Canada’s Oceans Strategy (COS, -2002a) was developed after a broad public consultation process and -is based on the three key principles: integrated management, -sustainable development and precautionary approach. Its overall goal -is “to ensure healthy, safe and prosperous oceans for the benefit -of current and future generations of Canadians” (COS, 2002a). The -Strategy’s companion document (COS, 2002b) provides the policy -and operational framework for integrated management (IM) of human -activities in Canada’s oceans and coastal areas. EBM and ecosystem -conservation are core principles within the IM approach. - -Federal Marine Protected Areas Strategy -The Oceans Act also calls for the establishment of a national network -of marine protected areas (MPAs). In order to guide the building of -this network, the Federal MPA Strategy was released in 2005 (FMPAS, -2005). It provides the direction to the three federal partners that have -legislative authority in marine conservation, DFO (Oceans Act MPAs), -DOE (Marine Wildlife Areas) and Parks Canada Agency (National -Marine Conservation Areas), to develop a more systematic approach -to marine protected areas planning and establishment in Canada, by -using a rigorous and knowledge-based approach to site selection while -maximizing ecological output. - -For example, a number of protected areas which contribute to the over- -all protection of coastal and marine wildlife and habitats are in place -or contemplated in the Canadian North. With respect to the federal -authorities, these include: - -Ÿ Seven of Canada’s 42 national parks established under Parks - Canada’s legislation are located along Arctic waters and include - a coastal and/or marine component: Quttinirpaaq, Sirmilik, - Auyuittuq, Ukkusiksalik, Aulavik, Ivvavik, and Wapusk. In total, - these parks protect over 4740 km of coastline and 6870 km2 of - marine waters. - -Ÿ Nine of Parks Canada’s 29 marine regions are found in Arctic - waters and each of these will eventually be represented by a - national marine conservation area (NMCA). Though no NMCAs - have yet been established in the Arctic, discussions are underway - with the Government of Nunavut and Inuit organizations to initiate - a feasibility study for an NMCA in Lancaster Sound (Figure 1). - -Ÿ Fourteen Migratory Bird Sanctuaries and 2 National Wildlife Areas - established under Department of Environment’s legislation are - located along the Arctic coast and protect and 13,500 km2 of marine - waters. A number of candidate National Wildlife Areas are also - underway (Niginganiq, Qaqulluit and Akpait, all along Baffin - Island) which will add approximately 4500 km2 of protected marine - waters. - -Ÿ One Marine Protected Area (MPA) located in the Canadian - Beaufort Sea, the Tarium Niryutait MPA, is currently in the - process of being designated as such under the Oceans Act. Fisheries - and Oceans Canada is leading the process. The candidate MPA - consists of 3 separate coastal areas: Shallow Bay, East Mackenzie - Bay near Kendall and Pelly Island and Kugmallit Bay, collectively - referred to as the Tarium Niryutait MPA which will protect one of - the world’s largest summering population of Beluga whales and its - habitat. This area is also a productive ecosystem with habitat unique - to the region and numerous species (ringed seal, bearded seal, polar - bear, fish, seabirds and coastal waterfowl (over 130 bird species). - The MPA covers approximately 1800 km2. - -Oceans Action Plan (2005-2007) and the Large Ocean Man- -agement Areas (LOMAs) -In 2004, the Government of Canada committed to a two-year funded -(2005-2007) Oceans Action Plan (OAP) to achieve a series of delivera- -bles grouped under four thematic pillars: 1) International Leadership, -Sovereignty and Security, 2) Integrated Management for Sustainable -Development, 3) Health of the Oceans and 4) Ocean Science and -Technology (OAP, 2005). A number of key deliverables identified -within pillars 2 and 3 of the Plan were to advance the EBM approach. -In addition to the designation of a number of MPAs, the Plan identified -five priority Large Ocean Management Areas (LOMAs) in Canada’s -three oceans (Figure 2): Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management -area; Gulf of St.Lawrence Integrated Management area; Placentia -Bay-Grand Banks Integrated Management area; Pacific North Coast -Integrated Management area; and Beaufort Sea Integrated Manage- -ment area. These LOMAs have served as pilots to test and apply -science-based management tools specifically developed for advancing -and implementing EBM. - -Integrated management in the Beaufort Sea has been implemented as a -collaborative planning process led by the Department of Fisheries and -Oceans (DFO) to address oceans management issues in the Beaufort -Sea LOMA, including the coastal, estuarine, Arctic islands and off- - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -86 - -shore areas, and when appropriate collaborate with on-shore manage- -ment activities. Later in this chapter, we will focus on the Beaufort -Sea LOMA as it is currently the only management area located in the -Arctic Ocean. - -Health of the Oceans (2007-2012) -In 2007, the Government of Canada launched a 5-year oceans plan, the -so-called Health of the Oceans agenda to take over the 2005-07 OAP. -This new oceans agenda will enable DFO to continue to work with its -federal, provincial, territorial, Aboriginal, ENGOs and international -partners for advancing the ecosystem approach to oceans management -in Canada, with a focus on the protection and conservation of marine -ecosystems; for example, the designation of new MPAs to progres- -sively build Canada’s network of MPAs; advancement of the Regional -Strategic Environmental Assessment concept by integrating assess- -ment tools developed for ocean management (i.e. at regional/LOMA -level) with project-specific impact assessments conducted under the -CEAA for major projects in Canada, including the Arctic; and enhanc- -ing Canada’s capacity for oil spill responses, particularly in the Arctic. -The existing five LOMAs will continue to provide the spatial manage- -ment context within which this new ocean agenda will focus over the -next five years. - -2. Ecosystem-Based Ocean Management Initiatives - -2.1 National scale: the Ecosystem-Based Management -operational framework -Definition and guiding principles -In the Canadian context, Ecosystem-Based Ocean Management in- -volves managing human activities in such a way that marine ecosys- -tem health is not significantly impacted. EBM is made operational, -and its achievement becomes possible and measurable, when the -significant components or the ecosystem (areas, species, properties) -are identified as conservation priorities that, in turn, are translated into -ecosystem conservation objectives to define the bounds within which -the sustainable development can be achieved. - -This operational definition is aligned with a series of guiding -principles: EBM is holistic and cross-disciplinary, based on the best -knowledge available, a phased implementation process, nationally -developed and regionally implemented, area-based, objective-based, -applied within the broader context of Integrated Management, incorpo- -rates the precautionary approach and adaptive management principles. - -In practice, ecological considerations are taken into account at each -step of the integrated management process in order to achieve scientifi- -cally defensible ecosystem-based management and ensure long-term -marine conservation (Fig. 3; shaded boxes). Science-based manage- -ment tools have been developed over time to meet specific manage- -ment needs as identified at each step of the process. The result is the -EBM framework presented in Figure 4. Some elements of this frame- -work set the foundation for both marine spatial planning and an area- -based management approach (ecoregions, Large Ocean Management -Areas, Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas, in addition to -Marine Protected Areas) and are detailed in the following paragraphs. - -Ÿ Marine Ecoregions - The first step is the delineation of marine ecological regions, i.e., - those regions of the oceans that are characterized by large-scale - ecological features. The intent is to use these features for the - establishment of LOMAs so that ecosystem considerations can - be accounted for in the planning, decision-making and management - of these areas. The delineation process is guided by science-based - criteria for the identification of patterns of ecological homogeneity - (ecoregions), as well as major discontinuities between them (Powles - et al., 2004). This process resulted in the delineation of seventeen - marine ecoregions in Canada’s three oceans: four ecoregions in the - Pacific Ocean, seven in the Atlantic Ocean and six in the Arctic. - The six Arctic ecoregions are the largest and, as a whole covered - a larger area than the Pacific and Atlantic ecoregions (Fig. 1). - Indeed, limited data in certain regions of the Arctic did not allow - scientists to identify smaller ecological units. In addition, some - very large basins work as a single ecosystem, and so were - considered as one ecoregion. - -Ÿ Large Ocean Management Areas - Ecoregions’ boundaries are not definitive and can be revisited - when and where needed as more scientific knowledge is gathered, - mainly in data-poor areas. It is also important to note that LOMA - boundaries are drawn using a mix of ecological and administrative - considerations (COS, 2002b). Consequently, LOMA boundaries - are not expected to perfectly follow the natural patterns observed in - the marine environment, although ecoregions are the foundation - layer for their establishment. In addition, the scale at which the - delineation process is conducted is an important issue. For example, - during the marine ecoregion delineation process, natural - substructures were identified within certain ecoregions (Powles et - al., 2004); these substructures were observed at a scale too fine to - be useful for the identification of large ecoregions and LOMAs. - However, ecoregions’ substructures would certainly be the best - spatial units for informing the identification of management areas - at smaller scale, and so coping with local environmental issues, e.g. - coastal management areas (COS, 2002b). - -Ÿ Ecosystem Overview and Assessment Report - Once the integrated management area is established, oceans - planners, managers and stakeholders need to be provided with the - ecological information relevant to EBM (Fig. 3; step 2). The best - available knowledge has to be incorporated from the outset of the - planning process to inform subsequent steps. It should come from - two main sources, the western science as well as local and - traditional ecological knowledge. - - The OAP (2005) identified a number of key deliverables to en - hance the knowledge and assessment of marine ecosystems and - help the identification of conservation priorities within the five - priority LOMAs: i) the preparation of Ecosystem Overview and - Assessment Reports (EOAR) for assessing and reporting on marine - ecosystems within the management areas; ii) the identification of - Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs); and iii) - the development of Ecosystem Objectives for informing IM - planning in LOMAs. These tools and products were really the - “building blocks” on which the EBM framework has been - developed in Canada (Fig. 4). - - A national guidance document for the preparation of Ecosystem - Overview and Assessment Reports (EOAR) was developed (Fig. 3 - & 4; step 2). The EOAR is based on a preliminary review of - current ecological knowledge. The first part of the report is - descriptive and provides basic ecological information through a - series of thematic chapters. This part also includes an integrative - chapter on ecosystem relationships. The second part of the EOAR is - an integrated ecosystem assessment, based on the information - compiled and reported in the overview; it reviews human - activities—and associated stressors—that may have significant - negative impacts on the ecosystem, including an assessment of - potential cumulative impacts. It analyzes and evaluates the actual - conditions of the ecosystem’s health, highlighting which areas and - species managers should pay attention to, either because those - areas and species have a key role in the ecosystem, or because they - have been affected by human activities. This ecological assessment - is the main source of information provided to guide managers in - setting conservation measures at the LOMA scale. - -Ÿ Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas - The identification and mapping of “Ecologically and Biologically - Significant Areas” in each LOMA was guided by the framework - and criteria previously developed through a national workshop of - experts (DFO, 2004). The framework consists of three criteria - (uniqueness, species aggregations and fitness consequences) that - qualify an area as “significant”. In other words, they are the - dimensions along which a given marine area is evaluated with - regards to its ecological or biological significance. In addition to - these first order criteria, two additional criteria, the resilience and - naturalness may be considered when evaluating the significance of - the areas against the main criteria. These additional criteria allow us - to take into account the sensitivity of the area, its ability to recover - from a perturbation, and the degree to which the area is undisturbed. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - - category of EOs will be identified by the IM “players”, ocean - stakeholders, users and planners, to define an agreed-upon state of - the ecosystem to be reached in a given future. However, the - necessary condition to achieve the sustainable use of oceans space - and resources commands that those desirable targets be set within - the bounds of conservation limits. - - Parallel to defining conservation limits, DFO is also working - with key partners to ensure that social, cultural, and economic - considerations are addressed. Integrated oceans management, as - defined in the Canadian oceans policy context (COS, 2002b) is a - comprehensive, collaborative and inclusive process that enables us - to simultaneously take into account all these necessary aspects, - as well as the interdependencies of viable coastal communities, - marine ecosystem health, and sustainable use of ocean resources. - Specifically, work is being done to use an interdisciplinary, - multi-partnered approach to creating a base understanding of our - coastal areas. This information will help to determine social, - cultural, and economic trends, pressures, vulnerabilities, and - opportunities. As a next step, relevant social, cultural and economic - objectives that respect ecosystem objectives and conservation - priorities will be developed (Fig. 3 & 4 step 4). - -Ÿ Ecosystem Indicators - Once incorporated into an IM plan, EOs will be monitored through - marine environmental quality or ecosystem health indicators. Lists - of indicators can be easily found in the literature reviewing - integrated coastal/oceans management initiatives worldwide; (see - for example IOC, 2003). The real challenge is to select the most - relevant indicators while keeping their number as low as possible - within effective suites of indicators that are workable and meet - the needs of integrated oceans management (IOC, 2006). DFO is - identifying criteria and developing a framework to select the most - appropriate ecosystem indicators that would meet the common - needs of management sectors. A national suite of ecosystem - indicators will be then developed for meeting the various needs - of the management: to monitor and report on the status and trends - of marine ecosystems, to track key ecosystem functions, to assess - the effectiveness of management actions and to inform - decision-making. - -Ÿ Adaptive Management - Adaptive management is a key principle of the EBM/IM approach. - Based on lessons learned and best practices from the regional - implementation in LOMAs, the EBM described above will be - refined over time, guidelines and products will be revisited when it - becomes necessary, i.e. when major science gaps are filled and - new ecological knowledge is produced, or when our understanding - of the EBM concept and the application of principles make - significant progress. Beyond science issues, adaptive management - may be also required in future if new priorities come up from - societal pressure or shift in the risk tolerance, or if we need to adapt - to changing environmental conditions. - -Ÿ Sector-specific initiatives - In addition to identifying significant components and conservation - priorities in LOMAs, ecosystem considerations have been also - inserted into sector-specific policy and regulatory instruments to - ensure those significant ecosystems are not jeopardized by human - activities and are timely and appropriately protected. Sector- - specific initiatives are put in place for addressing emerging issues - or regulatory gaps in the domestic oceans policy framework. They - may be established for addressing both, national or regional issues, - as illustrated by the following examples: - -Ÿ DFO’s Fisheries and Aquaculture Management sector is developing - a New Resource Management Sustainable Development Framework - which includes a series of new policies to minimize impacts of - fishing activities1; these policies deal with emerging fisheries, - forage species fisheries, sensitive benthic marine areas, the use of - precautionary approach, etc. - -87 - -Ÿ Ecologically Significant Species and Community-Properties - Similarly, national guidelines and criteria were developed to help - the identification of “Ecologically Significant Species” and - “Ecologically Significant Community-Properties” (DFO, 2006). - Criteria related to the importance of the trophic and structuring - roles of species within the ecosystem were identified: forage - species, highly influential predators, nutrient importing or exporting - species, primary producers and decomposers, and structure- - providing species. These categories of species would qualify as - ecologically significant. Here again, two additional considerations, - the rarity and sensitivity of the species, were identified as important - when applying the ecologically significant species’ framework. - Invasive species and toxic phytoplankton were also considered - within the framework, although in this case, their ecological signifi - cance resides in the fact that they can cause significant damage to - marine ecosystems. In this case, management actions aim at - controlling and limiting as much as possible their abundance and - dissemination in the marine environment. - -Ÿ Degraded Areas and Depleted Species - In a risk-based management context, oceans managers have to - adopt a greater-than-usual degree of risk aversion to areas, species - or properties that are more significant than others. Ecosystem - features that have been affected by human activities to an extent - where they can no longer play their structural or functional roles - in the ecosystem have to be identified within ecosystem overview - and assessment reports. Degraded areas and depleted species are - those ecosystem components that are of concern from a - management perspective. Degraded areas, for example, altered - habitats, contaminated sites, eroded shoreline, areas of hypoxia, and - sites facing recurrent eutrophication, are those areas that would re - quire targeted management measures such as restoration or control - of pollution sources. Depleted species are those species for which - a scientific assessment is essential and a recovery strategy and full - protection may be required to ensure the survival of the species - or the population. Endangered and threatened species listed under - the Species at Risk Act are obviously part of this category. Depleted - stocks of commercial species may also be considered here as they - are of concern for integrated oceans management. - -Ÿ Ecosystem Objectives - Objectives for EBM, or Ecosystem Objectives (EOs), are then - developed around non-human components of the ecosystem - described above, and incorporated into IM plans along with other - objectives (Fig. 3 & 4; step 3). The EO setting process has been - guided at the national level to ensure consistency across the - country, and has been done at the LOMA level to capture - ecosystem-scale considerations. The fine-tuning of management - plans to address local and/or specific environmental issues will - require EOs to become operational by adding increasing specificity - into objectives statements. It is expected that the set of ecosystem - objectives developed for the IM-LOMA plan, when fully - developed, will contain two categories of ecosystem objectives: 1) - objectives set for conservation purposes, and 2) objectives targeting - the desirable state of the ecosystem. - -Ÿ Conservation Objectives and Limits - Conservation-oriented EOs are associated with appropriate eco - logical indicators and thresholds defining the biological limit of the - system–those “conservation limits” that should never be - compromised or exceeded in order to ensure a healthy ecosystem - over time. Conservation limits are reference points that set the - bounds of the system within which other management objectives - should be established. Conservation objectives are solely based on - science, including traditional knowledge, and are developed from - the identification of conservation priorities (Fig. 3 & 4; step 3). - Conservation objectives have been developed in each LOMA - following the national guidance (DFO, 2007a). The next step is to - make these ecosystem conservation objectives operational through - the LOMA IM plan, and manage activities accordingly to ensure the - objectives are met. - -Ÿ Social, Cultural and Economic Considerations - The establishment of “desirable state” EOs combines ecological - with social, cultural and economic considerations, in contrast to - science-based conservation objectives. It is expected that this - -1 The draft framework and new policies are available for review and public consultation: - http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/communic/fish_man/consultations/RMSDF-CDDGR/index_e. - htm -2 Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans-habitat/oceans/im-gi/seismic-sismique/ - statement-enonce_e.asp - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -88 - -Understanding the Beaufort Sea ecosystem -An ecosystem overview was drafted using the best available -information for the area, drawing on scientific knowledge and TEK -(DFO, 2008). This basic ecological information has been reviewed -by co-managers, technical experts, partners, and communities. The -report’scontent follows the standard Table of Contents developed for -national consistency while taking into considerations regional spe- -cificities of Arctic marine ecosystems. This document is considered a -‘living’ document and will be updated periodically as more is learned. -A companion plain language summary report has also been devel- -oped for distribution to the public (Schuegraf and Dowd, 2007). It is -intended to make both documents available via the internet. - -In the Beaufort Sea, dominant physical processes include sea ice extent -and duration; the Mackenzie River inflow which supplies nutrients, -sediment, and warm freshwater to the Beaufort Shelf; and oceano- -graphic currents and upwelling driven by local and large-scale factors. -Though there are at present no estimates of the size of the Arctic cod -population in the Beaufort Sea, it is known that there are many food -web linkages to Arctic cod, an important consumer of zooplankton -and small fish, and prey for vertebrate consumers. This relationship -emphasizes the critical role Arctic cod play in the Arctic ecosystem, -and their significance could be an important factor to consider when -forecasting impacts of climate change and increased development on -the ecosystem of the Beaufort Sea. (DFO, 2008) - -Assessing the state of the Beaufort Sea ecosystem -Within the assessment part of the EOAR (Table 1), some sections, -in particular those dealing with ecologically significant areas and -species have involved significant partner engagement. One scientific -workshop with experts from various fields and organizations docu- -mented what is known or hypothesized about the significance of areas -and species of the Beaufort Sea. As well, a community workshop -involving representatives from various Inuvialuit organizations and the -6 ISR communities was held to identify which areas were ecologically -significant. During this workshop traditional knowledge was recorded -on maps. As a follow-up, focus group sessions were also conducted in -each of the communities with representatives from local organizations -(e.g. youth, elders, hunters and trappers, renewable resources, parks) -and TEK was once again documented. Findings from these consulta- -tions and previous work (e.g. Community Conservation Plans, oral -histories, harvest studies) have been synthesized in Table 2. - -Managing human activities in the Beaufort Sea -The purpose of this work is to develop and implement an IM plan for -the Beaufort Sea LOMA. The vision is to ensure the Beaufort Sea eco- -system is healthy, safe, and prosperous for the benefit of current and -future generations. The Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA) (Canada, -1993) and the Oceans Action Plan (2005-2007) set the framework for -a governance structure and the creation of a Regional Coordination -Committee (RCC) for integrated oceans management in the Beau- -fort Sea. The RCC is co-chaired by senior members of Canada’s -Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Inuvialuit Aboriginal -Government In addition to the RCC, the governance structure for -collaborative planning process is also comprised of a broader group -of stakeholders who participate in a Beaufort Sea Partnership (BSP) -to exchange information and ideas, and make recommendations to the -RCC. Various Working Groups and a Secretariat conduct the day-to- -day work required to support the larger governance structure. The need -for greater involvement of the national intergovernmental committees -on oceans has become apparent as the regional governance structure -evolves. Conservation objectives, along with social, cultural and eco- -nomic objectives have been developed in consultation with communi- -ties, partners and co-managers. - -Specifically, conservation objectives for Beaufort Sea LOMA focus on -maintaining marine biodiversity, productivity and habitats. To ensure -these objectives are being met, responsible authorities will identify -indicators and thresholds, and develop monitoring programs. Where -possible these objectives and indicators are building on previous or -current initiatives within the ISR such as the Tarium Niryutait Marine -Protected Area, ISR Community Conservation Plans, and ongoing -community-based and scientific monitoring programs. The Beau- -fort Sea LOMA integrated management plan will identify priority -objectives and responsible agencies. It will also outline strategies for - -Ÿ In 2006, Transport Canada released the Ballast Water Control - and Management Regulations under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 - to reduce the risk of harmful aquatic species being introduced into - Canadian waters through ballast waters; among other measures, the - regulations specify alternative ballast water exchange zones that - were defined based on a scientific basis. - -Ÿ In 2005, the Government of Canada, in collaboration with the - Provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and - British Columbia, released the Statement of Canadian Practice for - Mitigation of Seismic Noise in the Marine Environment2 to - formalize and standardize the mitigation measures used in Canada - with respect to the conduct of seismic surveys. These guidelines - are based on the scientific knowledge available and derived from - best practices. - -Ÿ At the regional level, ecosystem-based fisheries management - measures include area closures for protecting fish stocks or non- - targeted species; for example off Eastern Scotian Shelf, two Coral - Conservation Areas have been closed to all fishing efforts since - 2001 and coral conservation plans have been developed. These - conservation initiatives were complemented by the establishment - of The Gully Marine Protected Area located in the same ecoregion - and protecting the biodiversity, incl. species at risk, of a deep-water - canyon ecosystem. - -1.1 Local and regional scale: The Beaufort Sea LOMA -example - -1.1.1 Regional implementation of the national framework -Prior to the current move toward ecosystem-based management of ma- -rine resources, DFO’s procedure for protecting the marine ecosystem -began with management plans for individual stocks, the first step being -stock assessment, followed by a fishing plan specifying total allowable -catch (TAC). DFO has been working at these plans and presenting re- -sults to the joint management boards, which have not been able to con- -duct the research themselves. Plans for marine mammal stocks include -the Canada/US Beluga Plan; the Beaufort Sea Beluga Management -Plan; the Southeast Baffin Beluga Plan; the Eastern Hudson Bay Belu- -ga Plan; and the Western Arctic Bowhead Plan, which was precipitated -in part by the political need to have some sort of management plan in -place before taking bowheads in the Beaufort Sea (Welch, 1995). The -implementation of an ecosystem approach will result in more effort to -incorporate ecosystem considerations into sector-specific management -in order to fully achieve the ecosystem-based management of oceans -activities. - -The Beaufort Sea LOMA is one of the five pilot areas in which an -ecosystem-based integrated ocean management approach is being -implemented (OAP, 2005), and the only one of these management ar- -eas that is located in Arctic waters. It is also the only LOMA in which -a co-management regime exists: The Inuvialuit Land Claim Agree- -ment for the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR) was signed in 1984 -and both the Inuvialuit and the Government of Canada share resource -management responsibilities in the land claim area. The following -paragraphs describe in more detail how the national framework has -been applied to the Beaufort Sea LOMA and the Arctic context. - -Delineating the Beaufort Sea marine ecoregion and planning area -The biogeophysical characteristics of the Canadian Western Arctic are -relatively well known compared to other Canadian Arctic areas and -have been the base for identifying marine ecoregions (Powles et al., -2004). The Canadian Beaufort Sea is one of the 6 ecoregions identi- -fied in the Arctic waters (see previous section). The boundaries for -the Beaufort Sea LOMA were established by the Regional Coordina- -tion Committee, an interagency group which provides coordinated -decision-making, oversight, direction and review for the development -and implementation of an IM plan for the LOMA. The planning area -encompasses the marine portion of the ISR (Figure 5) which partly -covers the Beaufort Sea ecoregion and incorporates ecosystem-scale -features, patterns and trends. Covering 1,514,746 km2, it is the largest -of Canada’s five LOMAs. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -89 - -achieving management priority objectives. Adaptive management -will underpin the IM plan, so courses of actions will be revised when -objectives are not being met. - -1.2.2 Stakeholder consultation process and governance aspects -EBSA identification in the Beaufort Sea LOMA presented a number of -challenges. These included the need to incorporate traditional and local -knowledge; a significant lack of scientific data; significant seasonal -and geographic bias in existing data and a bias towards knowledge of -species that are important to the communities for subsistence fishing -and hunting. Workshops were held with the scientific and local com- -munities to help identify potential EBSAs. The areas identified were -then evaluated and ranked against the criteria and guidance developed -nationally (DFO, 2004). Results are presented on figure 6. Significant -species and community properties key to maintaining ecosystem struc- -ture and function were also identified for enhanced protection under -Canada’s implementation of ecosystem-based approach to manage- -ment, here again following national guidance provided by scientists -(DFO, 2006). Candidate species were identified through consultation -with local community members and the scientific community (results -are summarized in Tables 2, 3 and 4). More information and scientific -rationale supporting these results can be found in the Beaufort Sea -Ecosystem Overview and Assessment Report (DFO, 2008). - -Aboriginal control over the environment in the land claims areas is in -the form of independent and joint jurisdiction, with aboriginal rights -and responsibilities legally specified. Each of the comprehensive -claims agreements has a section or sections that specify responsibilities -for fisheries and wildlife management, and creating co-management -boards as the main instruments of resource management. The agree- -ments establish institutional structures in the form of management -boards and joint committees. Some of the agreements specify the use -of aboriginal traditional knowledge in the process of co-management -(Berkes, 2007). - -The experience in the North is that the development of co-management -strongly parallels the emergence of aboriginal land claims. Partner- -ships and participatory management, not only in fisheries and wildlife -but in a range of areas–integrated coastal management, protected areas, -ecosystem and human health, contaminants research, environmental -assessment, climate change– follows increasing local and regional -political power in the North emerging from self-government. These de- -velopments have led to the incorporation of local values, priorities, and -traditional environmental knowledge as mechanisms for participatory -decision-making (Berkes and Fast, 2005). More recently, the Regional -Coordination Committee (RCC) referenced earlier was established as -the primary governance body for the Beaufort Sea LOMA. - -2.2.3 Challenges and opportunities -The Beaufort Sea is subject to the harsh Arctic climate which is char- -acterized by extreme seasonal variability in environmental factors such -as ice cover, temperature range, winds and river inflow (Carmack and -MacDonald, 2002). Although marine life is adapted to this extreme -environment, these conditions certainly make the Beaufort Sea’s -ecosystem vulnerable to human-induced stressors. From an EBM -perspective, two overriding challenges for the Beaufort Sea LOMA ex- -ist: a lack of knowledge of offshore areas and the entire area during the -winter season; and the global nature of the major ecosystem stressors -including climate change and contaminants. - -There are also many exciting opportunities and successful experiences -to report. These include the creation of the first Oceans Act MPA in -Canadian Arctic waters, the Government of Canada/Inuvialuit Fisher- -ies Joint Management Committee (FJMC) for the co-management of -several fish and marine mammal stocks, and collection of ecological -knowledge through partnerships for scientific research and monitoring -(e.g. Beaufort Sea Habitat Mapping Program, Beluga Harvest Monitor- -ing Program). Relationships are being forged at all levels, from local -to regional and international scale, through such venues as the Beau- -fort Sea Partnership, Arctic Council and International Polar Year. So -far, this integrated, holistic and ecosystem-based approach to oceans -management has been well received and supported by the people of the -Beaufort Sea region. - -2.3 Transboundary Cooperation and EBM -Canada has entered into various regional and bilateral agreements -which aim to foster environmental cooperation across political -boundaries. Agreements supportive of ecosystem-based management -fall into two main categories: environmental protection and marine -living resource conservation. - -2.3.1 Environmental Protection -Cooperation in transboundary environmental protection has been -facilitated through the Canada-Denmark Agreement for Cooperation -Relating to the Marine Environment,I the North American Agreement -on Environmental CooperationII and bilateral agreements relating to -the environment with the United States and the Russian Federation. - -Canada–Denmark Agreement for Cooperation Relating to the -Marine Environment -While the Canada-Denmark Agreement, concluded in 1983, predates -the emergence of the ecosystem approach in international law, the -agreement nevertheless has a broad goal of protecting the marine -environment in shared waters of the Nares Strait, Baffin Bay and Davis -Strait. Parties agree to provide information and to consult over any -works or undertakings which may create a significant risk of trans- -boundary pollution. Parties agree to cooperate in identifying appropri- -ate routing areas for vessels operating outside territorial waters. The -agreement also pledges Canada and Denmark to ensure that instal- -lations engaged in exploration for or exploitation of seabed natural -resources are constructed, placed, equipped, marked and operated so -the risk of marine environmental pollution is minimized. - -Annexes to the Agreement set out joint contingency plans for pollu- -tion incidents in the region. Annex A covers pollution incidents from -offshore hydrocarbon exploration or exploitation and provides for -exchange of information on agencies and officials responsible for pol- -lution emergency responses. Annex B, as amended in 1991, establishes -a joint contingency plan for shipping incidents.III - -North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation -The North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, -concluded in 1993 by Canada, Mexico and the USA, established the -Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) and while the -Commission has not specifically focused on the Arctic, it has facili- -tated various initiatives relating to Arctic biodiversity protection. In -2003 the CEC through its Council adopted a Strategic Plan for North -American Cooperation in the Conservation of Biodiversity (CEC, -2003). The Plan established a framework for promoting cooperation -in conserving North American regions of ecological significance and -North American migratory and transboundary species. The Strategic -Plan lists 14 CEC priority conservation regions of North America with -two specific Arctic regions included, namely Arctic Tundra/Archipela- -go and Arctic Coastal Tundra/North Slope. - -The CEC has facilitated and coordinated the North American MPA -Network (NAMPAN) with an aim of identifying priority conservation -areas (PCAs) that should be considered for protection in light of shared -marine migratory species crossing national boundaries. Initial work -has focused on identifying marine conservation areas in the Baja Cali- -fornia to the Bering Sea region (a.k.a. the B2B initiative) and a 2005 -report identified 28 PCAs including two in the Bering Sea ecoregion, -specifically the Pribilof Islands and Bristol Bay in Alaska. (Morgan et -al. 2005). - -The CEC has also supported a project on Marine Species of Common -Conservation Concern. An initial set of three marine species (Pacific -leatherback turtle, pink-footed shearwater and humpback whale) -were selected in addition to three terrestrial species for development -of North American Conservation Action Plans (NACAPs). For the -humpback whale, which may be found in Arctic waters, a NACAP was -published in 2005 (CEC, 2005). The Action Plan documents exist- -ing research initiatives and threats relating to humpback whales and -suggests various trinational actions such as sharing information among -countries about sources and impacts of anthropogenic sounds and iden- -tifying the principal regions and time periods posing the greatest risk -of ship strikes to humpback whales. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -90 - -In 1999 the CEC launched the North American Bird Initiative (NA- -BCI) with an overall goal of enhancing cooperation among existing -bird conservation organizations and initiatives to achieve effective -protection of all North American birds.IV NABCI partners have deline- -ated ecoregions (Bird Conservation Regions) across North America, -including the Arctic, with ecoregions defined by common biophysical -elements, such as soil type, vegetation and associated bird species.V -NABCI complements other international bird conservations efforts -such as those under migratory bird treaties and the North American -Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP 2004). - -Canada–Russian Federation Agreements -Canada and the Russian Federation have cooperated in environmental -protection pursuant to various agreements. The Canada-Russian Fed- -eration Treaty on Concord and Cooperation,VI entering into force on -April 4, 1993, sets out an overall framework for cooperation and in Ar- -ticle 10 specifically recognizes the need to protect fragile ecosystems. - -The Canada-Russian Federation Agreement Concerning Environmen- -tal Cooperation,VII entering into force May 8, 1993, provided the legal -foundation for establishing a Canadian-Russian Mixed Environmental -Commission with a mandate to meet at least once every two years. The -Commission is tasked with enhancing cooperation on a broad range -of topics including atmospheric environmental issues, management -of toxic chemicals, environmental technologies and conservation of -ecosystems, including establishment of nature reserves, and protection -of habitat and rare flora and fauna (emphasis added). - -The Canada-Russian Federation Agreement on Cooperation in the -Arctic and the North,VIII entering into force June 19, 1992, provided -the legal basis for establishing a Canada-Russia Mixed Commission on -Cooperation in the Arctic and the North with a mandate to meet at least -once every two years. The Agreement lists priority areas for coopera- -tion which include, among others, land use planning and management, -effects and transport of contaminants, fisheries science and technology, -and northern policy and legislation. - -The Canada-Russian Federation Agreement on Economic -CooperationIX, entering into force on December 7, 1994, is aimed at -promoting trade and investment cooperation as well as science and -technology exchanges. Among the listed priorities for cooperation are -energy (particularly oil and gas development and safety issues in nu- -clear power generation), mining, transport infrastructure and environ- -mental protection. The Canada-Russia Intergovernmental Economic -Commission has been established to further cooperative collaborations -and an Arctic and North Working Group has been specifically tasked -with promoting bilateral promotion of sustainable Northern -development.X - -Canada–United States Agreements -Although Canada and the United States continue to disagree over the -location of the ocean boundary in the Beaufort Sea and over the legal -status of the Northwest Passage, they have facilitated limited envi- -ronmental cooperation through two key agreements. In 1977 Canada -and the United States agreed to establish a joint marine contingency -plan for the Beaufort Sea.XI The plan sets out regional contacts and -procedures in case of spills of oil and other noxious substances and has -been periodically revised most recently in 2003.XII The Canada-United -States of America Agreement on Arctic Cooperation,XIII adopted in -1988, is aimed at facilitating navigation of icebreakers in Arctic waters -and encourages sharing of research information in order to advance -understanding of the Arctic marine environment. - -2.3.2 Marine living resource conservation -Cooperation in transboundary marine living resource conservation has -been facilitated through the Agreement on the Conservation of Polar -Bears,XIV the Canada-Greenland Memorandum of Understanding on -the Conservation and Management of Narwhal and Beluga,XV the Con- -vention for the Conservation of Salmon in the North Atlantic Ocean,XVI -and the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in Northwest -Atlantic Fisheries.XVII - -Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears -Canada, along with Denmark, Norway, the Russian Federation and - -the United States, is a Party to the Polar Bears Agreement concluded -in 1973. The Agreement in Article II recognizes the need for an eco- -system approach and the Agreement has been a catalyst for protecting -polar bear habitats in Canada. Article II provides: - Each Contracting Party shall take appropriate action to protect the - ecosystems of which polar bears are a part, with special attention to - habitat components such as denning and feeding sites and - migration patterns, and shall manage polar bear populations in - accordance with sound conservation practices based on the best - available scientific data. - -Canada-Greenland Memorandum of Understanding on the Con- -servation and Management of Narwhal and Beluga -Through a 1989 MOU, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans of -Canada and the Greenland Home Rule Government agreed to establish -a Canada/Greenland Joint Commission on the Conservation and -Management of Narwhal and Beluga (JCNB). At its tenth meeting held -in Iqaluit, Nunavut, Canada, 9-11 April 2006, the JCNB recommended -that an ecosystem-based approach be considered in the management of -narwhal including interaction with its prey and predators.XVIII - -In 2006, Canada moved to protect narwhal over-wintering grounds, -including deep-sea corals in Southern Baffin Bay. The area is an -important fishing ground for Greenland halibut, an important food -source for narwhal. DFO’s Fisheries and Aquaculture Management -sector decided to close a significant portion of the Southern narwhal -over-wintering grounds to fixed and mobile gear fishing – as part of -the 2006-2008 Fisheries Management Plan for Greenland Halibut in -the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Statistical Area -OA (DFO, 2007b). - -Applying the precautionary approach, a key component of the ecosys- -tem approach, to narwhal and beluga harvests off West Greenland has -been an ongoing challenge. In 2006 the JCNB expressed grave -concerns over the high beluga harvest in West Greenland in light of -scientific advice suggesting no more than 100 belugas per year should -be taken to have an 80% chance of halving the decline in beluga -numbers by 2010.XIX The West Greenland quota for 2006/2007 was -fixed at 160 and increased to 165 for 2007/2008XX and 250 for 2008/ -2009.XXI The JCNB also highlighted that the West Greenland narwhals -are depleted to about one quarter of historical abundance and noted -scientific advice suggested that total removal in West Greenland -should be no more than 135 individuals.XXII The West Greenland -narwhal quota for 2006/2007 was eventually set at 217 and quotas for -2007/2008 and 2008/2009 were set at 300.XXIII There continues to be -substantial disagreements between scientists and hunters over beluga -and narwhal abundance. - -Convention for the Conservation of Salmon in the North Atlantic -Ocean -The Convention for the Conservation of Salmon in the North Atlantic -Ocean (Salmon Convention), entering into force in October 1983, is -relevant to Arctic waters since the Convention aims to conserve salm- -on stocks , migrating beyond areas of fisheries jurisdiction of coastal -states, throughout their migratory range in the Atlantic Ocean north -of 36O latitude. Canada is a member of the North American and West -Greenland Commissions established as regional forums for coopera- -tion and consultation in addressing the management of transboundary -salmon populations. (Fig. 8). - -Although Parties to the Convention have not explicitly adopted the -ecosystem approach, they have emphasized the need to follow a pre- -cautionary approach and the need to protect and restore ecosystems on -which salmon depend. Through the North Atlantic Salmon Conserva- -tion Organization (NASCO), the umbrella organization for regional -cooperation, Parties forged a 1998 Agreement on Adoption of a -Precautionary Approach (NASCO 1998) and a subsequent 1999 Action -Plan for Application of the Precautionary Approach (NASCO 1999). - -Recognising the numerous local activities impacting salmon habi- -tat, such as hydro-electric development, irrigation projects, forestry, -land-drainage and pollution, Parties in 2001 adopted the NASCO Plan -of Action for the Application of the Precautionary Approach to the -Protection and Restoration of Atlantic Salmon Habitat (NASCO 2001). -The Habitat Plan of Action sets out two overarching commitments, the - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -91 - -need by each Party and its relevant jurisdictions to establish salmon -river inventories and the need to develop national salmon habitat -protection and restoration plans. Each relevant jurisdiction is urged to -apply the precautionary approach through habitat plan implementa- -tion by placing the burden of proof on proponents of potential habitat -impacting activities. Coordination of national habitat plans to deal with -transboundary issues is also urged. - -The NASCO Plan of Action encourages national reporting. Parties are -requested to report to NASCO on progress towards implementation -of habitat plans “on an ongoing basis”. In 2005 Canada reported to -NASCO on various measures being taken to protect salmon habitat -including: establishment of a $30 million (Cdn) Atlantic Salmon En- -dowment Fund to support community groups in improving river habi- -tats and strengthening watershed planning; continuation of a national -no-net-loss policy on fish habitat; and provisions under the Fisheries -Act prohibiting harmful alteration or destruction of fish habitat unless -authorized.XXIV - -The International Atlantic Salmon Research Board has been estab- -lished to encourage and facilitate cooperation and collaboration on -research related to marine mortality in salmon. The Research Board -has initiated the Salmon at Sea (SALSEA) Programme to address its -current priority, the migration and distribution of salmon at sea with -particular reference to feeding patterns and predation, in order to better -understand ecosystem factors contributing to salmon marine mortality. -SALSEA is a broad, multi-year programme involving the coordination -of existing research, as well as the development and implementation of -new studies (NASCO 2004). - -Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in Northwest -Atlantic Fisheries -The Convention on Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, of which Canada is -one of 12 Parties, has to date played a minimal role in advancing -ecosystem-based management in Arctic waters. Although the North- -west Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) has a management man- -date in the ‘Regulatory Area,’ defined as the Convention Area beyond -the limits of coastal state fisheries jurisdiction, only tiny sections -north of 60o in Statistical Division 1E and 1F (Fig. 9) fall within -NAFO’s management jurisdiction. In light of the apparent absence of -fisheries in these areas, NAFO has not so far imposed regulatory meas- -ures (Fischer, 2007). NAFO has, however, played an advisory role -for stocks under its Convention occurring only in the EEZs of coastal -jurisdictions of Canada and Greenland. - -NAFO is in the process of transitioning towards implementation of the -ecosystem approach. At the 2007 Annual Meeting in Lisbon, Portugal, -NAFO Parties agreed to major amendments to the NAFO Convention -including a commitment to apply an ecosystem approach to fisheries -management (NAFO 2007c). In light of the new ecosystem mandate, -NAFO’s Scientific Council has established a Working Group on Eco- -system Approach to Fisheries Management and the Working Group has -been tasked with identifying ecoregions within the NAFO Convention -Area and with developing ecosystem health indicators (NAFO 2008a). - -An Ad Hoc Working Group of Fisheries Managers and Scientists -on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) was formed in 2008 to -complement the role of the Working Group on Ecosystem Approach. -The Ad Hoc Working Group has been tasked with making recommen- -dations on effective implementation measures to prevent significant -adverse impacts on VMEs (NAFO 2008b). - -NAFO in collaboration with the International Council for the Explo- -ration of the Sea (ICES) has also established a Working Group on -Deep-water Ecology (WGDEC). The Working Group has been active -in studying deep water ecology in the North Atlantic and has identified -coral distributions in the Baffin Bay/Davis Strait area (ICES 2008). - -The NAFO Scientific Council Standing Committee on Fisheries En- -vironment (STACFEN) is continuing to assess the impacts of climate -change on the NAFO Convention Area which includes Arctic waters. -The 2006 NAFO Annual Climate Status Summary for the Northwest -Atlantic highlighted various points including, among others: - -Ÿ Annual mean air temperatures were above normal over the entire - NAFO Convention Area from West Greenland to the Gulf of Maine - - with record high values occurring over Labrador and Southern Baf - fin Island. - -Ÿ Sea-ice coverage in West Greenland waters, the Gulf of St. Law - rence and on the Scotia Shelf was lighter than normal. - -Ÿ Warm ocean conditions observed during 2003 to 2006 off West - Greenland coincided with an increase in the production of haddock - and cod (NAFO 2006). - -3. Conclusion -The legal context and policy framework to support ecosystem-based -ocean management exist in Canada. A national framework and series -of science-based tools have been developed to move from EBM con- -cepts and theory to a regional implementation. At the moment, EBM -is not implemented everywhere in Canada’s oceans and current efforts -are being applied in a limited number of priority management areas, -the so-called LOMAs. Full implementation of the ecosystem ap- -proach and adequate protection of significant components of Canada’s -marine ecosystems, including the Arctic, will take time and additional -resources due to the size and complexity of the marine environment -under consideration. This is the reason why EBM is being imple- -mented incrementally in Canada. In this respect, and based on what -has been reported in this chapter, we can reasonably say that Canada -is “on track” in developing a nationally coherent science-based frame- -work, applying rigorous tools and conducting systematic assessments -that set the foundation to an ecosystem-based oceans management. -In the Beaufort Sea LOMA, which is currently the only management -area located in Canada’s Arctic, EBM practices and tools are being -developed. It is still too early however, to observe tangible results and -benefits from this new way to achieve ocean management. Neverthe- -less, we expect that in the long run, EBM will ensure that Beaufort Sea -marine ecosystem health is maintained as socio-economic develop- -ment occurs in this region. The current approach will be refined and -adjusted based on lessons learned during the development phase, -progress in our ecosystem knowledge as well as evolving concepts. Al- -though the EBM approach and tools have been developed for domestic -purposes and implemented in the Beaufort Sea, they could be exported -to other areas eventually. - -On the other hand, while the existing array of Canada’s transboundary -agreements and arrangements in the areas of marine environmental -protection and living marine resource management are supportive of -the ecosystem approach, Canada has yet to fully develop and imple- -ment the ecosystem approach in transboundary governance practice. -A network of marine protected areas has yet to be forged in the Arctic. -An integrated planning approach has yet to be extended across national -boundaries with the United States in the western Arctic and Denmark -(Greenland) in the eastern Arctic. - -In this respect, the application of Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) -concept to advance the ecosystem approach in the Arctic (AMSP, -2004) will help address monitoring and assessment issues in interna- -tional shared waters to further manage based on ecosystem considera- -tions (see the LME section in USA chapter for background information -on LMEs). Both approaches, the LME and Canada’s EBM have been -developed consistently up to date and are complementary initiatives -(Siron et al., 2008). Using the LME approach is an effective way -to bridge domestic initiatives and go beyond national jurisdictions. -It provides the circumpolar community with a common spatial and -governance framework that transcends political boundaries for interna- -tional or bilateral collaborations in EBM at larger regional scales and -Arctic-wide. - -4. References -AMSP. 2004. Arctic Council’s Arctic Marine Strategic Plan. Published by: - Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) International - Secretariat, Akureyri, Iceland. 13 p. - -Berkes, F., 2007. The DFO and the implementation of co-management working - arrangements in Canada’s Arctic Land Claim Regions: A Brief. Unpublished - report. 18 pp. - -Berkes, F., and Fast, H., 2005. Introduction. In Breaking Ice: Renewable - Resource and Ocean Management in the Canadian North. In: Berkes, - F., Huebert, R., Fast, H., Manseau, M., and Diduck, A., eds. Breaking ice: - Renewable resource and ocean management in the Canadian North. Calgary, - Alberta: University of Calgary Press. 1-19. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -92 - -Brigham, L., and Ellis, B., eds. 2004. Proceedings of the Arctic Marine Transport - Workshop. Scott Polar Research Institute, Cambridge University, UK, 28-30 - September, 2004. Institute of the North (Anchorage, Alaska), US Arctic - Research Commission (Arlington, Virginia) and International Arctic Science - Committee (Oslo, Norway). 18 p. -Canada. 1993. Agreement between the Inuit of the Nunavut Settlement Area and - Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. 292 p. Available online: http:// - npc.nunavut.ca/eng/nunavut/nlca.pdf. - -Canada–Makivik Corporation–Nunavut. 2006. Nunavik Inuit Land Claims - Agreement: Agreement between Nunavik Inuit and Her Majesty the Queen in - Right of Canada concerning Nunavik Inuit Land Claims. Available online: - http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/agr/nunavik/lca/lca_e.pdf. 265p. - -Carmack, E.C., and MacDonald, R.W. 2002. Oceanography of the Canadi - an Shelf of the Beaufort Sea: A setting for marine life. Arctic 55 - (suppl. 1):29–45. -CEC. 2003. Strategic Plan for North American Cooperation for the - Conservation of Biodiversity. Commission for Environmental - Cooperation. Available online: http://www.cec.org/files/PDF/ - BIODIVERSITY/Biodiversitystrategy.pdf - -CEC. 2005. North American Conservation Action Plan for Humpback Whale. - Commission for Environmental Cooperation. Available online: http://www. - cec.org/files/PDF/BIODIVERSITY/NACAP-Humpback-whale_en.pdf - -Cobb, D., Berkes, M.K., and Berkes, F. 2005. Ecosystem-based management - and marine environmental quality in Northern Canada. In: Berkes, F., - Huebert, R., Fast, H., Manseau, M., and Diduck, A., eds. Breaking ice: - Renewable resource and ocean management in the Canadian North. Calgary, - Alberta: University of Calgary Press. 71–93. - -COS. 2002a. Canada’s Oceans Strategy. Ottawa, Ontario: Department of - Fisheries and Oceans. 33 p. Available online: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ - oceans-habitat/oceans/ri-rs/cos-soc/index_e.asp - - -COS. 2002b. Policy and operational framework for integrated management - of estuarine, coastal and marine environment in Canada. Canada’s Oceans - Strategy’s companion document. Ottawa, Ontario: Department of Fisheries - and Oceans. 36 p. Available online: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans- - habitat/oceans/ri-rs/cosframework-cadresoc/index_e.asp - -DFO. 2004. Identification of ecologically and biologically significant areas. - Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, - Ecosystem Status Report no. 2004/006. Ottawa, Canada. 15 p. Available - online: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/status/2004/ESR2004_006_E. - pdf - -DFO. 2006. Identification of ecologically significant species and community - properties. Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ Canadian Science Advisory - Secretariat, Science Advisory Report no. 2006/041. Ottawa, Canada. 24 p. - Available online: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/status/2006/SAR- - AS2006_041_E.pdf - -DFO. 2007a. Guidance document on identifying conservation priorities and - phrasing conservation objectives for Large Ocean Management Areas. - Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ Canadian Science Advisory - Secretariat, Science Advisory Report no. 2007/010. Ottawa, Canada. 13 p. - Available online: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/status/2007/SAR- - AS2007_010_E.pdf - -DFO 2007b. Development of a Closed Area in NAFO 0A to Protect Narwhal - Over-Wintering Grounds, Including Deep-Sea Corals. Department of - Fisheries and Oceans’ Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Science - Response no. 2007/002, Winnipeg, Canada. 16 p. - -DFO 2008. Beaufort Sea Large Ocean Management Area: Ecosystem Overview - and Assessment Report. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aqua. Sci., No. 2780, - Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Winnipeg, Canada, 188 p.. - -DIAND, 1984. The Western Arctic claim: the Inuvialuit final agreement. - Department of Indian and Northern Development. Ottawa, Ontario, 159 p. - -FMPAS. 2005. Canada’ Federal Marine Protected Areas Strategy. Government of - Canada. Published by Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa, Canada. - 18 p. Available online: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans-habitat/oceans/ - mpa-zpm/fedmpa-zpmfed/index_e.asp#toc - - -Fischer, J. 2007. Personal communication between Sonja Mills, Research - Assistant, and Johanne Fischer, Executive Secretary of NAFO. October 18, - 2007. - -GSGislason & Associates Ltd. and Outcrop Ltd. 2003. The Marine-related - economy of NWT and Nunavut. Unpublished report. 24 pp. - ICES 2008. Report of the ICES-NAFO Joint Working Group on Deep Water - Ecology (WGDEC), 10-14 March 2008, Copenhagen, Denmark, ICES CM - 2008/ACOM:45. - -IOC. 2003. A reference guide on the use of indicators for integrated coastal - management. Manuals and Guides 45, ICAM Dossier no. 1. Paris: - Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, in - collaboration with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans of Canada, - University of Delaware Center for the Study of Marine Policy, and US - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 127 p. - -IOC. 2006. A handbook for measuring the progress and outcomes of integrated - coastal and ocean management. Manuals and Guides 46, ICAM Dossier - no. 2. Paris: Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, - in collaboration with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans of Canada, - the University of Delaware Center for the Study of Marine Policy, and US - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 155 p. Available online: - http://ioc3.unesco.org/icam/ - -Mageau, C., VanderZwaag, D., and Farlinger, S. (in press). Oceans policy: A - Canadian case study. In: Cicin-Sain, B., Balgos, M., and VanderZwaag, D., - eds. Integrated National and Regional Ocean Policies: Comparative Practices - and Future Prospects. United Nations University Press. - -Morgan, L., Maxwell, S., Tsao F., Wilkinson T. S.C. and Etnoyer P. 2005. - Marine Priority Conservation Areas: Baja California to the Bering Sea. - Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America and the - Marine Conservation Biology Institute, Montreal. - -Muir, M., 1998. Territorial Legislation Influencing Marine Waters in the - Inuvialuit Settlement Region. Unpublished draft report. 21 pp. - -NAFO 2006. The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization’s Annual Ocean - Climate Status Summary for the Northwest Atlantic. Available online: http:// - www.nafo.int/science/ecosystem/OCS/index.html - - -NAFO. 2007a. Report of Scientific Council Meeting, 7-21 June 2007, NAFO - SCS Doc. 07/19. - -NAFO. 2007b. Denmark (Greenland) Report for Scientific Advice on - Management in 2008 of Certain Stocks in Subarea 0 and 1. Available online: - http://www.nafo.int/science/advice/2008/den-request.html - - -NAFO. 2007c. NAFO Celebrates a Modern Convention, 2007 Annual Meeting - Press Release, 28 September 2007. Available online: http://www.nafo.int/ - about/media/press/press07.pdf - - -NAFO. 2008a. Report of the NAFO Scientific Council working Group on - Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (WGEAFM), Dartmouth, - Canada, 26-30 May 2008, NAFO SCS Doc. 08/15. - -NAFO. 2008b. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Conservation and - Enforcement Measures, NAFO/FC Doc. 08/1 (Revised), Annex 1 to Chapter - Ibis. - -NASCO. Undated. Regulatory Measures – West Greenland Salmon Fishery, - North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization. Available online: http:// - www.nasco.int/greenlandmeasures.html - -NASCO. 1998. Agreement on Adoption of a Precautionary Approach, - CNL(98)46. -NASCO. 1999. Action Plan for Application of the Precautionary Approach, - CNL(99)48. -NASCO. 2001. NASCO Plan of Action for the Application of the Precautionary - Approach to the Protection and Restoration of Atlantic Salmon Habitat, - CNL(01)51. -NASCO. 2004. Salmon at Sea (SALSEA): An International Cooperative - Research Programme on Salmon at Sea, SAL(04)5. Available online: http:// - www.nasco.int/sas/pdf/salsea_programme.pdf - -NAWMP 2004. North American Waterfowl Management Plan 2004. - Implementation Framework: Strengthening the Biological Foundation. - Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Secretarie de - Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 106 pp. - -OAP. 2005. Canada’s Oceans Action Plan. Government of Canada. Published by - Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa, Canada. 20 p. Available online: - http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans-habitat/oceans/oap-pao/page01_e.asp - -Oceans Futures. 2006. Focus North: Developments in Arctic Shipping. No. - 8, 4 pp. - -Powles, H., Vendette, V., Siron, R., and O’Boyle, R. 2004. Proceedings of the - Canadian Marine Ecoregions Workshop. Canadian Science Advisory - Secretariat Proceedings Series 2004/016. Department of Fisheries and - Oceans, Ottawa, Canada. 47 p. Available online: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ - csas/Csas/Proceedings/2004/PRO2004_016_B.pdf - -Schuegraf, M., and Dowd, P. 2007. Understanding the Beaufort Sea ecosystem: - plain language summary of the Beaufort Sea ecosystem overview and - assessment report. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Winnipeg, Manitoba. - 19 p. - -Siron, R., Sherman, K., Skjoldal, H-R. and Hiltz, E. (2008). Ecosystem- - Based Management in the Arctic Ocean: A Multi-level Spatial Approach. In: - Proceedings of Coastal Zone Canada’2006 International Conference, Arctic, - vol. 61, suppl. 1. (in press). -Voutier, K., Dixit, B., Millman, P., Reid, J. and Sparkes, A. (2008). Sustainable - Energy Development in Canada’s Mackenzie Delta-Beaufort Sea Coastal - Region. In: Proceedings of Coastal Zone Canada’2006 International - Conference, Arctic, vol. 61, suppl. 1. (in press). -Welch, H. E. 1995. Marine Conservation in the Canadian Arctic: A Regional - overview. CARC, Northern Perspectives. Volume 23, no. 1. 19 pp. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -93 - -XX Report of the Fifteenth Meeting of the North Atlantic Marine - - Mammal Commission (NAMMCO) Scientific Committee, - - Qeqertarsuag, Greenland, 11-14 April 2008 at 38, Table 4. -XXI Personal Communication with Ole Heinrich, Senior Consultant, - Agency of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture, Nuuk, Greenland - (5 November 2008). -XXII Tenth Meeting of the JCNB, supra note xix. -XXIII Report of the Fifteenth Meeting, supra note xxi at 37, Table 3 and - - Heinrich, supra note xxii. The quotas include Melville Bay. -XXIV NASCO, Reports on Progress with Development and Imple - mentation of Habitat Protection and Restoration Plans, - CNL(05)17; and NASCO, Summary of Actions Taken by Canada - in Relation to Conservation and Management of Salmon Stocks - - and the Application of the Precautionary Approach, CNL(05)51. - -7. Credits and Acknowledgements -The following persons were consulted and or helped in drafting -the chapter: - -Molly Ross Dalhousie University, Halifax -Sonja Mills Dalhousie University, Halifax -Randy Lamb Yukon Government, Whitehorse -Sam Stephenson Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Winnipeg -Sam Baird Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa -Camille Mageau Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa -Renée Sauve Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa -Angela Ledwell Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa -Francine Mercier Parks Canada Agency, Gatineau -Anne Daniel Department of Justice, Ottawa - Robert Kadas Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, Ottawa -Tina Guthrie Canadian International Development Agency, Gatineau -Peter Farrington Environment Canada, Gatineau -Fadi W. Balesh Environment Canada, Gatineau -Carol McKinley Environment Canada, Edmonton -Maureen Copley Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Gatineau - Chris Cuddy Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Gatineau -Harley Trudeau Yukon Government - -5. Legislation and Regulations -Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-12. - -Ballast Water Control and Management Regulations, SOR/2006-129. - -Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, S.C. 2002, c. 18. - -Canada National Parks Act, S.C. 2000, c. 32. - -Canada Shipping Act, 2001, S.C. 2001, c. 26. - -Canada wildlife Act, R.S.c. 1985, c. W-9. - -Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, S.C. 1992, c. 37. - -Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, S.C. 1999, c. 33. - -Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14. - -Marine Liability Act, S.C. 2001, c. 6. - -Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, S.C. 1994, c. 22. - -Navigable Waters Protection Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-22. - -Oceans Act, S.C. 1996, c. 31. - -Species at Risk Act, S.C. 2002, c. 29. - -6. Endnotes -I August 26, 1983, CTS 1983/19. -II September 8-14, 1993, 32 I.L.M. 1480 (1993). -III Exchange of Notes between Canada and Denmark Constituting - an Agreement to Amend Annex B of the 1983 Agreement - Relating to the Marine Environment, October 4, 1991, CTS - - 1991/35. -IV Commission for Environmental Cooperation, North American - Bird Conservation Initiative, online: . -V NABCI International, Bird Conservation Regions, online: - . -VI June 19, 1992, CTS 1993/23. -VII May 8, 1993, CTS 1993/7. -VIII June 19, 1992, CTS 1992/18. -IX Agreement between Canada and the Russian Federation on - Economic Cooperation, May 8, 1993, CTS 1994/38. -X See Terms of Reference and Vision Statement of the Canada- - - Russia Intergovernmental Economic Commission Arctic and - North Working Group, online: . -XI Exchange of Notes between Canada and the United States of - America Constituting an Agreement Concerning the - Establishment of a Joint Marine Contingency Plan, July 28, - - 1977, CTS 1977/25. -XII Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canada-United States Joint Marine - - Pollution Contingency Plan (JCP) (Ottawa: Fisheries and Oceans - Canada, 2003) at Annex 4, online: Environment Response http:// - www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/er-ie/dls/canadaus_pub_e.pdf>. -XIII January 11, 1988, CTS 1988/29. -XIV November 15, 1973, CTS 1976/24. -XV December 7, 1989, Memorandum of Understanding between the - - Department of Fisheries and Oceans of the Government of - Canada and the Ministry of Fisheries and Industry of the - - Greenland Home Rule Government on the Conservation and - Management of Narwhal and Beluga (copy on file with the - - authors). -XVI March 2, 1982, CTS 1983/11. -XVII October 24, 1978, CTS 1979/11. -XVIII “Tenth Meeting of the Canada/Greenland Joint Commission in - - the Conservation and Management of Narwhal and Beluga,” - - Home Rule Government of Greenland Press Release (on file with - - the authors). -XIX Ibid. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -94 - -Community Workshop Scientific Workshop EBSA Evaluation Results - -Table 2. Identification of Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs) in the Beaufort Sea LOMA. The table -compiles results from the community, scientific and evaluation workshops. Evaluation results are coded as follows: Areas -classified as EBSAs (+); data deficient areas (*), and area that was finally rejected as an EBSA. - -1. Herschel Island -2. Yukon North Slope -3. Kendall Island -4. Kugmallit Bay -5. Husky Lakes -6. Liverpool Bay -7. Cape Kellett -8. Sachs Harbour -9. Southern Darnley Bay -10. Pearce Point -11. Horton River -12. Eastern Franklin Bay -13. Walker Bay -14. Albert Islands -15. Kagloryuak River - -1. Herschel Island -2. Mackenzie Trough -3. Mackenzie Shelf Break -4. Mackenzie Plume -5. Husky Lakes -6. Liverpool Bay -7. Amundsen Gulf -8. Cape Bathurst Polynya -9. Prince Albert Sound -10. Minto Inlet -11. Viscount Melville Sound - -1. Herschel Island/Yukon North Slope (+) -2. Mackenzie Trough (*) -3. Beluga Bay (+) -4. Kugmallit Corridor (+) -5. Beaufort Shelf Break (*) -6. Husky Lakes (+) -7. Liverpool Bay (*) -8. Horton River (*) -9. Langton Bay (–) -10. Hornaday River (+) -11. Pearce Point (*) -12. De Salis Bay (+) -13. Thesiger Bay (+) -14. Walker Bay (*) -15. Minot Inlet (*) -16. Albert Islands/Safety Channel (+) -17. Cape Bathurst Polynya (+) -18. Kagloryuak River (*) -19. Viscount Melville Sound (*) -20. Banks Island Flaw Lead (*) -21. Shallow Bay (+) - -EOAR standard Table of Contents -Executive Summary -Introduction and General Information -Credits and study administration, project definition, scope of the report, study methods - -PART ONE : Ecosystem Overview – Status and Trends -Geological System -• Marine geology and geomorphology -• Sedimentology – processes and sediment biogeochemistry -Oceanographic System -• Atmosphere/ocean exchange -• Physical oceanography -• Physical–chemical properties of seawater -Biological System -• Flora and fauna (planktonic, benthic, pelagic communities; main taxonomic groups) -• Habitat use and functional areas -Ecosystem Relationships -• Physical–biological linkages -• Biological interactions – Ecosystem structure and dynamics - -PART TWO : Ecological Assessment, Conclusions and Recommendations -Identification of key ecosystem features -• Ecologically and biologically significant areas -• Ecologically significant species and community properties -Threats and impacts on ecosystem -• Impacting activities and associated stressors -• Global stressors and their local impacts -• Impacts of stressors on key ecosystem features -• Assessment of potential cumulative impacts -• Natural variability versus anthropogenic changes -Identification of affected ecosystem components -• Areas of concern -• Species of concern - -Conclusions – Recommendation to management -• Main environmental issues in the area -• Science gaps, uncertainties and reliability -• Identification of priorities for actions - -References - -Resources and Expertise - -Glossary - -Annexes - -Table 1. Standard Table of Contents of Ecosystem Overview and Assessment Report (EOAR) prepared for -LOMAs. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -95 - -Table 4 . Rare, depleted and sensitive species and their corresponding conservation status in the Beaufort Sea LOMA. Species’ conservation status come -from: the Species at Risk Act (SARA), the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) and the Species 2006–2010 General -Status Ranks of Wild Species in the Northwest Territories (NWT). - -Group Common Name Scientific Name SARA COSEWIC NWT - -1Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort populations, 2Eastern North Pacific population, 3Rat River and Big Fish River Populations - -Bird -Bird -Bird -Bird -Bird -Bird -Bird -Bird -Bird -Bird -Marine mammal - -Marine mammal - -Marine mammal - -Fish -Fish -Fish - -Northern pintail -Brant -Long-tailed duck (Oldsquaw) -White-winged scoter -Common eider -King eider -Thick-billed murre -Ivory gull -Ross’s gull -Red phalarope -Bowhead whale1 - -Polar Bear -Grey whale2 - -Northern Dolly Varden3 - -Pigheaded prickleback (Blackline) -Northern Wolffish - -Anus acuta -Branta bernicla -Clangula hyemalis -Melanitta fusca - -Somateria mollissima -Somateria spectabillis -Uria lomvia -Pagophila eburnean -Rhodostethia rosea -Phalaropus fulicaria -Balaena mysticetus -Ursus maritimus -Eschrichtius robustus -Salvelinus malma -Acantholumpenus mackayi -Anarchichas denticulatus - -Special Concern -Threatened - -Special Concern - -Special concern - -Threatened - -Endangered -Threatened - -Special Concern -Special Concern -Special Concern - -Data deficient (2003) - -Threatened - - Sensitive - Sensitive - Sensitive - Sensitive - Sensitive - Sensitive - Sensitive - At Risk - Sensitive - Sensitive - Sensitive - - Sensitive - -Species/Community Scientific Name Rationale - species or the community - as ecologically significant) - -Ice algae community Primary producers -Herbivorous zooplankton community Key grazer species and key forage species -Herbivorous zooplankto Limnocalanus macrurus Key forage species -Ice-associated amphipod Key forage species -Mysids Mysidae Key forage species -Arctic cod Boreogadus saida Key forage species -Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus Influential predator; nutrient importing and exporting species -Arctic cisco Coregonus autumnalis Key forage species; nutrient importing and exporting species -Beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas Influential predator; nutrient importing and exporting species -Bowhead whale Balaena mysticetus Influential predator; nutrient importing and exporting species -Ringed seal Phoca hispida Influential predator; nutrient importing and exporting species - -Sea Ducks Influential predators; nutrient importing and exporting species; rare or sensitive species -Polar Bear Ursus maritimus Influential predator - -Table 3. List of species identified as candidate Ecologically Significant Species in the Beaufort Sea LOMA. (Note that for phytoplankton, zooplankton and -birds, the overall taxonomic group or community is considered as ecologically significant) - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -96 - -Figure 1. Map of Canada’s marine ecoregions - -Figure 2. Area-based ocean management in Canada: Large Ocean Management Areas (LOMAs) and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -97 - -Figure 3. Key steps of the integrated ocean management planning process - - Ecoregion / LOMA - -Ecosystem Objectives operational in LOMA-IM Plan - -Conservation Objectives -Incl., indicators and reference points - -(set conservation limits) - -Ecosystem Overview and Assessment Report - -Ecologically and -Biologically - - Significant Areas - -Areas of Concern -(degraded) - -Ecologically - Significant Species and -Community Properties - -Species of Concern -(depleted) - -Conservation priorities - -Step 1 - -Step 2 - -Step 3 - -Step 4 - - SCIENCE -and - -LTEK - -Figure 4. The Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) framework - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -98 - -Figure 6. Map of ecologically and biologically significant areas (EBSAs) in the Beaufort Sea Large Ocean Management Area - -Figure 5. Map of the Beaufort Sea Large Ocean Management Area - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -99 - -Figure 8. Convention Area and Regional Commissions of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO). - -Figure 7. Governance structure put in place for integrated management and planning in the Beaufort Sea Large Ocean -Management Area. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -100 - -Figure 9. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Convention Area - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -101 - -REPORT SERIES NO 129 - -USA - -An Integrated Approach to Ecosystem-based -Management - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -102 - -decision-making processes that transcend traditional programmatic, -agency, geographic, and jurisdictional boundaries. The system was -established pursuant to the US Ocean Action Plan of 2004. - -US ocean governance is organized under the Committee on Ocean -Policy (COP). The COP is a cabinet level body made up of numerous -department heads and chaired by the Council on Environmental Qual- -ity (CEQ), located in the Office of the President. The Executive Order -that created the COP states that the purpose of the committee is to: - -1 Coordinate the activities of executive departments and agencies - regarding ocean-related matters in an integrated and effective - manner to advance the environmental, economic, and security - interests of present and future generations of Americans; and - -2 Facilitate, as appropriate, coordination and consultation regarding - ocean-related matters among Federal, State, Tribal, and local - governments, the private sector, foreign governments, and - international organizations. - -To aid it in executing this mission, the COP has set up an ocean -governance structure that includes the committees and subcommittees -shown in Box 2 below. - -The two following sections will describe the roles of the Joint Sub- - -committee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST) and the Sub- -committee on Integrated Management of Ocean Resources (SIMOR). - - A. Ocean Research and JSOST -The initial tasks for JSOST were identifying research priorities and -developing a strategy for responding to scientific challenges. Work- -ing closely with the ocean research community, JSOST developed -Charting the Course for Ocean Science in the United States for the -Next Decade: An Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementa- -tion Strategy. Released on January 26, 2007, this 10-year plan for the -Federal role in ocean science is focused on ocean forecasting, scientific -support for ecosystem-based management, and ocean-observing capa- -bilities, and identifies six major societal themes and 20 related research -priorities (Box 3). To initiate progress on the 20 research priorities, the -plan promotes strategies for addressing four near term priorities: - -1 Forecasting the Response of Coastal Ecosystems to Persistent - Forcing and Extreme Events - -2 Comparative Analysis of Marine Ecosystem Integration - -3 Sensors for Marine Ecosystems - -4 Assessing Meridional Overturning Circulation Variability: - Implications for Rapid Climate Change - -Importantly, the plan outlines an implementation strategy that defines -roles for Federal agencies, international entities, research and educa- - -Introduction -This paper has been prepared in response to the Arctic Council’s call -for descriptions of national experience in application of the ecosystem- -based approach to oceans management in the Arctic region. In the -United States, the development of ecosystem-based marine manage- -ment is national in scope and applied regionally. Therefore, this paper -describes the national approach. In addition, the paper describes -related regional initiatives that, over time, will interface with marine -ecosystem-based approaches. As well, the paper describes the interna- -tional Large Marine Ecosystem program, to which the US has been a -major contributor. - -The concepts of integrated ocean management and ecosystem-based -management have been evolving in the US over the past forty years. -The two concepts are closely intertwined. Integrated ocean manage- -ment (IOM) may be defined as “a decision-making process that relies -on diverse types of information to determine how ocean and coastal -resources or areas are best used and protected” (NOS, 2007). IOM is -only useful if conducted within the context of identified ecosystems. -Thus, IOM and the more recently developed concept of Ecosystem -Based Approach to Ocean Management (EBOM) are inextricably -linked. EBOM is an integrated approach to management that consid- -ers the entire ecosystem, including humans (Box 1). - -While we understand that the focus of the Arctic Council study is the -Northern Ocean, the framework the US has designed for ocean man- -agement is comprehensive and flexible enough to apply to all ocean -waters under US jurisdiction. Therefore, this paper will describe the -US experience in moving toward an integrated approach to ecosystem- -based ocean management by (1) explaining the enabling US federal -oceans governance superstructure which facilitates ecosystem-based -management; (2) discussing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric -Administration’s (NOAA’s) ecosystem approach to management; (3) -linking this work to related and complementary regional collaboration -initiatives and (4) international Large Marine Ecosystem activities. - -The US is still working to implement its ecosystem approach to -ocean management. This paper lays out the mechanisms designed to -promote the ecosystem approach and some of the elements already in -place. - -I. Improving Ocean Governance -The US has established a system for overseeing the coordination of -marine research and management activities. This system anticipates -future needs for the integration of complex ecosystem components, -myriad data types, and diverse stakeholder interests into planning and - -Box 1: Scientific Consensus Statement on Marine EBM -Ecosystem-based management is an integrated approach to -management that considers the entire ecosystem, including -humans. The goal of ecosystem-based management is to -maintain an ecosystem in a healthy, productive and resilient -condition so that it can provide the services humans want and -need. Ecosystem-based management differs from current -approaches that usually focus on a single species, sector, activity -or concern; it considers the cumulative impacts of different -sectors. Specifically, ecosystem-based management: - -• emphasizes the protection of ecosystem structure, functioning, - and key processes; - -• is place-based in focusing on a specific ecosystem and the range - of activities affecting it; - -• explicitly accounts for the interconnectedness within systems, - recognizing the importance of interactions between many target - species or key services and other non-target species; - -• acknowledges interconnectedness among systems, such as be - tween air, land and sea; and - -• integrates ecological, social, economic, and institutional - perspectives, recognizing their strong interdependences. - -Cite: Scientific Consensus Statement on Marine Ecosystem-Based -Management, 2005 - -NSC: National Security Council -PCC: Policy Coordinating Committee -OSTP: Office of Science and Technology Policy, -NSTC: National Science and Technology Council -ORAP: Ocean Research and Advisory Panel - -Committee on Ocean Policy -Ohar OEQ - -Members as identified the executive order -(Cabinet level) - -Interagency Committee on Ocean -Science Management Integration - -Co-Chairs OSTP (Assosciate Director), -CEQ Deputy or COS) - -Expanded ORAP - -NSC PCC -GLOBAL - -Environment -Chair NSC - -NSTC Joint Subcommittee -Co-Chairs OSTP Agency - -Subcommittee on -Integreated management - -of Ocean Resources -Co-Chairs CEQ Agency - -Box 2: US Ocean Governance Structure - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -103 - -tional institutions, the private sector, NGOs, and local, tribal, state and -regional governance. The strategy emphasizes the importance of merit -based- peer review; using existing implementation mechanisms, creat- -ing partnerships, balancing new developments with sustained efforts, -and pursuing national priorities through scaled implementation. By es- -tablishing a framework that coordinates all of these components within -a focused research agenda that addresses clearly defined problems at -appropriate scales, JSOST has made great progress toward one of the -greatest challenges in the continued development of EBOM: the need -for integrated science to support integrated management. By including -not just the scientific community, but stakeholders and governments -as well, this plan ensures that relevant ecological, sociological, and -economic information will feed into the ocean management process. -Further, the approach detailed in this plan can be used as a template for -a parallel plan for ocean management. - -B. Ocean Management and SIMOR -The broad purpose of SIMOR is to “strengthen the effectiveness of -interagency efforts at all levels while respecting existing authorities -and jurisdictions” (SIMOR, 2005). To that end, SIMOR has developed -a Work Plan focused on four Work Priority Areas (Box 4). The Work -Plan, released in March, 2006, discusses challenges and discusses next -steps for progress in each of the four Work Priority Areas. - -In each of these areas, the plan identifies gaps in integration and -coordination of science and management, and between different layers -of management. While not as detailed or comprehensive as JSOST’s -ocean science strategy, the SIMOR Work Plan does outline an imple- -mentation approach for EBOM. - -The new US ocean governance structure raises the profile of marine -resource management, and is designed to allow for a more responsive -and comprehensive treatment of large-scale problems related to the -marine environment. As the following section will show, ongoing -Federal initiatives fit nicely into this framework, and will be better able -contribute to EBOM once they are coordinated through SIMOR. - -II. NOAA’s Ecosystem Approach to Management/EBM -While many Federal initiatives incorporate ecosystem principles into -management practices, the most important of these in the marine -environment is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- -tion’s (NOAA) adoption and application of an Ecosystem Approach -to Management for oceans and coasts. In response to the 2004 U.S. -Ocean Action Plan, NOAA has developed and pursued an ecosystem - -Box 3: JSOST Societal Themes - -Theme 1: Stewardship of Natural and Cultural Ocean Resources - -Theme 2: Increasing Resilience to Natural Hazards - -Theme 3: Enabling Marine Operations - -Theme 4: The Ocean’s Role in Climate - -Theme 5: Improving Ecosystem Health - -Theme 6: Enhancing Human Health - -Box 4: SIMOR Work Priority Areas - -• Support Regional and Local Collaboration - - Facilitate Use of Ocean Science and Technology in Ocean -• Resource Management - -• Enhance Ocean, Coastal, and Great Lakes Resource Manage - ment to Improve Use and Conservation - -Enhance Ocean Education - -Box 5: Programs Supporting NOAA Ecosystem Goal Team - -- Habitat - Fisheries management - -- Corals - Protected species - -- Coastal and marine resources - Ecosystem observations - -- Ecosystem research - Aquaculture - -- Enforcement - -approach to the management of marine resources under its jurisdic- -tion. Using the principles of Ecosystem- Based Management (Box 1), -NOAA’s Ecosystem Goal Team, has the responsibility of developing -strategies that ultimately accomplish two objectives: - -1 Healthy and productive coastal and marine ecosystems that benefit - society, and - -2 A well informed public that acts as a steward of coastal and marine - ecosystems - -In pursuing these outcomes, NOAA integrates the contributions of -nine programs that have research and management responsibilities that -affect ecosystems (Box 5). - -In addition, NOAA has defined the boundaries of eight ecosystems to -serve as management units for different areas of coastal and ocean wa- -ters adjacent to the US or its territories (Box 6). Note that the Alaska -Ecosystem Complex includes four Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs): -Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, Bering Sea, and Gulf of Alaska. - -The NOAA regional ecosystems also serve as the units of analysis for -Integrated Ecosystem Assessments (IEAs), which are NOAA’s primary -means of implementing the ecosystem approach. IEAs are spatially -based, scalable assessments that have three major components: (1) -monitoring, (2) analysis of status and trends in space and time, and (3) -integration and forecasting. IEAs are an appropriate vehicle to convey -information about the structure and function of ecosystems and to -evaluate the impacts of current and proposed stressors. By collecting -and analyzing biological, oceanographic, and socioeconomic data, -analyzing it in the context of past management strategies and current -human behaviors, and predicting future trends, NOAA is using the IEA -process as a proactive tool to identify long term research needs and -resource management priorities, and support the ecosystem approach. - -It is extremely important to emphasize the nested nature of ecosys- -tems, and consequently, of ecosystem assessments and management -programs. Within a large regional ecosystem exist many systems that -function on smaller scales, including watersheds, estuaries, wetlands, -and reefs. Analysis of these sub-systems is crucial to the assessment of -larger coastal and marine areas. Further, communication and coopera- -tion between local, regional, and national managers and stakeholders -is absolutely necessary to ensure a comprehensive, integrated approach - -Box 6: NOOA Regional Ecosystems - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -104 - -to management. Finally, sound management of nested ecosystems not -only contributes to success in addressing problems at a larger scale, -but also may provide a model for managing similar systems elsewhere. -(See Box 7) - - -With its explicit link to the US ocean governance structure which will -be described below, NOAA provides input that informs the ocean -management process, while receiving feedback on how it can improve -the support functions of the ecosystem approach. This two-way infor- -mation exchange facilitates the integration of NOAA’s work with that -of other Federal agencies, as well as lower levels of government and -other aforementioned parties critical to IOM, while ensuring that ocean -management efforts will be ecosystem-based. - -III. Regional Collaboration -Supplementing and complementing the ecosystem-based approach, -the US has historically attempted to use regional bodies for ocean -resource management. Regional collaboration has been tried in vari- -ous contexts in the US, with mixed results. Federally led multi-state -watershed management initiatives like the Chesapeake Bay Program -and the Gulf of Mexico Program have had limited success, largely -because of the difficulty of addressing land use issues. However, in -the context of inshore coastal fisheries, regional fishery management -councils comprised of representatives from states that share fish stocks -have proven more effective. - -In addition, NOAA has created a framework for domestic regional -collaboration with regions that correspond to large marine ecosystems -(LMEs) (Box 8). The 10 LMEs of the United States are regions of -the ocean starting in coastal areas and extending out to the seaward -boundaries of continental shelves and major current systems. They -take into account the biological and physical components of the -marine environment as well as terrestrial features such as river basins -and estuaries that drain into these ocean areas. Development of the -framework for regional collaboration employed a set of explicit criteria -(Box 9), including consideration of the relationships between NOAA -and various stakeholders, and amongst the stakeholders themselves, to -divide the US into eight regions to serve as the base units for fostering -stronger collaboration with governments and stakeholders, and among -its own programs (Box 10). These regions correspond closely to the -LME units mentioned above. - -The three priorities NOAA has identified for regional collaboration -(hazard resilient coastal communities, integrated ecosystem assess- - -ments, and integrated water resource services) all have the potential to -be key components of EBOM. Coordinating these regionally-based -management projects with broader initiatives conducted at ecosystem -scales links Federal managers with state and local authorities in activi- -ties that combine place-specific concerns and expertise with ecosystem -level science and planning. - -Another ongoing regional initiative is the development of regional -ocean councils. In 2005, the New England Governor’s Conference -formed The Northeast Regional Ocean Council (NROC). -The primary intent of NROC is to link together and cultivate regional -ocean management and science institutions and programs for the -Gulf of Maine, Long Island Sound, and southeastern New England. -Recently NROC produced a draft 1-year work plan that proposes it -will focus on ocean energy resource planning and management; ocean -and coastal ecosystem health; maritime security; and coastal hazard -response and resiliency. The work plan contains the following actions: - -Ÿ Submit an appropriations request from the New England governors - to support the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment - and the proposed Northeastern Sounds Ecosystem Alliance; - -Ÿ Create a regional entity for southeastern New England’s sounds - par allel in purpose and scope to the Gulf of Maine Council on the - Marine Environment; - -Ÿ Convene a Northeast Regional Ocean Congress to establish - short-term regional ocean management priorities; - -Ÿ Seek an additional resolution from the NEGC/ECP annual meeting - for the Oceans Working Committee to issue an annual ocean - management priorities statement; and, Create Action Plans around - the priority issue areas - -Box 9 – Selection Criteria for NOAA Regional Collaboration -Management Units - -- Public perception of regional identity - Federal - and state jurisdictions - -- Existing NOAA capabilities - Regional - partners - -- Ecosystem-related boundaries - Size man - ageability of regions - -- Geographic dimensions of programmatic priority areas - -Box 7: Nested Ecosystems and Management Strategies - -The Channel Islands National Park and National Marine -Sanctuary are located off the coast of California, within the -California Current Large Marine Ecosystem. Traditionally an -important area for commercial fishing and recreation, over-harves- -ting of commercially important species such as abalone and spiny -lobster led to severe degradation of the park ecosystem by the -1990s, including the loss of over 80% of giant kelp forests (Davis, -2005). Through a process that brought together scientists, stake- -holders, and officials from various levels of government, a network -of marine reserves was established based on ecosystem criteria. It -is hoped that this network will allow the ecosystem to recover while -having a minimal negative short-term socioeconomic impact. - -Box 8: US LMEs -LMEs correspond to natural features. The 10 Large Marine Ecosystems -of the United States are regions of the ocean starting in coastal areas -and extending out to the seaward boundaries of continental shelves and -major current systems. They take into account the biological and physical -components of the marine environment as well as terrestrial features such -as river basins and estuaries that drain into these ocean areas. - -U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, -July 2004. “NOAA Fisheries Service’s Large Marine Ecosystems Program: Status -Report”. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-183, page 1. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -Box 11: 16 GEF funded LME projects - -• Agulhas Current LME • Baltic Sea LME • Bay of Bengal LME -• Benguela Current LME • Black Sea LME • Canary Current LME -• Caribbean Sea LME • Guinea Current LME • Gulf of Mexico LME -• Gulf of Thailand LME • Humboldt Current LME • Indonesian Sea LME -• Mediterranean Sea LME • Somali Current LME • South China Sea LME -• Yellow Sea LME. - -105 - -The US has made support of NROC a priority, and has assigned work -group leads from the Federal agencies responsible for both living and -non-living coastal and marine resources. The New England Gover- -nor’s Conference has also reached out to the Eastern Canadian Pre- -miers, and the two groups have signed a resolution pledging coopera- -tion on ocean governance issues under the framework of the NROC. - -Other similar programs on the regional scale include the Gulf of -Mexico Regional Partnership (GMRP), and the Great Lakes Regional -Collaboration (GLRC), which were commissioned by the US Ocean -Action Plan, and link Federal agencies and state governors with their -counterparts in Mexico and Canada respectively. Building upon the -work already being conducted by the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, the -GMRP draws on Federal government resources to improve coordina- -tion between states, and with the six Mexican states that border the -Gulf through the Accord of the States of the Gulf of Mexico. Also a -priority in the SIMOR work plan, GMRP convened a working group -comprised of representatives from 13 Federal agencies and numerous -state officials in 2005, which resulted in the release of the Governors’ -Action Plan for Healthy and Resilient Coasts the following year. This -document identifies the following key areas of regional cooperation: - -Water quality for healthy beaches and shellfish beds; -• Wetland and coastal conservation and restoration; -• Environmental education; -• Identification and characterization of Gulf habitats, and -• Reductions in nutrient inputs to coastal ecosystems. - -Pursuit of these objectives, coupled with increased collaboration -with international partners, will improve the management of natural -resources, coastal communities, and environmentally sensitive areas in -and around the Gulf of Mexico. - -The GRLC is a wide-ranging, cooperative effort to design and imple- -ment a strategy for the restoration, protection and sustainable use of -the Great Lakes. Through GRLC, states have teamed with the US -Environmental Protection Agency and NOAA to develop a Strategy to -Restore and Protect the Great Lakes, which addresses such regional -concerns as invasive species, non-point -source pollution, coastal zone manage- -ment, habitat-species linkages, sedimenta- -tion, toxics, sustainable development, data/ -information integration, and environmental -indicator identification/development. By -involving managers representing the -entirety of the Great Lakes complex, -including Canadian partners, the GRLC -enables a treatment of these issues that is - -comprehensive, rather than piecemeal. -The three projects described above not only ad- -dress the challenge of coordinating across jurisdic- -tional boundaries within the US, but also take the -first steps toward accomplishing the larger goal -of achieving regional cooperation across national -boundaries. Harmonizing management of the -marine environment amongst countries that share -a common ecosystem or resource pool will lead -to more effective policies governing the balance -between exploitation and protection. This type -of cooperation is critical, especially given the im- -portance to ecosystems of migratory species and -large-scale processes like ocean currents, circula- -tion patterns, and climate interactions. By starting -with our neighbors to the North and South, and -engaging stakeholders as well as governments, the -US seeks to create a model that it can extend to -other regional partners in the future. - -IV. International Approaches -A. Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) -The U.S. Administration’s Ocean Action Plan -(OAP) indicates that the “U.S. will promote, with- - -in the United Nations Environment Program’s regional seas programs -and by international fisheries bodies, the use of the Large Marine -Ecosystems (LME) concept as a tool for enabling ecosystem-based -management to provide a collaborative approach to management of -resources within ecologically bounded transnational areas. This will -be done in an international context and consistent with customary -international law as reflected in 1982 UN Convention on the Law of -the Sea.” (U.S. Ocean Action Plan, 2004). NOAA is the lead agency -in these efforts. - -Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) are regions of ocean space of about -200,000 km2 or greater that encompass coastal areas from river basins -and estuaries out seaward to the break or slope of the continental -shelf, or out to the seaward extent of a well-defined principal current. -LMEs are defined not by political, but by ecological criteria, including -bathymetry, hydrography, marine productivity, and trophically linked -populations. Since 1984, the LME Program has developed ecosystem -management tools, initiated projects that have been funded by partner -organizations, and provided training for developing country partici- -pants, helping to raise their level of expertise, their scientific under- -standing and their capabilities to conduct resource and environmental -assessments and improve resource management practices. The LME -concept for ecosystem-based management and its 5-module approach -(productivity, fish and fisheries, pollution and ecosystem health, -socioeconomics, and governance) are being applied globally to analyze -ecosystem-wide changes, and provide the scientific foundation for -management actions that link scientific assessments, protection of the -marine environment, sustainable development of coastal and marine -resources, and poverty alleviation. - -The NOAA LME Program is now partnering with the Global Envi- -ronment Facility (GEF)/World Bank, five U.N. agencies (UNIDO, -UNDP, FAO, IOC-UNESCO and UNEP), and two NGOs (IUCN and -WWF) to promote the use of the LME approach to the assessment and -management of marine resources in Africa, Asia, Latin America and -eastern Europe. A total of 110 countries and an estimated network of -2,500 scientists, marine specialists and resource managers and partners -are participating in 16 international LME Projects (Box 11), funded -with grants and investment funds totaling $1.8 billion. The operational - -Box 10: The Framework for NOAA Regional Collaboration - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -106 - -strategies for the 4th replenishment of the GEF (2007-2010) will further -augment international LME activities by $230 million. Supplemental -financing of LME “Foundation” projects by the World Bank and re- -gional development banks in the form of low-interest investment loans -and no-interest revolving funds, is likely to increase support of LME -projects to a level of $3 billion by 2010. - -In the 16 GEF-supported LME projects, the 5-modular assessments are -identifying ecosystem trends necessitating a precautionary approach to -fisheries, improved forecasting of fishery fluctuations, conservation of -biodiversity and, the reduction of excessive nitrogen loading and as- -sessment of and adaptation to climate change. The projects use LMEs -as the geographic focus for strategies to reduce coastal pollution, re- -store damaged habitats, and recover depleted fisheries. This effort will -continue in partnership with the UN and other agencies through 2010. - -In 2004, the NOAA LME Program partnered with the UNEP-Regional -Seas Programme, when the 6th global meeting of the UNEP Regional -Seas Conventions adopted a resolution to incorporate the LME 5-mod- -ule approach to assessment and management of marine resources, and -use LMEs as operational/management units for translating Regional -Seas programs into concrete actions. In 2005, The LME Program part- -nered with the UNEP Global Progamme of Action for the Protection of -the Marine Environment from Land-based Sources of Pollution (GPA), -to assist developing nations in restoring and sustaining the goods and -services of the world’s LMEs, and to support an integrated approach -to oceans management and a reduction of land based pollution. As -an outcome of the second session of the Intergovernmental Review -Meeting on the Implementation of the GPA in October 2006, the -Beijing Declaration furthered the mainstreaming of the LME concept -by outlining national, regional, and international actions needed to -apply ecosystem approaches, value the social and economics costs and -benefits of the goods and services that oceans and coasts can provide, -and address coastal pollution by reducing and controlling nutrient over -enrichment in LME coastal waters. - -B. Arctic LME Activities -The Arctic LMEs are diverse and dynamic systems under stress from -global warming and the melting of sea ice. Marine species are few, -but each species has high numbers. Advances in the melting of Arctic -ice have implications for zooplankton, fisheries, fish stocks, marine -mammals, marine birds, which appear to be shifting northward, and -socioeconomic conditions for Arctic people. - -One of the major priorities of the Arctic Council Working Group on -Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) for 2006-2008 is -the introduction of the LME approach to the assessment and manage- -ment of Arctic ecosystems. The United States has been the lead on -the ecosystem approach and has updated PAME on the status of the -LME approach to assessment and management, in which place-based -assessments of the changing states of Arctic LMEs can serve as the -framework for ecosystem-based management practices. Planning for -the introduction of the ecosystem-based approach was initiated with -the LME Working Group and its representatives from the 8 participat- -ing countries. At this date, the countries have reviewed and accepted a -working map of 17 Arctic LMEs that will be used to guide the PAME -work plan. The PAME LME Working group has organized an e-mail -exchange between key experts from each of the Arctic Council coun- -tries to consider suites of indicators of changing states of Arctic LMEs, -as measured against baselines of (i) productivity/climate, (ii) fish and -fisheries/marine birds and mammals, (iii) pollution and ecosystem -health, (iv) socioeconomics, and (v) governance. This effort to reach -consensus on generic suites of indicators for assessing the changing -states of 17 Arctic LMEs will effectively guide decision-making in the -Arctic Region. The LME Experts Group will work in close coopera- -tion with other experts associated with the activities of other Arctic -Council Working Groups including AMAP, CAFF and SDWG. - -NOAA’s Alaska Fisheries Science Center, the North Pacific Fishery -Management Council (NPFMC), and the academic community have -been paying a great deal of attention of ecosystem assessments and -approaches to management. While research is ongoing, the NPFMC -has adopted an ecosystem-based approach to the management of the -EBS LME groundfish fishery through a 1.4-2.0 million metric ton - -Optimum Yield approach since 1982 that has maintained the health of -the fisheries resources and stabilized the fisheries catch. The NPFMC -has implemented a large scale closure of marine areas along the -Aleutians to protect cold coral and essential fish habitats. The council -is now working on developing an ecosystem management plan for the -Aleutian Island sub-area of the EBS LME. - -The NPFMC is also presently developing options for fishery manage- -ment in the Arctic, north of Bering Strait. It has determined that a -more deliberate and comprehensive management regime should be put -in place for the Arctic region. This is partly in anticipation of potential -fishery development in the region as climate conditions continue to -warm. But this is also in response to some of the unique ecological -conditions in the Arctic region, and the unique nature of the region’s -coastal communities, that merit more attention than has been given -to this area previously. The NPFMC views the development of an -Arctic Marine Resources FMP as an opportunity for implementing an -ecosystem-based management policy that recognizes the unique issues -in the Alaskan Arctic. - -PAME has also discussed the opportunity to develop the LME ap- -proach for pilot assessment and management projects for the Arctic, in -the West Bering Sea, the Barents Sea, and the Beaufort Sea. The West -Bering Sea (WBS) LME supports fish, crustaceans, mollusks, marine -birds and marine mammals. The catch of fish including pollock has -undergone periods of growth and decline since 1975 for the fish in the -Navarin sub-area of the WBSLME. - -The Barents Sea LME, shared by the Russian Federation and Norway, -is shallow, with a large shelf and an extensive polar front. It is a transi- -tion zone where relatively warm inflowing Atlantic water is cooled -and transformed into Arctic as well as Polar water. The climate of this -LME shows high spatial and temporal variability that depends mainly -on the activity and temperature of the inflowing Atlantic water. There -is considerable annual and inter-annual variations in ice cover, which -extends over one- to two-thirds of the LME with maximum extension -during winter. The Barents Sea LME is considered a moderately high -productivity ecosystem, with biological activity determined mainly -by seasonal changes in the temperature and light regimes, advection -and ice cover. The major species fished are capelin, Atlantic cod and -herring, with capelin and herring being major prey of cod. During the -last decades, biomass yields of the major species have fluctuated sig- -nificantly because of high fishing mortality and variation in the natural -environment. - -In addition, Canada is prepared to collaborate with the U.S. on a -LME demonstration project in the Beaufort Sea LME (BSLME). The -BSLME is a high-latitude, mostly ice-covered LME bordered by -northern Alaska and Canada, with an Arctic climate and extreme envi- -ronment driven by major seasonal and annual changes. New develop- -ments for the production of gas and oil are contemplated. It is clear -from existing assessments that the resident populations on both the -Canadian and U.S. coasts of the BSLME are undergoing major socio- -economic changes, caused by the significant increase in the rate of ice -melt in the ecosystem. While the LME is considered a low productiv- -ity ecosystem, with high productivity only in the summer when the ice -melts, an important question is how this productivity might change un- -der an altered climatic regime. The effects of changing conditions in -the BSLME need to be better understood and taken into consideration -as the basis for adaptation actions for sustaining the living resources -and biodiversity of the ecosystem, under a policy that can demonstrate -utility in balancing economic development with an appropriate level of -sustainability in the goods and services produced by the ecosystem. - -V. Conclusion -It is fair to characterize the United States as “on the road” to imple- -mentation of ecosystem based ocean management. The U.S. Ocean -Action Plan established the high level policy infrastructure necessary -to achieve this goal. Decisions by this infrastructure and products pre- -pared by its operating elements have moved the United States toward -the ecosystem approach. - -A major U.S. oceans science and management agency, NOAA, has -adopted Ecosystem Based Management as one of its strategic goals. It - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -107 - -has elaborated its notion of EBM and created the organization mecha- -nisms need to consider and create implementation programs. - -Further, the U.S, with various partners, is pursuing a range of collabo- -rative activities at the regional level. These activities involve interna- -tional partners and cooperation among different levels of government. -They include robust involvement of stakeholders. - -Finally, pursuant to the decision reflected in the Ocean Action Plan, -the U.S. has been a leader in implementing large marine ecosystem -programs throughout the world. - -While the U.S. has made major strides in developing major compo- -nents of a strategy for ecosystem based ocean management, additional -work is required before all these pieces come together. It would ap- -pear that the will and direction exist to achieve this goal in the coming -years. - -Annex A: -The Alaska Ecosystems -There are four LMEs off Alaska within the US EEZ that should be of -interest to the Arctic Council – the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) LME, the -East Bering Sea (EBS) LME , the Chukchi Sea (CS) LME and the -Beaufort Sea (BS) LME. The EBS LME includes the Aleutian Islands -Sub-Area and is the most productive LME in the US in terms of fisher- -ies, followed by the GOA LME. Together, these two systems have -produced 55% of US fisheries landings in recent years. The CS and -BS LMEs, while not supporting large fisheries, are undergoing rapid -changes as annual and multiyear ice coverage shrinks relative to the -past 50 years. - -These LMEs have experienced different climatic regimes and shifts in -modern times. A report by King (2005) indicates that the environment -of the North Pacific marine ecosystems has shifted; apparently a few -times. It follows that the features of the living marine resources of the -Alaskan LMEs have also changed over time. King (2005) cites several -examples of decadal-scale changes in biological production and com- -munity composition that occurred around 1977 and in the 1990s. The -scientific literature now generally recognizes that recent regime shifts -occurred in 1925, 1947, 1977 and 1989. Hare and Mantua (2000) -assembled and examined 100 environmental time series (31 climatic -and 69 biological) for evidence of biological and physical responses -to these regime shift signals. Levitus et al. (2000) reported that the -Pacific Ocean has undergone a net warming since the 1950s. Changes -in ocean temperature on a shorter time basis can be quite variable, and -often mask long-term trends in ocean warming. Determining how -these higher temperature variations will affect living marine resources -(LMRs) on a short-term basis, and how they might mask the longer -term effects of a gradual warming of the oceans are key management -questions that require an ecosystem approach. -To support management of the ecosystems off Alaska, NOAA conducts -research and collecting data that will eventually merge into better com- -prehensive assessments and management of the LMEs. This research -includes oceanography and othe aspects of the physical environment, -as well as the dynamics of LMRs. The LMRs of special and unique -concern in the Alaska LMEs are the marine mammals, seabirds, and -fishery resources. They all occur in high abundance and/or in high -profile in a changing dynamaic environment. -On marine mammal research, the The US has been conducting peri- -odic stock assessment surveys for pinnipeds and cetaceans in the EBS, -BS, and CS LMEs. The results of these assessments provide details -on population sizes and trends, stock identification, and potential -anthropogenic impacts such as interactions with commercial fisheries, -oil and gas development, and subsistence harvests. In addition to these -studies, the US conducts a broad range of research on marine mammal -ecology and behavior. In light of the potential effects of the loss of -sea ice and climate change, this research is increasingly focused on -better understanding the habitat requirements of the different marine -mammal species. US government agencies also interact with domestic -and international entities on issues pertaining to marine mammals in -these LMEs. For example, the US-Russia Marine Mammal Working -Group, under Area V of the US-Russia Agreement on Cooperation in -the Field of Environmental Protection, convenes bi-annually to present - -recent research results and discuss issues of marine mammal science -and conservation in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. Similarly, the US -government has co-management agreements with several Alaska Na- -tive groups concerning the subsistence use of marine mammals. -For fisheries, research has been extensive on salmon, all the major -groundfish resources, king and tanner crabs, shrimps, and all the -ecologically related species, including lower trophic levels, down -to phytoplankton blooms. Trawl surveys on the groundfish and crab -resources in the shelf area of the EBS LME have been conducted an- -nually since about 1972 and regular two-year phase surveys have taken -place in the Aleutians and Gulf of Alaska regions. Longline surveys -on Pacific Halibut have been conducetd by the International Pacific -Halibut Commission that started back in the early 1900s. Longline -surveys on sablefish (blackcod) have also been annual for more than -15 years. - -The scientists of various NOAA agencies have also collaborated on -FOCI-type studies (Fishery-Oceanography Coordinated Investigations) -to study how ocean dynamics affect components of the ecosystems and -determine survival of the LMRs. The also conduct special cruises to -study marine mammal-fisheries-and seabird interactions. NOAA Fish- -eries also has an extensive observer program where trained biologists -are placed onboard fishing vessels, processing vessels, and on-shore -processing plats to collect data scientifically for the sciences. The -extent of observer coverage is 100% for the large vessels and process- -ing plants. At worst, the smaller operators are covered 30% of their -operational time. - -All the data that are being collected from marine mammals, fish, crabs, -other LMRS and those FOCI-data collected by other US Govern- -ment Agencies (Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection -Agency, etc.); State agencies (like the Alaska Department of Fish and -Game); academic institutions (like the University of Washington and -University of Alaska) and special research-funding agencies (like the -North Pacific Research Board and the SeaLife Center) are being exam- -ined for their broader applications and integration into in ecosystem -assessments and management. - -As the ocean environment is undergoing rapid changes, the North -Pacific Research Board has encouraged use of integrated science to -ecosystem approaches of research and funding research projects in -consultation with Federal and State agencies, Universities, and the -National Science Foundation. A Bering Sea Integrated Research Plan -has been developed and funded. A similar exercise to develop a Gulf -of Alaska Integrated Research Plan is under way. Some of the more -innovative research plans that are coming online in the near future are -“Loss of Sea Ice” and “Ocean Acidification”. All the research projects -are geared towards ecosystem approaches to assessments and manage- -ment. - -Works Cited -Davis, G.E. 2005. Science and society: Marine Reserve Design for the - California Channel Islands. Conservation Biolgy 19(6): 1745-1751. -Hare, S. R. and N. J. Mantua. 2000. Empirical evidence for North Pacific regime - shifts in 1977 and 1989. Prog. Oceanogr. 47(2-4): 103-146 -King, J.R. (Ed.) 2005. Report of the Study Group on Fisheries and Ecosystem - Responses to Recent Regime Shifts. PICES Scientific Report, 28. North - Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES): Sidney, BC (Canada). - -Levitus, S., J. I. Antonov, T. P. Boyer and C. Stephens. 2000. Warming of the - World Ocean. Science 287, 2225-2229. - -National Ocean Service (NOS). 2007. Global Leadership in Integrated - Management of the Ocean. Silver Spring, MD. Available online: http://www. - oceanservice.noaa.gov/GLIMO/welcome.html#defining - -Scientific Consensus Statement on Marine Ecosystem-Based Management. 2005. - Prepared by scientists and policy experts to provide information about coasts - and oceans to U.S. policy-makers. Available online: http://www.compasson - line.org/pdf_files/EBM_Consensus_Statement_v12.pdf - -Subcommittee on Integrated Management of Ocean Resources (SIMOR). 2005. - Statement of Purpose. Washington, DC. Available online: http://ocean.ceq. - gov/about/docs/SIMOR_Purpose.pdf - -US Ocean Action Plan: The Bush Administration’s Response to the US - Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. Washington, DC. Available online: - http://ocean.ceq.gov/actionplan.pdf - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -108 - -North Pacific Fishery Management Council -The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council)1 recognizes emerging concerns over climate warming and receding seasonal ice -cover in Alaska’s Arctic region, and the potential long term effects from these changes on the Arctic marine ecosystem. The Council has -expressed concern over potential effects of these ecosystem changes on fish populations in the Arctic region, and has developed a strategy to -prepare for possible future change in the Arctic region. The Council has determined that a fishery management regime for Alaska’s Arctic -marine waters is necessary. - - The Council proposes to develop an Arctic Fishery Management Plan (FMP) that would (1) close the Arctic to commercial fishing until -information improves so that fishing can be conducted sustainably and with due concern to other ecosystem components; (2) determine the -fishery management authorities in the Arctic and provide the Council with a vehicle for addressing future management issues; and (3) imple- -ment its ecosystem based management policy that recognizes the unique issues in the Alaskan Arctic. This precautionary action is necessary -to prevent commercial fisheries from developing in the Arctic without the required management framework and scientific information on the -fish stocks, their characteristics, and the implications of fishing for the stocks and related components of the ecosystem. -The Arctic Management Area is all marine waters in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas from 3 nautical -miles offshore the coast of Alaska or its baseline to 200 nautical miles offshore, north of Bering Strait (from Cape Prince of Wales to Cape -Dezhneva) and westward to the U.S./Russia Convention Line of 1867 and eastward to the U.S. Canada maritime boundary. - -1 The fishery management council system was established by Congress in 1976 for the purpose of managing fisheries in a newly recognized exclusive economic zone (EEZ) between - 3 and 200 miles offshore of the United States of America coastline. The eight regional fishery management councils are decision-making bodies and develop and recommend specific - management measures in the form of fishery management plans, subject to approval and implementation by NOAA Fisheries. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -109 - -REPORT SERIES NO 129 - -Conclusions - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -110 - -Introduction -With population growth and technological advances, the demand for -the ecological services of the oceans is growing. This has brought -increasing pressure on natural resources and the marine environment. -Living marine resources are in many instances overexploited. Pollution -pressures are high in some regions. And various uses of the oceans -may be difficult to reconcile. At the same time, climate change consti- -tute and important driver for change in the marine environment.1 - -The changing nature of oceans can be witnessed also in the Arctic. Al- -though Arctic marine ecosystems in general are healthy, the increasing -pressures on them raise shared concerns and opportunities for Arctic -countries. The Arctic countries have in the 2004 Arctic Marine Strate- -gic Plan pointed to the ecosystem-based approach to oceans manage- -ment as a critical measure in confronting these challenges. - -Numerous international agreements commit states to the introduc- -tion of ecosystems-based oceans management. In particular, the 2001 -World Summit on Sustainable Development in its Johannesburg Joint -Plan of Action specified that: - -“Oceans, seas, islands and coastal areas form an integrated and -essential component of the Earth’s ecosystem and are critical for -global food security and for sustaining economic prosperity and the -well-being of many national economies … (and) … Encourage the ap- -plication by 2010 of the ecosystem approach…” (para 30, JPOI). - -This has since been followed up upon by many countries, in develop- -ing and implementing plans for integrated oceans management, includ- -ing ecosystems-based management. All Arctic countries have or have -undertaken important work in this regard, and several of them have -implemented or are in the process of implementing ecosystems-based -oceans management in one form or another. - -Ecosystems-based oceans management fundamentally comes in two -forms: either as an overarching plan including all aspects of ocean use, -or more narrowly defined, sector based approaches to ecosystems- -based oceans management, pertaining to for example fisheries. These -approaches are not mutually exclusive, and in some countries they -coexist at various levels of governance. Both approaches are found in -the Arctic. - -The project -The objective of the Best Practices in Ecosystem-based Oceans -Management in the Arctic (BePOMAr) Project is to present the -concepts and practices the Arctic countries have developed for the ap- -plication of an ecosystem-based approach to oceans management. By -reviewing how countries actually put such concepts and practices to -use, lessons can be drawn on how to effectively do ecosystems-based -oceans management. - -Two sets of questions address the substance and process of putting -ecosystems-based oceans management to work, respectively: - -• Which practices and approaches have proved useful in moving - towards effective protection and sustainable use of the Arctic - marine environment? - -• What are the main obstacles, and what are the important success - elements in moving towards ecosystems-based oceans - management? - -The elements to be considered include how countries define eco- -systems-based oceans management, the types of objectives that are -formulated, the choice of policy instruments and organization of the -work, for example in terms of how stakeholders are consulted and -the geographical context for ecosystems-based oceans management, -including existing transboundary agreements relevant to the manage- -ment of Arctic marine ecosystems. - -An important aspect of the practices considered is that they address -use as well as conservation and protection of marine ecosystems. The -sustainable use of the natural resources in the marine environment is a -major issue in this regard. - -The question of obstacles and success elements has been considered -by asking the Arctic countries to describe their experiences in applying -an ecosystems-based approach to oceans management. Important ele- -ments here include the process aspects of interagency cooperation and -the organization of that, the organization and use of science, and stake- -holder involvement, as well as the actual content of ecosystems-based -oceans management, such as institutions for ecosystems-based oceans -management, legislation and policy tools, geographical approaches, -including LMEs, and biodiversity considerations. - -The project is built around 7 case studies of how countries develop -and implement ecosystems-based oceans management in the Arctic: -Russia, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Greenland, Canada and the USA. -An additional case study presents an indigenous perspective on these -issues. - -These case studies represent a very diverse set of practices for -ecosystems-based oceans management. For one thing, they vary in -geographical scope. The countries also are very diverse with respect -to administrative traditions and cultures. Also, the types of ecosys- -tems included in this study range from boreal in the Atlantic to Arctic. -Moreover, the challenges countries face with regard to ecosystems- -based oceans management vary considerably, with some primarily -being concerned with fisheries, while other consider how to reconcile -the concerns of fisheries, petroleum and the protection of the marine -environment. - -All Arctic countries face the reality of their marine ecosystems being -to some extent shared with other countries (map). The application of -ecosystem-based approaches to oceans management may therefore -raise transboundary issues. A large number of bilateral and regional -agreements address such transboundary issues, mostly on a sectoral -basis as the case is in relation to fisheries. In relation to the central -Arctic Ocean, there is only one international agreement specific to that -region, the 1973 International Polar Bear Treaty.2 - -The fundamental principles and rules for the management of Arctic -marine ecosystems are set forth in the Law of the Sea Convention, -including provisions regarding the high seas beyond national jurisdic- -tion. - -The case studies in perspective - - -There are numerous definitions of the Arctic. The Arctic ocean proper, -to the North of the continents, is about 14 million km2. Little eco- -nomic activity take place here. The bulk of the commercial economic -activity in the Arctic region takes place in the bordering seas, like the -Bering and the Barents Sea, i the waters around Iceland and Green- -land, and in the Baltic. - -Some ecosystems straddle the jurisdiction of several countries. This -give rise to a number of transboundary issues relating to for example -fisheries and pollution. The states in the Arctic region have established -a number of bilateral and multilateral cooperative agreements in -response to such transboundary problems. - -Observed Best Practices in Ecosystem-based -Oceans Management in the Arctic Countries - -Background and objective -The need for oceans management based on an ecosystem approach -is widely recognized by the international community, as reflected in -calls for the implementation of the ecosystem approach by 2010 in the -2002 Johannesburg Plan of Implementation from the World Summit on -Sustainable Development (WSSD), in recommendations from the UN -General Assembly, in the work under the Convention on Biological -Diversity, and in the 2001 Reykjavik Declaration on Responsible Fish- -eries in the Marine Ecosystem. These international commitments have -proved particularly important in the Arctic region, where this project -represents a collective attempt at demonstrating progress towards the -WSSD goals in the region. - -1 ACIA 2005: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge University Press. 2 http://pbsg.npolar.no/ConvAgree/agreement.htm - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -111 - -Many Arctic communities and settlements are based on the sustain- -able use of natural resources, and see themselves as integrated parts of -these ecosystems. The importance of the non-renewable resources is -growing, and offshore petroleum developments are expanding to new -areas of the Arctic. Likewise, tourism is growing in importance, and -with it cruiseship traffic. Other economic developments include expan- -sion of mining, bioprospecting, aquaculture, and marine transporta- -tion. At the same time, climate change, increased pollution and other -human-induced pressures brings unprecedented rates of change in -marine ecosystems. - -The aggregate effects of these multiple pressures on the oceans call -for an ecosystem-based and integrated approach to oceans manage- -ment. This is critical to the protection and sustainable use of marine -ecosystems and the natural resources there. To aid in this process, the -Arctic Marine Strategic Plan, which describes the ecosystem approach -and calls for its application, was adopted by the Arctic Council in -November 2004. Ecosystem-based management is the key principle of -the Arctic Marine Strategic Plan. - -Many countries are now in the process of reviewing and developing -their oceans management policies in order to base their management -and use of the oceans on ecosystem considerations. In the Arctic, for -instance, most countries are working to implement ecosystem-based -management of their oceans. - -The Best Practices in Ecosystem-based Oceans Management project, -carried out by the Arctic Council working groups on Sustainable -Development and Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment, has -observed a number of Best Practices in this regard, which governments -may want to consider. These practices have proved useful and may be -relevant also to other Arctic countries as well as in the world beyond, -in order to provide for sustainable development and protection of the -marine environment. - -Core elements - - -Although definitions may differ, some core elements are essential to -ecosystems based oceans management: - -• The geographical scope of ecosystems defined by ecological - criteria. -• The development of scientific understanding of systems and of the - relationship between human actions and changes in other system - components. -• The application of the best available scientific and other knowledge - to understand ecosystem interactions and manage human activities - accordingly. -• An integrated and multidisciplinary approach to management that - takes into account the entire ecosystem, including humans. -• Area-based management and use of scientific and other information - on ecosystem changes to continually adapt management of human - activities. -• The assessment of cumulative impacts of different sectors on the - eco-system, instead of single species, sectoral approaches. -• A comprehensive framework with explicit conservation standards, - targets and indicators in order to facilitate responses to changes in - the eco-system -• Transboundary arrangements for resolution and handling of - transboundary ecosystems and issues. - -Conclusions -In reviewing the practices countries have established in developing -and implementing ecosystem-based oceans management, the follow- -ing have been found useful: 1) flexible application, 2) integrated and -science based decision-making, 3) commitment to ecosystem-based -oceans management, 4) area-based approaches and transboundary per- -spectives 5) stakeholder participation , and 6) adaptive management. - -1) Flexible application of effective ecosystem-based oceans -management -Differences in circumstances and contexts have to be taken into con- -sideration as ecosystem-based oceans management is context sensi- -tive. There is not one single method for ecosystem-based management. - -A number of different practices and understandings of the concept -appear to work. - -Ecosystem-based management is a work in progress and should be -considered a process rather than an end state. - -Rule-based relationships between countries in oceans affairs, based on -applicable international law and agreements, have to be promoted. -Recognition of humans as an ecosystem component, and increased -consideration of social effects when food security and poverty allevia- -tion are issues of concern. - -Management must be based on best available science. Open lines of -communication between managers, resource users, and the general -public are necessary to foster mutual understanding and recognition of -shared interests. - -Biodiversity conservation strengthens the structure and functions -of ecosystems, thus ensuring the long term delivery of ecosystem -services. - -2) Decision-making must be integrated and science based -Increased communication and exchanges among both states and sec- -tors are also key components of successful ecosystem-based manage- -ment. A great deal of scientific knowledge already exists. However, -much of this information needs to be better synthesized and communi- -cated to a variety of audiences. Cooperation in science and exchange -of relevant information within and between countries is important -for understanding the cumulative impacts to the marine environment. -Another challenge is to address what information exists and what -information still needs to be gathered. Knowledge gaps can be closed -through development/identification of key ecosystem indicators and -comprehensive modelling, mapping, monitoring, and analysis. -Various forms of scientific, traditional, and management knowledge -need to be integrated to improve ecosystem-based management. Po- -tential advantages of integrating various forms of knowledge include -decision-making that is better informed, more flexible, and incorpo- -rates traditional ecological knowledge. - -A multi-sector approach lies at the core of the ecosystem approach -as it contributes to a common understanding of challenges in oceans -management and thereby an increased trust between authorities with -different sector responsibilities/interests. Ecosystem-based manage- -ment calls for coordination and shared responsibility between all -levels of government and cooperation across sectors, both with respect -to monitoring, mapping and research. The challenge of monitoring, -however, is both a scientific challenge and a policy issue. Monitoring -programs can provide the ongoing basis for management, but require a -long-term commitment of resources. Secondly, a multi-sector approach -depends on providing opportunity for stakeholder comments on how -a specific sector is to be managed or how to assess the impact of that -sector in relation to the ecosystem. This is a difficult process, requiring -care and time. - -3) National commitment is required for effective management -National commitment to conservation and sustainable use of ocean -resources is necessary. A “roadmap”, management plan or national ac- -tion plan for addressing priorities in oceans management is developed -in many of the Artic countries. - -An integrated organizational structure (framework) to support the co- -ordination of a holistic approach to the implementation of EBM at the -national level through inter-agency cooperation seems to be effective. -In this respect, harmonization of domestic laws governing use of ocean -resources with EBM principles, as well as with regional and interna- -tional management efforts may be appropriate. This requires legisla- -tion and enforceable policy tools to provide government strategic -directions and overall framework for ecosystem-based management -implementation. - -4) Area-based approaches and transboundary perspectives are -necessary -Area-based management approaches are central to ecosystem-based -management. The identification of management units within -ecosystems should be based on ecological criteria. Management - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -112 - -measures should reflect the status of areas and take into account the -human element. - -Ecosystem-based management requires specific geographical units at -various scales. - -Issues of scale can be addressed viewing ecosystems as nested -systems. - -The identification and protection (including through protected areas -and networks) of key areas, species, and features that play a significant -role within the marine ecosystem help management set priorities and -ensure ecosystem structure and function are maintained. - -Increased international cooperation in shared ecosystems could be -addressed through existing regional management bodies and, as -necessary, new collaborative efforts focused on individual ecosystems. -Effective area-based approaches include mechanisms for addressing -effects of land-based activities and atmospheric deposition on ocean -ecosystems. - -5) Stakeholder and Arctic resident participation is a key element -Stakeholder and Arctic resident consultation are important to build -understanding and foster development of knowledge. - -Stakeholder participation can be encouraged by providing for public -participation in a manner that enables stakeholders and members of the -public who lack the capacity to prepare for/attend numerous meetings -to make their voices heard in a meaningful fashion. - -Stakeholders can be engaged to develop and strengthen cooperative -processes to sustain ecosystem structure and function. - -Effective stakeholder participation can encourage and achieve -compliance with necessary conservation measures through education -and enforcement. - -6) Adaptive management is critical -Effective management requires adaptive management strategies that -reflect changing circumstances. This is especially important in view of -the accellerating effects of climate change on marine ecosystems. -Implementation of ecosystem-based management should be -approached incrementally. - -Conservation objctives and targets, benchmarks and action tresholds -should be set for the measurement of achievement of ecosystem health. -Flexible mechanisms should be used for implementing ecosystem- -based management. - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -113 - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -114 - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -115 - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - -116 - -RAPPO -RTSERIE 129/REPO - -RT SERIES 129 -N - -O -RSK PO - -LARIN -STITU - -TT/N -O - -RW -EG - -IAN - PO - -LAR IN -STITU - -TE 2009 - -ICAS -Attachment 3 - - - - diff --git a/test_docs/090004d2802498c1/record.json b/test_docs/090004d2802498c1/record.json deleted file mode 100644 index b6738f6..0000000 --- a/test_docs/090004d2802498c1/record.json +++ /dev/null @@ -1,18 +0,0 @@ -{ - "agency": "DOC", - "author": null, - "download_url": "https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/getContent?objectId=4Bu3InV_flzMvk6iAcxL_V_M24rAvBW6", - "exemptions": null, - "file_size": "1.0226116180419922", - "file_type": "pdf", - "landing_id": "090004d2802498c1", - "landing_url": "https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/view/record?objectId=090004d2802498c1", - "released_on": "2014-04-24", - "released_original": "Thu Apr 24 12:29:17 EDT 2014", - "request_id": "DOC-NOAA-2012-000993", - "retention": "6 year", - "title": "2012 0412 Nachman email to agencies Final CAR", - "type": "record", - "unreleased": false, - "year": "2012" -} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/test_docs/090004d2802498c1/record.pdf b/test_docs/090004d2802498c1/record.pdf deleted file mode 100644 index 019a167..0000000 Binary files a/test_docs/090004d2802498c1/record.pdf and /dev/null differ diff --git a/test_docs/090004d2802498c1/record.txt b/test_docs/090004d2802498c1/record.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 4ea6a61..0000000 --- a/test_docs/090004d2802498c1/record.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,7770 +0,0 @@ - -"Rosenthal, Amy" - - -04/12/2012 10:12 AM - -To ArcticAR - -cc - -bcc - -Subject FW: Final Comment Analysis Report for NMFS Arctic EIS - -  -  -From: Candace Nachman [mailto:candace.nachman@noaa.gov] -Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 7:18 AM -To: Loman, Jeffery; Lage, Jana L; Sloan, Pete; Banet, Susan; Cranswick, Deborah; Warren, Sharon E; -jill.lewandowski@boem.gov; Skrupky, Kimberly A; James.Bennett2@boem.gov; Fesmire, Mark E; Walker, -Jeffrey; Kyle.Monkelien@bsee.gov; emma.pokon@north-slope.org; Robert Suydam; -tomlohman2@aol.com; Jennifer Curtis; Shaw.Hanh@epa.gov; Soderlund.Dianne@epamail.epa.gov; -Shane Guan; Mark Hodor; Jennifer Nist; Steve Leathery; Brad Smith; Blackburn, Scott G; Butterworth, -Megan -Cc: Jolie Harrison; Michael Payne; Rosenthal, Amy; Isaacs, Jon; Kluwe, Joan; Fuchs, Kim -Subject: Final Comment Analysis Report for NMFS Arctic EIS - -Attached is the Final Comment Analysis Report for the Draft EIS. URS went through and coded -all of the letters and oral comments made during the public comment period. We have boiled it -down to 463 different statements of concern (SOCs) requiring responses and possible changes to -the document. - -I have also attached a matrix for you all to use as you work on the responses to comments. -Please use the attached matrix. This will make it easier for myself and URS to go through your -suggestions when it is time to update the document. In the first column, please enter the 3 letter -code for the issue category. In the second column, enter the number associated with that SOC -for that category. Column 3 is where you enter your proposed response. In column 4, indicate -with a Y or N if a change is needed to text of the EIS based on this response. If you enter Y in -column 4, in column 5, please note the section where the change should be made and your -suggested textual edit. However, if you prefer, in column 5, you can just put the section number -where you made the change and then make the change directly in the EIS document itself. - -The schedule that I sent out the other week indicates that this step needs to be completed by -Friday, May 18. Therefore, please email me your completed matrices (and other necessary -documents) by COB (for your time zone) on Friday, May 18. - -I am certain that we will need to hold interagency calls to discuss and resolve many of the -comments. However, I want to first give everyone the opportunity to read through the comment -analysis report before scheduling such a call or calls. - -As always, please feel free to contact me with questions or concerns. - -Thanks, -Candace - - - --- -Candace Nachman -Fishery Biologist - -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -National Marine Fisheries Service -Office of Protected Resources -Permits and Conservation Division -1315 East West Highway, Rm 3503 -Silver Spring, MD 20910 - -Ph: (301) 427-8429 -Fax: (301) 713-0376 - -Web: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ - -This e-mail and any attachments contain URS Corporation confidential information that may be proprietary or privileged. If you -receive this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this -information and you should destroy the e-mail and any attachments or copies. - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas -Activities in the Arctic Ocean - -Final Comment Analysis Report - - - - - - -United States Department of Commerce -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -National Marine Fisheries Service -Office of Protected Resources - -April 10, 2012 - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS i -Comment Analysis Report - -TABLE OF CONTENTS - -TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................ i - -LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... i - -LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... i - -LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. i - -ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... ii - - - -1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 1 - -2.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 1 - -3.0 THE ROLE OF PUBLIC COMMENT ....................................................................................... 1 - -4.0 ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS .................................................................................. 3 - -5.0 STATEMENTS OF CONCERN .................................................................................................. 7 - - - -APPENDIX - - - - - - - -LIST OF TABLES - -Table 1 Public Meetings, Locations and Dates ....................................................................... Page 2 - -Table 2 Issue Categories for DEIS Comments ....................................................................... Page 4 - - - -LIST OF FIGURES - -Figure 1 Comments by Issue .................................................................................................... Page 6 - - - -LIST OF APPENDICES - -Appendix A Submission and Comment Index - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS ii -Comment Analysis Report - -ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS - -AEWC Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission - -APA Administrative Procedure Act - -BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management - -CAA Conflict Avoidance Agreement - -CAR Comment Analysis Report - -CASy Comment Analysis System database - -DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement - -ESA Endangered Species Act - -IEA Important Ecological Area - -IHA Incidental Harassment Authorization - -ITAs Incidental Take Authorizations - -ITRs Incidental Take Regulations - -MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act - -NEPA National Environmental Policy Act - -NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service - -OCS Outer Continental Shelf - -OCSLA Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act - -PAM Passive Acoustic Monitoring - -SOC Statement of Concern - -TK Traditional Knowledge - -USC United States Code - -USGS U.S. Geological Survey - -VLOS Very Large Oil Spill - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 1 -Comment Analysis Report - -1.0 INTRODUCTION -The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and -the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) have prepared and -released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that analyzes the effects of offshore geophysical -seismic surveys and exploratory drilling in the federal and state waters of the U.S. Beaufort and Chukchi -seas. - -The proposed actions considered in the DEIS are: - -• NMFS’ issuance of incidental take authorizations (ITAs) under Section 101(a)(5) of the Marine -Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), for the taking of marine mammals incidental to conducting -seismic surveys, ancillary activities, and exploratory drilling; and - -• BOEM’s issuance of permits and authorizations under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act for -seismic surveys and ancillary activities. - -2.0 BACKGROUND -NMFS is serving as the lead agency for this EIS. BOEM (formerly called the U.S. Minerals Management -Service) and the North Slope Borough are cooperating agencies on this EIS. The U.S. Environmental -Protection Agency is serving as a consulting agency. NMFS is also coordinating with the Alaska Eskimo -Whaling Commission pursuant to our co-management agreement under the MMPA. - -The Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2010 (75 FR -6175). On December 30, 2011, Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register (76 FR -82275) that NMFS had released for public comment the ‘‘Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean.” The original deadline to submit comments was -February 13, 2012. Based on several written requests received by NMFS, the public comment period for -this DEIS was extended by 15 days. Notice of extension of the comment period and notice of public -meetings was published January 18, 2012, in the Federal Register (77 FR 2513). The comment period -concluded on February 28, 2012, making the entire comment period 60 days. - -NMFS intends to use this EIS to: 1) evaluate the potential effects of different levels of offshore seismic -surveys and exploratory drilling activities occurring in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas; 2) take a -comprehensive look at potential cumulative impacts in the EIS project area; and 3) evaluate the -effectiveness of various mitigation measures. NMFS will use the findings of the EIS when reviewing -individual applications for ITAs associated with seismic surveys, ancillary activities, and exploratory -drilling in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. - -3.0 THE ROLE OF PUBLIC COMMENT -During the public comment period, public meetings were held to inform and to solicit comments from the -public on the DEIS. The meetings consisted of an open house, a brief presentation, and then a public -comment opportunity. Transcripts of each public meeting are available on the project website -(http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/eis/arctic.htm). Meetings were cancelled in the communities of -Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Point Lay due to extreme weather conditions. The six public meetings that were -held are described in Table 1. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 2 -Comment Analysis Report - -Table 1. Public Meetings, Locations and Dates - -Meeting Date Location - -Wainwright January 30, 2012 Wainwright Community Center, -Wainwright, AK - -Barrow January 31, 2012 Iñupiat Heritage Center, -Barrow, AK - -Kivalina February 6, 2012 McQueen School, -Kivalina - -Kotzebue February 7, 2012 Northwest Arctic Borough Assembly Chambers, -Kotzebue, AK - -Point Hope February 8, 2012 Point Hope Community Center, -Point Hope, AK - -Anchorage February 13, 2012 - - -Loussac Library – Wilda Marston Theatre -Anchorage, Anchorage, AK - - - -These meetings were attended by a variety of stakeholders, including Federal agencies, Tribal -governments, state agencies, local governments, Alaska Native organizations, businesses, special interest -groups/non-governmental organizations, and individuals. - -In a separate, but parallel process for government to government consultation, Tribal governments in each -community, with the exception of Anchorage, were notified of the availability of the DEIS and invited to -give comments. The first contact was via letter that was faxed, dated December 22, 2011; follow-up calls -and emails were made with the potentially affected Tribal governments, and in the communities listed -above, each government was visited during the comment period. Because NMFS was not able to make it -to the communities of Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Point Lay on the originally scheduled dates, a follow-up -letter was sent on February 29, 2012, requesting a teleconference meeting for government to government -consultation. Nuiqsut and Point Lay rescheduled with teleconferences. However, the Native Village of -Nuiqsut did not call-in to the rescheduled teleconference. The comments received during government to -government consultation between NMFS, BOEM, and the Tribal governments are included in a separate -Comment Analysis Report (CAR). - -NMFS and the cooperating agencies will review all comments, determine how the comments should be -addressed, and make appropriate revisions in preparing the Final EIS. The Final EIS will contain the -comments submitted and a summary of comment responses. - -The Final EIS will include public notice of document availability, the distribution of the document, and a -30-day comment/waiting period on the final document. NMFS and BOEM are expected to each issue a -separate Record of Decision (ROD), which will then conclude the EIS process in early 2013. The -selected alternative will be identified in each ROD, as well as the agency’s rationale for their conclusions -regarding the environmental effects and appropriate mitigation measures for the proposed project. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 3 -Comment Analysis Report - -4.0 ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS -The body of this report provides a brief summary of the comment analysis process and the comments that -were received during the public comment period. Two appendices follow this narrative, including the -Submission and Comment Index and the Government to Government CAR. - -Comments were received on the DEIS in several ways: - -• Oral discussion or testimony from the public meeting transcripts; - -• Written comments received by mail or fax; and - -• Written comments submitted electronically by email or through the project website. - -NMFS received a total of 67 unique submissions on the DEIS. There were 49,436 form letters received -and reviewed. One submission as a form letter from the Natural Resources Defense Council contained -36,445 signatures, and another submission as a form letter from the Sierra Club contained 12,991 -signatures. Group affiliations of those that submitted comments include: Federal agencies, Tribal -governments, state agencies, local governments, Alaska Native organizations, businesses, special interest -groups/non-governmental organizations, and individuals. The complete text of public comments received -will be included in the Administrative Record for the EIS. - -This CAR provides an analytical summary of these submissions. It presents the methodology used by -NMFS in reviewing, sorting, and synthesizing substantive comments within each submission into -common themes. As described in the following sections of this report, a careful and deliberate approach -has been undertaken to ensure that all substantive public comments were captured. - -The coding phase was used to divide each submission into a series of substantive comments (herein -referred to as ‘comments’). All submissions on the DEIS were read, reviewed, and logged into the -Comment Analysis System database (CASy) where they were assigned an automatic tracking number -(Submission ID). These comments were recorded into the CASy and given a unique Comment ID -number (with reference to the Submission ID) for tracking and synthesis. The goal of this process was to -ensure that each sentence and paragraph in a submission containing a substantive comment pertinent to -the DEIS was entered into the CASy. Substantive content constituted assertions, suggested actions, data, -background information, or clarifications relating to the content of the DEIS. - -Comments were assigned subject issue categories to describe the content of the comment (see Table 2). -The issues were grouped by general topics, including effects, available information, regulatory -compliance, and Iñupiat culture. The relative distribution of comments by issue is shown in Figure 1. - -A total of 25 issue categories were developed for coding during the first step of the analysis process as -shown in Table 2. These categories evolved from common themes found throughout the submissions. -Some categories correspond directly to sections of the DEIS, while others focus on more procedural -topics. Several submissions included attachments of scientific studies or reports or requested specific -edits to the DEIS text. - -The public comment submissions generated 1,874 substantive comments, which were then grouped into -Statements of Concern (SOCs). SOCs are summary statements intended to capture the different themes -identified in the substantive comments. SOCs are frequently supported by additional text to further -explain the concern, or alternatively to capture the specific comment variations within that grouping. -SOCs are not intended to replace actual comments. Rather, they summarize for the reader the range of -comments on a specific topic. - -Every substantive comment was assigned to an SOC; a total of 463 SOCs were developed. Each SOC is -represented by an issue category code followed by a number. NMFS will use the SOCs to respond to -substantive comments on the DEIS, as appropriate. Each issue category may have more than one SOC. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 4 -Comment Analysis Report - -For example, there are 12 SOCs under the issue category “Cumulative Effects” (CEF 1, CEF 2, CEF 3, -etc.). Each comment was assigned to one SOC. The complete list of SOCs can be found in Section 5.0. - -Table 2. Issue Categories for DEIS Comments - -GROUP Issue Category Code Summary - -Effects Cumulative Effects CEF Comments related to cumulative impacts in -general, or for a specific resource - -Physical Environment -(General) - -GPE Comments related to impacts on resources within -the physical environment (Physical -Oceanography, Climate, Acoustics, and -Environmental Contaminants & Ecosystem -Functions) - -Social Environment -(General) - -GSE Comments related to impacts on resources within -the social environment (Public Health, Cultural, -Land Ownership/Use/Management, -Transportation, Recreation and Tourism, Visual -Resources, and Environmental Justice) - -Habitat HAB Comments associated with habitat requirements, -or potential habitat impacts from seismic -activities and exploratory drilling. Comment -focus is habitat, not animals. - -Marine Mammal and other -Wildlife Impacts - -MMI General comments related to potential impacts to -marine mammals or other wildlife, unrelated to -subsistence resource concepts. - -National Energy Demand and -Supply - -NED Comments related to meeting national energy -demands, supply of energy. - -Oil Spill Risks OSR Concerns about potential for oil spill, ability to -clean up spills in various conditions, potential -impacts to resources or environment from spills. - -Socioeconomic Impacts SEI Comments on economic impacts to local -communities, regional economy, and national -economy, can include changes in the social or -economic environments. - -Subsistence Resource -Protection - -SRP Comments on need to protect subsistence -resources and potential impacts to these -resources. Can include ocean resources as our -garden, contamination. - -Water and Air Quality WAQ Comments regarding water and air quality, -including potential to impact or degrade these -resources. - -Info -Available - -Data DATA Comments referencing scientific studies that -should be considered. - -Research, Monitoring, -Evaluation Needs - -RME Comments on baseline research, monitoring, and -evaluation needs - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 5 -Comment Analysis Report - -GROUP Issue Category Code Summary - -Process: -NEPA, -Permits, the -DEIS - -Alternatives ALT Comments related to alternatives or alternative -development. - -Coordination and -Compatibility - -COR Comments on compliance with statues, laws or -regulations and Executive Orders that should be -considered; coordinating with federal, state, or -local agencies, organizations, or potential -applicants; permitting requirements. - -Discharge DCH Comments regarding discharge levels, including -requests for zero discharge requirements, and -deep waste injection wells; does not include -contamination of subsistence resources. - -Mitigation Measures MIT Comments related to suggestions for or -implementation of mitigation measures. - -NEPA NEP Comments on aspects of the NEPA process -(purpose and need, scoping, public involvement, -etc.), issues with the impact criteria (Chapter 4), -or issues with the impact analysis. - -Peer Review PER Suggestions for peer review of permits, activities, -proposals. - -Regulatory Compliance REG Comments associated with compliance with -existing regulations, laws, and statutes. - -General Editorial EDI Comments associated with specific text edits to -the document. - -Comment Acknowledged ACK Entire submission determined not to be -substantive and warranted only a “comment -acknowledged” response. - -Iñupiat -Culture - -Iñupiat Culture and Way of -Life - -ICL Comments related to potential cultural impacts or -desire to maintain traditional practices -(PEOPLE). - -Use of Traditional -Knowledge - -UTK Comments regarding how traditional knowledge -(TK) is used in the document or decision making -process, need to incorporate TK, or processes for -documenting TK. - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 6 -Comment Analysis Report - -Figure 1: Comments by Issue - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 7 -Comment Analysis Report - -5.0 STATEMENTS OF CONCERN -This section presents the SOCs developed to help summarize comments received on the DEIS. To assist -in finding which SOCs were contained in each submission, a Submission and Comment Index -(Appendix A) was created. The index is a list of all submissions received, presented alphabetically by the -last name of the commenter, as well as the Submission ID associated with the submission, and which -SOCs responds to their specific comments. To identify the specific issues that are contained in an -individual submission: 1) search for the submission of interest in Appendix A; 2) note which SOC codes -are listed under the submissions; 3) locate the SOC within Section 5.0; and 4) read the text next to that -SOC. Each substantive comment contained in a submission was assigned to one SOC. - - - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 8 -Comment Analysis Report - -Comment Acknowledged (ACK) -ACK Entire submission determined not to be substantive and warranted only a “comment - -acknowledged” response. - -ACK 1 Comment Acknowledged. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 9 -Comment Analysis Report - -Alternatives (ALT) -ALT Comments related to alternatives or alternative development. - -ALT 1 NMFS should adopt the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) as the preferred alternative, -which represents a precautionary, ecosystem-based approach. There is a considerable amount -of public support for this alternative. It is the only reliable way to prevent a potential -catastrophic oil spill from occurring in the Arctic Ocean, and provides the greatest protections -from negative impacts to marine mammals from noise and vessel strikes. Alternative 1 is the -only alternative that makes sense given the state of missing scientific baseline, as well as -long-term, data on impacts to marine mammals and subsistence activities resulting from oil -and gas exploration. - -ALT 2 NMFS should edit the No Action Alternative to describe the present agency decision-making -procedures. The No Action Alternative should be rewritten to include NMFS’ issuance of -IHAs and preparing project-specific EAs for exploration activities as they do currently. If -NMFS wishes to consider an alternative in which they stop issuing authorizations, it should -be considered as an additional alternative, no the No Action alternative. - -ALT 3 Limiting the extent of activity to two exploration programs annually in the Beaufort and -Chukchi seas is unreasonable and will shut out leaseholders. The restrictions and mitigation -measures outlined in the five alternatives of the DEIS would likely make future development -improbable and uneconomic. Because the DEIS does not present any alternative that would -cover the anticipated level of industry activity, it would cap industry activity in a way that (a) -positions the DEIS as a decisional document in violation of NEPA standards, and (b) would -constitute an economic taking. NMFS should revise the levels of activity within the action -alternatives to address these concerns. - -ALT 4 The “range” of action alternatives only considers two levels of activity. The narrow range of -alternatives presented in the DEIS and the lack of specificity regarding the source levels, -timing, duration, and location of the activities being considered do not provide a sufficient -basis for determining whether other options might exist for oil and gas development with -significantly less environmental impact, including reduced effects on marine mammals. -NMFS and BOEM should expand the range of alternatives to ensure that oil and gas -exploration activities have no more than a negligible impact on marine mammal species and -stocks, and will not have adverse impacts on the Alaska Native communities that depend on -the availability of marine mammals for subsistence, as required under the Marine Mammal -Protection Act. - -ALT 5 The range of alternatives presented in the DEIS do not assist decision-makers in determining -what measures can be taken to reduce impacts and what choices may be preferential from an -environmental standpoint. There is no indication in the analysis as to which alternative would -be cause for greater concern, from either an activity level or location standpoint. NMFS needs -to revise the alternatives and their assessment of effects to reflect these concerns. - -ALT 6 An EIS must evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives in order to fully comply with NEPA. -The DEIS does not provide a reasonable range of alternatives. The No Action Alternative is -inaccurately stated (does not reflect current conditions), and Alternative 5 is infeasible -because those technologies are not available. Multiple alternatives with indistinguishable - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 10 -Comment Analysis Report - -outcomes do not represent a “range” and do not assist in determining preferential options. -NMFS needs to revise the EIS to present a reasonable range of alternatives for analysis. - -ALT 7 NMFS should consider additional alternatives (or components of alternatives) including: - -• A phased, adaptive approach for increasing oil and gas activities -• Avoidance of redundant seismic surveys -• Development of a soundscape approach and consideration of caps on noise or activity - -levels for managing sound sources during the open water period, and -• A clear basis for judging whether the impacts of industry activities are negligible as - -required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. - -ALT 8 The levels of oil and gas exploration activity identified in Alternatives 2 and 3 are not -accurate. In particular, the DEIS significantly over estimates the amount of seismic -exploration that is reasonably foreseeable in the next five years, while underestimating the -amount of exploration drilling that could occur. The alternatives are legally flawed because -none of the alternatives address scenarios that are currently being contemplated and which are -most likely to occur. For example: - -• Level 1 activity assumes as many as three site clearance and shallow hazard survey -programs in the Chukchi Sea, while Level 2 activity assumes as many as 5 such -programs. By comparison, the ITR petition recently submitted by AOGA to USFWS for -polar bear and walrus projects as many as seven (and as few as zero) shallow hazard -surveys and as many as two (and as few as one) other G&G surveys annually in the -Chukchi Sea over the next five years. - -• The assumption for the number of source vessels and concurrent activity is unlikely. -• By 2014, ConocoPhillips intends to conduct exploration drilling in the Chukchi Sea. It is - -also probable that Statoil will be conducting exploration drilling on their prospects in the -Chukchi Sea beginning in 2014. Accordingly, in 2014, and perhaps later years depending -upon results, there may be as many as three exploration drilling programs occurring in -the Chukchi Sea. - -The alternatives scenarios should be adjusted by NMFS to account for realistic levels of -seismic and exploratory drilling activities, and the subsequent impact analyses should be -substantially revised. The DEIS does not explain why alternatives that would more accurately -represent likely levels of activity were omitted from inclusion in the DEIS as required under -40 C.F.R. Sections 1500.1 and Section 1502.14. - -ALT 9 NMFS should include, as part of the assumptions associated with the alternatives, an analysis -examining how many different lessees there are, where their respective leases are in each -planning area (Beaufort vs. Chukchi seas), when their leases expire, and when they anticipate -exploring (by activity) their leases for hydrocarbons. This will help frame the levels of -activity that are considered in the EIS. - -ALT 10 There is a 2016 lease sale in Chukchi Sea and a 2015 lease sale in Beaufort Sea within the -Proposed 5 Year Plan. Alternatives should include some seismic, shallow hazard and possibly -drilling to account for these lease sales. - -ALT 11 In every impact category but one, the draft impact findings for Alternative 4 are identical to -the draft impact findings for Alternative 3 (Level 2 activity with standard mitigation -measures). Given that the impacts with and without additional mitigation are the same, - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 11 -Comment Analysis Report - -Alternative 4 neither advances thoughtful decision-making nor provides a rational -justification under the MMPA for NMFS to impose any additional conditions beyond -standard mitigation measures. Alternative 4 provides no useful analysis because the context is -entirely abstract (i.e., independent from a specific proposal). The need and effectiveness of -any given mitigation measure, standard or otherwise, can only be assessed in the context of a -specific activity proposed for a given location and time, under then-existing circumstances. -Finally, the identified time/area closures, and the use of a 120 dB and 160 dB buffer zones, -have no sound scientific or other factual basis. Alternative 4 should be changed to allow for -specific mitigations and time constraints designed to match proposed projects as they occur. - -ALT 12 Camden Bay, Barrow Canyon, Hanna Shoal, and Kasegaluk Lagoon are not currently listed -as critical habitat and do not maintain special protective status. NMFS should remove -Alternative 4 from further consideration until such time that these areas are officially -designated by law to warrant special protective measures. In addition, these temporal/spatial -limitations should be removed from Section 2.4.10(b). - -ALT 13 Alternative 5 should be deleted. The alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the -exception that it includes "alternative technologies" as possible mitigation measures. -However, virtually none of the technologies discussed are currently commercially available -nor will they be during the time frame of this EIS, which makes the analysis useless for -NEPA purposes. Because the majority of these technologies have not yet been built and/or -tested, it is difficult to fully analyze the level of impacts from these devices. Therefore, -additional NEPA analyses (i.e., tiering) will likely be required if applications are received -requesting to use these technologies during seismic surveys. - -ALT 14 The alternative technologies identified in Alternative 5 should not be viewed as a replacement -for airgun-based seismic surveys in all cases. - -ALT 15 The DEIS fails to include any actionable alternatives to require, incentivize, or test the use of -new technologies in the Arctic. Such alternatives include: - -• Mandating the use of marine vibroseis or other technologies in pilot areas, with an -obligation to accrue data on environmental impacts; - -• Creating an adaptive process by which marine vibroseis or other technologies can be -required as they become available; - -• Deferring the permitting of surveys in particular areas or for particular applications where -effective mitigative technologies, such as marine vibroseis, could reasonably be expected -to become available within the life of the EIS; - -• Providing incentives for use of these technologies as was done for passive acoustic -monitoring systems in NTL 2007-G02; and - -• Exacting funds from applicants to support accelerated mitigation research in this area. - -NMFS must include these alternatives in the Final EIS analysis. - -ALT 16 The reasons to NOT evaluate specific program numbers in the 2007 DPEIS would apply to -the current DEIS. This is a fundamental shift in reasoning of how alternatives are evaluated. -NMFS should: - -• Address why a previously rejected alternative (limiting number of surveys) has become -the basis for ALL alternatives currently under consideration; and - -• Explain the reasoning behind the change in analysis method. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 12 -Comment Analysis Report - -If NMFS cannot adequately address this discrepancy, they should consider withdrawing the -current DEIS and initiating a new analysis that does not focus on limiting program numbers -as a means of reducing impacts. - -ALT 17 The DEIS improperly dismisses the alternative “Caps on Levels of Activities and/or Noise.” -As NMFS has recognized, oil and gas-related disturbances in the marine environment can -result in biologically significant impacts depending upon the timing, location, and number of -the activities. Yet the DEIS declines even to consider an alternative limiting the amount of -activity that can be conducted in the Arctic, or part of the Arctic, over a given period. The -“soundscape” of the Arctic should be relatively easy to describe and manage compared to the -soundscapes of other regions, and should be included in the EIS. - -The agencies base their rejection of this alternative not on the grounds that it exceeds their -legal authority, but that it does not meet the purpose and need of the EIS. Instead of -developing an activity cap alternative for the EIS, the agencies propose, in effect, to consider -overall limits on activities when evaluating individual applications under OCSLA and the -MMPA. It would, however, be much more difficult for NMFS or BOEM to undertake that -kind of analysis in an individual IHA application or OCSLA exploration plan because the -agencies often lack sufficient information before the open water season to take an -overarching view of the activities occurring that year. Determining limits at the outset would -also presumably reduce uncertainty for industry. In short, excluding any consideration of -activity caps from the alternatives analysis in this EIS frustrates the purpose of programmatic -review, contrary to NEPA. NMFS claims that there is inadequate data to quantify impacts to -support a cumulative noise cap should serve to limit authorizations rather than preventing a -limit on activity. - -ALT 18 The DEIS improperly dismisses the alternative “Permanent Closures of Areas.” BOEM’s -relegation of this alternative to the leasing process is not consistent with its obligation, at the -exploration and permit approval stage, to reject applications that would cause serious harm or -undue harm. It is reasonable here for BOEM to define areas whose exploration would exceed -these legal thresholds regardless of time of year, just as it defines areas for seasonal -avoidance pursuant to other OCSLA and MMPA standards. Regardless, the lease sale stage is -not a proper vehicle for considering permanent exclusions for strictly off-lease activities, such -as off-lease seismic surveys. At the very least, the DEIS should consider establishing -permanent exclusion areas, or deferring activity within certain areas, outside the boundaries -of existing lease areas. - -ALT 19 The DEIS improperly dismisses the alternative “Duplicative Surveys.” NMFS’ Open Water -Panel has twice called for the elimination of unnecessary, duplicative surveys, whether -through data sharing or some other means. Yet the DEIS pleads that BOEM cannot adopt this -measure, on the grounds that the agency cannot “require companies to share proprietary data, -combine seismic programs, change lease terms, or prevent companies from acquiring data in -the same geographic area.” This analysis overlooks BOEM’s statutory duty under OCSLA to -approve only those permits whose exploration activities are not unduly harmful to marine -life. While OCSLA does not define the standard, it is difficult to imagine an activity more -expressive of undue harm than a duplicative survey, which obtains data that the government -and industry already possess and therefore is not necessary to the expeditious and orderly -development, subject to environmental safeguards, of the outer continental shelf. There is -nothing in OCSLA that bars BOEM from incentivizing the use of common surveyors or data -sharing, as already occurs in the Gulf of Mexico, to reduce total survey effort. It is thus -within BOEM’s authority to decline to approve individual permit applications in whole or - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 13 -Comment Analysis Report - -part that it finds are unnecessarily duplicative of existing or proposed surveys or data. NMFS -and BOEM should consider various strategies for avoiding unnecessarily redundant seismic -surveys as a way of ensuring the least practicable impact on marine mammals and the -environment. Companies that conduct geophysical surveys for the purpose of selling the data -could make those data available to multiple companies, avoiding the need for each company -to commission separate surveys. - -ALT 20 NMFS should include a community-based alternative that establishes direct reliance on the -Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA), and the collaborative process that has been used to -implement it. The alternative would include a fully developed suite of mitigation measures -similar to what is included in each annual CAA. This alternative would also include: - -• A communications scheme to manage industry and hunter vessel traffic during whale -hunting; - -• Time-area closures that provide a westward-moving buffer ahead of the bowhead -migration in areas important for fall hunting by our villages; - -• Vessel movement restrictions and speed limitations for industry vessels moving in the -vicinity of migrating whales; - -• Limitations on levels of specific activities; -• Limitations on discharges in near-shore areas where food is taken and eaten directly from - -the water; -• Other measures to facilitate stakeholder involvement; and -• An annual adaptive decision making process where the oil industry and Native groups - -come together to discuss new information and potential amendments to the mitigation -measures and/or levels of activity. - -NMFS should also include a more thorough discussion of the 20-year history of the CAA to -provide better context for assessing the potential benefits of this community-based -alternative. - -ALT 21 NMFS should include an alternative in the Final EIS that blends the following components of -the existing DEIS alternatives, which is designed to benefit subsistence hunting: - -• Alternative 2 activity levels; -• Mandatory time/area closures of Alternative 4; -• Alternative technologies from Alternative 5; -• Zero discharge in the Beaufort Sea; -• Limitation on vessel transit into the Chukchi Sea; -• Protections for the subsistence hunt in Wainwright, Point Hope, and Point Lay; -• Sound source verification; -• Expanded exclusion zones for seismic activities; and -• Limitations on limited visibility operation of seismic equipment. - -ALT 22 NMFS should include an alternative in the Final EIS that is based on the amount of -anthropogenic sounds that marine mammals might be exposed to, rather than using numbers -of activities as a proxy for sound. This alternative, based on accumulation of sound exposure -level, could evaluate: - -• Different types and numbers of industrial activities; -• Different frequencies produced by each activity; - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 14 -Comment Analysis Report - -• Location of activities; -• Timing of activities; -• Overlap in time and space with marine mammals; and -• Knowledge about how marine mammals respond to anthropogenic activities. - -Threshold levels could be based on simulation modeling using the above information. This -approach would use a valid scientific approach, one that is at least as robust, and probably -more, than the current approach of simply assessing numbers of activities. - -ALT 23 NMFS has defined a seismic "program" as limited to no more than two source vessels -working in tandem. This would expand the duration required to complete a program, which -could increase the potential for environmental impacts, without decreasing the amount of -sound in the water at any one time. NMFS should not limit the number of source vessels used -in a program in this manner as it could limit exploration efficiencies inherent in existing -industry practice. - -ALT 24 NMFS should not limit the number of on ice surveys that can be acquired in any year, in -either the Beaufort or Chukchi seas, as it could limit exploration efficiencies inherent in -existing industry practice. - -ALT 25 The DEIS alternatives also limit the number of drilling operations each year regardless of the -type of drilling. Given that there are many different approaches to drilling, each with its own -unique acoustic footprint and clear difference in its potential to generate other environmental -effects, a pre-established limit on the number of drilling operations each year is not based on -a scientific assessment and therefore is unreasonable. NMFS should not limit the number of -drilling operations. - -ALT 26 By grouping 2D / 3D seismic surveys and Controlled Source Electro-Magnetic (CSEM) -surveys together, the DEIS suggests that these two survey types are interchangeable, produce -similar types of data and/or have similar environmental impact characteristics. This is -incorrect and the DEIS should be corrected to separate them and, if the alternatives propose -limits, then each survey type should be dealt with separately. - -ALT 27 NMFS should consider a phased, adaptive approach to increasing the number of surveys in -the region because the cumulative effects of seismic surveys are not clear. Such an approach -would provide an opportunity to monitor and manage effects before they become significant -and also would help prevent situations where the industry has over-committed its resources to -activities that may cause unacceptable harm. - -ALT 28 In the Final EIS, NMFS should identify its preferred alternative, including the rationale for its -selection. - -ALT 29 NMFS must consider alternatives that do not contain the Additional Mitigation Measures -currently associated with every action alternative in the DEIS. These measures are not -warranted, are not scientifically supported, and are onerous, prohibiting exploration activities -over extensive areas for significant portions of the open water season. - -ALT 30 Alternatives 2 and 3 identify different assumed levels of annual oil and gas activity. Varying -ranges of oil and gas activity are not alternatives to proposal for incidental take -authorizations. NMFS should revise the alternatives to more accurately reflect the Purpose -and Need of the EIS. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 15 -Comment Analysis Report - -ALT 31 The levels of activity identified in Alternatives 2 and 3 go far above and beyond anything that -has been seen in the Arctic to date. The DEIS as written preemptively approves specific -levels of industrial activity. This action is beyond NMFS’ jurisdiction, and the alternatives -should be revised to reflect these concerns. - -ALT 32 The analysis in the DEIS avoids proposing a beneficial conservation alternative and -consistently dilutes the advantages of mitigation measures that could be used as part of such -an alternative. NEPA requires that agencies explore alternatives that “will avoid or minimize -adverse effects of these actions upon the quality of the human environment.” Such an -alternative could require all standard and additional mitigation measures, while adding limits -such as late-season drilling prohibitions to protect migrating bowhead whales and reduce the -harm from an oil spill. NMFS should consider analyzing such an alternative in the Final EIS. - -ALT 33 NMFS should pair the additional mitigation measures with the Level 1 exploration of -Alternative 2 and not support higher levels of exploration of Alternatives 3-5. - -ALT 34 NMFS should create an alternative modeled off of the adaptive management process of the -CAA. Without doing so, the agency cannot fully analyze and consider the benefits provided -by this community based, collaborative approach to managing multiple uses on the Outer -Continental Shelf. - -ALT 35 Allowing only one or two drilling programs per sea to proceed: Since six operators hold -leases in the Chukchi and 18 in the Beaufort, the DEIS effectively declares as worthless -leases associated with four Chukchi operators and 16 Beaufort operators. How NMFS expects -to choose which operators can work is not clear, nor is it clear how it would compensate -those operators not chosen for the value of their lease and resources expenditures to date. - -ALT 36 While it is reasonable to assume that many outstanding leases will not ultimately result in -development (or even exploration), NMFS should have truth-tested with its cooperating -agency whether the maximum level of activity it assumed was, in fact, a reasonable -assumption of the upper limit on anticipated activity. BOEM would have been able to provide -NMFS with guidance on one of these leases. Use of a properly constructed scenario would -have provided NMFS with a more realistic understanding of the level of activity necessary to -allow current leaseholders an opportunity to develop their leases within the lease terms. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 16 -Comment Analysis Report - -Cumulative Effects (CEF) -CEF Comments related to cumulative impacts in general or for a specific resource. - -CEF 1 NMFS should review cumulative effects section; many “minor” and “negligible” impacts can -combine to be more than “minor” or “negligible”. - -CEF 2 Adverse cumulative effects need to be considered in more depth for: - -• Fisheries and prey species for marine mammals; -• Marine mammals and habitat; -• Wildlife in general; -• North Slope communities; -• Migratory pathways of marine mammals; -• Subsistence resources and traditional livelihoods. - -CEF 3 A narrow focus on oil and gas activities is likely to underestimate the overall level of impact -on the bowhead whale. Bowhead whales are long-lived and travel great distances during their -annual migration, leaving them potentially exposed to a wide range of potential -anthropogenic impacts and cumulative effects over broad geographical and temporal scales. -An Ecosystem Based Management approach would better regulate the totality of potential -impacts to wildlife habitat and ecosystem services in the Arctic. - -CEF 4 NMFS should include more in its cumulative effects analysis regarding the impacts caused -by: - -• Climate change; -• Oil Spills; -• Ocean noise; -• Planes; -• Transportation in general; -• Discharge; -• Assessments/research/monitoring; -• Dispersants; -• Invasive species. - -CEF 5 The cumulative effects analysis overall in the DEIS is inadequate. Specific comments -include: - -• The DEIS fails to develop a coherent analytical framework by which impacts are -assessed and how decisions are made; - -• The cumulative impact section does not provide details about what specific methodology -was used; - -• The cumulative effects analysis does not adequately assess the impacts from noise, -air/water quality, subsistence, and marine mammals; - -• The list of activities is incomplete; -• The assessment of impacts to employment/socioeconomics/income are not considered in - -assessment of cumulative impacts for any alternative other than the no action alternative; - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 17 -Comment Analysis Report - -• The industry has not shown that their activities will have no cumulative, adverse and -unhealthy effects upon the animals, the air, the waters nor the peoples of the Coastal -Communities in the Arctic; - -• The analysis on seals and other pinnipeds is inadequate and is not clear on whether -potential listings were considered; - -• Recent major mortality events involving both walrus and ice seals must be considered -when determining impacts. A negligible impact determination cannot be made without -more information about these disease events. - -CEF 6 The cumulative effects analyzed are overestimated. Specific comments include: - -• There is no evidence from over 60 years of industry activities that injurious cumulative -sound levels occur; - -• Given that the seismic vessel is moving in and out of a localized area and the fact that -animals are believed to avoid vessel traffic and seismic sounds, cumulative sound -exposure is again likely being overestimated in the DEIS; - -• Cumulative impacts from oil and gas activities are generally prescriptive, written to limit -exploration activities during the short open water season. - -CEF 7 There is a lack of studies on the adverse and cumulative effects on communities, ecosystems, -air/water quality, subsistence resources, economy, and culture. NMFS should not authorize -Incidental Harassment Authorizations without adequate scientific data. - -CEF 8 Adverse cumulative effects need to be considered in more depth for marine mammals and -habitat, specifically regarding: - -• Oil and gas activities in the Canadian Beaufort and the Russian Chukchi Sea; -• Entanglement with fishing gear; -• Increased vessel traffic; -• Discharge; -• Water/Air pollution; -• Sources of underwater noise; -• Climate change; -• Ocean acidification; -• Production structures and pipelines. - -CEF 9 The DEIS does not adequately analyze the cumulative and synergistic effects of exploration -noise impacts to marine mammals. Specific comments include: - -• The DEIS only addresses single impacts to individual animals. In reality a whale does not -experience a single noise in a stationary area as the DEIS concludes but is faced with a -dynamic acoustic environment which all must be factored into estimating exposure not -only to individuals but also to populations; - -• While each individual vessel or platform can be considered a single, periodic or transient -source of noise, all components are required to successfully complete the operation. As a -result, the entire operation around a drilling ship or drilling platform will need to be -quieter than 120 dB in order to be below NMFS disturbance criteria for continuous noise -exposure; - -• A full characterization of risk to marine mammals from the impacts of noise will be a -function of the sources of noise in the marine and also the cumulative effects of multiple -sources of noise and the interaction of other risk factors; - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 18 -Comment Analysis Report - -• The DEIS does not incorporate chronic stress into its cumulative impact analysis, such as -by using other species as proxies for lower life expectancies; - -• The DEIS fails to consider the impacts of noise on foraging and energetics; -• Because the acoustic footprint of seismic operations is so large, it is quite conceivable - -that bowhead whales could be exposed to seismic operations in the Canadian Beaufort, -the Alaskan Beaufort, and the Chukchi Sea; and - -• An Arctic sound budget should include any noise that could contribute to a potential take, -not simply seismic surveying, oil and gas drilling, and ice management activities. - -CEF 10 The DEIS does not adequately analyze the combined effects of multiple surveying and -drilling operations taking place in the Arctic Ocean year after year. - -CEF 11 NMFS should include the following in the cumulative effects analysis: - -• Current and future activities including deep water port construction by the military, the -opening of the Northwest Passage, and production at BP’s Liberty prospect; - -• Past activities including past activities in the Arctic for which NMFS has issued IHAs; -commercial shipping and potential deep water port construction; production of offshore -oil and gas resources or production related activities; and commercial fishing; - -• A baseline for analysis of current activities and past IHAs; -• Recent studies: a passive acoustic monitoring study conducted by Scripps, and NOAA’s - -working group on cumulative noise mapping; -• Ecosystem mapping of the entire project. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 19 -Comment Analysis Report - -Coordination and Compatibility (COR) -COR Comments on compliance with statues, laws or regulations and Executive Orders that should - -be considered; coordinating with federal, state, or local agencies, organizations, or potential -applicants; permitting requirements. - -COR 1 Continued government to government consultation needs to include: - -• Increased focus on how NMFS and other federal agencies are required to protect natural -resources and minimize the impact of hydrocarbon development to adversely affect -subsistence hunting. - -• More consultations are needed with the tribes to incorporate their traditional knowledge -into the DEIS decision making process. - -• Direct contact between NMFS and Kotzebue IRA, Iñupiat Community of the Arctic -Slope (ICAS) and Native Village of Barrow should be initiated by NMFS. - -• Tribal organizations should be included in meeting with stakeholders and cooperating -agencies. - -• Consultation should be initiated early and from NOAA/NMFS, not through their -contractor. Meetings should be in person. - -COR 2 Data and results that are gathered should be shared throughout the impacted communities. -Often, adequate data are not shared and therefore perceived inaccurate. Before and after an -IHA is authorized, communities should receive feedback from industry, NMFS, and marine -observers. - -COR 3 There needs to be a permanent system of enforcement and reporting for marine mammal -impacts to ensure that oil companies are complying with the terms of the IHA and threatened -and endangered species authorizations. This system needs to be developed and implemented -in collaboration with the North Slope Borough and the ICAS and should be based on the -CAAs. - -COR 4 The U.S. and Canada needs to adopt an integrated and cooperative approach to impact -assessment of hydrocarbon development in the Arctic. NMFS should coordinate with the -Toktoyaktuk and the Canadian government because of the transboundary impacts of -exploratory activities and the U.S. non-binding co-management agreements with indigenous -peoples in Canada (Alaska Beluga Whale Committee and Nunavut Wildlife Management -Board). - -COR 5 The State of Alaska should be consulted and asked to join the DEIS team as a Cooperating -Agency because the DEIS addresses the potential environmental impacts of oil and gas -exploration in State water and because operators on state lands must comply with the MMPA. - -COR 6 NMFS should develop a mechanism to ensure that there is a coordinated effort by federal and -state agencies, industry, affected communities, and non-governmental organizations and -stakeholders to improve the integration of scientific data and develop a comprehensive, long- -term monitoring program for the Arctic ecosystem. - -COR 7 Effort should be put towards enhancing interagency coordination for managing noise. -Improved communication among federal agencies involved in noise impact assessment would -enhance compliance with the US National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 20 -Comment Analysis Report - -(NTTAA). The NTTAA promotes the use of consensus-based standards rather than agency- -specific standards whenever possible and/or appropriate. - -COR 8 It is recommended that BOEM have more than a cooperating agency role since the proposed -action includes BOEM issuance of G&G permits. NMFS coordinate with BOEM on the -following activities: - -• To conduct supplemental activity-specific environmental analyses under NEPA that -provides detailed information on proposed seismic surveys and drilling activities and the -associated environmental effects. - -• Ensure that the necessary information is available to estimate the number of takes as -accurately as possible given current methods and data. - -• Make activity-specific analyses available for public review and comment rather than -issuing memoranda to the file or categorical exclusions that do not allow for public -review/comment. - -• Encourage BOEM to make those analyses available for public review and comment -before the Service makes its final determination regarding applications for incidental take -authorizations. - -COR 9 NMFS should integrate its planning and permitting decisions with coastal and marine spatial -planning efforts for the Arctic region. - -COR 10 NMFS needs to coordinate with the oil and gas industry to identify the time period that the -assessment will cover, determine how the information will be utilized, and request a range of -activity levels that companies / operators might undertake in the next five years. - -COR 11 It is requested that the DEIS clarify how in the DEIS the appropriate mechanism for -considering exclusion areas from leasing can be during the BOEM request for public -comments on its Five Year OCS Leasing Plan when the recent BOEM Draft EIS Five Year -Plan refused to consider additional deferral areas. In that document, BOEM eliminated -additional details from further analysis by stating that it would consider the issue further as -part of lease sale decisions. - -COR 12 The DEIS needs to be revised to comply with Executive Order 13580, "Interagency Working -Group on Coordination of Domestic Energy Development and Permitting in Alaska," issued -on July 12, 2011 by President Obama. It is felt that the current DEIS is in noncompliance -because it does not assess a particular project, is duplicative, creates the need for additional -OCS EIS documents, and is based upon questionable authority. - -COR 13 Consultation with USGS would help NMFS make a more informed prediction regarding the -likelihood and extent of successful exploration and development in the project area and thus -affect the maximum level of activity it analyzed. - -COR 14 NMFS must consider the comments that BOEM received on the five-year plan draft EIS as -well as the plan itself before extensively relying on the analysis, specifically for its oil spill -analysis. - -COR 15 NMFS should consult with the AEWC about how to integrate the timing of the adaptive -management process with the decisions to be made by both NMFS and BOEM regarding -annual activities. This would avoid the current situation where agencies often ask for input -from local communities on appropriate mitigation measures before the offshore operators and -AEWC have conducted annual negotiations. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 21 -Comment Analysis Report - -COR 16 NMFS should adopt an ecosystem based management approach consistent with the policy -objectives of the MMPA and the policy objectives of the Executive Branch and President -Obama's Administration. - -COR 17 The EIS should have better clarification that a Very Large Oil Spill (VLOS) are violations of -the Clean Water Act and illegal under a MMPA permit. - -COR 18 NMFS should include consultation with other groups of subsistence hunters in the affected -area, including the Village of Noatak and indigenous peoples in Canada. - -COR 19 NMFS should contract with smaller village corporation in regards to biological studies and -work to help communities feel their local expertise is being utilized. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 22 -Comment Analysis Report - -Data (DAT) -DATA Comments referencing scientific studies that should be considered. - -DATA 1 NMFS should consider these additional references regarding effects to beluga whales: - -[Effects of noise] Christine Erbe and David M. Farmer, Zones of impact around icebreakers -affecting beluga whales in the Beaufort Sea. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 108 (3), Pt. 1 p.1332 - -[avoidance] Findley, K.J., Miller, G.W., Davis, R.A., and Greene, C.R., Jr., Reactions of -belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, and narwhals, Monodon monoceros, to ice-breaking ships in -the Canadian high Arctic, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 224: 97-117 (1990); see also Cosens, S.E., -and Dueck, L.P., Ice breaker noise in Lancaster Sound, NWT, Canada: implications for -marine mammal behavior, Mar. Mamm. Sci. 9: 285-300 (1993). - -[beluga displacement]See, e.g., Fraker, M.A., The 1976 white whale monitoring program, -MacKenzie estuary, report for Imperial Oil, Ltd., Calgary (1977); Fraker, M.A., The 1977 -white whale monitoring program, MacKenzie estuary, report for Imperial Oil, Ltd., Calgary -(1977); Fraker, M.A., The 1978 white whale monitoring program, MacKenzie estuary, report -for Imperial Oil, Ltd., Calgary (1978); Stewart, B.S., Evans, W.E., and Awbrey, F.T., Effects -of man-made water-borne noise on the behaviour of beluga whales, Delphinapterus leucas, in -Bristol Bay, Alaska, Hubbs Sea World (1982) (report 82-145 to NOAA); Stewart, B.S., -Awbrey, F.T., and Evans, W.E., Belukha whale (Delphinapterus leucas) responses to -industrial noise in Nushagak Bay, Alaska: 1983 (1983); Edds, P.L., and MacFarlane, J.A.F., -Occurrence and general behavior of balaenopterid cetaceans summering in the St. Lawrence -estuary, Canada, Can. J. Zoo. 65: 1363-1376 (1987). - -[beluga displacement] Miller, G.W., Moulton, V.D., Davis, R.A., Holst, M., Millman, P., -MacGillivray, A., and Hannay. D., Monitoring seismic effects on marine mammals - -southeastern Beaufort Sea, 2001-2002, in Armsworthy, S.L., et al. (eds.),Offshore oil and gas -environmental effects monitoring/Approaches and technologies, at 511-542 (2005). - -DATA 2 NMFS should consider these additional references regarding the general effects of noise, -monitoring during seismic surveys and noise management as related to marine mammals: - -[effects of noise] Jochens, A., D. Biggs, K. Benoit-Bird, D. Engelhaupt, J. Gordon, C. Hu, N. -Jaquet, M. Johnson, R. Leben, B. Mate, P. Miller, J. Ortega-Ortiz, A. Thode, P. Tyack, and B. -Würsig. 2008. Sperm whale seismic study in the Gulf of Mexico: Synthesis report. U.S. -Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New -Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2008-006. 341 pp. SWSS final report was centered on the -apparent lack of large-scale effects of airguns (distribution of sperm whales on scales of 5- -100km were no different when airguns were active than when they were silent), but a key -observation was that one D-tagged whale exposed to sound levels of 164dB re:1µPa ceased -feeding and remained at the surface for the entire four hours that the survey vessel was -nearby, then dove to feed as soon as the airguns were turned off. - -[effects of noise] Miller, G.W., R.E. Elliott, W.R. Koski, V.D. Moulton, and W.J. -Richardson. 1999. Whales. p. 5-1 – 5- 109 In W.J. Richardson, (ed.), Marine mammal and -acoustical monitoring of Western Geophysical's openwater seismic program in the Alaskan -Beaufort Sea, 1998. LGL Report TA2230-3. Prepared by LGL Ltd., King City, ONT, and - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 23 -Comment Analysis Report - -Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Western Geophysical, Houston, TX, and -NMFS, Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. 390 p. - -[effects of noise] Richardson, W.J., Greene Jr, C.R., Malme, C.I. and Thomson, D.H. 1995. -Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego. 576pp. - -[effects of noise] Holst, M., M.A. Smultea, W.R. Koski, and B. Haley. 2005. Marine mammal -and sea turtle monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory’s marine seismic -program off the Northern Yucatan Peninsula in the Southern Gulf of Mexico, January -February 2005. LGL Report TA2822-31. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research -associates, King City, ONT, for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, -Palisades, NY, and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. June. 96 p. - -[marine mammals and noise] Balcomb III, KC, Claridge DE. 2001. A mass stranding of -cetaceans caused by naval sonar in the Bahamas. Bahamas J. Sci. 8(2):2-12. - -[noise from O&G activities] Richardson, W.J., Greene Jr, C.R., Malme, C.I. and Thomson, -D.H. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego. 576pp. - -A study on ship noise and marine mammal stress was recently issued. Rolland, R.M., Parks, -S.E., Hunt, K.E., Castellote, M., Corkeron, P.J., Nowacek, D.P., Wasser, S.K., and Kraus, -S.D., Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right whales, Proceedings of the Royal -Society B: Biological Sciences doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.2429 (2012). - -Lucke, K., Siebert, U., Lepper, P.A., and Blanchet, M.-A., Temporary shift in masked hearing -thresholds in a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) after exposure to seismic airgun stimuli, -Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125: 4060-4070 (2009). - -Gedamke, J., Gales, N., and Frydman, S., Assessing risk of baleen whale hearing loss from -seismic surveys: The effect of uncertainty and individual variation, Journal of the Acoustical -Society of America 129:496-506 (2011). - -[re. relationship between TTS and PTS] Kastak, D., Mulsow, J., Ghoul, A., Reichmuth, C., -Noise-induced permanent threshold shift in a harbor seal [abstract], Journal of the Acoustical -Society of America 123: 2986 (2008) (sudden, non-linear induction of permanent threshold -shift in harbor seal during TTS experiment); Kujawa, S.G., and Liberman, M.C., Adding -insult to injury: Cochlear nerve degeneration after ‘temporary’ noise-induced hearing loss, -Journal of Neuroscience 29: 14077-14085 (2009) (mechanism linking temporary to -permanent threshold shift). - -[exclusion zones around foraging habitat] See Miller, G.W., Moulton, V.D., Davis, R.A., -Holst, M., Millman, P., MacGillivray, A., and Hannay. D. Monitoring seismic effects on -marine mammals in the southeastern Beaufort Sea, 2001-2002, in Armsworthy, S.L., et -al.(eds.), Offshore oil and gas environmental effects monitoring/Approaches and -technologies, at 511-542 (2005). - -[passive acoustic monitoring limitations] See also Gillespie, D., Gordon, J., Mchugh, R., -Mclaren, D., Mellinger, D.K., Redmond, P., Thode, A., Trinder, P., and Deng, X.Y., -PAMGUARD: semiautomated, open source software for real-time acoustic detection and -localization of ceteaceans, Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics 30(5) (2008). - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 24 -Comment Analysis Report - -BOEM, Site-specific environmental assessment of geological and geophysical survey -application no. L11-007for TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Company, at 22 (2011) (imposing -separation distance in Gulf of Mexico, noting that purpose is to “allow for a corridor for -marine mammal movement”). - -[harbor porpoise avoidance] Bain, D.E., and Williams, R., Long-range effects of airgun noise -on marine mammals: responses as a function of received sound level and distance (2006) -(IWC Sci. Comm. Doc. IWC/SC/58/E35); Kastelein, R.A., Verboom, W.C., Jennings, N., and -de Haan, D., Behavioral avoidance threshold level of a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) -for a continuous 50 kHz pure tone, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123: 1858- -1861 (2008); Kastelein, R.A., Verboom, W.C., Muijsers, M., Jennings, N.V., and van der -Heul, S., The influence of acoustic emissions for underwater data transmission on the -behavior of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in a floating pen, Mar. Enviro. Res. 59: -287-307 (2005); Olesiuk, P.F., Nichol, L.M., Sowden, M.J., and Ford, J.K.B., Effect of the -sound generated by an acoustic harassment device on the relative abundance and distribution -of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in Retreat Passage, British Columbia, Mar. Mamm. -Sci. 18: 843-862 (2002). - -A special issue of the International Journal of Comparative Psychology (20:2-3) is devoted to -the problem of noise-related stress response in marine mammals. For an overview published -as part of that volume, see, e.g., A.J. Wright, N. Aguilar Soto, A.L. Baldwin, M. Bateson, -C.M. Beale, C. Clark, T. Deak, E.F. Edwards, A. Fernandez, A. Godinho, L. Hatch, A. -Kakuschke, D. Lusseau, D. Martineau, L.M. Romero, L. Weilgart, B. Wintle, G. Notarbartolo -di Sciara, and V. Martin, Do marine mammals experience stress related to anthropogenic -noise? (2007). - -[methods to address data gaps] Bejder, L., Samuels, A., Whitehead, H., Finn, H., and Allen, -S., Impact assessment research: use and misuse of habituation, sensitization and tolerance in -describing wildlife responses to anthropogenic stimuli, Marine Ecology Progress Series -395:177-185 (2009). - -[strandings] Brownell, R.L., Jr., Nowacek, D.P., and Ralls, K., Hunting cetaceans with sound: -a worldwide review, Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 10: 81-88 (2008); -Hildebrand, J.A., Impacts of anthropogenic sound, in Reynolds, J.E. III, Perrin, W.F., Reeves, -R.R., Montgomery, S., and Ragen, T.J., eds., Marine Mammal Research: Conservation -beyond Crisis (2006). - -[effects of noise] Harris, R.E., T. Elliot, and R.A. Davis. 2007. Results of mitigation and -monitoring program, Beaufort Span 2-D marine seismic program, open-water season 2006. -LGL Rep. TA4319-1. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., for GX Technology Corp., -Houston, TX. 48 p. - -Hutchinson and Ferrero (2011) noted that there were on-going studies that could help provide -a basis for a sound budget. - -[refs regarding real-time passive acoustic monitoring to reduce ship strike] Abramson, L., -Polefka, S., Hastings, S., and Bor, K., Reducing the Threat of Ship Strikes on Large -Cetaceans in the Santa Barbara Channel Region and Channel Islands National Marine -Sanctuary: Recommendations and Case Studies (2009) (Marine Sanctuaries Conservation -Series ONMS-11-01); Silber, G.K., S. Bettridge, and D. Cottingham, ?Report of a workshop -to identify and assess technologies to reduce ship strikes of large whales.? Providence, Rhode -Island, July 8-10, 2008 (2009) (NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-OPR-42). - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 25 -Comment Analysis Report - -[time/place restrictions] See, e.g., Letter from Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Undersecretary of -Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, to Nancy Sutley, Chair, Council on Environmental -Quality at 2 (Jan. 19, 2010); Agardy, T., et al., A Global Scientific Workshop on Spatio- -Temporal Management of Noise (October 2007). - -[seismic and ambient noise] Roth, E.H., Hildebrand, J.A., Wiggins, S.M., and Ross, D., -Underwater ambient noise on the Chukchi Sea continental slope, Journal of the Acoustical -Society of America 131:104-110 (2012). - -Expert Panel Review of Monitoring and Mitigation and Protocols in Applications for -Incidental Take Authorizations Related to Oil and Gas Exploration, including Seismic -Surveys in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Anchorage, Alaska 22-26 March 2010. - -[refs regarding monitoring and safety zone best practices] Weir, C.R., and Dolman, S.J., -Comparative review of the regional marine mammal mitigation guidelines implemented -during industrial seismic surveys, and guidance towards a worldwide standard, Journal of -International Wildlife Law and Policy 10: 1-27 (2007); Parsons, E.C.M., Dolman, S.J., Jasny, -M., Rose, N.A., Simmonds, M.P., and Wright, A.J., A critique of the UK’s JNCC seismic -survey guidelines for minimising acoustic disturbance to marine mammals: Best practice? -Marine Pollution Bulletin 58: 643-651 (2009). - -[marine mammals and noise - aircraft] Ljungblad, D.K., Moore, S.E. and Van Schoik, D.R. -1983. Aerial surveys of endangered whales in the Beaufort, eastern Chukchi and northern -Bering Seas, 1982. NOSC Technical Document 605 to the US Minerals Management Service, -Anchorage, AK. NTIS AD-A134 772/3. 382pp - -[marine mammals and noise - aircraft] Southwest Research Associates. 1988. Results of the -1986-1987 gray whale migration and landing craft, air cushion interaction study program. -USN Contract No. PO N62474-86-M-0942. Final Report to Nav. Fac. Eng. Comm., San -Bruno, CA. Southwest Research Associates, Cardiff by the Sea, CA. 31pp. - -DATA 3 NMFS should consider these additional references regarding fish and the general effects of -noise on fish: - -[effects of noise] Arill Engays, Svein Lakkeborg, Egil Ona, and Aud Vold Soldal. Effects of -seismic shooting on local abundance and catch rates of cod (Gadus morhua) and haddock -(Melanogrammus aeglefinus) Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 2238 “2249 (1996). - -[animal adaptations to extreme environments- may not be relevant to EIS] Michael Tobler, -Ingo Schlupp, Katja U. Heubel, Radiger Riesch, Francisco J. Garca de Leon, Olav Giere and -Martin Plath. Life on the edge: hydrogen sulfide and the fish communities of a Mexican cave -and surrounding waters 2006 Extremophiles Journal, Volume 10, Number 6, Pages 577-585 - -[response to noise] Knudsen, F.R., P.S. Enger, and O. Sand. 1994. Avoidance responses to -low frequency sound in downstream migrating Atlantic salmon smolt, Salmo salar. Journal of -Fish Biology 45:227-233. - -See also Fish Fauna in nearshore water of a barrier island in the western Beaufort Sea, -Alaska. SW Johnson, JF Thedinga, AD Neff, and CA Hoffman. US Dept of Commerce, -NOAA. Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-210. July 2010. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 26 -Comment Analysis Report - -[airgun impacts and fish] McCauley, R.D., Fewtrell, J., Duncan, A.J., Jenner, C., Jenner, M.- -N., Penrose, J.D., Prince, R.I.T., Adhitya, A., Murdoch, J., and McCabe, K., Marine seismic -surveys: Analysis and propagation of air-gun signals; and effects of air-gun exposure on -humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and squid (2000) (industry-sponsored study undertaken -by researchers at the Curtin University of Technology, Australia). Lakkeborg, S., Ona, E., -Vold, A., Pena, H., Salthaug, A., Totland, B., Ãvredal, J.T., Dalen, J. and Handegard, N.O., -Effects of seismic surveys on fish distribution and catch rates of gillnets and longlines in -Vesterlen in summer 2009 (2010) (Institute of Marine Research Report for Norwegian -Petroleum Directorate). Slotte, A., Hansen, K., Dalen, J., and Ona, E., Acoustic mapping of -pelagic fish distribution and abundance in relation to a seismic shooting area off the -Norwegian west coast, Fisheries Research 67:143-150 (2004). Skalski, J.R., Pearson, W.H., -and Malme, C.I., Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device on catch-perunit-effort -in a hook-and-line fishery for rockfish (Sebastes ssp.), Canadian Journal of Fisheries and -Aquatic Sciences 49: 1357-1365 (1992). McCauley et al., Marine seismic surveys: analysis -and propagation of air-gun signals, and effects of air-gun exposure; McCauley, R., Fewtrell, -J., and Popper, A.N., High intensity anthropogenic sound damages fish ears, Journal of the -Acoustical Society of America 113: 638-642 (2003); see also Scholik, A.R., and Yan, H.Y., -Effects of boat engine noise on the auditory sensitivity of the fathead minnow, Pimephales -promelas, Environmental Biology of Fishes 63: 203-209 (2002). Purser, J., and Radford, -A.N., Acoustic noise induces attention shifts and reduces foraging performance in -threespined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus), PLoS One, 28 Feb. 2011, DOI: -10.1371/journal.pone.0017478 (2011). Dalen, J., and Knutsen, G.M., Scaring effects on fish -and harmful effects on eggs, larvae and fry by offshore seismic explorations, in Merklinger, -H.M., Progress in Underwater Acoustics 93-102 (1987); Banner, A., and Hyatt, M., Effects of -noise on eggs and larvae of two estuarine fishes, Transactions of the American Fisheries -Society 1:134-36 (1973); L.P. Kostyuchenko, Effect of elastic waves generated in marine -seismic prospecting on fish eggs on the Black Sea, Hydrobiology Journal 9:45-48 (1973). - -Recent work performed by Dr. Brenda Norcross (UAF) for MMS/BOEM. There are -extensive data deficiencies for most marine and coastal fish population abundance and trends -over time. I know because I conducted such an exercise for the MMS in the mid 2000s and -the report is archived as part of lease sale administrative record. Contact Kate Wedermeyer -(BOEM) or myself for a copy if it cannot be located in the administrative record. - -DATA 4 NMFS should consider these additional references on the effects of noise on lower trophic -level organisms: - -[effects of noise] Michel Andra, Marta Sola, Marc Lenoir, Merca¨ Durfort, Carme Quero, -Alex Mas, Antoni Lombarte, Mike van der Schaar1, Manel Lpez-Bejar, Maria Morell, Serge -Zaugg, and Ludwig Hougnigan. Low frequency sounds induce acoustic trauma in -cephalopods. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. Nov. 2011V9 Iss.9 - -[impacts of seismic surveys and other activities on invertebrates] See, e.g., McCauley, R.D., -Fewtrell, J., Duncan, A.J., Jenner, C., Jenner, M.-N., Penrose, J.D., Prince, R.I.T., Adhitya, -A., Murdoch, J., and McCabe, K., Marine seismic surveys: Analysis and propagation of air- -gun signals; and effects of air-gun exposure on humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and -squid (2000); Andra, M., Sola, M., Lenoir, M., Durfort, M., Quero, C., Mas, A., Lombarte, -A., van der Schaar, M., Lapez-Bejar, M., Morell, M., Zaugg, S., and Hougnigan, L., Low- -frequency sounds induce acoustic trauma in cephalopods, Frontiers in Ecology and the -Environment doi:10.1890/100124 (2011); Guerra, A., and Gonzales, A.F., Severe injuries in -the giant squid Architeuthis dux stranded after seismic explorations, in German Federal - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 27 -Comment Analysis Report - -Environment Agency, International Workshop on the Impacts of Seismic Survey Activities -on Whales and Other Marine Biota at 32-38 (2006) - -DATA 5 NMFS should consider these additional references on effects of noise on bowhead whales: - -[effects of noise] Richardson WJ, Miller GW, Greene Jr. CR 1999. Displacement of -Migrating Bowhead Whales by Sounds from Seismic Surveys in Shallow Waters of the -Beaufort Sea. J. of Acoust. Soc. of America. 106:2281. - -NMFS cites information from Richardson et al. (1995) which suggested that migrating -bowhead whales may react at sound levels as low as 120 dB (RMS) re 1 uPa but fails to cite -newer work by Christie et al. 2010 and Koski et al. 2009, cited elsewhere in the document, -showing that migrating whales entered and moved through areas ensonified to 120-150 dB -(RMS) deflecting only at levels of ~150 dB. Distances at which whales deflected were similar -in both studies suggesting that factors other than just sound are important in determining -avoidance of an area by migrating bowhead whales. This is a general problem with the EIS in -that it consistently uses outdated information as part of the impact analysis, relying on -previous analyses from other NMFS or MMS EIS documents conducted without the benefit -of the new data. - -Additionally, we ask NMFS to respond to the results of a recent study of the impacts of noise -on Atlantic Right whales, which found "a decrease in baseline concentrations of fGCs in right -whales in association with decreased overall noise levels (6 dB) and significant reductions in -noise at all frequencies between 50 and 150 Hz as a consequence of reduced large vessel -traffic in the Bay of Fundy following the events of 9/11/01."68 This study of another baleen -whale that is closely related to the bowhead whale supports traditional knowledge regarding -the skittishness and sensitivity of bowhead whales to noise and documents that these -reactions to noise are accompanied by a physiological stress response that could have broader -implications for repeated exposures to noise as contemplated in the DEIS. 68 Rolland, R.M., -et al. Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right whales. Proc. R. Soc. B (2012) -(doi:lO.1098/rspb.2011.2429). Exhibit G. - -Bowhead Whale Aerial Survey Project (or BWASP) sightings show that whales are found -feeding in many years on both sides of the Bay.158 Id. at 24, 67 (Brownlow Point); see also -Ferguson et al., A Tale of Two Seas: Lessons from Multi-decadal Aerial Surveys for -Cetaceans in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas (2011 PowerPoint) (slide 15), attached as Exh. 1. -A larger version of the map from the PowerPoint is attached as Exh. 2 Industry surveys have -also confirmed whales feeding west of Camden Bay in both 2007 and 2008.159 Shell, -Revised Outer Continental Shelf Lease Exploration Plan, Camden Bay, Beaufort Sea, Alaska, -Appendix F 3-79 (May 2011) (Beaufort EIA), available at http://boem.gov/Oil-and-Gas- -Energy-Program/Plans/Regional-Plans/Alaska-Exploration-Plans/2012-Shell-Beaufort- -EP/Index.aspx. - -[bowhead displacement] Miller, G.W., Elliot, R.E., Koski, W.R., Moulton, V.D., and -Richardson W.J., Whales, in Richardson, W.J. (ed.),Marine Mammal and Acoustical -Monitoring of Western Geophysical’s Open-Water Seismic Program in the Alaskan Beaufort -Sea, 1998 (1999); Richardson, W.J., Miller, G.W., and Greene Jr., C.R., Displacement of -migrating bowhead whales by sounds from seismic surveys in shallow waters of the Beaufort -Sea, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106:2281 (1999). - -Clark, C.W., and Gagnon, G.C., Considering the temporal and spatial scales of noise -exposures from seismic surveys on baleen whales (2006) (IWC Sci. Comm. Doc. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 28 -Comment Analysis Report - -IWC/SC/58/E9); Clark, C.W., pers. comm. with M. Jasny, NRDC (Apr. 2010); see also -MacLeod, K., Simmonds, M.P., and Murray, E., Abundance of fin (Balaenoptera physalus) -and sei whales (B. Borealis) amid oil exploration and development off northwest Scotland, -Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 8: 247-254 (2006). - -DATA 6 NMFS should review and incorporate these additional recent BOEM documents into the -Final EIS: - -BOEM recently issued a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Gulf of -Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale: 2012; Central Planning Area Lease Sale 216/222; -Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale: 2012; Central Planning Area Lease Sale 216/222 -(SEIS). This final SEIS for the GOM correctly concluded that, despite more than 50 years of -oil and gas seismic and other activities, “there are no data to suggest that activities from the -preexisting OCS Program are significantly impacting marine mammal populations.” - -DATA 7 The DEIS should be revised to discuss any and all NMFS or BOEM Information Quality Act -(IQA) requirements/guidance that apply to oil and gas activities in the Arctic Ocean. The -final EIS should discuss IQA requirements, and should state that these IQA requirements also -apply to any third-party information that the agencies use or rely on to regulate oil and gas -operations. The DEIS should be revised to discuss: - -• NMFS Instruction on NMFS Data Documentation, which states at pages 11-12 that all -NMFS data disseminations must meet IQA guidelines. - -• NMFS Directive on Data and Information Management, which states at page 3: General -Policy and Requirements A. Data are among the most valuable public assets that NMFS -controls, and are an essential enabler of the NMFS mission. The data will be visible, -accessible, and understandable to authorized users to support mission objectives, in -compliance with OMB guidelines for implementing the Information Quality Act. - -• NMFS Instruction on Section 515 Pre-Dissemination Review and Documentation Form. -• NMFS Instruction on Guidelines for Agency Administrative Records, which states at - -pages 2-3 that: The AR [Administrative Record] first must document the process the -agency used in reaching its final decision in order to show that the agency followed -required procedures. For NOAA actions, procedural requirements include The -Information Quality Act. - -DATA 8 Information in the EIS should be updated and include information on PAMGUARD that has -been developed by the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers Joint Industry -Project. PAMGUARD is a software package that can interpret and display calls of vocalizing -marine mammals, locate them by azimuth and range and identify some of them by species. -These abilities are critical for detecting animals within safety zones and enabling shut-down. - -DATA 9 NMFS should utilize some of the new predictive modeling techniques that are becoming -available to better describe and analyze the links between impacts experienced at the -individual level to the population level. One example is the tool for sound and marine -mammals; Acoustic Integration Models (AIMs) that estimate how many animals might be -exposed to specific levels of sound. Furthermore, Ellison et al. (2011)34 suggest a three- -pronged approach that uses marine mammal behaviors to examine sound exposure and help -with planning of offshore activities. Additionally, scenario-modeling tools such as EcoPath -and EcoSim might help with modeling potential outcomes from different anthropogenic -activities. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 29 -Comment Analysis Report - -DATA 10 NMFS should acknowledge that despite some advances in oil spill response technology, there -is still a significant gap in the ability to either remove or burn oil in 30 to 70 percent ice -cover. NMFS should review this gap which is documented in recent oil in ice field studies -completed by SINTEF. - -DATA 11 NMFS should consider review and incorporation of the following document related to energy -development: - -Energy [r]evolution: A Sustainable Energy Outlook: 2010 USA Energy Scenario. -http://www.energyblueprint.info/1239.0.html -http://www.energyblueprint.info/fileadmin/media/documents/national/2010/0910_gpi_E_R__ -usa_report_10_lr.pdf?PHPSESSID=a403f5196a8bfe3a8eaf375d5c936a69 (PDF document, -9.7 MB). - -DATA 12 NMFS should review their previous testimony and comments that the agency has provided on -oil and gas exploration or similarly-related activities to ensure that they are not conflicting -with what is presented in the DEIS. - -• [NMFS should review previous comments on data gaps they have provided] NMFS, -Comments on Minerals Management Service (MMS) Draft EIS for the Chukchi Sea -Planning Area “Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 and Seismic Surveying Activities in the -Chukchi Sea at 2 (Jan. 30, 2007) (NMFS LS 193 Cmts); NMFS, Comments on MMS -Draft EIS for the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas” Oil and Gas Lease -Sales 209, 212, 217, and 221 at 3-5 (March 27, 2009) (NMFS Multi-Sale Cmts). - -• NMFS should review past comment submissions on data gaps, National Oceanic and -Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Comments on the U.S. Department of the -Interior/MMS Draft Proposed Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing -Program for 2010-2015 at 9 (Sept. 9, 2009). - -• Past NEPA documents have concluded that oil and gas exploration in the Chukchi Sea -and Beaufort Sea OCS in conjunction with existing mitigation measures (which do not -include any of the Additional Mitigation Measures) are sufficient to minimize potential -impacts to insignificant levels. - -DATA 13 NMFS should review past comment submissions on data gaps regarding: - -The DPEIS appears not to address or acknowledge the findings of the U.S. Geological Survey -(USGS) June 2011 report “Evaluation of the Science Needs to Inform Decisions on Outer -Continental Shelf Energy Development in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Alaska.” USGS -reinforced that information and data in the Arctic are emerging rapidly, but most studies -focus on subjects with small spatial and temporal extent and are independently conducted -with limited synthesis. USGS recommended that refined regional understanding of climate -change is required to help clarify development scenarios. - -This report found that basic data for many marine mammal species in the Arctic are still -needed, including information on current abundance, seasonal distribution, movements, -population dynamics, foraging areas, sea-ice habitat relationships, and age-specific vital rates. -The need for such fundamental information is apparent even for bowhead whales, one of the -better studied species in the Arctic. The report confirms that more research is also necessary -to accurately assess marine mammal reactions to different types of noise and that more work -is needed to characterize the seasonal and spatial levels of ambient noise in both the Beaufort -and Chukchi seas. Recognizing the scope and importance of the data gaps, the report states - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 30 -Comment Analysis Report - -that missing information serves as a major constraint to a defensible science framework for -critical Arctic decision making. - -Regarding data gaps on Arctic species see, e.g., Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science & -Technology, Addressing the Effects of Human-Generated Sound on Marine Life: An -Integrated Research Plan for U.S. Federal Agencies at 3 (Jan. 13, 2009), available at -http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/oceans-mmnoise-IATF.pdf, -(stating that the current status of science as to noise effects ?often results in estimates of -potential adverse impacts that contain a high degree of uncertainty?); id. at 62-63 (noting the -need for baseline information, particularly for Arctic marine species); - -National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling (Nat’l -Commission), Deep Water: The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling, Report -to the President at vii (Jan. 2011),available at -http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/sites/default/files/documents/DEEPWATER_Reporttothe -President_FINAL.pdf (finding that “[s]cientific understanding of environmental conditions in -sensitive environments . . . in areas proposed for more drilling, such as the Arctic, is -inadequate”); - -National Commission, Offshore Drilling in the Arctic: Background and Issues for the Future -Consideration of Oil and Gas Activities, Staff Working Paper No. 13 at 19,available at -http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Offshore%20Drilling%20in -%20the%20Arctic_Bac -kground%20and%20Issues%20for%20the%20Future%20Consideration%20of%20Oil%20an -d%20Gas%20Activitie s_0.pdf (listing acoustics research on impacts to marine mammals as a -?high priority?) - -DATA 14 NMFS should include further information on the environmental impacts of EM -[Electromagnetic] surveys. Refer to the recently completed environmental impact assessment -of Electromagnetic (EM) Techniques used for oil and gas exploration and production, -available at http://www.iagc.org/EM-EIA. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) -concluded that EM sources as presently used have no potential for significant effects on -animal groups such as fish, seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals. - -DATA 15 NMFS and BOEM risk assessors should consider the National Academy of Sciences report -"Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society." for guidance. There are -other ecological risk assessment experiences and approaches with NOAA, EPA, OMB and -other agencies that would inform development of an improved assessment methodology. -(National Research Council. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic -Society. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1996). - -DATA 16 The following references should be reviewed by NMFS regarding takes and sound level -exposures for marine mammals: - -Richardson et al. (2011) provides a review of potential impacts on marine mammals that -concludes injury (permanent hearing damage) from airguns is extremely unlikely and -behavioral responses are both highly variable and short-term. - -The growing scientific consensus is that seismic sources pose little risk of Level A takes -(Southall, 2010; Richardson et al. 2011). Southall and Richardson recommended a Level A -threshold, 230 dB re: 1 µPa (peak) (flat) (or 198 dB re 1 µPa2-s, sound exposure level) - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 31 -Comment Analysis Report - -The NRC’s expert panel assessment (NRC 2005) and further review as discussed by -Richardson et al (2011) also support this position. - -The level of sound exposure that will induce behavioral responses may not directly equate to -biologically significant disturbance; therefore additional consideration must be directed at -response and significance (NRC 2005; Richardson et al. 2011; Ellison et al. 2011). To further -complicate a determination of an acoustic Level B take, the animal’s surroundings and/or the -activity (feeding, migrating, etc.) being conducted at the time they receive the sound rather -than solely intensity levels may be as important for behavioral responses (Richardson et al -2011). - -DATA 17 Reports regarding estimated reserves of oil and gas and impacts to socioeconomics that -NMFS should consider including in the EIS include: - -NMFS should have consulted with the USGS, which recently issued a report on anticipated -Arctic oil and gas resources (Bird et al. 2008) The USGS estimates that oil and gas reserves -in the Arctic may be significant. This report was not referenced in the DEIS. - -Two studies by Northern Economics and the Institute for Social and Economic Research at -the University of Alaska provide estimation of this magnitude (NE & ISER 2009; NE & -ISER 2011). As a result, socioeconomic benefits are essentially not considered in assessment -of cumulative impacts for any alternative other than the no-action alternative. This material -deficiency in the DEIS must be corrected. - -Stephen R. Braund and Associates. 2009. Impacts and benefits of oil and gas development to -Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Atqasuk Harvesters. Report to the North Slope Borough -Department of Wildlife Management, PAGEO. Box 69, Barrow, AK.) - -DATA 18 NMFS should consider citing newer work by work by Christie et al. 2010 and Koski et al. -2009 related to bowhead reactions to sound: - -NMFS cites information from Richardson et al. (1995) that suggested that migrating bowhead -whales may react at sound levels as low as 120 dB (rms) re 1 uPa but fails to cite newer work -by Christie et al. 2010 and Koski et al. 2009, cited elsewhere in the document, showing that -migrating whales entered and moved through areas ensonified to 120-150 dB (rms) deflecting -only at levels of ~150-160dB. - -For example, on Page 43 Section 4.5.1.4.2 the DEIS cites information from Richardson et al. -(1995) that suggested that migrating bowhead whales may react to sound levels as low as 120 -dB (rms) re 1 uPa, but fails to cite newer work by Christie et al. (2010) and Koski et al. -(2009), cited elsewhere in the document, showing that migrating whales entered and moved -through areas ensonified to 120-150 dB (rms). In these studies bowhead whales deflected -only at levels of ~150 dB (rms). - -As described earlier in this document, the flawed analysis on Page 43 Section 4.5.1.4.2 of the -DEIS cites information from Richardson et al. (1995), but fails to cite newer work (Christie et -al. 2010, Koski et al. 2009) that increases our perspective on the role of sound and its -influences on marine mammals, specifically bowhead whales. - -The first full paragraph of Page 100 indicates that it is not known whether impulsive sounds -affect reproductive rate or distribution and habitat use over periods of days or years. All -evidence indicates that bowhead whale reproductive rates have remained strong despite - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 32 -Comment Analysis Report - -seismic programs being conducted in these waters for several decades (Gerber et al. 2007. -Whales return to these habitat areas each year and continue to use the areas in similar ways. -There has been no documented shift in distribution or use (Blackwell et al. 2010). The data -that have been collected suggest that the impacts are short term and on the scale of hours -rather than days or years (MMS 2007, MMS 2008a). - -DATA 19 The DEIS consistently fails to use new information as part of the impact analysis instead -relying on previous analyses from other NMFS or MMS EIS documents conducted without -the benefit of the new data. This implies a pre-disposition toward acceptance of supposition -formed from overly conservative views without the benefit of robust review and toward -rejection of any data not consistent with these views. - -DATA 20 NMFS should consider the incorporation of marine mammal concentration area maps -provided as comments to the DEIS (by Oceana) as strong evidence for robust time and area -closures should NMFS decide to move forward with approval of industrial activities in the -Arctic. While the maps in the DEIS share some of the same sources as the enclosed maps, the -concentration areas presented in the above referenced maps reflect additional new -information, corrections, and discussions with primary researchers. These maps are based in -part on the Arctic Marine Synthesis developed previously, but include some new areas and -significant changes to others. - -DATA 21 NMFS should consider an updated literature search for the pack ice and ice gouges section of -the EIS: - -Pages 3-6 to 3-7, Section 3.1.2.4 Pack Ice and Ice Gouges: An updated literature search -should be completed for this section. In particular additional data regarding ice gouging -published by MMS and Weeks et. al should be noted. The DEIS emphasizes ice gouging in -20-30 meter water depth: "A study of ice gouging in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea showed that -the maximum number of gouges occur in the 20 to 30m (66 to 99 ft) water-depth range -(Machemehl and Jo 1989)." However, an OCS study commissioned by MMS (2006-059) -noted that Leidersdorf, et al., (2001) examined ice gouges in shallower waters: 48 ice gouges -exceeding the minimum measurement threshold of 0.1 m [that were] detected in the Northstar -pipeline corridor. These were all in shallower waters (< 12 m) and the maximum incision -depth was 0.4 m. "In all four years, however, measurable gouges were confined to water -depths exceeding 5 m." These results are consistent with the earlier work, and these results -are limited to shallow water. Thus, this study will rely on the earlier work by Weeks et al. -which includes deeper gouges and deeper water depths. (Alternative Oil Spill Occurrence -Estimators for the Beaufort/Chukchi Sea OCS (Statistical Approach) MMS Contract Number -1435 - 01 - 00 - PO - 17141 September 5, 2006 TGE Consulting: Ted G. Eschenbach and -William V. Harper). The DEIS should also reference the work by Weeks, including: Weeks, -W.F., P.W. Barnes, D.M. Rearic, and E. Reimnitz, 1984, "Some Probabilistic Aspects of Ice -Gouging on the Alaskan Shelf of the Beaufort Sea," The Alaskan Beaufort Sea: Ecosystems -and Environments, Academic Press. Weeks, W.F., P.W. Barnes, D.M. Rearic, and E. -Reimnitz, June 1983, "Some Probabilistic Aspects of Ice Gouging on the Alaskan Shelf of the -Beaufort Sea," US Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. - -DATA 22 NMFS should consider revisions to the EIS based on data provided below regarding ice seals: - -Page 4-387, Pinnipeds: Ringed seals and some bearded seals spend a fair amount of time -foraging in the open ocean during maximum ice retreat (NSB unpublished data, -http://www.north¬ -slope.org/departments/wildlife/Walrus%201ce%20Seals.php#RingedSeal, Crawford et al. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 33 -Comment Analysis Report - -2011, ADF&G unpublished data). Bearded seals are not restricted to foraging only in shallow -areas on a benthic diet. Consumption of pelagic prey items does occur (ADF&G unpublished -data, Lentfer 1988). - -Pages 4-388 Pinnipeds, and 4-392, Ringed Seal: Ringed seals are known to persist in the -offshore pack ice during all times of the year (Crawford et al. 2011, NSB unpublished data, -Lenter 1988). It has actually been suggested that there are two ecotypes, those that make a -living in the pack ice and shore fast ice animals. This should be stated in one of these -sections. - -NOAA, 2011 Arctic Seal Disease Outbreak Fact Sheet (updated Nov. 22, 2011) (Arctic Seal -Outbreak Fact Sheet), available at -http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/seals/ice/diseased/ume022012.pdf. NMFS -has officially declared an “unusual mortality event” for ringed seals. - -DATA 23 NMFS should consider incorporation of the following references regarding vessel impacts on -marine mammals: - -Renilson, M., Reducing underwater noise pollution from large commercial vessels (2009) -available at www.ifaw.org/oceannoise/reports; Southall, B.L., and Scholik-Schlomer, A. eds. -Final Report of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) International -Symposium: Potential Application of Vessel Quieting Technology on Large Commercial -Vessels, 1-2 May 2007, at Silver Springs, Maryland (2008) available at -http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/acoustics/vessel_symposium_report.pdf. - -[refs regarding vessel speed limits] Laist, D.W., Knowlton, A.R., Mead, J.G., Collet, A.S., -and Podesta, M., Collisions between ships and whales, Marine Mammal Science 17:35-75 -(2001); Pace, R.M., and Silber, G.K., Simple analyses of ship and large whale collisions: -Does speed kill? Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, December 2005, -San Diego, CA. (2005) (abstract); Vanderlaan, A.S.M., and Taggart, C.T., Vessel collisions -with whales: The probability of lethal injury based on vessel speed. Marine Mammal Science -23:144-156 (2007); Renilson, M., Reducing underwater noise pollution from large -commercial vessels (2009) available at www.ifaw.org/oceannoise/reports; Southall, B.L., and -Scholik-Schlomer, A. eds. Final Report of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric -Administration (NOAA) International Symposium: Potential Application of Vessel-Quieting -Technology on Large Commercial Vessels, 1-2 May 2007, at Silver Springs, Maryland -(2008), available at -http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/acoustics/vessel_symposium_report.pdf; Thompson, -M.A., Cabe, B., Pace III, R.M., Levenson, J., and Wiley, D., Vessel compliance and -commitment with speed regulations in the US Cape Cod Bay and off Race Point Right Whale -Seasonal Management Areas. Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, -November-December 2011, Tampa, FL (2011) (abstract); National Marine Fisheries Service, -NOAA. 2010 Large Whale Ship Strikes Relative to Vessel Speed. Prepared within NOAA -Fisheries to support the Ship Strike Reduction Program (2010), available at -http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/shipstrike/ss_speed.pdf. - -[aerial monitoring and/or fixed hydrophone arrays] Id.; Hatch, L., Clark, C., Merrick, R., Van -Parijs, S., Ponirakis, D., Schwehr, K., Thompson, M., and Wiley, D., Characterizing the -relative contributions of large vessels to total ocean noise fields: a case study using the Gerry -E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, Environmental Management 42:735- -752 (2008). - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 34 -Comment Analysis Report - -DATA 24 NMFS should review the references below regarding alternative technologies: - -Among the [alternative] technologies discussed in the 2009 [Okeanos] workshop report are -engineering modifications to airguns, which can cut emissions at frequencies not needed for -exploration; controlled sources, such as marine vibroseis, which can dramatically lower the -peak sound currently generated by airguns by spreading it over time; various non-acoustic -sources, such as electromagnetic and passive seismic devices, which in certain contexts can -eliminate the need for sound entirely; and fiber-optic receivers, which can reduce the need for -intense sound at the source by improving acquisition at the receiver. An industry-sponsored -report by Noise Control Engineering made similar findings about the availability of greener -alternatives to seismic airguns, as well as alternatives to a variety of other noise sources used -in oil and gas exploration. - -Spence, J., Fischer, R., Bahtiarian, M., Boroditsky, L., Jones, N., and Dempsey, R., Review -of existing and future potential treatments for reducing underwater sound from oil and gas -industry activities (2007) (NCE Report 07-001) (prepared by Noise Control Engineering for -Joint Industry Programme on E&P Sound and Marine Life). Despite the promise indicated in -the 2007 and 2010 reports, neither NMFS nor BOEM has attempted to develop noise- -reduction technology for seismic or any other noise source, aside from BOEM’s failed -investigation of mobile bubble curtains. - -[alternative technologies] Tenghamn, R., An electrical marine vibrator with a flextensional -shell, Exploration Geophysics 37:286-291 (2006); LGL and Marine Acoustics, -Environmental assessment of marine vibroseis (2011) (Joint Industry Programme contract 22 -07-12). - -DATA 25 NMFS should review the references below regarding masking: - -Clark, C.W., Ellison, W.T., Southall, B.L., Hatch, L., van Parijs, S., Frankel, A., and -Ponirakis, D., Acoustic masking in marine ecosystems as a function of anthropogenic sound -sources (2009) (IWC Sci. Comm. Doc.SC/61/E10); Clark, C.W., Ellison, W.T., Southall, -B.L., Hatch, L., Van Parijs, S.M., Frankel, A., and Ponirakis, D., Acoustic masking in marine -ecosystems: intuitions, analysis, and implication, Marine Ecology Progress Series 395: 201- -222 (2009); Williams, R., Ashe, E., Clark, C.W., Hammond, P.S., Lusseau, D., and Ponirakis, -D., Inextricably linked: boats, noise, Chinook salmon and killer whale recovery in the -northeast Pacific, presentation given at the Society for Marine Mammalogy Biennial -Conference, Tampa, Florida, Nov. 29, 2011 (2011). - -DATA 26 NMFS should review the references below regarding acoustic thresholds: - -[criticism of threshold’s basis in RMS]Madsen, P.T., Marine mammals and noise: Problems -with root-mean-squared sound pressure level for transients, Journal of the Acoustical Society -of America 117:3952-57 (2005). - -Tyack, P.L., Zimmer, W.M.X., Moretti, D., Southall, B.L., Claridge, D.E., Durban, J.W., -Clark, C.W., D’Amico, A., DiMarzio, N., Jarvis, S., McCarthy, E., Morrissey, R., Ward, J., -and Boyd, I.L., Beaked whales respond to simulated and actual Navy sonar, PLoS ONE -6(3):e17009.doi:10.13371/journal.pone.0017009 (2011)(beaked whales); Miller, P.J., -Kvadsheim, P., Lam., F.-P.A., Tyack, P.L., Kuningas, S., Wensveen, P.J., Antunes, R.N., -Alves, A.C., Kleivane, L., Ainslie, M.A., and Thomas, L., Developing dose-response -relationships for the onset of avoidance of sonar by free-ranging killer whales (Orcinus orca), -presentation given at the Society for Marine Mammalogy Biennial Conference, Tampa, - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 35 -Comment Analysis Report - -Florida, Dec. 2, 2011 (killer whales); Miller, P., Antunes, R., Alves, A.C., Wensveen, P., -Kvadsheim, P., Kleivane, L., Nordlund, N., Lam, F.-P., van Ijsselmuide, S., Visser, F., and -Tyack, P., The 3S experiments: studying the behavioural effects of navy sonar on killer -whales (Orcinus orca), sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus), and long-finned pilot whales -(Globicephala melas) in Norwegian waters, Scottish Oceans Institute Tech. Rep. SOI-2011- -001, available at soi.st-andrews.ac.uk (killer whales). See also, e.g., Fernandez, A., Edwards, -J.F., Rodriguez, F., Espinosa de los Monteros, A., Herrez, P., Castro, P., Jaber, J.R., Martin, -V., and Arbelo, M., Gas and Fat Embolic Syndrome - Involving a Mass Stranding of Beaked -Whales (Family Ziphiidae) Exposed to Anthropogenic Sonar Signals, Veterinary Pathology -42:446 (2005); Jepson, P.D., Arbelo, M., Deaville, R., Patterson, I.A.P., Castro, P., Baker, -J.R., Degollada, E., Ross, H.M., Herrez, P., Pocknell, A.M., Rodriguez, F., Howie, F.E., -Espinosa, A., Reid, R.J., Jaber, J.R., Martin, V., Cunningham, A.A., and Fernandez, A., Gas- -Bubble Lesions in Stranded Cetaceans, 425 Nature 575-576 (2003); Evans, P.G.H., and -Miller, L.A., eds., Proceedings of the Workshop on Active Sonar and Cetaceans (2004) -(European Cetacean Society publication); Southall, B.L., Braun, R., Gulland, F.M.D., Heard, -A.D., Baird, R.W., Wilkin, S.M., and Rowles, T.K., Hawaiian Melon-Headed Whale -(Peponacephala electra) Mass Stranding Event of July 3-4, 2004 (2006) (NOAA Tech. -Memo. NMFS-OPR-31). - -DATA 27 NMFS should review the references below regarding real-time passive acoustic monitoring to -reduce ship strike: - -Abramson, L., Polefka, S., Hastings, S., and Bor, K., Reducing the Threat of Ship Strikes on -Large Cetaceans in the Santa Barbara Channel Region and Channel Islands National Marine -Sanctuary: Recommendations and Case Studies (2009) (Marine Sanctuaries Conservation -Series ONMS-11-01); Silber, G.K., S. Bettridge, and D. Cottingham, Report of a workshop to -identify and assess technologies to reduce ship strikes of large whales. Providence, Rhode -Island, July 8-10, 2008 (2009) (NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-OPR-42). - -Lusseau, D., Bain, D.E., Williams, R., and Smith, J.C., Vessel traffic disrupts the foraging -behavior of southern resident killer whales Orcinus orca, Endangered Species Research 6: -211-221 (2009); Williams, R., Lusseau, D. and Hammond, P.S., Estimating relative energetic -costs of human disturbance to killer whales (Orcinus orca), Biological Conservation 133: -301-311 (2006); Miller, P.J.O., Johnson, M.P., Madsen, P.T., Biassoni, N., Quero, -[energetics] M., and Tyack, P.L., Using at-sea experiments to study the effects of airguns on -the foraging behavior of sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico, Deep-Sea Research I 56: 1168- -1181 (2009). See also Mayo, C.S., Page, M., Osterberg, D., and Pershing, A., On the path to -starvation: the effects of anthropogenic noise on right whale foraging success, North Atlantic -Right Whale Consortium: Abstracts of the Annual Meeting (2008) (finding that decrements -in North Atlantic right whale sensory range due to shipping noise have a larger impact on -food intake than patch-density distribution and are likely to compromise fitness). - -[mid-frequency, ship strike] Nowacek, D.P., Johnson, M.P., and Tyack, P.L., North Atlantic -right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) ignore ships but respond to alerting stimuli, Proceedings of -the Royal Society of London, Part B: Biological Sciences 271:227 (2004). - -DATA 28 NMFS should review the references below regarding terrestrial mammals and stress response: - -Chang, E.F., and Merzenich, M.M., Environmental Noise Retards Auditory Cortical -Development, 300 Science 498 (2003) (rats); Willich, S.N., Wegscheider, K., Stallmann, M., -and Keil, T., Noise Burden and the Risk of Myocardial Infarction, European Heart Journal -(2005) (Nov. 24, 2005) (humans); Harrington, F.H., and Veitch, A.M., Calving Success of - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 36 -Comment Analysis Report - -Woodland Caribou Exposed to Low-Level Jet Fighter Overflights, Arctic 45:213 (1992) -(caribou). - -DATA 29 NMFS should review the references below regarding the inappropriate reliance on adaptive -management: - -Taylor, B.L., Martinez, M., Gerrodette, T., Barlow, J., and Hrovat, Y.N., Lessons from -monitoring trends in abundance of marine mammals, Marine Mammal Science 23:157-175 -(2007). - -DATA 30 NMFS should review the references below regarding climate change and polar bears: - -Durner, G. M., et al., Predicting 21st-century polar bear habitat distribution from global -climate models. Ecological Monographs, 79(1):25-58 (2009). - -R. F. Rockwell, L. J. Gormezano, The early bear gets the goose: climate change, polar bears -and lesser snow geese in western Hudson Bay, Polar Biology, 32:539-547 (2009). - -DATA 31 NMFS should review the references below regarding climate change and the impacts of black -carbon: - -Anne E. Gore & Pamela A. Miller, Broken Promises: The Reality of Oil Development in -America’s Arctic at 41 (Sep. 2009) (Broken Promises). - -EPA, Report to Congress on Black Carbon External Peer Review Draft at 12-1 (March 2011) -(Black Carbon Report), available at -http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/05011472499C2FB28525774A0074DADE/$Fil -e/BC%20RTC%20Ext ernal%20Peer%20Review%20Draft-opt.pdf. See D. Hirdman et al., -Source Identification of Short-Lived Air Pollutants in the Arctic Using Statistical Analysis of -Measurement Data and Particle Dispersion Model Output, 10 Atmos. Chem. Phys. 669 -(2010). - -DATA 32 NMFS should review the references below regarding air pollution: - -Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10, Supplemental Statement of Basis for -Proposed OCS Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits Noble Discoverer Drillship, -Shell Offshore Inc., Beaufort Sea Exploration Drilling Program, Permit No. R10OCS/PSD- -AK-2010-01, Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc., Chukchi Sea Exploration Drilling Program, Permit -No. R10OCS/PSD-AK-09-01 at 65 (July 6, 2011) (Discoverer Suppl. Statement of Basis -2011), available at http://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/permits/shell/discoverer_supplemental_ -statement_of_basis_chukchi_and_beaufort_air_permits_070111.pdf. 393 EPA Region 10, -Technical Support Document, Review of Shell’s Supplemental Ambient Air Quality Impact -Analysis for the Discoverer OCS Permit Applications in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas at 8 -(Jun. 24, 2011)(Discoverer Technical Support Document), available at -http://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/permits/shell/discoverer_ambient_air_quality_impact_anal -ysis_06242011.pdf. 394 EPA, An Introduction to Indoor Air Quality: Nitrogen Dioxide, -available at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/no2.html#Health Effects Associated with Nitrogen -Dioxide 396 EPA, Particulate Matter: Health, available at -http://www.epa.gov/oar/particlepollution/health.html - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 37 -Comment Analysis Report - -DATA 33 NMFS should review the references below regarding introduction of non-native species: - -S. Gollasch, The importance of ship hull fouling as a vector of species introductions into the -North Sea, Biofouling 18(2):105-121 (2002); National Research Council, Stemming the Tide: -Controlling Introductions of Nonindigenous Species by Ships Ballast Water (1996) -(recognizing that the spread of invasive species through ballast water is a serious problem). - -DATA 34 In the Final EIS, NMFS should consider new information regarding the EPA Region 10's -Beaufort (AKG-28-2100) and Chukchi (AKG-28-8100) General Permits. Although not final, -EPA is in the process of soliciting public comment on the fact sheets and draft permits and -this information may be useful depending on the timing of the issuance of the final EIS. Links -to the fact sheets, draft permits, and other related documents can be found at: -http://yosemite.epa.gov/r I 0/water.nsl/nodes+public+notices/arctic-gp-pn-2012. - -DATA 35 NMFS should review the reference below regarding characterization of subsistence -areas/activities for Kotzebue: - -Whiting, A., D. Griffith, S. Jewett, L. Clough, W. Ambrose, and J. Johnson. 2011. -Combining Inupiaq and Scientific Knowledge: Ecology in Northern Kotzebue Sound, Alaska. -Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks, SG-ED-72, Fairbanks. 71 pp, for a more -accurate representation, especially for Kotzebue Sound uses. - -Crawford, J. A., K. J. Frost, L. T. Quakenbush, and A. Whiting. 201.2. Different habitat use -strategies by subadult and adult ringed seals (Phoca hispida} in the Bering and Chukchi seas. -Polar Biology 35{2):241-255. - -DATA 36 NMFS should review the references below regarding Ecosystem-Based Management: - -Environmental Law Institute. Intergrated Ecosystem-Based Management of the US. Arctic -Marine Environment- Assessing the Feasibility of Program and Development and -Implementation (2008) - -Siron, Robert et al. Ecosystem-Based Management in the Arctic Ocean: A Multi¬ Level -Spatial Approach, Arctic Vol. 61, Suppl 1 (2008) (pp 86-102)2 - -Norwegian Polar Institute. Best Practices in Ecosystem-based Oceans Management in the -Arctic, Report Series No. 129 (2009) - -The Aspen Institute Energy and Environment Program. The Shared Future: A Report of the -Aspen Institute Commission on Arctic Climate Change (2011) - -DATA 37 NMFS should consider the following information regarding the use of a multi-pulse standard -for behavioral harassment, since it does not take into account the spreading of seismic pulses -over time beyond a certain distance from the array. NMFS‘ own Open Water Panel for the -Arctic has twice characterized the seismic airgun array as a mixed impulsive/continuous -noise source and has stated that NMFS should evaluate its impacts on that basis. That -analysis is supported by the masking effects model referenced above, in which several NMFS -scientists have participated; by a Scripps study, showing that seismic exploration in the Arctic -has raised ambient noise levels on the Chukchi Sea continental slope (see infra); and, we -expect, by the modeling efforts of NOAA Sound Mapping working group, whose work will -be completed this April or May. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 38 -Comment Analysis Report - -DATA 38 NMFS is asked to review the use of the reference Richardson 1995, on page 4-86, as support -for its statements. NMFS should revise the document to account for Southall et al's 2007 -paper on Effects of Noise on Marine Mammals. - -DATA 39 The Final EIS should include updated data sources including: - -• Preliminary results from the Kotzebue Air Toxics Monitoring Study which should be -available from the DEC shortly. - -• Data collected from the Red Dog Mine lead monitoring program in Noatak and Kivalina. - -DATA 40 Page 4-21, paragraph three should reference the recently issued Ocean Discharge Criteria -Evaluation (ODCE) that accompanies the draft Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea NPDES -General Permits, which has more recent dispersal modeling. They should also be referenced -in the Final EIS to clarify the “increased concentration” language used on page 4-56. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 39 -Comment Analysis Report - -Discharge (DCH) -DCH Comments regarding discharge levels, including requests for zero discharge requirements, - -and deep waste injection wells. Does not include contamination of subsistence resources. - -DCH 1 It is not clear how NMFS and BOEM can address the persistence of pollutants, -bioaccumulation, and vulnerability of biological communities without the benefit of EPA -evaluation. The proposed zero discharge mandate described in the Arctic DEIS may be -lacking EPA's critical input on the matter, possibly contradicting EPA's direction based on the -pending ODCE evaluation. - -DCH 2 The DEIS should not use the term “zero discharge” as there will be some discharges under -any exploration scenario. The use of this term can be confusing to the public. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 40 -Comment Analysis Report - -Editorial (EDI) -EDI Comments associated with specific text edits to the document. - -EDI 1 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into the Executive Summary. - -EDI 2 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 1. - -EDI 3 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 2. - -EDI 4 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 3 – Physical -Environment. - -EDI 5 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 3 – Biological -Environment. - -EDI 6 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 3 – Social -Environment. - -EDI 7 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Methodology. - -EDI 8 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Physical -Environment. - -EDI 9 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Biological -Environment. - -EDI 10 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Social -Environment. - -EDI 11 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Oil Spill Analysis. - -EDI 12 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 4 – Cumulative Effects -Analysis. - -EDI 13 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Chapter 5 – Mitigation. - -EDI 14 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into the figures in the EIS. - -EDI 15 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into the tables in the EIS. - -EDI 16 NMFS should consider incorporating the following edits into Appendix A of the EIS. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 41 -Comment Analysis Report - -Physical Environment – General (GPE) -GPE Comments related to impacts on resources within the physical environment (Physical - -Oceanography, Climate, Acoustics, and Environmental Contaminants & Ecosystem -Functions ) - -GPE 1 The EIS should include an analysis of impacts associated with climate change and ocean -acidification including: - -• Addressing threats to species and associated impacts for the bowhead whale, pacific -walrus, and other Arctic species. - -• Effects of loss of sea ice cover, seasonally ice-free conditions on the availability of -subsistence resources to Arctic communities. - -• Increased community stress, including loss of subsistence resources and impacts to ice -cellars. - -GPE 2 Oil and gas activities can release numerous pollutants into the atmosphere. Greater emissions -of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide could triple ozone levels in the Arctic, and increased -black carbon emissions would result in reduced ice reflectivity that could exacerbate the -decline of sea ice. The emission of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5), including black carbon, is -a human health threat. Cumulative impacts will need to be assessed. - -GPE 3 A more detailed analysis should be conducted to assess how interactions between high ice -and low ice years and oil and gas activities, would impact various resources (sea ice, lower -trophic levels, fish/EFH, or marine mammals). - -GPE 4 Recommendations should be made to industry engineering and risk analysts to ensure that -well design is deep enough to withstand storms and harsh environment based on past -experience of workers. - -GPE 5 The NMFS needs to revise the Environmental Consequences analysis presented in the DEIS -since it overstates the potential for impacts from sounds introduced into the water by oil and -gas exploration activity on marine mammals. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 42 -Comment Analysis Report - -Social Environment – General (GSE) -GSE Comments related to impacts on resources within the social environment (Public Health, - -Cultural, Land Ownership/Use/Management, Transportation, Recreation and Tourism, Visual -Resources, and Environmental Justice) - -GSE 1 The potential short- and long-term benefits from oil and gas development have been -understated in the DEIS and do not take into account the indirect jobs and business generated -by increased oil and gas activity. By removing restrictions on seismic surveys and oil and gas -drilling, there will be an increase in short- and long-term employment and economic stability. - -GSE 2 The current environmental justice analysis is inadequate, and NMFS has downplayed the -overall threat to the Iñupiat people. The agency does not adequately address the following: - -• The combined impacts of air pollution, water pollution, sociocultural impacts -(disturbance of subsistence practices), and economic impacts on Iñupiat people; - -• The baseline health conditions of local communities and how it may be impacted by the -proposed oil and gas activities; - -• Potential exposure to toxic chemicals and diminished air quality; -• The unequal burden and risks imposed on Iñupiat communities; and -• The analysis fails to include all Iñupiat communities. - -GSE 3 Current and up to date health information should be evaluated and presented in the human -health assessments. Affected communities have a predisposition and high susceptibility to -health problems that need to be evaluated and considered when NMFS develops alternatives -and mitigation measures to address impacts. - -GSE 4 When developing alternatives and mitigation measures, NMFS needs to consider the length -of the work season since a shorter period will increase the risks to workers. - -GSE 5 The DEIS does not address how the proceeds from offshore oil and gas drilling will be shared -with affected communities through revenue sharing, royalties, and taxes. - -GSE 6 The DEIS should broaden the evaluation of impacts of land and water resources beyond -subsistence. There are many diverse water and land uses that will be restricted or prevented -because of specific requirements in the proposed alternatives. - -GSE 7 The conclusion of negligible or minor cumulative impacts on transportation for Alternative 4 -was not substantiated in the DEIS. The impacts to access, restrictions on vessel traffic, -seismic survey, exploration drilling and ancillary services transportation are severely -restricted both in time and in areal/geographic extent. (page 4-551, paragraph 1). - -GSE 8 The Draft EIS should not assume that any delay in exploration activity compromises property -rights or immediately triggers compensation from the government. Offshore leases do not -convey a fee simple interest with a guarantee that exploration activities will take place. As the -Supreme Court recognized, OCSLA‘s plain language indicates that the purchase of a lease -entails no right to proceed with full exploration, development, or production. - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 43 -Comment Analysis Report - -Habitat (HAB) -HAB Comments associated with habitat requirements, or potential habitat impacts from seismic - -activities and exploratory drilling. Comment focus is habitat, not animals. - -HAB 1 NMFS should consider an ecosystem-based management plan to protect habitat for the -bowhead whale and other important wildlife subsistence species of the Arctic. - -HAB 2 The DEIS should include a rigorous and comprehensive analysis of the increased risk of -introducing aquatic invasive species to the Beaufort and Chukchi seas through increased oil -and gas activities. NMFS should consider: - -• Invasive species could be released in ballast water, carried on ship's hulls, or on drill rigs. -• Invasive species could compete with or prey on Arctic marine fish or shellfish species, - -which may disrupt the ecosystem and predators that depend on indigenous species for -food. - -• Invasive species could impact the biological structure of bottom habitat or change habitat -diversity. - -• Invasive species, such as rats, could prey upon seabirds or their eggs. -• Establishment of a harmful invasive species could threaten Alaska’s economic well- - -being. -• The analysis of impacts resulting from the introduction of invasive species is ambiguous - -as to how the resulting impact conclusion would be “moderate” instead of “major.” The -EIS should be revised to reflect these concerns. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 44 -Comment Analysis Report - -Iñupiat Culture and Way of Life (ICL) -ICL Comments related to potential cultural impacts or desire to maintain traditional practices - -(PEOPLE). - -ICL 1 Industrial activities (such as oil and gas exploration and production) jeopardize the long-term -health and culture of native communities. Specific concerns include: - -• Impacts to Arctic ecosystems and the associated subsistence resources from pollutants, -noise, and vessel traffic; - -• Community and family level cultural impacts related to the subsistence way of life; -• Preserving resources for future generations. - -ICL 2 Native communities would be heavily impacted if a spill occurs, depriving them of -subsistence resources. NMFS should consider the impact of an oil spill when deciding upon -an alternative. - -ICL 3 Native communities are at risk for changes from multiple threats, including climate change, -increased industrialization, access to the North Slope, melting ice, and stressed wildlife. -These threats are affecting Inupiat traditional and cultural uses and NMFS should stop -authorizing offshore oil and gas related activities until these threats to Iñupiat culture are -addressed. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 45 -Comment Analysis Report - -Mitigation Measures (MIT) -MIT Comments related to suggestions for or implementation of mitigation measures. - -MIT 1 Mitigation measures should be mandatory for all activities, rather than on a case-by-case -basis. Currently identified areas with high wildlife and subsistence values should also receive -permanent deferrals, including Camden Bay, Barrow Canyon/Western Beaufort Sea, Hanna -Shoal, shelf break at the Beaufort Sea, and Kasegaluk Lagoon/Ledyard Bay Critical Habitat -Unit. - -MIT 2 The proposed mitigation measures will severely compromise the economic feasibility of -developing oil and gas in the Alaska OCS: - -• Limiting activity to only two exploration drilling programs in each the Chukchi and -Beaufort seas during a single season would lock out other lease holders and prevent them -from pursuing development of their leases. - -• Arbitrary end dates for prospective operations effectively restrict exploration in Camden -Bay by removing 54 percent of the drilling season. - -• Acoustic restrictions extend exclusion zones and curtail lease block access (e.g., studies -by JASCO Applied Sciences Ltd in 2010 showed a 120 dB safety zone with Hanna Shoal -as the center would prevent Statoil from exercising its lease rights because the buffer -zone would encompass virtually all of the leases. A 180 dB buffer zone could still have a -significant negative impact on lease rights depending on how the buffer zone was -calculated). - -• Special Habitat Areas arbitrarily restrict lease block access. -• Arbitrary seasonal closures would effectively reduce the brief open water season by up to - -50 percent in some areas of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. -• The realistic drilling window for offshore operations in the Arctic is typically 70 - 150 - -days. Any infringement on this could result in insufficient time to complete drilling -operations. - -• Timing restrictions associated with Additional Mitigation Measures (e.g., D1, B1) would -significantly reduce the operational season. - -MIT 3 Many mitigation measures are unclear or left open to agency interpretation, expanding -uncertainties for future exploration or development. - -MIT 4 The DEIS includes mitigation measures which would mandate portions of CAAs with broad -impacts to operations. Such a requirement supersedes the authority of NMFS. - -MIT 5 Limiting access to our natural resources is not an appropriate measure and should not be -considered. - -MIT 6 A specially equipped, oceangoing platform(s) is needed to carry out the prevention, -diagnosis, and treatment of disease in marine animals, including advanced action to promote -population recovery of threatened and endangered species, to restore marine ecosystems -health, and to enhance marine animal welfare. Activities could include: - -• Response to marine environmental disasters and incidents; in particular oil spills by -rescue and decontamination of oil-fouled birds, pinnipeds, otters, and other sea life. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 46 -Comment Analysis Report - -• Rescue, treatment and freeing of sea turtles, pinnipeds, cetaceans, and otters that become -entangled in sport fishing lines, commercial fishing gear, and/or marine debris. - -• General pathobiological research on marine animals to advance basic knowledge of their -diseases and to identify promising avenues for treatment. Specialized pathobiological -research on those marine animals known to provide useful sentinels for toxicological and -other hazards to human health. - -• Evaluation of the safety of treatment modalities for marine animals, including in -particular large balaenopterids. This will have as its ultimate aim countering problems of -climate change and ecosystems deterioration by therapeutic enhancement of the -ecosystems services contributed by now depleted populations of Earth’s largest and most -powerful mammals. - -• Pending demonstration of safety, offshore deployment of fast boats and expert personnel -for the treatment of a known endemic parasitic disease threatening the health and -population recovery of certain large balaenopterids. - -• Rapid transfer by helicopter of technical experts in disentanglement of large whales to -offshore sites not immediately accessible from land-based facilities. Rapid transfer by -helicopter of diseased and injured marine animals to land-based veterinary hospitals. - -• Coordination with U.S. Coast Guard’s OCEAN STEWARD mission to reduce the burden -on government in this area and to implement more fully the policy of the United States -promulgated by Executive Order 13547. - -MIT 7 Considering current and ongoing oil and gas exploration disasters, how can the public be -assured of the safety and effectiveness of Arctic environmental safety and mitigation -strategies? - -MIT 8 Mitigation distances and thresholds for seismic surveys are inadequate as they fall far short of -where significant marine mammal disturbances are known to occur. More stringent -mitigation measures are needed to keep oil and gas activities in the Arctic from having more -than a negligible impact. - -MIT 9 There is no need for additional mitigation measures: - -• The DEIS seeks to impose mitigation measures on activities that are already proven to be -adequately mitigated and shown to pose little to no risk to either individual animals or -populations. - -• Many of these mitigation measures are of questionable effectiveness and/or benefit, some -are simply not feasible, virtually all fall outside the bounds of any reasonable cost-benefit -consideration, most are inadequately evaluated. - -• The additional mitigation measures are too restrictive and could result in serving as the -No Action alternative. - -• These additional mitigation measures far exceed the scope of NMFS' authority. - -MIT 10 The EIS should reflect that Active Acoustic Monitoring should be further studied, but it is not -yet ready to be imposed as a mitigation measure. - -MIT 11 Because NMFS is already requiring Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) as a monitoring or -mitigation requirement during the NMFS’ regulation of offshore seismic and sonar, and in -conjunction with Navy sonar, we recommend that the NMFS emphasize the availability and -encourage the use of PAMGUARD in all NMFS’ actions requiring or recommending the use -of PAM. PAMGUARD is an open source, highly tested, and well documented version of -PAM that is an acceptable method of meeting any PAM requirements or recommendations. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 47 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 12 If Kotzebue is included in the EIS area because it is an eligible area for exploration activities, -then the DEIS needs to include recommendations for mitigating impacts through exclusion -areas, or timing issues, including: - -• Remove the Hope Basin from the EIS area; and -• Develop and include additional area/time closures/restrictions for nearshore Kotzebue - -Sound and for Point Hope and Kivalina in the Final EIS. - -MIT 13 There should be no on-ice discharge of drilling muds due to the concentrated nature of waste -and some likely probability of directly contacting marine mammals or other wildlife like -arctic foxes and birds. Even if the muds are considered non-toxic, the potential for fouling fur -and feathers and impeding thermal regulation properties seems a reasonable concern. - -MIT 14 There should be communication centers in the villages during bowhead and beluga hunting if -subsistence hunters find this useful and desirable. - -MIT 15 The benefits of concurrent ensonification areas need to be given more consideration in -regards to 15 mile vs. 90 mile separation distances. It is not entirely clear what the -cost/benefit result is on this issue, including: - -• Multiple simultaneous surveys in several areas across the migratory corridor could result -in a broader regional biological and subsistence impact -deflection could occur across a -large area of feeding habitat. - -• Potential benefit would depend on the trajectory of migrating animals in relation to the -activity and total area ensonified. - -• Consideration needs to be given to whether mitigation is more effective if operations are -grouped together or spread across a large area. - -MIT 16 Use mitigation measures that are practicable and produce real world improvement on the -level and amount of negative impacts. Do not use those that theoretically sound good or look -good or feel good, but that actually result in an improved situation. Encourage trials of new -avoidance mechanisms. - -MIT 17 Trained dogs are the most effective means of finding ringed seal dens and breathing holes in -Kotzebue Sound so should be used to clear path for on-ice roads or other on-ice activities. - -MIT 18 The potential increased risk associated with the timing that vessels can enter exploration areas -needs to be considered: - -• A delayed start could increase the risk of losing control of a VLOS that will more likely -occur at the end of the season when environmental conditions (ice and freezing -temperatures) rapidly become more challenging and hazardous. - -• Operators could stage at leasing areas but hold off on exploration activity until July l5 or -until Point Lay beluga hunt is completed. - -MIT 19 The proposed time/area closures are insufficient to protect areas of ecological and cultural -significance. Alternatives in the final EIS that consider any level of industrial activity should -include permanent subsistence and ecological deferral areas in addition to time and place -restrictions, including: - -• Hanna and Herald shoals, Barrow Canyon, and the Chukchi Sea ice lead system - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 48 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 20 The DEIS should definitively establish the full suite of mandatory mitigation measures for -each alternative that will be required for any given site-specific activity, instead of listing a -series of mitigation measures that may or may not apply to site-specific actions. - -• NMFS should ensure that mitigation measures are in place prior to starting any activity -rather than considering mitigation measures on a case by case basis later in the process -when it is more difficult as activities have advanced in planning. - -• Make additional mitigation measures standard and include both for any level of activity -that includes, at a minimum, those activities described in Section 2.4.9 and 2.4.10 of the -DEIS. - -• Mitigation measures required previously by IHAs (e.g., a 160dB vessel monitoring zone -for whales during shallow hazard surveys) show it is feasible for operators to perform -these measures. - -• NMFS should require a full suite of standard mitigation measures for every take -authorization issued by the agency and they should also be included under the terms and -conditions for the BOEM’s issuance of geological and geophysical permits and ancillary -activity and exploratory drilling approvals. - -• A number of detection-based measures should be standardized (e.g., sound source -verification, PAM). - -• Routing vessels around important habitat should be standard. - -MIT 21 NMFS could mitigate the risk ice poses by including seasonal operating restrictions in the -Final EIS and preferred alternative. - -MIT 22 The identified time/area closures (Alternative 4 and Additional Mitigation Measure B1) are -unwarranted, arbitrary measures in search of an adverse impact that does not exist. These -closures would severely negatively impact seismic and exploration program activities: - -• The DEIS does not identify any data or other scientific information establishing that past, -present, or reasonably anticipated oil and gas activity in these areas has had, or is likely to -have, either more than a negligible impact on marine mammals or any unmitigable -adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence activities. - -• There is no information about what levels of oil and gas activity are foreseeably expected -to occur in the identified areas in the absence of time/area closures, or what the -anticipated adverse impacts from such activities would be. Without this information, the -time/area closure mitigation measures are arbitrary because there is an insufficient basis -to evaluate and compare the effects with and without time/area closures except through -speculation. - -• The time/area closures are for mitigation of an anticipated large number of 2D/3D -seismic surveys, but few 2D/3D seismic surveys are anticipated in the next five years. -There is no scientific evidence that these seismic surveys, individually or collectively, -resulted in more than a negligible impact. - -• The designation of geographic boundaries by NMFS and BOEM should be removed, and -projects should be evaluated based upon specific project requirements, as there is not -sufficient evidence presented that supports that arbitrary area boundary determinations -will provide protection to marine mammal species. - -• There is a lack of scientific evidence around actual importance level and definition of -these closure areas. The descriptions of these areas do not meet the required standard of -using the best available science. - -• With no significant purpose, they should be removed from consideration. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 49 -Comment Analysis Report - -• If the closures intended to reduce disturbances of migrating, feeding, and resting whales -are not reducing the level of impact they should not be considered effective mitigation -measures. - -• Placing the time closures chronologically in sequence, results in closures from mid-July -through at least mid-September, and in some cases through mid-October. This leaves less -than half of the non-ice season available for activity in those areas, with no resulting -resource and species protection realized. - -• The arbitrary limits to the duration of programs will cause high intensity, short and long -term adverse effects and restrictions to oil and gas land and water uses. - -MIT 23 The time/area closure for Camden Bay (Alternative 4 and Additional Mitigation Measure B1) -is both arbitrary and impracticable because there is no demonstrated need. It needs to be -clarified, modified, or removed: - -• BOEM’s analysis of Shell’s exploration drilling program in Camden Bay found -anticipated impacts to marine mammals and subsistence are minimal and fully mitigated. - -• The proposed September 1 to October 15 closure effectively eliminates over 54 percent -of the open water exploration drilling season in Camden Bay and would likely render -exploration drilling in Camden Bay economically and logistically impracticable, thereby -effectively imposing a full closure of the area under the guise of mitigation. - -• The conclusion that Camden Bay is of particular importance to bowhead whales is not -supported by the available data (e.g., Huntington and Quakenbush 2009, Koski and -Miller 2009, and Quakenbush et al. 2010). Occasional feeding in the area and sightings of -some cow/calf pairs in some years does not make it a uniquely important area. - -• Occasional feeding by bowhead whales is insufficient justification for a Special Habitat -Area designation for Camden Bay. Under this reasoning, the entire length of the Alaska -Beaufort Sea coast would also have to be designed. - -• A standard mitigation measure already precludes all activities until the close of the -Kaktovik and Nuiqsut fall bowhead hunts. Furthermore, in the last 10 years no bowhead -whales have been taken after the third week of September in either the Nuiqsut or -Kaktovik hunts so proposing closure to extend well into October is unjustified. - -• This Additional Mitigation Measure (B-1) should be deleted for the reasons outlined -above. If not, then start and end dates of the closure period must be clarified; hard dates -should be provided for the start and end of the closure or the closure should be tied to -actual hunts. - -• How boundaries and timing were determined needs to be described. - -MIT 24 Restrictions intended to prevent sound levels above 120 dB or 160 dB are arbitrary, -unwarranted, and impractical. - -• Restrictions at the 120 dB level, are impracticable to monitor because the resulting -exclusion zones are enormous, and the Arctic Ocean is an extremely remote area that -experiences frequent poor weather. - -• The best scientific evidence does not support a need for imposition of restrictions at 120 -dB or 160 dB levels. One of the most compelling demonstrations of this point comes -from the sustained period of robust growth and recovery experienced by the Western -Arctic stock of bowhead whales, while exposed to decades of seismic surveys and other -activities without restrictions at the 120 dB or 160 dB levels. - -MIT 25 The DEIS should not limit the maximum number of programs per year. Implementing -multiple programs per year is the preferred option for the Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5, as there - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 50 -Comment Analysis Report - -is not just cause in the DEIS to validate that acoustic and non-acoustic impacts from these -programs are severe enough to cause long-term acute or cumulative negative impacts or -adverse modifications to marine mammals throughout the planning area. The appropriate -mitigations can be determined and implemented for each program at the time of ITA and -G&G permit approvals. - -MIT 26 Additional Mitigation Measure C2 should be discussed in more detail, clarified, or deleted in -the final EIS: - -• Shipping routes or shipping lanes of this sort are established and enforced under the -regulatory authority of the U.S. Coast Guard. While NOAA or BOEM could establish -restricted areas, they could not regulate shipping routes. - -• With this mitigation measure in place, successful exploration cannot be conducted in the -Chukchi Sea. - -• Not only would lease holders be unable to conduct seismic and shallow hazard surveys -on some leases, but essential geophysical surveys for pipelines to shore, such as ice -gouge surveys, strudel scour surveys, and bathymetric surveys could not be conducted. - -MIT 27 There is no scientific justification for Additional Mitigation Measure C3 (ensuring reduced, -limited, or zero discharge). NMFS needs to explain in the final EIS how NOAA's -recommendations can justify being more stringent than EPA's permit conditions, limitations, -and requirements. There are no scientific reports that indicate any of these discharges have -any effect on marine mammals and anything beyond a negligible effect on habitat. - -MIT 28 The purpose, intent, and description of Additional Mitigation Measure C4 need to be clarified -(see page 4-67). In Section 2.5.4 of the DEIS it was stated that NPDES permitting effectively -regulates/handles discharges from operations. Zero discharge was removed from further -analysis. The Additional Mitigation Measure focusing on zero discharge should also be -removed. - -MIT 29 Additional Mitigation Measure D1 needs to be clarified as to what areas will be -impacted/closed and justified and/or modified accordingly: - -• It is not clear if this restriction is focused on the nearshore Chukchi Sea or on all areas. -• The logic of restrictions on vessels due to whales avoiding those areas may justify - -restrictions in the nearshore areas, but it is not clear how this logic would justify closing -the entire Chukchi offshore areas to vessel traffic if open water exists. - -• If a more specific exclusion area (e.g., within 30 miles of the coast) would be protective -of beluga whale migration routes, it should be considered instead of closing the Chukchi -Sea to transiting vessels. - -• It is not scientifically supported to close the entire Chukchi Sea to vessel traffic when the -stated intent is to avoid disrupting the subsistence hunt of beluga whales during their -migration along or near the coast near Point Lay. - -• Transits should be allowed provided that they do not interfere with the hunt. -• Transits far offshore should be allowed, and transits that are done within the conditions - -established through a CAA should be allowed. -• Prohibiting movement of drilling vessels and equipment outside of the barrier islands - -would unreasonably limit the entire drilling season to less than two months. -• Movement of drilling vessels and related equipment in a manner that avoids impacts to - -subsistence users should be allowed on a case-by-case basis and as determined through -mechanisms such as the CAA not through inflexible DEIS mitigation requirements. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 51 -Comment Analysis Report - -• BOEM (2011b) has previously concluded that oil and gas activities in the Chukchi Sea -would not overlap in space with Point Lay beluga hunting activities, and therefore would -have no effect on Point Lay beluga subsistence resources. Given that the entire Lease -Sale 193 area does not overlap geographically with Point Lay subsistence activities, it is -reasonable to draw the same conclusion for activities of other lease holders in the -Chukchi Sea as well. - -• This measure also prohibits all geophysical activity within 60 mi of the Chukchi -coastline. No reason is offered. The mitigation measure would prohibit lease holders from -conducting shallow hazards surveys and other geophysical surveys on and between -leases. Such surveys are needed for design and engineering. - -MIT 30 The time/area closure of Hanna Shoal is difficult to assess and to justify and should be -removed from Alternative 4 and Additional Mitigation Measure B1: - -• There needs to be information as to how and why the boundaries of the Hanna Shoal -were drawn; it is otherwise not possible to meaningfully comment on whether the -protection itself is justified and whether it should be further protected by a buffer zone. - -• The closure cannot be justified on the basis of mitigating potential impacts to subsistence -hunters during the fall bowhead whale hunt as the DEIS acknowledges that the actual -hunting grounds are well inshore of Hanna Shoal, and there is no evidence that industry -activities in that area could impact the hunts. - -• Current science does not support closure of the area for protection of the walrus. -• Closure of the area for gray whales on an annual basis is not supported, as recent aerial - -survey data suggests that it has not been used by gray whales in recent years, and the -historic data do not suggest that it was important for gray whales on a routine (annual) -basis. - -• The October 15 end date for the closure is too late in the season to be responsive to -concerns regarding walrus and gray whales. As indicated in the description in the DEIS -of the measure by NMFS and USGS walrus tracking data, the area is used little after -August. Similarly, few gray whales are found in the area after September. - -MIT 31 Plans of Cooperation (POCs) and CAAs are effective tools to ensure that meaningful -consultations continue to take place. NMFS should ensure that POCs and CAAs continue to -be available to facilitate interaction between the oil and gas industry and local communities. -NMFS should be explicit in how the CAA process is integrated into the process of reviewing -site specific industry proposals and should require offshore operators to enter into a CAA -with AEWC for the following reasons: - -• Affected communities depend on the CAA process to provide a voice in management of -offshore activities. - -• Through the CAA process, whaling captains use their traditional knowledge to determine -whether and how oil and gas activities can be conducted consistent with our subsistence -activities. - -• Promotes a community-based, collaborative model for making decisions, which is much -more likely to result in consensus and reduce conflict. - -• Promotes the objectives of OCSLA, which provides for the "expeditious and orderly -development [of the OCS], subject to environmental safeguards ...” - -• Serves the objectives of the MMPA, which states that the primary objective of -management of marine mammals "should be to maintain the health and stability of the -marine ecosystem. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 52 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 32 The number of mitigation measures that are necessary or appropriate should be analyzed -case-by-case in the context of issuing ITA/IHA/permit/approval, the nature and extent of the -risk or effect they are mitigating, and cost and effectiveness. The scope of necessary -measures should be dictated by specific activity for which approval or a permit is being -sought. - -MIT 33 NMFS cannot reasonably mandate use of the technologies to be used under Alternative 5, -since they are not commercially available, not fully tested, unproven and should not be -considered reasonably foreseeable. - -MIT 34 For open water and in-ice marine surveys, include the standard mitigation measure of a -mitigation airgun during turns between survey lines and during nighttime activities. - -MIT 35 Include shutdown of activities in specific areas corresponding to start and conclusion of -bowhead whale hunts for all communities that hunt bowhead whales, not just Nuiqsut (Cross -Island) and Kaktovik (as stated on p. 2-41). - -MIT 36 Evaluate the necessity of including dates within the DEIS. Communication with members of -village Whaling Captains Associations indicate that the dates of hunts may shift due to -changing weather patterns, resulting in a shift in blackout dates. - -MIT 37 Additional Mitigation Measure B3 should not be established, particularly at these distances, -because it is both unwarranted from an environmental protection perspective and unnecessary -given how seismic companies already have an incentive for separation. It should also not be -considered as an EIS project area-wide measure. - -• The basis for the distances is premised on use of sound exposure levels that are indicative -of harm. Use of the 160 dB standard would establish a propagation distance of 9-13 -kilometers. The distance in the mitigation measure therefore seems excessive and no -scientific basis was provided. - -• NMFS has justified the 120 dB threshold based on concerns of continuous noise sources, -not impulsive sound sources such as seismic surveys. - -• The argument that overlapping sound fields could mask cetacean communication has -already been judged to be a minor concern. NMFS has noted, "in general, NMFS expects -the masking effects of seismic pulses to be minor, given the normally intermittent nature -of seismic pulses." (76 Fed. Reg. at 6438, February 4, 2011). - -• The mitigation measure is prohibitively restrictive, and it is unclear what, if any, -mitigation of impacts this measure would result. - -• NMFS should only impose limitations of the proximity of seismic surveys to each other -(or to specific habitat areas) when and where they are applicable to known locations -where biologically significant impacts might occur. There is no evidence that such -important feeding areas occur within the EIS area other than just east of Point Barrow. - -• It should only be used at specific times and locations and after a full evaluation of the -likelihood of overlap of seismic sound and/or disturbance impacts has actually taken -place. Simply assuming that seismic sound might overlap and be additive in nature is -incorrect. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 53 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 38 Additional Mitigation Measure A5 provisions are unclear, unjustified, and impractical: - -• The justification for believing that biologically significant effects to individuals or the -bowhead population would occur from exposure of four or more bowhead cow/calf pairs -to >120 dB pulsed sounds is not provided or referenced. - -• The amount of time and effort required to monitoring for four or more bowhead cow/calf -pairs within the 120 dB seismic sound level area take away from better defining the -distances and/or sound level thresholds at which more substantial impacts may be -occurring - -• Would the referenced 4 or more cow/calf pairs have to be actually observed within the -area to trigger mitigation actions or would mitigation be required if survey data corrected -for sightability biases using standard line-transect protocols suggested 4 or more were -present? - -• If a mitigation measure for aggregations of 12 or more whales were to be included there -needs to be scientific justification for the number of animals required to trigger the -mitigation action. - -MIT 39 Additional Mitigation Measure C1 needs to be more clearly defined (or deleted), as it is -redundant and nearly impossible and impractical for industry to implement. - -• Steering around a loosely aggregated group of animals is nearly impossible as PSOs often -do not notice such a group until a number of sightings have occurred and the vessel is -already within the higher density patch. At that point it likely does more harm than good -trying to steer away from each individual or small group of animals as it will only take -the vessel towards another individual or small group. - -• This measure contains requirements that are already requirements, such as Standard -Mitigation Measures B1 and D3, such as a minimum altitude of 457 m. - -• The mitigation measure requires the operator to adhere to USFWS mitigation measures. -Why is a measure needed to have operators follow another agency’s mitigation measures -which already would have the force of law. - -• The measure states that there is a buffer zone around polar bear sea ice critical habitat -which is false. - -MIT 40 NMFS’ conclusion that implementation of time closures does not reduce the spatial -distribution of sound levels is not entirely correct (Page 4- 283 Section 4.7.1.4.2). The -closures of Hanna Shoal would effectively eliminate any industrial activities in or near the -area, thereby reducing the spatial distribution of industrial activities and associated sound. - -MIT 41 The time/area closure for the Beaufort Sea shelf needs to be justified by more than -speculation of feeding there by belugas. - -• There is no evidence cited in the EIS stating that the whales are feeding there at that time -and that it is an especially important location - -• Most belugas sighted along the shelf break during aerial surveys are observed traveling or -migrating, not feeding. - -• Placing restrictions on the shelf break area of the Beaufort Sea is arbitrary especially -when beluga whale impact analyses generally find only low level impacts under current -standard mitigation measures. - -MIT 42 Quiet buffer areas should be established to protect areas of biological and ecological -significance, such as Hanna Shoal and Barrow Canyon. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 54 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 43 Quieter alternative technologies should be required in areas newly opened to oil and gas -activities. - -MIT 44 Noise reduction measures should be implemented by industry within US waters and by US -companies internationally but especially in areas of the Arctic which have not yet been -subjected to high levels of man-made noise. - -MIT 45 Vessel restrictions and other measures need to be implemented to mitigate ship strikes, -including: - -• Vessels should be prohibited from sensitive areas with high levels of wildlife presence -that are determined to be key habitat for feeding, breeding, or calving. - -• Ship routes should be clearly defined, including a process for annual review to update -and re-route shipping around these sensitive areas. - -• Speed restrictions may also need to be considered if re-routing is not possible. -• NMFS should require use of real-time PAM in migratory corridors and other sensitive - -areas to alert ships to the presence of whales, primarily to reduce ship-strike risk. - -MIT 46 The DEIS should clearly identify areas where activities will be prohibited to avoid any take -of marine mammals. It should also establish a framework for calculating potential take and -appropriate offsets - -MIT 47 Time/area closures should be included in any alternative as standard avoidance measures and -should be expanded to include other deferral areas, including: - -• North of Dease Inlet to Smith Bay. -• Northeast of Smith Bay. -• Northeast of Cape Halkett where bowhead whales feed. -• Boulder patch communities. -• Particular caution should be taken in early fall throughout the region, when peak use of - -the Arctic by marine mammals takes place. -• Add the Coastal Band of the Chukchi Sea (~50 miles wide) [Commenting on the original - -Lease Sale 193 draft EIS, NMFS strongly endorse[d] an alternative that would have -avoided any federal leases out to 60 miles and specifically argued that a 25-mile buffer -[around deferral areas] is inadequate]. - -• Expand Barrow Canyon time/area closure area to the head of Barrow Canyon (off the -coast between Point Barrow and Point Franklin), as well as the mouth of Barrow Canyon -along the shelf break. - -• Areas to the south of Hanna Shoal are important to walrus, bowhead whales, and gray -whales. - -• Encourage NMFS to consider a time/area closure during the winter and spring in the -Beaufort Sea that captures the ice fracture zone between landfast ice and the pack ice -where ringed seal densities are the highest. - -• Nuiqsut has long asked federal agencies to create a deferral area in the 20 miles to the -east of Cross Island. This area holds special importance for bowhead whale hunters and -the whales. - -• NMFS should consider designing larger exclusion zones (detection-dependent or - -independent) around river mouths with anadromous fish runs to protect beluga whale -foraging habitat, insofar as these areas are not encompassed by seasonal closures. - -• Final EIS must consider including additional (special habitat) areas and developing a -mechanism for new areas to be added over the life of the EIS. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 55 -Comment Analysis Report - -• Any protections for Camden Bay should extend beyond the dimensions of the Bay itself -to include areas located to the west and east, recently identified by NMFS as having -special significance to bowhead whales. - -• Additional analysis is required related to deferral areas specific to subsistence hunting. -Any Final EIS must confront the potential need for added coastal protections in the -Chukchi Sea. - -• There should be a buffer zone between Burger and the coast during migration of walrus -and other marine mammals. - -• Future measures should include time/area closures for IEAs (Important Ecological Areas) -of the Arctic. - -MIT 48 The mitigation measures need to include clear avoidance measures and a description of -offsets that will be used to protect and/or restore marine mammal habitat if take occurs. - -• The sensitivity of the resource (e.g., the resource is irreplaceable and where take would -either cause irreversible impact to the species or its population or where mitigation of the -take would have a low probability of success) and not the level of activity should dictate -the location of avoidance areas. - -• NMFS should consider adding an Avoidance Measures section to Appendix A. - -MIT 49 The DEIS fails to address the third step in the mitigation hierarchy which is to compensate -for unavoidable and incidental take. NMFS should provide a clear framework for -compensatory mitigation activities. - -MIT 50 Many of the mitigation measures suggested throughout the DEIS are not applicable to in-ice -towed streamer 2D seismic surveys and should not be required during these surveys. - -MIT 51 NMFS needs to clarify the use of adaptive management: - -• In the DEIS the term is positioned toward the use of adaptive management to further -restrict activities and it does not leave room for adaptive management to reduce -restrictions - -• If monitoring shows undetectable or limited impacts, an adaptive management strategy -should allow for decreased restrictions on oil and gas exploration. The conditions under -which decreased restrictions will occur should be plainly stated in the discussion of -adaptive management. - -MIT 52 Aerial overflights are infeasible and risky and should not be required as a monitoring tool: - -• Such mitigation requirements are put forward only in an effort to support the 120dB -observation zones, which are both scientifically unjustified and infeasible to implement. - -• Such over flights pose a serious safety risk. Requiring them as a condition of operating in -the Arctic conflicts with the statutory requirements of OCSLA, which mandates safe -operations. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 56 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 53 The purpose of Mitigation Measure A6 needs to be clarified: - -• If the purpose is to establish a shutdown zone, it is unwarranted because the nature of -drilling operations is such that they cannot sporadically be shut down or ramped up and -down. - -• If the purpose is the collection of research data, then it should be handled as part of the -BOEM research program. - -MIT 54 Mitigation Measure D2: There should be no requirement for communications center -operations during periods when industry is not allowed to operate and by definition there is -not possibility for industry impact on the hunt. - -MIT 55 Additional Mitigation Measure A1 is problematic and should not be required: - -• Sound source verification tests take time, are expensive, and can expose people to risks. -• Modeling should eventually be able to produce a reliable estimate of the seismic source - -emissions and propagation, so sound source verification tests should not be required -before the start of every seismic survey in the Arctic - -• This should be eliminated unless NMFS is planning to require the same measurements -for all vessels operating in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. - -• Sound source verification for vessels has no value because there are no criteria for shut -down or other mitigation associated with vessel sounds - -MIT 56 NMFS should not require monitoring measures to be designed to accomplish or contribute to -what are in fact research goals. NMFS and others should work together to develop a research -program targeting key research goals in a prioritized manner following appropriate scientific -method, rather than attempting to meet these goals through monitoring associated with -activities. - -MIT 57 Additional Mitigation Measure A3 lacks a basic description of the measure and must be -deleted or clarified as: - -• NMFS provides no further information in the DEIS with regard to what conditions or -situations would meet or fail to meet visibility requirements. - -• NMFS also does not indicate what exploration activities would be affected by such -limitations. - -• Operators cannot assess the potential effects of such mitigation on their operations and -lease obligations, or its practicability, without these specifics. - -• NMFS certainly cannot evaluate the need or efficacy of the mitigation measure without -these details. - -• It is neither practicable nor reasonable to require observers on all support vessels, -especially on Ocean Bottom Cable seismic operations, where support vessels often -include small boats without adequate space for observers. - -• Cetaceans are not at significantly greater risk of harm when a soft-start is initiated in poor -visibility conditions. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 57 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 58 Additional Mitigation Measure A4: There are limitations to current PAM technology, but its -use may improve monitoring results in some situations and should be used during certain -conditions, with these caveats: - -• A period of confidence in the current PAM capabilities, understanding of limitations, and -experienced operator capacity-building is needed before requiring PAM as a mandatory -monitoring tool during seismic operations. - -• Basic training criteria, such as that specified by many countries for PSOs, should be -developed and required for PAM operators. - -• Minimum requirements for PAM equipment (including capabilities of software and -hardware) should be considered. - -MIT 59 Proposed restrictions under Additional Mitigation Measure B2 are unnecessary, impractical -and must be deleted or clarified: - -• The likelihood of redundant or duplicative surveys is small to non-existent. A new survey -is conducted only if the value of the additional information to be provided will exceed the -cost of acquisition. - -• The restriction is based on the false premise that surveys, which occur in similar places -and times, are the same. A new survey may be warranted by its use of new technology, a -better image, a different target zone, or a host of other considerations. - -• Implementing such a requirement poses several large problems. First, who would decide -what is redundant and by what criteria? Second, recognizing the intellectual property and -commercial property values, how will the agencies protect that information? Any -proposal that the companies would somehow be able to self-regulate is infeasible and -potentially illegal given the various anti-trust statutes. A government agency would likely -find it impossible to set appropriate governing technical and commercial criteria, and -would end up stifling the free market competition that has led to technological -innovations and success in risk reduction. - -• This already done by industry in some cases, but as a regulatory requirement it is very -vague and needs clarification. - -MIT 60 Additional Mitigation Measures D3, D4, D5, D6, and D8 need clarification about how the -real-time reporting would be handled: - -• If there is the expectation that industry operations could be shutdown quickly and -restarted quickly, the proposal is not feasible. - -• Who would conduct the monitoring for whales? -• How and to whom would reporting be conducted? -• How whale presence would be determined and who would make the determination must - -be elucidated in this measure? This is vague and impracticable. -• Additional Mitigation Measure D4 should be consistent with surrounding mitigation - -measures that consider start dates of bowhead whale hunting closed areas based on real- -time reporting of whale presence and hunting activity rather than a fixed date. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 58 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 61 NMFS should work with BOEM to incorporate a broader list of mitigation measures that -would be standard for all oil and gas-related incidental take authorizations in the Arctic -region, including: - -a) Detection-based measures intended to reduce near-source acoustic impacts on marine -mammals - -• require operators to use operational- and activity-specific information to estimate -exclusion and buffer zones for all sound sources (including seismic surveys, subbottom -profilers, vertical seismic profiling, vertical cable surveys, drilling, icebreaking, support -aircraft and vessels, etc.) and, just prior to or as the activity begins, verify and (as needed) -modify those zones using sound measurements collected at each site for each sound -source; - -• assess the efficacy of mitigation and monitoring measures and improve detection -capabilities in low visibility situations using tools such as forward-looking infrared or -360o thermal imaging; - -• require the use of passive acoustic monitoring to increase detection probability for real- -time mitigation and monitoring of exclusion zones; and - -• require operators to cease operations when the exclusion zone is obscured by poor -sighting conditions; - -b) Non-detection-based measures intended to lessen the severity of acoustic impacts on -marine mammals or reduce overall numbers taken by acoustic sources - -• limit aircraft overflights to an altitude of 457 m or higher and a horizontal distance of 305 -m or greater when marine mammals are present (except during takeoff, landing, or an -emergency situation); - -• require temporal/spatial limitations to minimize impacts in particularly important habitats -or migratory areas, including but not limited to those identified for time-area closures -under Alternative 4 (i.e., Camden Bay, Barrow Canyon/Western Beaufort Sea, Hanna -Shoal, the Beaufort Sea shelf break, and Kasegaluk Lagoon/Ledy Bay critical habitat); - -• prevent concurrent, geographically overlapping surveys and surveys that would provide -the same information as previous surveys; and - -• restrict 2D/3D surveys from operating within 145 km of one another; - -c) Measures intended to reduce/lessen non-acoustic impacts on marine mammals reduce -vessel speed to 9 knots or less when transiting the Beaufort Sea - -• reduce vessel speed to 9 knots or less within 274 m of whales; -• avoid changes in vessel direction and speed within 274 m of whales; -• reduce speed to 9 knots or less in inclement weather or reduced visibility conditions; -• use shipping or transit routes that avoid areas where marine mammals may occur in high - -densities, such as offshore ice leads; -• establish and monitor a 160-dB re 1 µPa zone for large whales around all sound sources - -and do not initiate or continue an activity if an aggregation of bowhead whales or gray -whales (12 or more whales of any age/sex class that appear to be engaged in a non- -migratory, significant biological behavior (e.g., feeding, socializing)) is observed within -that zone; - -• require operators to cease drilling operations in mid- to late-September to reduce the -possibility of having to respond to a large oil spill in ice conditions; - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 59 -Comment Analysis Report - -• require operators to develop and implement a detailed, comprehensive, and coordinated -Wildlife Protection Plan that includes strategies and sufficient resources for minimizing -contamination of sensitive marine mammal habitats and that provides a realistic -description of the actions that operators can take, if any, to deter animals from spill areas -or respond to oiled or otherwise affected marine mammals the plan should be developed -in consultation with Alaska Native communities (including marine mammal co- -management organizations), state and federal resource agencies, and experienced non- -governmental organizations; and - -• require operators to collect all new and used drilling muds and cuttings and either reinject -them or transport them to an EPA-licensed treatment/disposal site outside the Arctic; - -d) Measures intended to ensure no unmitigable adverse impact to subsistence users - -• require the use of Subsistence Advisors; and -• facilitate development of more comprehensive plans of cooperation/conflict avoidance - -agreements that involve all potentially affected communities and comanagement -organizations and account for potential adverse impacts on all marine mammal species -taken for subsistence purposes. - -MIT 62 NMFS should include additional mitigation measures to verify compliance with mitigation -measures and work with BOEM and industry to improve the quality and usefulness of -mitigation and monitoring measures: - -• Track and enforce each operator’s implementation of mitigation and monitoring measures -to ensure that they are executed as expected; provide guidance to operators regarding the -estimation of the number of takes during the course of an activity (e.g., seismic survey) -that guidance should be sufficiently specific to ensure that take estimates are accurate and -include realistic estimates of precision and bias; - -• Provide additional justification for the determination that the mitigation and monitoring -measures that depend on visual observations would be sufficient to detect, with a high -level of confidence, all marine mammals within or entering identified mitigation zones; - -• Work with protected species observers, observer service providers, the Fish and Wildlife -Service, and other stakeholders to establish and implement standards for protected -species observers to improve the quality and usefulness of information collected during -exploration activities; - -• Establish requirements for analysis of data collected by protected species observers to -ensure that those data are used both to estimate potential effects on marine mammals and -to inform the continuing development of mitigation and monitoring measures; - -• Require operators to make the data associated with monitoring programs publicly -available for evaluation by independent researchers; - -• Require operators to gather the necessary data and work with the Bureau and the Service -to assess the effectiveness of soft-starts as a mitigation measure; and - -• Require operators to suspend operations immediately if a dead or seriously injured -marine mammal is found in the vicinity of the operations and the death or injury could be -attributed to the applicant’s activities any suspension should remain in place until the -Service has reviewed the situation and determined that further deaths or serious injuries -are unlikely or has issued regulations authorizing such takes under section 101(a)(5)(A) -of the Act. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 60 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 63 There is no need for the Additional Mitigation Measures in the DEIS and they should be -removed: - -• Potential impacts of oil and gas exploration activities under the Standard Mitigation -Measures, BOEM lease stipulations (MMS 2008c), and existing industry practices, are -already negligible. - -• Analysis of the effectiveness of the Additional Mitigation Measures in reducing any -impacts (especially for marine mammals and subsistence) was not established in the -DEIS so there is no justification for their implementation. - -• The negative impacts these measures would have on industry and on the expeditious -development of resources in the OCS as mandated by OCSLA are significant, and were -not described, quantified, or seriously considered in the DEIS. - -• Any Additional Mitigation Measure carried forward must be clarified and made -practicable, and further analysis must be conducted and presented in the FEIS to explain -why they are needed, how they were developed (including a scientific basis), what -conditions would trigger their implementation and how they would affect industry and -the ability of BOEM to meet its OCSLA mandate of making resources available for -expeditious development. - -• NMFS failed to demonstrate the need for most if not all of the Additional Mitigation -Measures identified in the DEIS, especially Additional Mitigation Measures A4, B1 -(time/area closures), C3, D1, D5, D6, and D8. - -• NMFS has failed to fully evaluate and document the costs associated with their -implementation. - -MIT 64 The time/area closure for Barrow Canyon needs to be clarified or removed: - -• A time area closure is indicated from September 1 to the close of Barrow’s fall bowhead -hunt, but dates are also provided for bowhead whales (late August to early October) and -beluga whales (mid-July to late August), which are both vague and outside the limits of -the closure. - -• It is also not clear if Barrow Canyon and the Western Beaufort Sea Special Habitat Areas -are one and the same. Only Barrow Canyon (not the Western Beaufort) is referenced in -most places, including the only map (Figure 3.2-25) of the area. - -MIT 65 Additional Mitigation Measure D7 must be deleted or clarified: - -• The transit restrictions are not identified, nor are the conditions under which the transit -might be allowed. - -• Some hunting of marine mammals in the Chukchi Sea occurs year round making this -measure impracticable. - -MIT 66 NMFS should not automatically add Additional Mitigation Measures to an alternative without -first assessing the impact without Additional Mitigation Measures to determine whether they -are needed. - -MIT 67 The requirement to recycle drilling muds should not become mandatory as it is not -appropriate for all programs. Drilling mud discharges are already regulated by the EPA -NPDES program and are not harmful to marine mammals or the availability of marine -mammals for subsistence. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 61 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 68 [Page 4-68] For exploratory drilling operations in the Beaufort Sea west of Cross Island, no -drilling equipment or related vessels used for at-sea oil and gas operations shall be moved -onsite at any location outside the barrier islands west of Cross Island until the close of the -bowhead whale hunt in Barrow. This measure would prevent exploration of offshore leases -west of Cross Island during the open water season and would require refunding of lease -purchase and investment by companies that are no longer allowed to explore their leases. - -MIT 69 The statement that eliminating exploration activities through the time/area closures on Hanna -Shoal would benefit all assemblages of marine fish, with some anticipated benefit to -migratory fish, is incorrect. Most migratory fish would not be found in offshore waters. - -MIT 70 Standard Mitigation Measure A5 should be deleted as it is essentially the same as Standard -Mitigation Measure A4. - -MIT 71 Standard Mitigation Measures B1 and D3 have identical requirements regarding aircraft -operations and appear to apply to the same activities, so they should be deleted from one or -the other. - -MIT 72 Under conditions when exploitation is determined to be acceptable, monitoring and -mitigation plans on a wide range of temporal scales should become both a standard -requirement and industry practice. These must be designed in a manner specific to the nature -of the operation and the environment to minimize the risks of both acute impacts (i.e., direct, -short-term, small-scale harm as predicted from estimates of noise exposure on individuals) -and to measure/minimize chronic effects (i.e., cumulative, long-term, large-scale adverse -effects on populations as predicted from contextually mediated behavioral responses or the -loss of acoustic habitat). - -MIT 73 To date, standard practices for individual seismic surveys and other activities have been of -questionable efficacy for monitoring or mitigating direct physical impacts (i.e., acute impacts -on injury or hearing) and have essentially failed to address chronic, population level impacts -from masking and other long-term, large-scale effects, which most likely are the greatest risk -to long-term population health and viability. - -MIT 74 More meaningful monitoring and mitigation measures that should be more fully considered -and implemented in the programmatic plans for the Arctic include: - -1) Considerations of time and area restrictions based on known sensitive periods/areas; - -2) Sustained acoustic monitoring, both autonomous and real-time, of key habitat areas to -assess species presence and cumulative noise exposure with direct federal involvement -and oversight; - -3) Support or incentives for research to develop and apply metrics for a population’s health, -such as measures of vital rates, prey availability, ranging patterns, and body condition; - -4) Specified spatial-temporal separation zones between intense acoustic events; and - -5) Requirements or incentives for the reduction of acoustic footprints of intense noise -sources. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 62 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 75 Time/area closures represent progress, but NMFS’s analysis that the closures provide limited -benefits is faulty and needs further evaluation - -• The current analysis does not well reflect the higher densities of marine mammals in -concentration areas and other IEAs. - -• The analysis also does not fully recognize the importance of those areas to the overall -health of the species being impacted, and thus underestimates the likely disproportionate -effects of activities in those areas. - -• The analysis concludes no benefit as a result of mitigating impacts. This, along with a -lack of information to assess the size of the benefit beyond unclear and ill-defined levels, -mistakenly results in analysts concluding there is no benefit. - -• The inability to quantitatively estimate the potential impacts of oil and gas activities, or -express the benefits of time and area closures of important habitats, likely has much more -to do with incomplete information than with a perceived lack of benefits from the time -and area closures. - -MIT 76 A precautionary approach should be taken in the selection of a preferred alternative: - -• Faulty analysis, along with the clear gaps in good data for a number of species, only -serves to bolster the need for precaution in the region. - -• While there is good information on the existence of some IEAs, the lack of information -about why some concentration areas occur and what portion of a population of marine -mammals uses each area hampers the ability of NMFS to determine the benefits of -protecting the area. This lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for -postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. - -MIT 77 Ledyard Bay and Kasegaluk Lagoon merit special protection through time/area closures. -Walrus also utilize these areas from June through September, with large haulouts on the -barrier islands of Kasegaluk Lagoon in late August and September. - -MIT 78 Hanna Shoal merits special protection through time/area closures. It is also a migration area -for bowhead whales in the fall and used by polar bears. - -MIT 79 Barrow Canyon merits considerable protection through time/area closures. In the spring, a -number of marine mammals use this area, including bowhead whales, beluga whales, bearded -seals, ringed seals, and polar bears. In the summer and fall this area is also important for gray -whales, walrus, and bearded seals. - -MIT 80 NMFS should create a system where as new and better information becomes available there -is opportunity to add and adjust areas to protect important habitat. - -MIT 81 There is no point to analyzing hypothetical additional mitigation measures in a DEIS that is a -theoretical analysis of potential measures undertaken in the absence of a specific activity, -location or time. If these measures were ever potentially relevant, reanalysis in a project- -specific NEPA document would be required. - -MIT 82 NMFS needs to expand and update its list of mitigation measures to include: - -• Zero discharge requirement to protect water quality and subsistence resources. -• Require oil and gas companies who are engaging in exploration operations to obtain EPA - -issued air permits. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 63 -Comment Analysis Report - -• More stringent regulation of marine vessel discharge for both exploratory drilling -operations, support vessels, and other operations to eliminate possible environmental -contamination through the introduction of pathogens and foreign organisms through -ballast water, waste water, sewage, and other discharge streams - -• The requirement that industry signs a Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA) with the -relevant marine mammal co-management organizations - -• Another Standard Mitigation Measure should be developed with regards to marine -mammal monitoring during darkness and inclement weather. This should require more -efficient and appropriate protocols. If more appropriate monitoring methods cannot be -developed, NMFS should not allow for seismic surveys during times when monitoring is -severely limited. - -• NMFS should consider for mitigation a requirement that seismic survey vessels use the -lowest practicable source levels, minimize horizontal propagation of the sound signal, -and/or minimize the density of track lines consistent with the purposes of the survey. -Accordingly, the agencies should consider establishing a review panel, potentially -overseen by both NMFS and BOEM, to review survey designs with the aim of reducing -their wildlife impacts - -• A requirement that all vessels undergo measurement for their underwater noise output per -American National Standards Institute/Acoustical Society of America standards (S12.64); -that all vessels undergo regular maintenance to minimize propeller cavitation, which is -the primary contributor to underwater ship noise; and/or that all new vessels be required -to employ the best ship quieting designs and technologies available for their class of ship - -• NMFS should consider requiring aerial monitoring and/or fixed hydrophone arrays to -reduce the risk of near-source injury and monitor for impacts - -• Make MMOs (PSOs) mandatory on the vessels. -• Unmanned flights should also be investigated for monitoring, as recommended by - -NMFS’s Open Water Panel. -• Mitigation and monitoring measures concerning the introduction of non-native species - -need to be identified and analyzed - -MIT 83 Both the section on water quality and subsistence require a discussion of mitigation measures -and how NMFS intends to address local community concerns about contamination of -subsistence food from sanitary waste and drilling muds and cuttings. - -MIT 84 NMFS must discuss the efficacy of mitigation measures: - -• Including safety zones, start-up and shut-down procedures, use of Marine Mammal -Observers during periods of limited visibility for preventing impacts to bowhead whales -and the subsistence hunt. - -• Include discussion of the significant scientific debate regarding the effectiveness of many -mitigation measures that are included in the DEIS and that have been previously used by -industry as a means of complying with the MMPA. - -• We strongly encourage NMFS to include in either Chapter 3 or Chapter 4 a separate -section devoted exclusively to assessing whether and to what extent each individual -mitigation measure is effective at reducing impacts to marine mammals and the -subsistence hunt. NMFS should use these revised portions of the DEIS to discuss and -analyze compliance with the "least practicable adverse impact" standard of the MMPA. - -• NMFS must discuss to what extent visual monitoring is effective as a means of triggering -mitigation measures, and, if so, how specifically visual monitoring can be structured or -supplemented with acoustic monitoring to improve performance. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 64 -Comment Analysis Report - -• NMFS should clearly analyze whether poor visibility restrictions are appropriate and -whether those restrictions are necessary to comply with the "least practicable impact" -standard of the MMPA. - -• NMFS should disclose in the EIS uncertainties as to the efficacy of ramp up procedures -and then discuss and analyze how that uncertainty relates to an estimate of impacts to -marine mammals and, in particular, bowhead whales. - -• This EIS is an important opportunity for NMFS to assess the efficacy of these proposed -measures with the full input of the scientific community before making a decision on -overall levels of industrial activity in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. NMFS should, -therefore, amend the DEIS to include such an analysis, which can then be subject to -further public review and input pursuant to a renewed public comment period. - -MIT 85 NMFS must include in a revised DEIS a discussion of additional deferral areas and a -reasoned analysis of whether and to what extent those deferral areas would benefit our -subsistence practices and habitat for the bowhead whale. - -MIT 86 NMFS needs to revise the DEIS to include a more complete description of the proposed -mitigation measures, eliminate the concept of "additional mitigation measures," and then -decide in the Record of Decision on a final suite of applicable mitigation measures. - -MIT 87 The peer review panel states that "a single sound source pressure level or other single -descriptive parameter is likely a poor predictor of the effects of introduced anthropogenic -sound on marine life." The panel recommends that NMFS develop a "soundscape" approach -to management, and it was understood that the NSB Department of Wildlife suggested such -an alternative, which was rejected by NMFS. If NMFS moves forward with using simple -measures, it is recommended that these measures "should be based on the more -comprehensive ecosystem assessments and they should be precautionary to compensate for -remaining uncertainty in potential effects." NMFS should clarify how these concerns are -reflected in the mitigation measures set forth in the DEIS and whether the simple sound -pressure level measures are precautionary as suggested by the peer review panel. - -MIT 88 NMFS needs to clarify why it is using 160 dB re 1 Pa rms as the threshold for level B take. -Clarification is needed on whether exposure of feeding whales to sounds up to 160 dB re 1 -µPa rms could cause adverse effects, and, if so, why the threshold for level B harassment is -not lower. - -MIT 89 NMFS should consider implementing mitigation measures designed to avoid exposing -migrating bowhead whales to received sound levels of 120dB or greater given the best -available science, which demonstrates that such noise levels cause behavioral changes in -bowhead whales. - -MIT 90 The DEIS does not list aerial surveys as a standard or additional mitigation measure for either -the Beaufort or Chukchi Sea. There is no reasonable scientific basis for this. NMFS should -include aerial surveys as a possible mitigation measure along with a discussion of the peer -review panel's concerns regarding this issue. - -MIT 91 Standard mitigation measures are needed to protect autumn bowhead hunting at Barrow, -Wainwright, and possibly at Point Lay and Point Hope and subsistence hunting of beluga -whales at Point Lay and Wainwright and seal and walrus hunting along the Chukchi Sea -coasts. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 65 -Comment Analysis Report - -• One approach for protecting beluga hunting at Point Lay would be to implement adaptive -management; whereby, ships and drill rigs would not come within 60 miles of the -community of Point Lay until the beluga hunt is completed. - -• These types of mitigation measures should be standard and should be applied to any ITA. - -MIT 92 The mitigation measure related to discharge of drilling muds does not address the current -industry plan of recycling muds and then discharging any unused or remaining muds at the -end of the season. At the very least, no drilling muds should be discharged. - -• Furthermore, using the best management practice of near- zero discharge, as is being -implemented by Shell in Camden Bay in the Beaufort Sea, would be the best method for -mitigating impacts to marine mammals and ensuring that habitat is kept as clean and -healthy as possible. - -MIT 93 Reduction levels associated with Additional Mitigation Measure C3 should be specified and -applied to marine vessel traffic supporting operations as well as drill ships. - -MIT 94 NMFS should consider using an independent panel to review survey designs. For example, an -independent peer review panel has been established to evaluate survey design of the Central -Coastal California Seismic Imaging Project, which is aimed at studying fault systems near the -Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. See California Public Utilities Commission, Application -of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Approval of Ratepayer Funding to Perform -Additional Seismic Studies Recommended by the California Energy Commission: Decision -Granting the Application, available at -docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/FINAL_DECISION/122059-09.htm. - -MIT 95 Use additional best practices for monitoring and maintaining safety zones around active -airgun arrays and other high-intensity underwater noise sources as set forth in Weir and -Dolman (2007) and Parsons et al. (2009) - -MIT 96 The existing draft EIS makes numerous errors regarding mitigation: - -• Mischaracterizing the effectiveness and practicability of particular measures -• Failing to analyze variations of measures that may be more effective than the ones - -proposed -• Failing to standardize measures that are plainly effective. - -MIT 97 Language regarding whether or not standard mitigation measures are required is confusing, -and NMFS should make clear that this mitigation is indeed mandatory. - -MIT 98 The rationale for not including mitigation limiting activities in low-visibility conditions, -which can reduce the risk of ship-strikes and near-field noise exposures, as standard -mitigation is flawed, and this measure needs to be included: - -• First, it suggests that the restriction could extend the duration of a survey and thus the -potential for cumulative disturbance of wildlife; but this concern would not apply to -activities in migratory corridors, since target species like bowhead whales are transient. - -• Second, while it suggests that the requirement would be expensive to implement, it does -not consider the need to reduce ship-strike risk in heavily-used migratory corridors in -order to justify authorization of an activity under the IHA process. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 66 -Comment Analysis Report - -• This requirement should be standardized for all activities involving moving vessels that -occur in bowhead whale migratory corridors during the latter parts of the open-water -season (i.e., September-October); and for all transits of support vessels in all areas at all -times. - -MIT 99 NMFS fails to consider a number of recent studies on temporary threshold shift in -establishing its 180/190 dB safety zone standard. NMFS should conservatively recalculate its -safety zone distances in light of these studies, which indicate the need for larger safety zones, -especially for the harbor porpoise: - -1) A controlled exposure experiment demonstrating that harbor porpoises are substantially -more susceptible to temporary threshold shift than the two species, bottlenose dolphins -and beluga whales, that have previously been tested; - -2) A modeling effort indicating that, when uncertainties and individual variation are -accounted for, a significant number of whales could suffer temporary threshold shift -beyond 1 km from a seismic source; - -3) Studies suggesting that the relationship between temporary and permanent threshold shift -may not be as predictable as previously believed; and - -4) The oft-cited Southall et al. (2007), which suggests use of a cumulative exposure metric -for temporary threshold shift in addition to the present RMS metric, given the potential -occurrence of multiple surveys within reasonably close proximity. - -MIT 100 The DEIS improperly rejects the 120 dB safety zone for bowhead whales and the 160 dB -safety zone for bowhead and gray whales that have been used in IHAs over the past five -seasons: - -• It claims that the measure is ineffective because it has never yet been triggered, but does -not consider whether a less stringent, more easily triggered threshold might be more -appropriate given the existing data. For example, the DEIS fails to consider whether -requiring observers to identify at least 12 whales within the 160 dB safety zone, and then -to determine that the animals are engaged in a nonmigratory, biologically significant -behavior, might not constitute too high a bar, and whether a different standard would -provide a greater conservation benefit while enabling survey activity. - -MIT 101 The assertion by industry regarding the overall safety of conducting fixed-wing aircraft -monitoring flights in the Arctic, especially in the Chukchi Sea, should be reviewed in light of -the multiple aerial surveys that are now being conducted there (e.g., COMIDA and Shell is -planning to implement an aerial monitoring program extending 37 kilometers from the shore, -as it has for a number of years) - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 67 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 102 The DEIS implies that requiring airgun surveys to maintain a 90-mile separation distance -would reduce impacts in some circumstances but not in others, depending on the area of -operation, season, and whether whales are feeding or migrating. - -• NMFS does not provide any biological basis for this finding. -• This analysis fails to consider that the measure would affect only the timing, not the - -spatial extent of the survey effort: the overall area of ensonification would remain the -same over the course of a season since survey activities would only be separated, not -curtailed. - -• If NMFS believes that surveys should not be separated in all cases, it should consider a -measure that defines the conditions in which greater separation would be required. - -MIT 103 The DEIS should also consider to what degree the time/place restrictions could protect -marine mammals from some of the harmful effects from an oil spill. Avoiding exploration -drilling during times when marine mammals may be concentrated nearby could help to -ameliorate the more severe impacts discussed in the DEIS. - -MIT 104 Avoiding exploratory drilling proximate to the spring lead system and avoiding late season -drilling would help to reduce the risk of oil contaminating the spring lead. At a minimum, -NMFS should consider timing restrictions in the Chukchi Sea to avoid activities taking place -too early in the open water season. - -MIT 105 The DEIS’ reliance on future mitigation measures required by the FWS and undertaken by -industry is unjustified. It refers to measures typically required through the MMPA and -considers that it is in industry’s self-interest to avoid harming bears. The draft EIS cannot -simply assume that claimed protections resulting from the independent efforts of others will -mitigate for potential harm. - -MIT 106 Adaptive management should be used, instead of arbitrary closure dates. To set firm dates for -closures does not take into account what is actually happening. An area should not be closed -if there are no animals there. - -MIT 107 The stipulations that are put in or the mitigations that are put in in the Beaufort should not -affect activity in the Chukchi. They are two different worlds, if you think about it, the depth -of the ocean, the movement of the ice, the distance away from our subsistence activity. Don't -take the Beaufort restrictions and make it harder for the Chukchi to do good work. - -MIT 108 Only grant permits and allow work when whaling is not occurring. - -MIT 109 Specific dates are listed for the time/area closures proposed in the alternatives, but dates for -closures need to be flexible to adjust for changes in migration; fixed dates are very difficult to -change. - -MIT 110 The MMO (PSO) program is not very effective: - -• Only MMOs who are ethical and work hard see marine mammals -• There is no oversight to make sure the MMO was actually working - -MIT 111 The most effective means of creating mitigation that works is to start small and focused and -reassess after a couple of seasons to determine what works and what doesn’t work. Mitigation -measures could then be adjusted to match reality. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 68 -Comment Analysis Report - -MIT 112 There should be a mechanism by which the public can be apprised of and provide input on -the efficacy of mitigation efforts. Suggestions include: - -• Something similar to the Open Water meetings -• Put out a document about the assumptions upon which all these NEPA documents and - -permits are based and assess mitigation: Are they working, how did they work, what were -the problems and challenges, where do we need to focus attention. - -• Include dates if something unusual happened that season that would provide an -opportunity to contact NOAA or BOEM or whoever and say, hey, by the way, during this -thing we noticed this or whatever. - -• This would just help us to again refine our mitigation recommendations in the future. - -MIT 113 If explosives are used, there needs to be mitigation to ensure that the explosives are -accounted for. - -MIT 114 NMFS should require that zero discharge technology be implemented for all drilling -proposals. - -MIT 115 Standard Mitigation Measure C4 should be deleted. All exploration drilling programs are -required by regulation to have oil spill response plans. Stating regulatory requirements is not -a mitigation measure. - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 69 -Comment Analysis Report - -Marine Mammal and other Wildlife Impacts (MMI) -MMI General comments related to potential impacts to marine mammals or wildlife, unrelated to - -subsistence resource concepts. - -MMI 1 The DEIS improperly dismisses the risk of mortality and serious injury from acoustic -impacts: - -• The DEIS fails to consider the adverse synergistic effect that at least some types of -anthropogenic noise can have on ship-strike risk (for example mid-frequency sounds with -frequencies in the range of some sub-bottom profilers have been shown to cause North -Atlantic right whales to break off their foraging dives and lie just below the surface, -increasing the risk of vessel strike). - -• Recent studies indicate that anthropogenic sound can induce permanent threshold shift at -lower levels than anticipated. - -• Hearing loss remains a significant risk where, as here, the agency has not required aerial -or passive acoustic monitoring as standard mitigation, appears unwilling to restrict -operations in low-visibility conditions, and has not firmly established seasonal exclusion -areas for biologically important habitat. - -• The DEIS discounts the potential for marine mammal strandings, even though at least one -stranding event of beaked whales in the Gulf of California correlated with geophysical -survey activity. - -• The DEIS makes no attempt to assess the long-term effects of chronic noise and noise- -related stress on life expectancy and survival, although terrestrial animals could serve as a -proxy. - -• The agencies’ reliance on monitoring for adaptive management, and their assurance that -activities will be reassessed if serious injury or mortality occurs, is inappropriate given -the probability that even catastrophic declines in Arctic populations would go -unobserved. - -• The DEIS fails to address the wide-ranging impacts that repeated, high-intensity airgun -surveys will have on wildlife. - -• We know far too little about these vulnerable [endangered] species to ensure that the -industry's constant pounding does not significantly impact their populations or jeopardize -their survival. - -MMI 2 Loss of sea-ice habitat due to climate change may make polar bears, ice seals, and walrus -more vulnerable to impacts from oil and gas activities, which needs to be considered in the -EIS. The DEIS needs to adequately consider impacts in the context of climate change: - -• The added stress of habitat loss due to climate change should form a greater part of the -DEIS analysis. - -• Both polar bears and ringed seals may be affected by multiple-year impacts from -activities associated with drilling (including an associated increase in vessel traffic) given -their dependence on sea-ice and its projected decline. - -• Shifts in distribution and habitat use by polar bears and walrus in the Beaufort and -Chukchi seas attributable to loss of sea ice habitat is insufficiently incorporated into the -DEIS analysis. The DEIS only asserts that possible harm to subsistence and to polar bear -habitat from oil and gas operations would be negligible compared to the potential for -dramatic sea ice loss due to climate change and changes in ecosystems due to ocean - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 70 -Comment Analysis Report - -acidification. For walrus and ice seals, the DEIS simply notes potentially catastrophic -climate effects without adequately considering how oil and gas activities might leave -species more vulnerable to that outcome. - -• Sub-adult polar bears that return to land in summer because of sea-ice loss are more -likely to be impacted by activities in the water, onshore support of open water activities, -and oil spills; this could represent potentially major impacts to polar bear populations and -should be considered in any final EIS. - -• Walrus feeding grounds are being transformed and walrus are hauling out on land in large -numbers, leaving them vulnerable to land-based disturbances. - -MMI 3 In addition to noise, drilling wastes, air pollution, habitat degradation, shipping, and oil spills -would also adversely affect marine mammals. These adverse effects are ethical issues that -need to be considered. - -MMI 4 Seismic airgun surveys are more disruptive to marine mammals than suggested by the -“unlikely impacts” evaluation peppered throughout the DEIS: - -• They are known to disrupt foraging behavior at distances greater than the typical 1000 -meter observation/mitigation threshold. - -• Beluga whales are known to avoid seismic surveys at distances greater than 10 km. -• Behavioral disturbance of bowhead whales have been observed at distances of 7km to - -35km. -• Marine mammals are seen in significantly lower numbers during seismic surveys - -indicating impacts beyond the standard 1000 meter mitigation set-back. -• Impacts may vary depending on circumstances and conditions and should not be - -dismissed just because of a few studies that indicate only “negligible” impacts. - -MMI 5 The high probability for disruption or “take” of marine mammals in the water by helicopters -and other heavy load aircraft during the spring and summer months is not adequately -addressed in the DEIS. - -MMI 6 Impacts on Arctic fish species, fish habitat, and fisheries are poorly understood and -inadequately presented in the DEIS. NMFS should consider the following: - -• The DEIS substantially understates the scale of impact on Arctic fish species, and fails to -consider any measures to mitigate their effects. - -• Airgun surveys are known to significantly affect the distribution of some fish species, -which can impact fisheries and displace or reduce the foraging success of marine -mammals that rely on them for prey. - -• Airguns have been shown experimentally to dramatically depress catch rates of some -commercial fish species, by 40 to 80 percent depending on catch method, over thousands -of square kilometers around a single array. - -• While migratory fish may evade threats by swimming away, many fish, especially -sedentary fish, will “entrench” into their safe zone when threatened, and prolong -exposure to potentially damaging stimulus. Assuming that fish will “move out harm’s -way” is an irresponsible management assumption and needs to be verified prior to stating -that “enough information exists to perform a full analysis.” - -• Impacts on fisheries were found to last for some time beyond the survey period, not fully -recovering within 5 days of post-survey monitoring. - -• The DEIS appears to assume without support that effects on both fish and fisheries would -be localized. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 71 -Comment Analysis Report - -• Fish use sound for communication, homing, and other important purposes, and can -experience temporary or permanent hearing loss on exposure to intense sound. - -• Other impacts on commercially harvested fish include reduced reproductive performance -and mortality or decreased viability of fish eggs and larvae. - -• A rigorous analysis is necessary to assess direct and indirect impacts of industry activities -on rare fish populations. - -• The DEIS lacks a rigorous analysis of noise impacts to fish, particularly relating to the -interaction of two or more acoustic sources (e.g., two seismic surveys). - -• A rigorous analysis is needed that investigates how two or more noise generating -activities interact to displace fish moving/feeding along the coast, as acoustic barriers -may interrupt natural processes important to the life cycle and reproductive success of -some fish species/populations. - -MMI 7 Impacts of seismic airgun surveys on squid, sea turtles, cephalopods, and other invertebrates -need to be included and considered in terms of the particular species and their role as prey of -marine mammals and commercial and protected fish. - -MMI 8 Oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development in the Arctic Ocean has had no known -adverse impact on marine mammal species and stocks, and the reasonably anticipated impacts -to marine mammals from OCS exploration activities occurring in the next five years are, at -most, negligible. - -• There is no evidence that serious injury, death, or stranding by marine mammals can -occur from exposure to airgun pulses, even in the case of large airgun arrays. - -• No whales or other marine mammals have been killed or injured by past seismic -operations. - -• The western Arctic bowhead whale population has been increasing for over 20 years, -suggesting impacts of oil and gas industry on individual survival and reproduction in the -past have likely been minor. - -• These activities are unlikely to have any effect on the other four stocks of bowhead -whales. - -• Only the western North Pacific stock of humpback whales and the Northeast Pacific -stock of fin whales would be potentially affected by oil and gas leasing and exploration -activities in the Chukchi Sea. There would be no effect on the remaining worldwide -stocks of humpback or fin whales. - -• Most impacts would be due to harassment of whales, which may lead to behavioral -reactions from which recovery is fairly rapid. - -• There is no evidence of any biologically significant impacts at the individual or -population level. - -MMI 9 Noise impacts on key habitats and important biological behaviors of marine mammals (e.g., -breeding, feeding, communicating) could cause detrimental effects at the population level. -Consider the following: - -• According to an IWC Scientific Committee report, repeated and persistent exposure of -noise across a large area could cause detrimental impacts to marine mammal populations - -• A recent study associated reduced underwater noise with a reduction in stress hormones, -providing evidence that noise may contribute to long-term stress (negatively affecting -growth, immune response to diseases, and reproduction) for individuals and populations - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 72 -Comment Analysis Report - -MMI 10 Most marine mammals primarily rely on their acoustic sense, and they would likely suffer -more from noise exposure than other species. While marine mammals have seemingly -developed strategies to deal with noise and related shipping traffic (e.g., changing -vocalizations, shifting migration paths, etc.), the fact that some species have been exposed to -anthropogenic changes for only one generation (e.g., bowhead whales) makes it unlikely that -they have developed coping mechanisms appropriate to meet novel environmental pressures, -such as noise. Marine mammals living in relatively pristine environments, such as the Arctic -Ocean, and have less experience with noise and shipping traffic may experience magnified -impacts. - -MMI 11 Impacts from ship-strikes (fatal and non-fatal) need to be given greater consideration, -especially with increased ship traffic and the development of Arctic shipping routes. - -• Potential impacts on beluga whales and other resources in Kotzebue Sound needs to be -considered with vessels traveling past this area. - -• There is great concern for ship strikes of bowhead and other whales and these significant -impacts must be addressed in conjunction with the project alternatives. - -MMI 12 Walrus could also be affected by operations in the Bering Sea. For instance, the winter range -and the summer range for male and subadult walrus could place them within the Bering Sea, -potentially overlapping with bottom trawling. - -MMI 13 Surveys recently conducted during the open water season documented upwards of a thousand -walrus in a proposed exploratory drilling (study) area, potentially exposing a large number of -walrus to stresses associated with oil and gas activity, including drilling and vessel activity. -Since a large proportion of these animals in the Chukchi Sea are comprised of females and -calves, it is possible that the production of the population could be differentially affected. - -MMI 14 The DEIS analysis does not adequately consider the fact that many animals avoid vessels -regardless of whether they are emitting loud sounds and may increase that avoidance distance -during seismic operations (Richardson et al. 2011). Therefore, it should be a reasonable -assumption that natural avoidance serves to provide another level of protection to the -animals. - -The 120 dB threshold may represent a lower level at which some individual marine mammals -will exhibit minor avoidance responses. While this avoidance might, in some but not all -circumstances, be meaningful to a native hunter, scientific research does not indicate -dramatic responses in most animals. In fact, the detailed statistical analyses often needed to -confirm subtle changes in direction are not available. The significance of a limited avoidance -response (to the animal) likely is minor (Richardson et al. 2011). - -MMI 15 Seismic operations are most often in timescales of weeks and reduce the possibility of -significant displacement since they do not persist in an area for an extended period of time. -However, little evidence of area-wide displacement exists or has been demonstrated. - -MMI 16 Bowhead Cows Do NOT Abandon or Separate from Their Calves in Response to Seismic -Exploration or Other Human Activities. There is no scientific support whatsoever for any -assumption or speculation that seismic operations have such impacts or could result in the -loss or injury of a whale. To the contrary, all of the scientific evidence shows that seismic and -other anthropogenic activities, including commercial whaling, have not been shown to cause -the separation or abandonment of cow/calf pairs. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 73 -Comment Analysis Report - -MMI 17 Bowhead Whales Do Not Routinely Deflect 20 Kilometers From Seismic Operations. The -DEIS asserts that bowhead whales have rarely been observed within 20 kilometers of active -seismic operations but fails to utilize other information that challenge the validity of this -assertion. - -MMI 18 In the Arctic, sound levels follow a highly distinct seasonal pattern dominated in winter by -ice-related sound and then altered by sound from wind, waves, vessels, seismic surveys, and -drilling in the open-water period. The sound signatures (i.e., frequency, intensity, duration, -variability) of the various sources are either well known or easily described and, for any -given region, they should be relatively predictable. The primary source of anthropogenic -sound in the Arctic during the open-water season is oil and gas-related seismic activity, and -those activities can elevate sound levels by 2-8 dB (Roth et al. 2012). NMFS and BOEM -should be able to compare seasonal variations in the Arctic soundscape to the movement -patterns and natural histories of marine mammals and to subsistence hunting patterns. - -MMI 19 The lack of observed avoidance is not necessarily indicative of a lack of impact (e.g., animals -that have a learned tolerance of sound and remain in biologically important areas may still -incur physiological [stress] costs from exposure or suffer significant communication -masking). NMFS should exhibit caution when interpreting these cases. - -MMI 20 Marine mammal concentration areas are one potential example of IEAs that require robust -management measures to ensure the health of the ecosystem as a whole. Impacts to marine -mammal concentration areas, especially those areas where multiple marine mammal species -are concentrated in a particular place and time, are more likely to cascade throughout -populations and ecosystems. - -• Displacement from a high-density feeding area, in the absence of alternate feeding areas, -may be energetically stressful. - -MMI 21 NMFS should include a discussion of the recent disease outbreak affecting seals and walrus, -include this outbreak as part of the baseline, and discuss how potential similar future events -(of unknown origin) are likely to increase in the future. - -MMI 22 Short-term displacement that occurs during a critical and stressful portion on the animals -annual life cycle (e.g., molt in seals) could further increase stress to displaced individuals and -needs to be considered. - -• Disturbance to ringed and bearded seals from spill clean-up activities during the early -summer molt period would greatly increase stress to these species. - -MMI 23 The DEIS must further explore a threat of biologically significant effects, since as much as 25 -percent of the EIS project area could be exposed to 120 dB sound levels known to provoke -significant behavioral reactions in migrating bowhead whales, multiple activities could result -in large numbers of bowhead whales potentially excluded from feeding habitat, exploration -activities would occur annually over the life of the EIS, and there is a high likelihood of -drilling around Camden Bay. - -MMI 24 The DEIS should compare the extent of past activities and the amount of noise produced to -what is projected with the proposed activities under the alternatives, and the DEIS must also -consider the fact that the bowhead population may be approaching carrying capacity, -potentially altering the degree to which it can withstand repeated disturbances. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 74 -Comment Analysis Report - -MMI 25 Impacts to beluga whales needs to be more thoroughly considered: - -• Beluga whales’ strong reactions to higher frequencies illustrate the failure of the DEIS to -calculate ensonified zones for sub-bottom profilers, side scan sonar, and echosounders - -• The DEIS does not discuss beluga whales’ well-documented reaction to ships and ice -breakers in the context of surveying with ice breaker support or exploratory drilling. Ice -management activity has the potential to disturb significant numbers of beluga whale - -• The DEIS makes very little effort to estimate where and when beluga whales might be -affected by oil and gas activities. If noise disrupts important behaviors (mating, nursing, -or feeding), or if animals are displaced from important habitat over long periods of time, -then impacts of noise and disturbance could affect the long-term survival of the -population. - -MMI 26 NMFS should consider whether ice management or ice breaking have the potential to -seriously injure or kill ice seals resting on pack ice, including in the area of Hanna Shoal that -is an important habitat for bearded seals. - -MMI 27 NMFS should consider that on-ice surveys may directly disrupt nursing polar bears in their -dens and ringed seals in their lairs, potentially causing abandonment, or mortality if the dens -or lairs are crushed by machinery. - -MMI 28 The DEIS’ analysis for gray whales is faulty: - -• Gray whales were grouped with other cetaceans, so more attention specific to gray -whales is needed. - -• Contrary to what the DEIS claims (without support), gray whale feeding and migration -patterns do not closely mimic those of bowhead whales: gray whales migrate south to -Mexico and typically no farther north than the Chukchi Sea, and are primarily benthic -feeders. - -• Analysis of the effects for Alternatives 2 and 3 does not discuss either the gray whale’s -reliance on the Chukchi Sea for its feeding or its documented preference for Hanna -Shoal. - -• In another comparisons to bowhead whales, the DEIS states that both populations -increased despite previous exploration activities. Gray whale numbers, however, have -declined since Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections were removed in 1994, and -there is speculation that the population is responding to environmental limitations. - -• Gray whales can be disturbed by very low levels of industrial noise, with feeding -disruptions occurring at noise levels of 110 dB. - -• The DEIS needs to more adequately consider effects of activities and possible closure -areas in the Chukchi Sea (e.g., Hanna Shoal) on gray whales. When discussing the -possibility that area closures could concentrate effects elsewhere, the DEIS focuses on -the Beaufort Sea, such as on the Beaufort shelf between Harrison Bay and Camden Bay -during those time periods. - -MMI 29 There needs to be more analysis of noise and other disturbance effects specific to harbor -porpoise; the DEIS acknowledges that harbor porpoise have higher relative abundance in the -Chukchi Sea than other marine mammals. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 75 -Comment Analysis Report - -MMI 30 NMFS should conduct more rigorous analysis for birds and mammals, including: - -• How do multiple seismic surveys in the same region modify the foraging of marine birds -(e.g., where forage fish have been displaced to deeper water or away from nesting areas) - -• How do multiple surveys interact to modify marine mammal foraging? - -MMI 31 NMFS should analyze the impacts to invertebrate and fish resources of introducing artificial -structures (i.e., drilling platform and catenaries; seafloor structures) into the water column or -the seafloor. - -MMI 32 The DEIS should address that sometimes the best geological prospects happen to conflict -with some of the marine mammal productivity areas, calving areas, or birthing areas. - -MMI 33 It is important for NMFS to look at the possibility of affecting a global population of marine -mammals; just not what's existing here, but a global population. - -MMI 34 NMFS should reexamine the DEIS’s analysis of sockeye and coho salmon. Comments -include: - -• The known northern distribution of coho salmon from southern Alaska ends at about -Point Hope (Mecklenburg et al. 2002). - -• Sockeye salmon’s (O. nerka) North Pacific range ends at Point Hope (Mecklenburg et al. -2002). - -• Both sockeye and coho salmon are considered extremely rare in the Beaufort Sea, -representing no more than isolated migrants from populations in southern Alaska or -Russian (Mecklenburg et al. 2002). - -• The discussion of coho salmon and sockeye salmon EFH on pages 3-74 to 3-75 is -unnecessary and should be deleted. - -MMI 35 NMFS should reconsider the DEIS’ analysis of Chinook salmon and possibly include the -species based on the small but significant numbers of the species that are harvested in the -Barrow domestic fishery. - -MMI 36 Given that the time/area closures are for marine mammals, Alternative 4 would be irrelevant -and generally benign in terms of fish and EFH, so it is wrong to state that the closures would -further reduce impact. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 76 -Comment Analysis Report - -National Energy Demand and Supply (NED) -NED Comments related to meeting national energy demands, supply of energy. - -NED 1 The DEIS, as written, would preclude future development by limiting the number of activities -and make development uneconomical, which undermines the Obama Administration’s -priority of developing oil and gas deposits in the Arctic. Allowing safe and responsible -development of oil and gas resources in the Alaska OCS is critical for the U.S. energy policy, -and for the Alaskan economy. Alaska needs to be able to develop its natural resources. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 77 -Comment Analysis Report - -NEPA (NEP) -NEP Comments on aspects of the NEPA process (purpose and need, scoping, public involvement, - -etc.), issues with the impact criteria (Chapter 4), or issues with the impact analysis. - -NEP 1 The scope of the DEIS is flawed, and misaligned with any incidental take action that NMFS -might take under authority of the MMPA. MMPA ITAs may only be issued if the anticipated -incidental take is found to have no more than a negligible impact. There can never be a -purpose or need to prepare an EIS to evaluate the impact of actions that must have no more -than a negligible impact. Accordingly, there is no need now, nor can there ever be a need, for -NMFS to prepare an EIS in order to issue an MMPA ITA. NMFS' decision to prepare an EIS -reflects a serious disconnect between its authority under the MMPA and its NEPA analysis. - -NEP 2 The EIS should be limited exclusively to exploration activities. Any additional complexities -associated with proposed future extraction should be reviewed in their own contexts. - -NEP 3 The ‘need’ for the EIS presupposes the extraction of hydrocarbons from the Arctic and makes -the extraction of discovered hydrocarbons inevitable by stating that NMFS and BOEM will -tier from this EIS to support future permitting decisions if such activities fall outside the -scope of the EIS. - -NEP 4 The purpose and need of this DEIS is described and structured as though NMFS intends to -issue five-year Incidental Take Regulations (ITRs) for all oil and gas activities in the Arctic -Ocean regarding all marine mammal species. However, there is no such pending proposal -with NMFS for any ITRs for any oil and gas activity in the Arctic Ocean affecting any marine -mammal stock or population. The DEIS is not a programmatic NEPA analysis. Accordingly, -were NMFS to complete this NEPA process, there would be no five-year ITR decision for it -to make and no Record of Decision (ROD) to issue. Because the IHA process is working -adequately, and there is no basis for NMFS to initiate an ITR process, this DEIS is -disconnected from any factual basis that would provide a supporting purpose and need. - -NEP 5 The scope of NEPA analysis directed to issuance of any form of MMPA ITA should be -necessarily limited to the impacts of the anticipated take on the affected marine mammal -stocks, and there is no purpose or need for NMFS to broadly analyze the impacts of future oil -and gas activities in general. Impacts on, for example, terrestrial mammals, birds, fish, land -use, and air quality are irrelevant in this context because in issuing IHAs (or, were one -proposed, an ITR), NMFS is only authorizing take of marine mammals. The scope of the -current DEIS is vastly overbroad and does not address any specific ITA under the MMPA. - -NEP 6 The stated purpose of the DEIS has expanded significantly to include the evaluation of -potential effects of a Very Large Oil Spill, as well as the potential effects of seismic activity -and alternate approaches for BOEM to issue G&G permit decisions. Neither of these topics -were considered in the original 2007 DEIS. The original assumption was that the DEIS would -include an evaluation of the effects of OCS activities as they relate to authorizing the take of -marine mammals incidental to oil and gas activities pursuant to the MMPA. Per NEPA -requirements, the public should have been informed about the expansion of the original EIS -scope at a minimum, and the lead federal agency should have offered additional scoping -opportunities to gather comments from the public, affected State and local agencies, and other -interested stakeholders. This is a significant oversight of the NEPA process. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 78 -Comment Analysis Report - -NEP 7 It is troubling that the DEIS has failed to describe which specific action has triggered the -NEPA process, explaining only that conceptual ideas of seismic effects from possible OCS -oil and gas activities are being evaluated. The analysis is not based on reasonably foreseeable -levels of activity in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. This vague understanding of conceptual -ideas would complicate and limit the ability to properly assess environmental impacts and -provide suitable mitigation. There is no purpose or need for NMFS to prepare a non- -programmatic EIS for future MMPA ITAs that have not been requested. NEPA does not give -agencies the authority to engage in non-programmatic impact analyses in the absence of a -proposed action, which is what NMFS has done. - -NEP 8 Although NMFS has stated that the new 2011 DEIS is based on new information becoming -available, the 2011 DEIS does not appear to define what new information became available -requiring a change in the scope, set of alternatives, and analysis, as stated in the 2009 NOI to -withdraw the DPEIS. Although Section 1.7 of the 2011 DEIS lists several NEPA documents -(most resulting in a finding of no significant impact) prepared subsequent to the withdrawal -of the DPEIS, NMFS has not clearly defined what new information would drive such a -significant change to the proposed action and require the radical alternatives analysis -presented in the 2011 DEIS. - -NEP 9 The NOI for the 2011 DEIS did not specify that the intent of the document was to evaluate -finite numbers of exploration activities. As stated in the NOI, NMFS prepared the DEIS to -update the previous 2007 DPEIS based on new information and to include drilling. -Additionally, the NOI indicated that NMFS’ analysis would rely on evaluating a range of -impacts resulting from an unrestricted number of programs to no programs. NMFS did not -analyze an unrestricted range of programs in any of the alternatives. The original scope -proposed in the NOI does not match what was produced in the DEIS; therefore NMFS has -performed an incomplete analysis. - -NEP 10 It is discordant that the proposed action for the DEIS would include BOEM actions along -with NMFS’ issuance of ITAs. Geological and geophysical activities are, by definition, -limited in scope, duration and impact. These activities do not have the potential to -significantly affect the environment, and therefore do not require an EIS. - -NEP 11 The structural issues with the DEIS are so significant that NMFS should: - -• Abandon the DEIS and start a new NEPA process, including a new round of scoping, -development of a new proposed action, development of new alternatives that comply -with the MMPA, and a revised environmental consequences analysis.; - -• Abandon the DEIS and work in collaboration with BOEM to initiate a new NEPA -process, and conduct a workshop with industry to develop and analyze a feasible set of -alternatives; - -• Abandon the EIS process entirely and continue with its past practice of evaluating impact -of oil and gas activities in the Arctic through project-specific NEPA analyses; or - -• Abandon the EIS and restart the NEPA process when a project has been identified and -there is need for such analysis. - -NEP 12 The current DEIS process is unnecessary and replicates NEPA analyses that have already -been performed on Arctic oil and gas exploration activities. There has already been both a -final and supplemental EIS for Chukchi Sea Lease Sale 193, which adequately addressed -seismic exploration and other lease activities to which this DEIS is intended to assess. In -addition, BOEM has prepared NEPA analyses for Shell’s exploration drilling programs and - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 79 -Comment Analysis Report - -will prepare a project specific analysis for all other Arctic OCS exploration programs. As a -result, the DEIS duplicates and complicates the NEPA process by introducing a competing -impact assessment to BOEM’s work. - -NEP 13 NMFS should add Cook Inlet to the project area for the EIS, as Cook Inlet is tied into the five -year OCS Plan. - -NEP 14 As the ultimate measure of potential effects, the impact criteria provided in the DEIS are -problematic. They do not inform the relevant agencies as to how impacts relate to their -substantive statutory responsibilities, and they do not provide adequate information as to their -relationship to the NEPA significance threshold, the MMPA, or OCSLA. The DEIS should -be revised to reflect these concerns: - -• The DEIS does not articulate thresholds for “significance,” the point at which NEPA -requires the preparation of an EIS. This is important given the programmatic nature of the -document, and because there have been conflicting definitions of significance in recent -NEPA documents related to the Arctic; - -• The DEIS does not provide the necessary information to determine whether any of the -proposed alternatives will have more than a negligible impact on any marine mammal -stock, no unmitigable adverse impacts on subsistence uses, and whether there may be -undue harm to aquatic life. NMFS has previously recommended such an approach to -BOEM for the Draft Supplemental EIS for lease sale 193. Any impact conclusion in the -DEIS greater than “negligible” would be in conflict with the MMPA “negligible impact” -finding. Future site-specific activities will require additional NEPA analysis. - -NEP 15 NMFS should characterize this analysis as a programmatic EIS, and should make clear that -additional site-specific NEPA analysis must be performed in conjunction to assess individual -proposed projects and activities. A programmatic EIS, such as the one NMFS has proposed -here, cannot provide the detailed information required to ensure that specific projects will -avoid serious environmental harm and will satisfy the standards established by the MMPA. -For example, it may be necessary to identify with specificity the locations of sensitive -habitats that may be affected by individual projects in order to develop and implement -appropriate mitigation measures. The DEIS, as written, cannot achieve this level of detail. - -NEP 16 The DEIS presents an environmental consequences analysis that is inadequate and does not -provide a basis for assessing the relative merits of the alternatives. - -• The criteria for characterizing impact levels are not clear and do not provide adequate, -distinct differences between categories. Ratings are given by agency officials, which -could vary from person to person and yield inconsistent assessments. This methodology -is in contradiction to the NEPA requirements and guidelines that require objective -decision-making procedures. - -• A basis for comparison across alternatives, such as a cost-benefit analysis or other -assessment of relative value between human economic activity and physical/biological -impacts, is not included. From the existing evaluation system, a “minor” biological effect -and a “minor” social environment effect would be equivalent. - -• Minor and short-term behavioral effects appear to be judged more consequential than -known causes of animal mortality. - -• Available technical information on numerous issues does not appear to have been -evaluated or included in the impact analysis. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 80 -Comment Analysis Report - -• The assumptions for analysis are flawed and substantially underestimates industry -activities. - -• There is no attention to the probability of impacts. -• There is little attention paid to the severity of effects discussed. -• Many conclusions lack supporting data, and findings are not incorporated into a - -biologically meaningful analysis. - -NEP 17 There is no purpose and need for the scope of any NEPA analysis prepared by NMFS to -address the impacts of incidental take of polar bears and walrus by the oil and gas industry. -There are existing ITRs and NEPA analyses that cover these species. The scope of the DEIS -should be revised to exclude polar bears and walrus. - -NEP 18 NMFS should extend the public comment period to accommodate the postponed public -meetings in Kaktovik and Nuiqsut. It seems appropriate to keep the public comment period -open for all public entities until public meetings have been completed. NMFS should ensure -that adherence to the public process and NEPA compliance has occurred. - -NEP 19 The DEIS should define the potential future uses of tiering from the NEPA document, -specifically related to land and water management and uses. This future management intent -may extend the regulatory jurisdiction beyond the original scope of the DEIS. - -NEP 20 There are no regulations defining the term “potential effects,” which is used quite frequently -in the DEIS. Many of these potential effects are questionable due the lack of scientific -certainty, and in some critical areas, the virtual absence of knowledge. The DEIS confuses -agency decision-making by presenting an extensive list of “potential effects” as if they are -certainties -- and then demands they be mitigated. Thus, it is impossible for the DEIS to -inform, guide or instruct agency managers to differentiate between activities that have no -effect, minor or major effect to a few animals or to an entire population. - -NEP 21 The DEIS analysis provides inconsistent conclusions between resources and should be -revised. For example: - -• The analysis appears to give equivalent weight to potential risks for which there is no -indication of past effect and little to no scientific basis beyond the hypothesis of concern. -The analysis focuses on de minimus low-level industry acoustic behavioral effects well -below either NMFS’ existing and precautionary acoustic thresholds and well below levels -that recent science indicates are legitimate thresholds of harm. These insupportably low -behavioral effect levels are then labeled as a greater risk ("moderate") than non-industry -activities involving mortality to marine mammals of concern, which are labeled as -"minor" environmental effects. - -• Beneficial socioeconomic impacts are characterized as “minor” while environmental -impacts are characterized as “major.” This level of impact characterization implies an -inherent judgment of relative value, not supported by environmental economic analysis or -valuation. - -• The DEIS concedes that because exploration activities can continue for several years, the -duration of effects on the acoustic environment should be considered “long term,” but -this overview is absent from the bowhead assessment. - -• In discussing effects to subsistence hunting from permitted discharges, the DEIS refers to -the section on public health. The summary for the public health effects, however, refers -to the entirety of the cumulative effects discussion. That section appears to contain no -more than a passing reference to the issue. The examination of the mitigation measure - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 81 -Comment Analysis Report - -that would require recycling of drilling muds fares no better. The section simply -reinforces the fact that residents are very concerned about contamination without -considering the benefits that could come from significantly reducing the volume of toxic -discharges. - -• The only category with differently rated impacts between Alternatives 3 and 4 is "cultural -resources." Although authorization of marine mammal incidental take would have no -impact on cultural resources, for Alternatives 2 and 3, impacts to cultural resources are -rated as "negligible" rather than none. With imposition of additional mitigation measures -in Alternative 4, NMFS inexplicably increased the impact to "minor." - -NEP 22 The DEIS fails to explain how the environmental consequences analysis relates single animal -risk effect to the population level effect analysis and whether the analysis is premised on a -deterministic versus a probabilistic risk assessment approach. The DEIS apparently relies on -some type of "hybrid" risk assessment protocol and therefore is condemned to an unscientific -assessment that leads to an arbitrary and unreasonable conclusion that potential low-level -behavioral effects on few individual animals would lead to a biologically significant -population level effect. - -NEP 23 As written, the DEIS impact criteria provide no objective or reproducible scientific basis for -agency personnel to make decisions. The DEIS process would inherently require agency -decision makers to make arbitrary decisions not based upon objective boundaries. The DEIS -impact criteria are hard to differentiate between and should be revised to address the -following concerns: - -• The distinction made among these categories raises the following questions: What is -"perceptible" under Low Impact? What does "noticeably alter" mean? How does -"perceptible" under Low Impact differ from "detectable" under Moderate Impact? What -separates an "observable change in resource condition" under Moderate Intensity from an -"observable change in resource condition" under High Impact? Is it proper to establish an -"observable change" without assessment of the size of the change or more importantly the -effect as the basis to judge whether an action should be allowable? - -• There is no reproducible scientific process to determine relative judgment about intensity, -duration, extent, and context. - -NEP 24 The projection of risk in the DEIS is inconsistent with reality of effect. The characterizations -of risk are highly subjective and fully dependent upon the selection of the evaluator who -would be authorized to use his/her own, individual scientific understanding, views and biases. -The assessments cannot be replicated. The DEIS itself acknowledges the inconsistency from -assessment to assessment. This creates a situation in which the DEIS determines that -otherwise minor effects from industry operations (ranging from non-detectable to short-term -behavioral effects with no demonstrated population-level effects) are judged to be a higher -rated risk to the species than known causes of mortality. - -NEP 25 NMFS and BOEM should examine this process to handle uncertainty and should include in a -revised DEIS the assumptions and precautionary factors applied that are associated with each -step of this process such as: - -• estimates of seismic activity; -• source sizes and characterizations; -• underwater sound propagation; -• population estimates and densities of marine mammals; - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 82 -Comment Analysis Report - -• noise exposure criteria; and -• marine mammal behavior. - -Until the agencies document and communicate these underlying decisions in a transparent -fashion, neither the industry nor agency resource managers can know and understand how -such decisions are made and therefore the range and rate of error. The DEIS as presently -written presents an "on the one hand; on the other" approach which does not inform the issue -for agency resource managers. - -NEP 26 It is necessary for the DEIS to clearly define what constitutes a “take” and why, and what -thresholds will be utilized in the rulemaking. If there is reason for differing thresholds, those -differences should be clearly communicated and their rationale thoroughly explained. The -DEIS should: - -• NMFS needs to quantify the number of marine mammals that it expects to be taken each -year under all of the activities under review in the DEIS and provide an overall -quantification. This is critical to NMFS ensuring that its approval of IHAs will comport -with the MMPA. - -• Assert that exposure to sound does not equal an incidental taking. -• Communicate that the 120/160/180 dB thresholds used as the basis of the DEIS analysis - -are inappropriate and not scientifically supportable. -• Adopt the Southall Criteria (Southall, et al. 2007), which would establish the following - -thresholds: Level A at 198 dB re 1 µPa-rms; Level B at the lowest level of TTS-onset as -a proxy until better data is developed. - -NEP 27 The DEIS analysis should consider the frequency component, nature of the sound source, -cetacean hearing sensitivities, and biological significance when determining what constitutes -Level B incidental take. The working assumption that impulsive noise never disrupts marine -mammal behavior at levels below 160 dB (RMS), and disrupts behavior with 100 percent -probability at higher levels has been repeatedly demonstrated to be incorrect, including in -cases involving the sources and areas being considered in the DEIS. The reliance on the 160 -dB guideline for Level B take estimation is antiquated and should be revised by NMFS. The -criteria should be replaced by a combination of Sound Exposure Level limits and Peak (not -RMS) Sound Pressure Levels or other metric being considered. - -NEP 28 The DEIS fails to: - -• Adequately reflect prior research contradicting the Richardson et al. (1999) findings; -• Address deficiencies in the Richardson et al. (1999) study; and -• Present and give adequate consideration to newer scientific studies that challenge the - -assertion that bowhead whales commonly deflect around industry sound sources. - -NEP 29 Fundamental legal violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), NEPA, and -OCSLA may have occurred during the review process and appear throughout the DEIS -document. There are significant NEPA failures in the scoping process, in the consultation -process with agency experts, in the development and assessment of action alternatives, and in -the development and assessment of mitigation measures. There are also many assumptions -and conclusions in the DEIS that are clearly outside of NMFS’ jurisdiction, raise anti- -competitiveness concerns, and are likely in violation of the contract requirements and -property rights established through the OCSLA. In total, these legal violations create the -impression that NMFS pre-judged the results of their NEPA analysis. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 83 -Comment Analysis Report - -• NMFS did not evaluate different numbers per sea/alternative of drilling programs, as was -requested in public comments listed as COR 38 in Appendix C [of the EIS scoping -report]. - -• The DEIS contains little or no assessment of the impact of alternatives on BOEM’s -ability to meet the OCSLA requirements for exploration and development, as all of the -alternatives would slow the pace of exploration and development so much that lease -terms may be violated and development may not be economically viable. - -• The arbitrary ceiling on exploration and development activities chosen by NMFS raises -anti-competitiveness concerns. NMFS will be put in the position of picking and choosing -which lessees will get the opportunity to explore their leases. - -• NMFS’s actions under both NEPA and OCSLA need to be reviewed under the arbitrary -and capricious standard of the APA. An agency’s decision is arbitrary and capricious -under the APA where the agency (i) relies on factors Congress did not intend it to -consider, (ii) entirely fails to consider an important aspect of the problem, or (iii) offers -an explanation that runs counter to the evidence before the agency or is so implausible -that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise. -Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The current DEIS -errs in all three ways. - -NEP 30 The various stages of oil and gas exploration and development are connected actions that -should have been analyzed in the DEIS. The DEIS analyzes activities independently, but fails -to account for the temporal progression of exploration toward development on a given -prospect. By analyzing only a “snapshot” of activity in a given year, the DEIS fails to account -for the potential bottleneck caused by its forced cap on the activity allowed under its NEPA -analysis. NMFS should have considered a level of activity that reflected reasonably -foreseeable lessee demand for authorization to conduct oil and gas exploration and -development, and because it did not, the DEIS is legally defective and does not meet the -requirement to provide a reasonably accurate estimate of future activities necessary for the -DEIS to support subsequent decision-making under OCSLA. - -NEP 31 The DEIS should also include consideration of the additional time required to strike first oil -under each alternative and mitigation measure, since the delay between exploration -investment and production revenue has a direct impact on economic viability and, by -extension, the cumulative socioeconomic impacts of an alternative. - -NEP 32 NMFS should consider writing five-year ITRs for oil and gas exploration activities rather -than using this DEIS as the NEPA document. - -NEP 33 In order to designate “special habitat areas,” NMFS must go through the proper channels, -including a full review process. No such process was undertaken prior to designating these -“special habitat areas” in the DEIS. - -NEP 34 NMFS should consider basing its analysis of bowhead whales on the potential biological -removal (PBR) – a concept that reflects the best scientific information available and a -concept that is defined within the MMPA. NMFS could use information from the stock -assessments, current subsistence harvest quotas, and natural mortality to assess PBR. If -NMFS does not include PBR as an analysis technique in the DEIS, it should be stated why it -was not included. - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 84 -Comment Analysis Report - -NEP 35 The impact criteria that were used for the magnitude or intensity of impacts for marine -mammals are not appropriate. For a high intensity activity, whales and other marine -mammals would have to entirely leave the EIS project area. This criterion is arbitrary and has -no basis in biology. Instead, the intensity of the impact should relate to animals missing -feeding opportunities, being deflected from migratory routes, the potential for stress related -impacts, or other risk factors. - -NEP 36 The DEIS repeatedly asserts, without support, that time and place limitations may not result -in fewer exploration activities. The DEIS must do more to justify its position. It cannot -simply assume that desirable locations for exploration activities are fungible enough that a -restriction on activities in Camden Bay, for example, will lead to more exploration between -Camden Bay and Harrison Bay. - -NEP 37 NMFS must revise the thresholds and methodology used to estimate take from airgun use to -incorporate the following parameters: - -• Employ a combination of specific thresholds for which sufficient species-specific data -are available and generalized thresholds for all other species. These thresholds should be -expressed as linear risk functions where appropriate. If a risk function is used, the 50% -take parameter for all the baleen whales (bowhead, fin, humpback, and gray whales) and -odontocetes occurring in the area (beluga whales, narwhals, killer whales, harbor -porpoises) should not exceed 140 dB (RMS). Indeed, at least for bowhead whales, beluga -whales, and harbor porpoises, NMFS should use a threshold well below that number, -reflecting the high levels of disturbance seen in these species at 120 dB (RMS) and -below. - -• Data on species for which specific thresholds are developed should be included in -deriving generalized thresholds for species for which less data are available. - -• In deriving its take thresholds, NMFS should treat airgun arrays as a mixed acoustic type, -behaving as a multi-pulse source closer to the array and, in effect, as a continuous noise -source further from the array, per the findings of the 2011 Open Water Panel cited above. -Take thresholds for the impulsive component of airgun noise should be based on peak -pressure rather than on RMS. - -• Masking thresholds should be derived from Clark et al. (2009), recognizing that masking -begins when received levels rise above ambient noise. - -NEP 38 The DEIS fails to consider masking effects in establishing a 120 dB threshold for continuous -noise sources. Some biologists have analogized the increasing levels of noise from human -activities as a rising tide of “fog” that is already shrinking the sensory range of marine -animals by orders of magnitude from pre-industrial levels. As noted above, masking of -natural sounds begins when received levels rise above ambient noise at relevant frequencies. -Accordingly, NMFS must evaluate the loss of communication space, and consider the extent -of acoustic propagation, at far lower received levels than the DEIS currently employs. - -NEP 39 The DEIS fails to consider the impacts of sub-bottom profilers and other active acoustic -sources commonly featured in deep-penetration seismic and shallow hazard surveys and -should be included in the final analysis, regardless of the risk function NMFS ultimately uses. - -NEP 40 As the Ninth Circuit has found, “the considerations made relevant by the substantive statute -during the proposed action must be addressed in NEPA analysis.” Here, in assessing their -MMPA obligations, the agencies presuppose that industry will apply for IHAs rather than -five-year take authorizations and that BOEM will not apply to NMFS for programmatic - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 85 -Comment Analysis Report - -rulemaking. But the potential for mortality and serious injury bars industry from using the -incidental harassment process to obtain take authorizations under the MMPA. - -In 1994, Congress amended the MMPA to add provisions that allow for the incidental -harassment of marine mammals through IHAs, but only for activities that result the “taking -by harassment” of marine mammals. For those activities that could result in ‘taking” other -than harassment, interested parties must continue to use the pre-existing procedures for -authorization through specific regulations, often referred to as “five-year regulations.” -Accordingly, NMFS’ implementing regulations state that an IHA in the Arctic cannot be used -for “activities that have the potential to result in serious injury or mortality.” In the preamble -to the proposed regulations, NMFS explained that if there is a potential for serious injury or -death, it must either be “negated” through mitigation requirements or the applicant must -instead seek approval through five-year regulations. - -Given the clear potential for serious injury and mortality, few if any seismic operators in the -Arctic can legally obtain their MMPA authorizations through the IHAs process. BOEM -should consider applying to NMFS for a programmatic take authorization, and NMFS should -revise its impact and alternatives analyses in the EIS on the assumption that rulemaking is -required. - -NEP 41 The DEIS contains very little discussion of the combined effects of drilling and ice -management. Ice management can significantly expand the extent of a disturbance zone. It is -unclear as to how the disturbance zones for exploratory drilling in the Chukchi Sea were -determined as well. - -NEP 42 The analysis of impacts under Alternative 3 is insufficient and superficial and shows little -change from the analysis of impacts under Alternative 2 despite adding four additional -seismic surveys, four shallow hazard surveys, and two drilling programs. The analysis in -Alternative 3 highlights the general failure to consider the collective impact of different -activities. For example, the DEIS notes the minimum separation distance for seismic surveys, -but no such impediment exists for separating surveying and exploration drilling, along with -its accompanying ice breaking activities. - -NEP 43 The DEIS references the “limited geographic extent” of ice breaking activities, but it does not -consistently recognize that multiple ice breakers could operate as a result of the exploration -drilling programs. - -NEP 44 NEPA regulations make clear that agencies should not proceed with authorizations for -individual projects until an ongoing programmatic EIS is complete. That limitation is relevant -to the IHAs application currently before NMFS, including Shell’s plan for exploration -drilling beginning in 2012. It would be unlawful for NMFS to approve the marine mammal -harassment associated with Shell’s proposal without completing the EIS. - -NEP 45 The DEIS states that the final document may be used as the “sole” NEPA compliance -document for future activities. Such an approach is unwarranted. The EIS, as written, does -not provide sufficient information about the effects of specific activities taking place in any -particular location in the Arctic. The Ninth Circuit has criticized attempts to rely on a -programmatic overview to justify projects when there is a lack of “any specific information” -about cumulative effects. That specificity is missing here as well. For example, Shell’s -proposed a multi-year exploration drilling program in both seas beginning in 2012 will -involve ten wells, four ice management vessels, and dozens of support ships. The EIS simply -does not provide an adequate analysis that captures the effects of the entire enterprise, - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 86 -Comment Analysis Report - -including: 1) the Kulluk’s considerable disturbance zone; 2) the proximity of the drill sites to -bowhead feeding locations and the number of potentially harassed whales; or 3) the total -combined effects of drilling, ice management, and vessel traffic. - -NEP 46 The DEIS fails to incorporate impacts consistently and accurately through all layers of the -food web. A flow chart showing cause-and-effect relationships through each biological layer -may help correct truncation of analyses between resource groups. The resource -specialists/authors should coordinate on the analyses, particularly for prey resources or -habitat parameters. - -NEP 47 NMFS should come back to the communities after comments have been received on the -DEIS and provide a presentation or summary document that shows how communities' -comments were incorporated. - -NEP 48 The communities are feeling overwhelmed with the amount of documents they are being -asked to review related to various aspects of oil and gas exploration and development -activities. The system of commenting on EIS documents needs to be revised. However, the -forums of public meetings are important to people in the communities so their concerns can -be heard before they are implemented in the EIS. - -NEP 49 NMFS should consider making EIS documents (such as the public meeting powerpoint, -project maps, the mitigation measures, and/or the Executive Summary) available in hard copy -form to the communities. Even though these documents are on the project website, access to -the internet is very slow, and not always available and/or reliable. Having information -available in libraries or repositories would be much better for rural Alaskan residents. - -NEP 50 Deferring the selection of mitigation measures to a later date, where the public may not be -involved, fails to comport with NEPA’s requirements. “An essential component of a -reasonably complete mitigation discussion is an assessment of whether the proposed -mitigation measures can be effective." In reviewing NEPA documents, courts require this -level of disclosure, because "without at least some evaluation of effectiveness," the -discussion of mitigation measures is "useless" for "evaluating whether the anticipated -environmental impacts can be avoided." A "mere listing of mitigation measures is insufficient -to qualify as the reasoned discussion required by NEPA." The EIS should identify which -mitigation measures will be used. - -NEP 51 The DEIS provides extensive information regarding potential impacts of industry activities on -marine life. However, it gives insufficient attention to the impacts the alternatives and -mitigation measures would have on development of OCS resources. This should include -information on lost opportunity costs and the effect of time and area closures given the -already very short open water and weather windows available for Arctic industry operations. - -NEP 52 Positive environmental consequences of some industry activities and technologies are not -adequately considered, especially alternative technologies and consideration of what the -benefits of better imaging of the subsurface provides in terms of potentially reducing the -number of wells to maximize safe production. - -NEP 53 Local city councils within the affected area need to be informed of public involvement -meetings, since they are the elected representatives for the community. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 87 -Comment Analysis Report - -NEP 54 Either the proposed action for the EIS needs to be changed or the analysis is too broad for the -proposed action stated. NMFS should not limit the number of activities allowed: - -• As long as the number of takes has no more than a negligible impact on species or stock. -• Limiting the level of activities also limits the amount of data that can be collected. - -Industry will not be able to collect the best data in the time allotted. - -NEP 55 The exploration drilling season is largely limited by ice. Ice distribution in recent years -indicates drilling at some lease holdings could possibly occur June-November. NMFS should, -therefore, extend the temporal extent of the exploration drilling season. - -NEP 56 The planning area boundary south of Point Hope should be removed from the EIS project -area. This area serves as the primary transportation route from the Bering Straits to the -Beaufort and Chukchi sea lease holdings. By including this portion of the Chukchi Sea in the -EIS project area, NMFS appears to be attempting to restrict access to travel corridors during -key periods. Vessel transit to a lease holding or exploration area is not included in current -NMFS or BOEM regulatory jurisdiction; therefore, the requirement included in the DEIS -provides unwarranted restrictions. Transit areas should not be included in the EIS project area -since ITAs are not required for vessel transit. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 88 -Comment Analysis Report - -Oil Spill Risks (OSR) -OSR Concerns about potential for oil spill, ability to clean up spills in various conditions, potential - -impacts to resources or environment from spills. - -OSR 1 A large oil spill in the extreme conditions present in Arctic waters would be extremely -difficult or impossible to clean up. Current cleanup methods are unsuitable and ineffective. -Oil spill responses need to be developed in advance of offshore development. NMFS and -BOEM need to consider the following: - -• Current technology only allows rescue and repair attempts during ice free parts of the -year. If an oil spill occurs near or into freeze-up, the oil will remain trapped there until -spring. These spring lead systems and melt pools are important areas where wildlife -collect. - -• How would oil be skimmed with sea ice present? -• How would rough waters affect oil spill response effectiveness and time, and could rough - -seas and sea ice, in combination, churn the surface oil? - -OSR 2 An oil spill being a low probability event is optimistic and would only apply to the -exploration phase. Once full development or production goes into effect, an oil spill is more -likely. Are there any data suggesting this is a low probability? NMFS should assume a spill -will occur and plan accordingly. - -OSR 3 An oil spill in the arctic environment would be devastating to numerous biological systems, -habitats, communities and people. There is too little known about Arctic marine wildlife to -know what the population effects would be. Black (oiled) ice would expedite ice melt. The -analysis section needs to be updated. Not only would the Arctic be affected but the waters -surrounding the Arctic as well. - -OSR 4 An Oil Spill Response Gap Analysis needs to be developed for existing Arctic Oil and Gas -Operations. - -OSR 5 The effects of an oil spill on indigenous peoples located on the Canadian side of the border -needs to be assessed. - -OSR 6 The use of dispersants could have more unknown effects in the cold and often ice covered -seas of the Arctic. People are reported to be sick or dead from past use of these dispersants, -but yet they are still mentioned as methods of cleanup. - -OSR 7 There are many physical effects a spill can have on marine mammals. Thoroughly consider -the impact of routine spills on marine mammals. The marine mammal commissions briefing -on the Deepwater Horizon spill listed many. - -OSR 8 Mitigation measures need to reflect the possibility of an oil spill and lead to a least likely -impact. Identify areas to be protected first in case a spill does occur. - -OSR 9 Pinnipeds and walruses are said to have only minor to moderate impacts with a very large oil -spill. The conclusion is peculiar since NMFS is considering ringed and bearded seals and -USFWS is considering walruses to be listed under the ESA. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 89 -Comment Analysis Report - -OSR 10 Proven technology that could operate outside the open-water season should be specified. The -EIS needs to determine if certain vessels like the drillship Discoverer can actually complete a -relief-well late in the operating season when ice may be present, since it is not a true ice class -vessel. - -OSR 11 Hypothetical spill real time constraints and how parameters for past VLOS events need to be -explained and identified. A range of representative oils should be used for scenarios not just -for a light-weight oil. Percentages of trajectories need to be explained and identified. - -OSR 12 The oil spill section needs to be reworked. NMFS should consider also working the -discussion of oil spills in the discussion the alternatives. No overall risks to the environment -are stated, or severity of spills in different areas, shoreline oiling is inadequate, impacts to -whales may be of higher magnitude due to important feeding areas and spring lead systems. -Recovery rates should be reevaluated for spilled oil. There are no site-specific details. The -trajectory model needs to be more precise. - -OSR 13 The DEIS confirms our [the affected communities] worst fears about both potential negative -impacts from offshore drilling and the fact that the federal government appears ready to place -on our communities a completely unacceptable risk at the behest of the international oil -companies. Native people in Alaska depend on the region for food and economical support. -An oil spill would negatively impact the local economies and the livelihoods of Native -people. - -OSR 14 To the extent that a VLOS is not part of the proposed action covered in the DEIS, it is -inappropriate to include an evaluation of the impacts of such an event in this document - -OSR 15 NMFS should recommend an interagency research program on oil spill response in the Arctic -and seek appropriations from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the program as -soon as possible. - -OSR 16 This DEIS should explain how non-Arctic analogs of oil spills are related to the Arctic and -what criteria are used as well as highlight the USGS Data-Gap Report that recommends for -continuous updating of estimates. - -OSR 17 Consider that effects of an oil spill would be long-lasting. Petroleum products cause -malformation in fish, death in marine mammals and birds, and remain in the benthos for at -least 25 years, so would impact the ecosystem for at least a quarter of a century. - -OSR 18 The effects that a very large oil spill could have on seal populations are understated in the -analyses. - -• Based on animal behavior and results from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) it is much -more likely that seals would be attracted to a spill area particularly cleanup operations, -leading to a higher chance of oiling (Nelson 1969, Herreman 2011 personal observation). - -• The oil spill would not have to reach polynya or lead systems to affect seals. Ringed seals -feed under the pack ice in the water column layer where oil would likely be entrained and -bearded seals travel through this water layer. - -• Numerous individuals are likely to become oiled no matter where such a spill is likely to -occur. - -• Food sources for all seal species would be heavily impacted in spill areas. -• More than one "subpopulation" could likely be affected by a very large oil spill. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 90 -Comment Analysis Report - -OSR 19 Analysis should include the high probability for polar bears to be impacted if an oil spill -reached the lead edge between the shorefast and pack ice zones, which is critical foraging -habitat especially during spring after den emergence by females with cubs. - -OSR 20 It is recommended that NMFS take into account the safety and environmental concerns -highlighted in the Gulf of Mexico incident and how these factors will be exacerbated in the -more physically challenging Arctic environment. Specifically, NMFS is asked to consider the -systematic safety problems with the oil and gas industry, the current lack of regulatory -oversight, and the lax enforcement of violations. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 91 -Comment Analysis Report - -Peer Review (PER) -PER Suggestions for peer review of permits, activities, proposals. - -PER 1 A higher-quality survey effort needs to be conducted by an independent and trusted third -party. - -PER 2 An open-ended permit should not move into production without proper review of the -extensive processes, technologies, and infrastructure required for commercial hydrocarbon -exploitation. - -PER 3 Research and monitoring cannot just be industry controlled; it needs to be a transparent -process with peer review. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 92 -Comment Analysis Report - -Regulatory Compliance (REG) -REG Comments associated with compliance with existing regulations, laws and statutes. - -REG 1 NMFS should reconsider the use of the word “taking” in reference to the impacts to marine -mammals since these animals are not going to be taken, they are going to be killed and -wasted. - -REG 2 Permitted activity level should not exceed what is absolutely essential for the industry to -conduct seismic survey activities. NMFS needs to be sure that activities are indeed, negligible -and at the least practicable level for purposes of the MMPA. - -REG 3 NMFS is encouraged to amend the DEIS to include a more complete description of the -applicable statute and implementing regulations and analyze whether the proposed levels of -industrial activity will comply with the substantive standards of the MMPA. - -REG 4 NMFS should revise the DEIS to encompass only those areas that are within the agency’s -jurisdiction and remove provisions and sections that conflicts with other federal and state -agency jurisdictions (BOEM, USFWS, EPA, Coast Guard, and State of Alaska). The current -DEIS is felt to constitute a broad reassessment and expansion of regulatory oversight. -Comments include: - -• The EIS mandates portions of CAAs, which are voluntary and beyond NMFS -jurisdiction. - -• The EIS proposes polar bear mitigations measures that could contradict those issued by -USFWS under the MMPA and ESA. - -• Potential requirements for zero discharge encroach on EPA’s jurisdiction under the Clean -Water Act regarding whether and how to authorize discharges. - -• Proposed mitigation measures, acoustic restrictions, and “Special Habitat” area -effectively extend exclusion zones and curtail lease block access, in effect “capping” -exploration activities. These measures encroach on the Department of the Interior’s -jurisdiction to identify areas open for leasing and approve exploration plans, as -designated under OCSLA. - -• The proposed requirement for an Oil Spill Response Plan conflicts with BOEM, Bureau -of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and the Coast Guard’s jurisdiction, as -established in OPA-90, which requires spill response planning. - -• NMFS does not have the authority to restrict vessel transit, which is under the jurisdiction -of the Coast Guard. - -• Proposed restrictions, outcomes, and mitigation measures duplicate and contradict -existing State lease stipulations and mitigation measures. - -REG 5 NMFS should take a precautionary approach in its analysis of impacts of oil and gas activities -and in the selection of a preferred alternative. NMFS should not permit any more oil and gas -exploration within the U.S. Beaufort and Chukchi seas unless and until there is a plan in place -that shows those activities can be conducted without harming the health of the ecosystem or -opportunities for the subsistence way of life. - -REG 6 The EIS needs to be revised to ensure compliance with Article 18 of the Vienna Convention -of the Law on Treaties and the Espoo Convention, which states that a country engaging in -offshore oil and gas development must take all appropriate and effective measures to prevent, - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 93 -Comment Analysis Report - -reduce and control significant adverse transboundary environmental impacts from proposed -activities and must notify and provide information to a potentially affected country. - -REG 7 The DEIS needs to identify and properly address the importance of balancing the -requirements of the OCSLA, the MMPA and ESA. Currently, the DEIS substantially gives -undue weight to considerations involving incidental taking of marine mammals under the -MMPA and virtually ignores the requirements of OCSLA. Comments include: - -• The DEIS contains little or no assessment of the impact of alternatives on BOEM’s -ability to meet the OCSLA requirements for exploration and development. - -• A forced limitation in industry activity by offering only alternatives that constrain -industry activities would logically result in violating the expeditious development -provisions of OCSLA. - -• All of the alternatives would slow the pace of exploration and development so much that -lease terms may be violated and development may not be economically viable. - -REG 8 NMFS’s explicit limitations imposed on future exploration and development on existing -leases in the DEIS undermine the contractual agreement between lessees and the Federal -government in violation of the Supreme Court’s instruction in Mobil Oil Exploration & -Producing Southeast v. United States, 530 U.S. 604 (2000). - -REG 9 The DEIS needs to be changed to reflect the omnibus bill signed by President Obama on -December 23, 2011 that transfers Clean Air Act permitting authority from the EPA -Administrator to the Secretary of Interior (BOEM) in Alaska Arctic OCS. - -REG 10 Until there an indication that BOEM intends to adopt new air permitting regulations for the -Arctic or otherwise adopt regulations that will ensure compliance with the requirements of -the Clean Air Act, it is important that NMFS address the worst case scenario- offshore oil and -gas activities proceeding under BOEM's current regulations. - -REG 11 The DEIS needs to discuss threatened violations of substantive environmental laws. In -analyzing the effects "and their significance" pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16, CEQ -regulations require the agency to consider "whether the action threatens a violation of -Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment." - -REG 12 The current DEIS impact criteria need to be adjusted to reflect MMPA standards, specifically -in relation to temporal duration and the geographical extent of impacts. In assessing whether -the proposed alternatives would comply with the MMPA standards, NMFS must analyze -impacts to each individual hunt to identify accurately the potential threats to each individual -community. MMPA standards focuses on each individual harvest for each season and do not -allow NMFS to expand the geographic and temporal scope of its analysis. MMPA regulations -define an unmitigable adverse impact as one that is "likely to reduce the availability of the -species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs." Within the DEIS, the -current impact criteria would tend to mask impacts to local communities over shorter -durations of time. - -REG 13 Language needs to be changed throughout the conclusion of impacts to subsistence, where -NMFS repeatedly discusses the impacts using qualified language; however, the MMPA -requires a specific finding that the proposed activities "will not" have an adverse impact to -our subsistence practices. It is asked that NMFS implement the will of Congress and disclose -whether it has adequate information to reach these required findings before issuing ITAs. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 94 -Comment Analysis Report - -REG 14 It is suggested that NMFS include in the DEIS an explicit discussion of whether and to what -extent the options available for mitigation comply with the "lease practicable adverse impact" -standard of the MMPA. This is particularly important for the "additional mitigation -measures" that NMFS has, to this point, deferred for future consideration. By focusing its -analysis on the requirements of MMPA, we believe that NMFS will recognize its obligation -to make an upfront determination of whether these additional mitigation measures are -necessary to comply with the law. Deferring the selection of mitigation measures to a later -date, where the public may not be involved, fails to comport with NEPA's requirements. - -REG 15 The DEIS needs to consistently apply section 1502.22 and consider NMFS and BOEM’s -previous conclusions as to their inability to make informed decisions as to potential effects. -NMFS acknowledges information gaps without applying the CEQ framework and disregards -multiple sources that highlight additional fundamental data gaps concerning the Arctic and -the effects of oil and gas disturbance. - -REG 16 NMFS needs to reassess the legal uncertainty and risks associated with issuing marine -mammal take authorizations under the MMPA based upon a scope as broad as the Arctic -Ocean. - -REG 17 NMFS needs to assess the impact of offshore coastal development in light of the fact that -Alaska lacks a coastal management program, since the State lacks the program infrastructure -to effectively work on coastal development issues. - -REG 18 NMFS needs to ensure that it is in compliance with the Ninth Circuit court ruling that when -an action is taken pursuant to a specific statute, not only do the statutory objectives of the -project serve as a guide by which to determine the reasonableness of objectives outlined in an -EIS, but the statutory objectives underlying the agency’s action work significantly to define -its analytic obligations. As a result, NMFS is required by NEPA to explain how alternatives -in an EIS will meet requirements of other environmental laws and policies. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 95 -Comment Analysis Report - -Research, Monitoring, Evaluation Needs (RME) -RME Comments on baseline research, monitoring, and evaluation needs - -RME 1 The USGS identified important gaps in existing information related to the Beaufort and -Chukchi seas, including gaps on the effects of noise on marine mammals. This report -highlighted that the type of information needed to make decisions about the impact of -offshore activity (e.g., seismic noise) on marine mammals remains largely lacking. A -significant unknown is the degree to which sound impacts marine mammals, from the -individual level to the population level. - -The degree of uncertainty regarding impacts to marine mammals greatly handicaps the -agencies' efforts to fully evaluate the impacts of the permitted activities, and NMFS' ability to -determine whether the activity is in compliance with the terms of the MMPA. The agency -should acknowledge these data-gaps required by applicable NEPA regulations (40 C.F.R. -§1502.22), and gather the missing information. - -While research and monitoring for marine mammals in the Arctic has increased, NMFS still -lacks basic information on abundance, trends, and stock structure of most Arctic marine -mammal species. This information is needed to gauge whether observed local or regional -effects on individuals or groups of marine mammals are likely to have a cumulative or -population level effect. - -The lack of information about marine mammals in the Arctic and potential impacts of -anthropogenic noise, oil spills, pollution and other impacts on those marine mammals -undercuts NMFS ability to determine the overall effects of such activities. - -RME 2 The DEIS does not address or acknowledge the increasingly well-documented gaps in -knowledge of baseline environmental conditions and data that is incomplete in the Beaufort -and Chukchi seas for marine mammals and fish, nor how baseline conditions and marine -mammal populations are being affected by climate change. Information regarding -information regarding the composition, distribution, status, ecology of the living marine -resources and sensitive habitats in these ecosystems needs to be better known. Baseline data -are also critical to developing appropriate mitigation measures and evaluating their -effectiveness. It is unclear what decisions over what period of time would be covered under -the DEIS or how information gaps would be addressed and new information incorporated into -future decisions. The information gaps in many areas with relatively new and expanding -exploration activities are extensive and severe enough that it may be too difficult for -regulators to reach scientifically reliable conclusions about the risks to marine mammals from -oil and gas activities. - -To complicate matters, much of the baseline data about individual species (e.g., population -dynamics) remains a noteworthy gap. It is this incomplete baseline that NMFS uses as their -basis for comparing the potential impacts of each alternative. - -RME 3 Prior to installation and erection, noises from industry equipment need to be tested: - -• Jack-up drilling platforms have not been evaluated in peer reviewed literature and will -need to be evaluated prior to authorizing the use of this technology under this EIS. The -DEIS states that it is assumed that the first time a jack-up rig is in operation in the Arctic, -detailed measurements will be conducted to determine the acoustic characteristics. This - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 96 -Comment Analysis Report - -statement implies an assumption that the noise levels found on erecting the jack-up rig -will be below levels required for mitigation. The DEIS needs to explain what would be -the procedure if the noise exposure threshold was exceeded. It is suggest that the noises -of erecting a jack-up rig be characterized in a trial basis before deployment to a remote -location where the environment is more sensitive to disruption and where the phrase -“practical mitigation” can be applied. - -• Noise from the erection and deployment of jack-up rigs and other stationary platforms -need to be quantified and qualified prior to introducing them into the Arctic. - -• Noise from thruster-driven dynamic positioning systems on drilling platforms and drill -ships need to be quantified and qualified prior to introducing them into the Arctic. - -RME 4 Propagation of airgun noise from in-ice seismic surveys is not accurately known, -complicating mitigation threshold distances and procedures. - -RME 5 Noise impacts of heavy transport aircraft and helicopters needs to be evaluated and -incorporated into the DEIS. - -RME 6 Protection of acoustic environments relies upon accurate reference conditions and that -requires the development of procedures for measuring the source contributions of noise as -well as analyses of historical patterns of noise exposure in a particular region. Even studies -implemented at this very moment will not be entirely accurate since shipping traffic has -already begun taking advantage of newly ice-free routes. The Arctic is likely the last place on -the planet where acoustic habitat baseline information can be gathered and doing so is -imperative to understanding the resulting habitat loss from these activities. A comprehensive -inventory of acoustical conditions would be the first step towards documenting the extent of -current noise conditions, and estimating the pristine historic and desired future conditions. - -Analysis of potential impacts at this stage is speculative at best because of the lack of -definitive information regarding sound source levels, the type and duration of proposed -exploration activities, and the mitigation measures that each operator would be required to -meet. However, before an ITA can be issued, NMFS will need such information to make the -findings required under the MMPA. - -RME 7 Information on Page 4-355, Section 4.9.4.9 Volume of Oil Reaching Shore includes some -older references to research work that was done in the 1980's and 1990's. More recent -research or reports based on the Deepwater Horizon incident could be referenced here. In -addition NMFS and BOEM should consider a deferral on exploration drilling until the -concerns detailed by the U.S. Oil Spill Commission are adequately addressed. - -RME 8 The DEIS does not explain why obtaining data quality or environmental information on -alternative technologies would have been exorbitant. - -RME 9 It was recommended that agencies and industry involved in Arctic oil and gas exploration -establish a research fund to reduce source levels in seismic surveys. New techniques -including vibroseis should be considered particularly in areas where there have not been -previous surveys and so comparability with earlier data is not an issue. Likewise, similar to -their vessel-quieting technology workshops, NOAA is encouraged to fund and facilitate -expanded research and development in noise reduction measures for seismic surveys. - -RME 10 NMFS has provided only conceptual examples of the temporal and spatial distribution of -proposed activities under each alternative, and the maps and figures provided do not include -all possible activities considered for each alternative or how these activities might overlap - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 97 -Comment Analysis Report - -spatially and temporally. The lack of specific information precludes a full assessment of the -potential effects of the combined activities, including such things as an estimation of the -number of takes for species that transit through the action area during the timeframe being -considered. Similarly, the range of airgun volumes, source levels, and distances to the 190-, -180-, 160-, and 120-dB re 1 µPa harassment thresholds (Table 4.5- 10, which are based on -measurements from past surveys) vary markedly and cannot be used to determine with any -confidence the full extent of harassment of marine mammals. Such assessment requires -modeling of site-specific operational and environmental parameters, which is simply not -possible based on the information in this programmatic assessment. - -To assess the effects of the proposed oil and gas exploration activities under the MMPA, -NMFS should work with BOEM estimate the site-specific acoustic footprints for each sound -threshold (i.e., 190, 180, 160, and 120 dB re 1 µPa) and the expected number of marine -mammal takes, accounting for all types of sound sources and their cumulative impacts. - -Any analysis of potential impacts at this stage is speculative at best because of the lack of -definitive information regarding sound source levels, the type and duration of proposed -exploration activities, and the mitigation measures that each operator would be required to -meet. However, before an ITA can be issued, NMFS will need such information to make the -findings required under the MMPA. - -RME 11 There is missing information regarding: - -• Whether enough is known about beluga whales and their habitat use to accurately predict -the degree of harm expected from multiple years of exploration activity. - -• Issues relevant to effects on walrus regarding the extent of the missing information are -vast, as well summarized in the USGS Report. Information gaps include: population size; -stock structure; foraging ecology in relation to prey distributions and oceanography; -relationship of changes in sea ice to distribution, movements, reproduction, and survival; -models to predict the effects of climate change and anthropogenic impacts; and improved -estimates of harvest. Impacts to walrus of changes in Arctic and subarctic ice dynamics -are not well understood. - -RME 12 To predict the expected effects of oil and gas and other activities more accurately, a broader -synthesis and integration of available information on bowhead whales and other marine -mammals is needed. That synthesis should incorporate such factors as ambient sound levels, -natural and anthropogenic sound sources, abundance, movement patterns, the oceanographic -features that influence feeding and reproductive behavior, and traditional knowledge -(Hutchinson and Ferrero 2011). - -RME 13 An ecosystem-wide, integrated synthesis of available information would help identify -important data gaps that exist for Arctic marine mammals, particularly for lesser-studied -species such as beluga whales, walruses, and ice seals. It also would help the agencies better -understand and predict the long-term, cumulative effects of the proposed activities, in light of -increasing human activities in the Arctic and changing climatic conditions. It is recommended -that NMFS work with BOEM and other entities as appropriate to establish and fully support -programs designed to collect and synthesize the relevant scientific information and traditional -knowledge necessary to evaluate and predict the long-term and cumulative effects of oil and -gas activities on Arctic marine mammals and their environment. - -Robust monitoring plans for authorized activities could be a key component to filling some of -these gaps. Not only do these monitoring plans need to be implemented, but all data collected - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 98 -Comment Analysis Report - -should be publically available for peer review and analysis. In the current system, there is no -choice but to accept industries' interpretation of results. This is not appropriate when we are -talking about impacts to the public and its resources. Since industry is exploring for oil and -gas that belongs to the people of the US and they are potentially impacting other resources -that also belong to the people of the US, data from monitoring programs should be available -to the public. - -RME 14 Page 4-516 Section 4.10.5.4.4 the DEIS suggests that marine mammals may have trouble -navigating between seismic surveys and drill operations because of overlapping sound -signatures, but the analysis does not provide any distances or data to support this conclusion. - -RME 15 Page 4-98 Bowhead Whales, Direct and Indirect Effects [Behavioral Disturbance]. This -section on bowhead whales does not include more recent data in the actual analysis of the -impacts though it does occasionally mention some of the work. Rather it falls back to -previous analyses that did not have this work to draw upon and makes similar conclusions. -NMFS makes statements that are conjectural to justify its conclusions and not based on most -recent available data. - -RME 16 It has become painfully obvious that the use of received level alone is seriously limited in -terms of reliably predicting impacts of sound exposure. However, if NMFS intends to -continue to define takes accordingly, a more representative probabilistic approach would be -more defensible. A risk function with a 50 percent midpoint at 140 dB (RMS) that accounts, -even qualitatively, for contextual issues likely affecting response probability, comes much -closer to reflecting the existing data for marine mammals, including those in the Arctic, than -the 160 dB (RMS) step-function that has previously been used and is again relied upon in the -Arctic DEIS. - -RME 17 Page 3-68, Section 3.2.2.3.2 - The Cryopelagic Assemblage: The sentence "The arctic cod is -abundant in the region, and their enormous autumn-winter pre spawning swarms are well -known" is misleading. What is the referenced region? There are no well-known pre-spawning -swarms for the Beaufort and Chukchi seas oil and gas leasing areas. Furthermore large -aggregations of Arctic Cod have not been common in the most recent fish surveys conducted -in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas (same references used in this EIS). - -RME 18 Page 400, 3rd paragraph Section 4.5.2.4.9.1. The middle of this paragraph states that -"behavioral responses of bowhead whales to activities are expected to be temporary." There -are no data to support this conclusion. The duration of impacts from industrial activities to -bowhead whales is unknown. This statement should clearly state the limitations in data. If a -conclusion is made without data, more information is needed about how NMFS reached this -conclusion. - -RME 19 Page 4-102, 2nd paragraph, Section 4.5.2.4.9.1. Direct and Indirect Effects, Site Clearance -and High Resolution Shallow Hazards Survey Programs: A discussion about how bowhead -whales respond to site clearance/shallow hazard surveys occurs in this paragraph but -references only Richardson et al. (1985). Given the number of recent site clearance/shallow -hazard surveys, there should be additional information to be available from surveys -conducted since 2007. If there are not more recent data, this raises questions regarding the -failure of monitoring programs to examine effects to bowhead whales from site -clearance/shallow hazard surveys. - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 99 -Comment Analysis Report - -RME 20 Page 4-104, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence, Section 4.5.2.4.9.1 Direct and Indirect Effects, -Exploratory Drilling: The conclusions based on the impact criteria are not supported by data. -For example, there are no data on the duration of impacts to bowhead whales from -exploratory drilling. If NMFS is going to make conclusions, they should highlight that -conclusions are not based on data but on supposition. - -RME 21 Page 4-104, Section 4.5.2.4.9.1 Direct and Indirect Effects, Associated Vessels and Aircraft: -This section does not use the best available science. A considerable effort has occurred to -evaluate impacts from activities associated with BP's Northstar production island. Those -studies showed that resupply vessels were one of the noisiest activities at Northstar and that -anthropogenic sounds caused bowhead whales to deflect north of the island or to change -calling behavior. This EIS should provide that best available information about how bowhead -whales respond to vessel traffic to the public and decision makers. - -RME 22 Page 4-107, Section 4.5.2.4.9.1 Direct and Indirect Effects, Hearing Impairment, Injury, and -Mortality: The sentence states that hearing impairment, injury or mortality is "highly -unlikely." Please confirm if there are data to support this statement. It is understood that there -are no data about hearing impairment in bowhead or beluga whales. Again, if speculation or -supposition is used to make conclusions, this should be clearly stated. - -RME 23 The DEIS contains a number of instances in which it acknowledges major information gaps -related to marine mammals but insists that there is an adequate basis for making an -assessment of impacts. For example, the DEIS finds that it is not known whether impulsive -sounds affect reproductive rate or distribution and habitat use [of bowhead whales] over -periods of days or years. Moreover, the potential for increased stress, and the long-term -effects of stress, are unknown, as research on stress effects in marine mammals is limited. -Nevertheless, the DEIS concludes that for bowhead whales the level of available information -is sufficient to support sound scientific judgments and reasoned managerial decisions, even in -the absence of additional data of this type. The DEIS also maintains that sufficient -information exists to evaluate impacts on walrus and polar bear despite uncertainties about -their populations. - -RME 24 Although the DEIS takes note of some of the missing information related to the effects of -noise on fish, it maintains that what does exist is sufficient to make an informed decision. -BOEM’s original draft supplemental EIS for Lease Sale 193, however, observed that -experiments conducted to date have not contained adequate controls to allow us to predict the -nature of the change or that any change would occur. NOAA subsequently submitted -comments noting that BOEM’s admission indicated that the next step would be to address -whether the cost to obtain the information is exorbitant, or the means of doing so unclear. - -The DEIS also acknowledges that robust population estimates and treads for marine fish are -unavailable and detailed information concerning their distribution is lacking. Yet the DEIS -asserts that [g]eneral population trends and life histories are sufficiently understood to -conclude that impacts on fish resources would be negligible. As recently as 2007, BOEM -expressed stronger concerns when assessing the effects of a specific proposal for two -drillships operating in the Beaufort Sea. It found that it could not concur that the effects on all -fish species would be short term or that these potential effects are insignificant, nor would -they be limited to the localized displacement of fish, because they could persist for up to five -months each year for three consecutive years and they could occur during critical times in the -life cycle of important fish species. The agencies’ prior conclusions are equally applicable in -the context of this DEIS. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 100 -Comment Analysis Report - -Fish and EFH Impacts Analysis (Direct and Indirect; Alternatives 2 through 5) is -substantively incomplete and considered to be unsupported analysis lacking analytical rigor -and depth; conclusions are often not rationally and effectively supported by data; some -statements are simply false and can be demonstrated so with further analysis of available -data, studies, and a plethora of broad data gaps that include data gaps concerning the -distribution, population abundance, and life history statistics for the various arctic fish -species. - -RME 25 Significant threshold discussion should be expanded based on MMS, Shell Offshore Inc. -Beaufort Sea Exploration Plan, Environmental Assessment, OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-009 at -50-51 (Feb. 2007) (2007 Drilling EA), available at -http://www.alaska.boemre.gov/ref/EIS%20EA/ShellOffshoreInc_EA/SOI_ea.pdf. - -BOEM avoided looking more closely at the issue by resting on a significance threshold that -required effects to extend beyond multiple generations. The issue of an appropriate -significance threshold in the DEIS is discussed in the text. A panel of the Ninth Circuit -determined that the uncertainty required BOEM to obtain the missing information or provide -a convincing statement of its conclusion of no significant impacts notwithstanding the -uncertainty. Alaska Wilderness League v. Salazar, 548 F.3d 815, 831 (9th Cir. 2008), opinion -withdrawn, 559 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. Mar 06, 2009), vacated as moot, 571 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. -2009). - -RME 26 The DEIS reveals in many instances that studies are in fact already underway, indicating that -the necessary information gathering is not cost prohibitive. - -• A study undertaken by BP, the North Slope Borough, and the University of California -will help better understand masking and the effects of masking on marine mammals[.] It -will also address ways to overcome the inherent uncertainty of where and when animals -may be exposed to anthropogenic noise by developing a model for migrating bowhead -whales. - -• NOAA has convened working groups on Underwater Sound mapping and Cetacean -Mapping in the Arctic. - -• BOEM has an Environmental Studies Program that includes a number of ongoing and -proposed studies in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas that are intended to address a wide- -variety of issues relevant to the DEIS. - -• NMFS’s habitat mapping workshop is scheduled to release information this year, and the -Chukchi Sea Acoustics, Oceanography, and Zooplankton study is well underway. - -These and other studies emphasize the evolving nature of information available concerning -the Arctic. As part of the EIS, NMFS should establish a plan for continuing to gather -information. As these and other future studies identify new areas that merit special -management, the EIS should have a clearly defined process that would allow for their -addition. - -RME 27 The DEIS’ use of the Conoco permit is also improper because the DEIS failed to -acknowledge all of Conoco’s emissions and potential impacts. The DEIS purports to include -a list of typical equipment for an Arctic oil and gas survey or exploratory drilling. The list set -forth in the DEIS is conspicuously incomplete, however, as it assumes that exploratory -drilling can be conducted using only a single icebreaker. Conoco’s proposed operations were -expected to necessitate two icebreakers. Indeed, the three other OCS air permits issued in -2011 also indicate the need for two icebreakers. The failure of the DEIS to account for the - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 101 -Comment Analysis Report - -use of two icebreakers in each exploratory drilling operations is significant because the -icebreakers are the largest source of air pollution associated with an exploratory drilling -operation in the Arctic. - -RME 28 Recent regulatory decisions cutting the annual exploratory drilling window by one third, -purportedly to temporally expand the oil spill response window during the open water season. -At the least, the agencies should collect the necessary data by canvassing lessees as to what -their exploration schedules are, instead of guessing or erroneously assuming what that level -of activity might be over the five years covered by the EIS. This is an outstanding example of -not having basic information (e.g., lessee planned activity schedules) necessary even though -such information is available (upon request) to assess environmental impacts. Such -information can be and should be obtained (at negligible cost) by the federal government, and -used to generate accurate assumptions for analysis. Sharing activity plans/schedules are also -the best of interest of lessees so as to expedite the completion of the EIS and subsequent -issuance of permits. NMFS and BOEM should also canvas seismic survey companies to -gather information concerning their interest and schedules of conducting procured or -speculative seismic surveys in the region and include such data in the generation of their -assumptions for analysis. - -RME 29 Throughout the DEIS, there are additional acknowledgements of missing information, but -without any specific findings as to the importance to the agencies’ decision making, as -required by Section 1502.22, including: - -• Foraging movements of pack-ice breeding seals are not known. -• There are limited data as to the effects of masking. The greatest limiting factor in - -estimating impacts of masking is a lack of understanding of the spatial and temporal -scales over which marine mammals actually communicate. - -• It is not known whether impulsive noises affect marine mammal reproductive rate or -distribution. - -• It is not currently possible to predict which behavioral responses to anthropogenic noise -might result in significant population consequences for marine mammals, such as -bowhead whales, in the future. - -• The potential long-term effects on beluga whales from repeated disturbance are unknown. -Moreover, the current population trend of the Beaufort Sea stock of beluga whales is -unknown. - -• The degree to which ramp-up protects marine mammals from exposure to intense noises -is unknown. - -• Chemical response techniques to address an oil spill, such as dispersants could result in -additional degradation of water quality, which may or may not offset the benefits of -dispersant use. - -• There is no way to tell what may or may not affect marine mammals in Russian, U.S., or -in Canadian waters. - -RME 30 As noted throughout these comments, the extent of missing information in the Arctic is -daunting, and this holds equally true for bowhead whales, including: - -• The long-term effects of disturbance on bowhead whales are unknown. -• The potential for increased stress is unknown, and it is unknown whether impulsive - -sounds affect the reproductive rate or distribution and habitat use over a period of days or -years. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 102 -Comment Analysis Report - -• Although there are some data indicting specific habitat use in the Beaufort Sea, -information is especially lacking to determine where bowhead aggregations occur in the -Chukchi Sea. - -• What is known about the sensitivity of bowhead whales to sound and disturbance -indicates that the zones of influence for a single year that included as many as twenty-one -surveys, four drillships, and dozens of support vessels “including ice management -vessels” would be considerable and almost certainly include important habitat areas. The -assumption that the resulting effects over five years would be no more than moderate is -unsupported. - -RME 31 There is too little information known about the existing biological conditions in the Arctic, -especially in light of changes wrought by climate change, to be able to reasonably -understand, evaluate and address the cumulative, adverse impacts of oil and gas activities on -those arctic ice environments including: - -• Scientific literature emphasizes the need to ensure that the resiliency of ecosystems is -maintained in light of the changing environmental conditions associated with climate -change. Uncertainties exist on topics for which more science focus is required, including -physical parameters, such as storm frequency and intensity, and circulation patterns, and -species response to environmental changes. - -• There is little information on the potential for additional stresses brought by oil and gas -activity and increased shipping and tourism and how these potential stressors may -magnify the impacts associated with changing climate and shrinking sea ice habitats. -There are more studies that need to be done on invasive species, black carbon, aggregate -noise. - -• It was noted that a majority of the studies available have been conducted during the -summer and there is limited data about the wintertime when there is seven to eight -months of ice on the oceans. - -RME 32 Oil and gas activities in the Arctic Ocean should not be expanded until there is adequate -information available both from western science and local and traditional knowledge to -adequately assess potential impacts and make informed decisions. - -RME 33 The DEIS consistently fails to use new information as part of the impact analysis instead -relying on previous analyses from other NMFS or MMS EIS documents conducted without -the benefit of the new data. There are a number of instances in this DEIS where NMFS -recognizes the lack of relevant data or instances where conclusions are drawn without -supporting data. - -RME 34 In the case of seismic surveys, improvements to analysis and processing methods would -allow for the use of less powerful survey sources reducing the number of air-gun blasts. -Better planning and coordination of surveys along with data sharing will help to reduce the -number and lengths of surveys by avoiding duplication and minimizing survey noise. -Requirements should be set in place for data collection, presence of adequate marine mammal -observers, and use of PAM to avoid surveys when and where marine mammals are present. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 103 -Comment Analysis Report - -RME 35 NMFS should make full use of the best scientific information and assessment methodologies, -and rigorously analyze impacts to the physical, biological, and subsistence resources -identified in the DEIS. Steps should be taken to: - -• Move away from arbitrary economic, political or geographic boundaries and instead -incorporate the latest science to address how changes in one area or species affect -another. - -• Develop long-term, precautionary, science-based planning that acknowledges the -complexity, importance, remoteness and fragility of America’s Arctic region. The -interconnected nature of Arctic marine ecosystems demands a more holistic approach to -examining the overall health of the Arctic and assessing the risks and impacts associated -with offshore oil and gas activities in the region. - -• NMFS should carefully scrutinize the impacts analysis for data deficiencies, as well as -statements conflicting with available scientific studies. - -It is impossible to know what the effects would be on species without more information or to -determine mitigation measures on species without any effectiveness of said measures without -first knowing what the impacts would be. - -RME 36 There is not enough information known about the marine habitat on the Chukchi Sea side of -the EIS project area. Modeling that takes places only has a small census of data, which does -not provide adequate results of what impacts could be. The EIS should reflect this difference -between the Beaufort Sea and the Chukchi Sea. - -RME 37 At present the ambient noise budgets are not very well known in the Arctic, but the USGS -indicated that this type of data were needed for scientists to understand the magnitude and -significance of potential effects of anthropogenic sound on marine mammals. Noise impacts -on marine mammals from underwater acoustic communication systems needs to be evaluated -and incorporated into the DEIS. - -The USGS' recommendation to develop an inventory/database of seismic sound sources used -in the Arctic would be a good first step toward a better understanding of long-term, -population-level effects of seismic and drilling activities. Two recent projects that will help -further such an integrated approach are NOAA’s recently launched Synthesis of Arctic -Research (SOAR) and the North Pacific Marine Research Institute’s industry-supported -synthesis of existing scientific and traditional knowledge of Bering Strait and Arctic Ocean -marine ecosystem information. - -RME 38 G&G activities in the Arctic must be accompanied by a parallel research effort that improves -understanding of ecosystem dynamics and the key ecological attributes that support polar -bears, walrus, ice seals and other ice-dependent species. NMFS, as the agency with principal -responsibility for marine mammals, should acknowledge that any understanding of -cumulative effects is hampered by the need for better information. NMFS should -acknowledge the need for additional research and monitoring coupled with long-term species -monitoring programs supported by industry funding, and research must be incorporated into a -rapid review process for management on an ongoing basis. By allowing the science and -technology to develop, more concrete feasible and effective mitigation strategies can be -provided which in turn would benefit energy security and proper wildlife protections. - -Identification of important ecological areas should be an ongoing part of an integrated, long- -term scientific research and monitoring program for the Arctic, not a static, one-time event. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 104 -Comment Analysis Report - -As an Arctic research and monitoring program gives us a greater understanding of the -ecological functioning of Arctic waters, it may reveal additional important ecological areas -that BOEM and NMFS should exclude from future lease sales and other oil and gas activities. - -RME 39 Over the last several years, the scientific community has identified a number of pathways by -which anthropogenic noise can affect vital rates and populations of animals. These efforts -include the 2005 National Research Council study, which produced a model for the -Population Consequences of Acoustic Disturbance; an ongoing Office of Naval Research -program whose first phase has advanced the NRC model; and the 2009 Okeanos workshop on -cumulative impacts. The DEIS employs none of these methods, and hardly refers to any -biological pathway of impact. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 105 -Comment Analysis Report - -Socioeconomic Impacts (SEI) -SEI Comments on economic impacts to local communities, regional economy, and national - -economy, can include changes in the social or economic environments. - -SEI 1 The analysis of socioeconomic impacts in the DEIS is inadequate. Comments include: - -• The analysis claims inaccurately many impacts are unknown or cannot be predicted and -fails to consider the full potential of unrealized employment, payroll, government -revenue, and other benefits of exploration and development, as well as the effectiveness -of local hire efforts. - -• The analysis is inappropriately limited in a manner not consistent with the analysis of -other impacts in the DEIS. Potential beneficial impacts from development should not be -considered “temporary” and economic impacts should not be considered “minor”. This -characterization is inconsistent with the use of these same terms for environmental -impacts analysis. - -• NMFS did not provide a complete evaluation of the socioeconomic impacts of instituting -the additional mitigation measures. - -• The projected increase in employment appears to be low; -• The forecasts for future activity in the DEIS scope of alternatives, if based on historical - -activity, appear to ignore the impact of economic forces, especially resource value as -impacted by current and future market prices. Historical exploration activity in the -Chukchi and Beaufort OCS in the 1980s and early 1990s declined and ceased due to low -oil price rather than absence of resource; - -• Positive benefits were not captured adequately. - -SEI 2 The DEIS will compromise the economic feasibility of developing oil and gas in the Alaska -OCS. Specific issues include: - -• It would also adversely impact the ability of regional corporations to meet the obligations -imposed upon them by Congress with regard to their shareholders; - -• Development will not go forward if exploration is not allowed or is rendered impractical -and investors may dismiss Alaska’s future potential for offshore oil and gas exploration, -further limiting the state’s economic future; - -• The limited alternatives considered would significantly increase the length of time -required to explore and appraise hydrocarbon resources. - -SEI 3 The federal leaseholders, the State of Alaska, the NSB, the northern Alaskan communities, -and onshore and offshore operators will experience greatly reduced economic and resources -exploration and development opportunities as a result of the restricted number of programs -identified in the DEIS. The resulting long-term effects of restricting exploration and -subsequent development will negatively impact the economy of Alaska. - -SEI 4 An Economic Impact Study should be conducted on the subsistence economies, the human -health adverse and cumulative and aggregate impacts, and climate change impacts to the -economies of the coastal communities of Alaska. - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 106 -Comment Analysis Report - -SEI 5 The potential long-term benefits of exploration outweigh any adverse impacts. These short -and long-term positive impacts of increased revenue, business opportunity, and oil and gas -availability are not fully considered in the DEIS, and represents a biased interpretation. The -characterization of potential beneficial impacts from development over 50 years should not -be considered “temporary” and 55,000 jobs with a $145 billion payroll should not be -considered “minor.” - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 107 -Comment Analysis Report - -Subsistence Resource Protection (SRP) -SRP Comments on need to protect subsistence resources and potential impacts to these resources. - -SRP 1 The DEIS is lacking in an in-depth analysis of impacts to subsistence. NMFS should analyze -the following in more detail: - -• Effects of oil and gas activities on subsistence resources and how climate change could -make species even more vulnerable to those effects; - -• The discussion of subsistence in the section on oil spills; -• Long-term impacts to communities from loss of our whale hunting tradition; -• Impacts on subsistence hunting that occur outside the project area, for example, in the - -Canadian portion of the Beaufort Sea; -• Impacts associated with multiple authorizations taking place over multiple years. - -SRP 2 Subsistence hunters are affected by industrial activities in ways that do not strictly correlate -to the health of marine mammal populations, such as when marine mammals deflect away -from exploration activities, hunting opportunities may be lost regardless of whether or not the -deflection harms the species as a whole. - -SRP 3 Many people depend on the Beaufort and Chukchi seas for subsistence resources. Protection -of these resources is important to sustaining food sources, nutrition, athletics, and the culture -of Alaskan Natives for future generations. The EIS needs to consider not only subsistence -resources, but the food, prey, and habitat of those resources in its analysis of impacts. - -SRP 4 Industrial activities adversely affect subsistence resources, resulting in negative impacts that -could decrease food security and encourage consumption of store-bought foods with less -nutritional value. - -SRP 5 NMFS should use the information acquired on subsistence hunting grounds and provide real -information about what will happen in these areas and when, and then disclose what the -impacts will be to coastal villages. - -SRP 6 Exploratory activities occurring during September and October could potentially clash with -the migratory period of the beluga and bowhead whales perhaps requiring hunters to travel -further to hunt and potentially reducing the feasibility of the hunt. Even minor disruptions to -the whale's migration pathway can seriously affect subsistence hunts. - -SRP 7 NMFS must ensure oil and gas activities do not reduce the availability of any affected -population or species to a level insufficient to meet subsistence needs. - -SRP 8 Subsistence resources could be negatively impacted by exploratory activities. Specific -comments include: - -• Concerns about the health and welfare of the animals, with results such as that the -blubber is getting too hard, as a result of seismic activity; - -• Reduction of animals; -• Noise from seismic operations, exploration drilling, and/or development and production - -activities may make bowhead whales skittish and more difficult to hunt; - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 108 -Comment Analysis Report - -• Aircraft associated with oil and gas operations may negatively affect other subsistence -resources, including polar bears, walrus, seals, caribou, and coastal and marine birds, -making it more difficult for Alaska Native hunters to obtain these resources; - -• Water pollution could release toxins that bioaccumulate in top predators, including -humans; - -• Increased shipping traffic (including the potential for ship strikes) and the associated -noise are going to impact whaling and other marine mammal subsistence activities. - -SRP 9 The DEIS must also do more to address the potential for harm to coastal communities due to -the perceived contamination of subsistence resources. The DEIS cites to studies -demonstrating that perceived contamination is a very real issue for local residents, and -industrialization at the levels contemplated by the DEIS would undoubtedly contribute to that -belief. - -SRP 10 Bowhead whales and seals are not the only subsistence resource that Native Alaskan -communities rely upon. Fishing is also an important resource and different species are hunted -throughout the year. Subsistence users have expressed concern that activities to support -offshore exploration will change migratory patterns of fish and krill that occur along the -coastlines. The DEIS analysis should reflect these concerns. - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 109 -Comment Analysis Report - -Use of Traditional Knowledge (UTK) -UTK Comments regarding how traditional knowledge (TK) is used in the document or decision - -making process, need to incorporate TK, or processes for documenting TK. - -UTK 1 Applying the TK is not only observing the animals, but also seeing the big picture of the -Arctic environment. - -UTK 2 It is important that both Western Science and TK be applied in the EIS. There needs to be a -clear definition of what TK is, and that it protects traditional ways of life but also provides -valuable information. TK that is used in NEPA documents should be used with consent. - -UTK 3 Specific examples of TK that NMFS should include in the DEIS are as follows: - -• The selection of specific deferral areas should be informed by the TK of our whaling -captains and should be developed with specific input of each community; - -• The TK of our whaling captains about bowhead whales. Their ability to smell, their -sensitivity to water pollution, and the potential interference with our subsistence activity -and/or tainting of our food; and - -• Primary hunting season is usually from April until about August, for all animals. It starts -in January for seals. Most times it is also year-round, too, with climate change, depending -on the migration of the animals. Bowhead whale hunts start in April, and beluga hunts are -whenever they migrate; usually starting in April and continuing until the end of summer. - -UTK 4 To be meaningful, NMFS must obtain and incorporate TK before it commits to management -decisions that may adversely affect subsistence resources. - -UTK 5 Based on TK, there are not enough data to really determine season closures or times of use -because subsistence users do not know where so many of these animals go when they are not -near the coast. - - - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 110 -Comment Analysis Report - -Water and Air Quality (WAQ) -WAQ Comments regarding water and air quality, including potential to impact or degrade these - -resources. - -WAQ 1 The effects of greenhouse gases are of concern, with regards to sea level rise and ocean -acidification that occurs with fossil fuel combustion - -WAQ 2 Increases in oil and gas exploration would inevitably bring higher levels of pollution and -emissions. Discharges, oil spills, increases in air traffic and drill cuttings could all cause both -water and air damage causing potential effects on human health and the overall environment. - -WAQ 3 The air quality analysis on impacts is flawed and needs more information. Reliance on recent -draft air permits is not accurate especially for the increases in vessel traffic due to oil and gas -exploration. All emissions associated with oil and gas development need to be considered not -just those that are subject to direct regulation or permit conditions. Emissions calculations -need to include vessels outside the 25 mile radius not just inside. Actual icebreaker emissions -need to be included also. This will allow more accurate emissions calculations. The use of -stack testing results and other emissions calculations for Arctic operations are recommended. - -WAQ 4 Many operators have agreed to use ultra-low sulfur fuel or low sulfur fuel in their operations, -but those that do not agree have to be accounted for. The use of projected air emissions for -NOx and SOz need to be included to account for those that do not use the lower fuel grades. - -WAQ 5 Since air permits have not yet been applied for by oil companies engaging in seismic or -geological and geophysical surveys, control factors should not be applied to them without -knowing the actual information. - -WAQ 6 Concerns about the potential for diversion of bowhead whales and other subsistence species -due to water and air discharges. The location of these discharges, and waste streams, and -where they will overlap between the air and water needs to be compared to the whale -migrations and discern the potential areas of impact. - -WAQ 7 The evaluation of potential air impacts is now outdated. The air quality in Alaska is no longer -regulated by EPA and the Alaska DEC, and is no longer subject to EPA's OCS regulations -and air permitting requirements. The new regulatory authority is the Department of the -Interior. This shows that at least some sources will not be subject to EPA regulations or air -permitting - -WAQ 8 Other pollutants are a cause of concern besides just CO and PM. What about Nox, and PM2.5 -emissions? All of these are of concern in the Alaska OCS. - -WAQ 9 The use of exclusion zones around oil and gas activities will not prevent pollutant levels -above regulatory standards. Air pollution is expected to be the highest within the exclusion -zones and likely to exceed applicable standards. A full and transparent accounting of these -impacts needs to be assessed. - -WAQ 10 The DEIS needs to analyze the full size of the emissions potential of the equipment that the -oil companies are intending to operate in the EIS project area. - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS 111 -Comment Analysis Report - -WAQ 11 Identify the total number of oil and gas projects that may be expected to operate during a -single season in each sea, the potential proximity of such operations, and the impacts of -multiple and/or clustered operations upon local and regional air quality. - -WAQ 12 Native Alaskans expressed concerned about the long term effects of dispersants, air pollution, -and water pollution. All emissions must be considered including drilling ships, vessels, -aircraft, and secondary pollution like ozone and secondary particulate matters. Impacts of -water quality and discharges tainting subsistence foods are considered likely to occur. - - - - - - - - - - -APPENDIX A -Submission and Comment Index - - - - - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-1 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -Abramaitis, Loretta 2827 CEF 9, OSR 3 - -AEWC -Aiken, Johnny - -3778 ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 31, ALT 34, CEF 2, CEF 5, CEF 7, CEF 8, CEF -11, COR 11, COR 15, DATA 2, DATA 5, EDI 3, MIT 20, MIT 31, MIT -47, MIT 84, MIT 85, MIT 86, MIT 87, MIT 88, MIT 89, MIT 90, MMI -11, MMI 27, NEP 1, NEP 11, NEP 14, NEP 26, NEP 50, REG 11, REG -12, REG 13, REG 14, REG 3, RME 6, UTK 3 - -Anchorage, Public -Meeting - -13142 ALT 1, ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 6, ALT 7, ALT 8, ALT 13, ALT 35, CEF 2, -CEF 5, CEF 6, CEF 7, CEF 8, CEF 9, CEF 10, COR 6, COR 8, GSE 1, -GSE 4, MIT 2, MIT 3, MIT 9, MIT 20, MIT 22, MIT 23, MIT 27, MIT 63, -MIT 106, MMI 6, NED 1, NEP 1, NEP 4, NEP 5, NEP 7, NEP 10, NEP -11, NEP 13, NEP 14, NEP 15, NEP 16, NEP 17, NEP 49, OSR 1, OSR 3, -REG 16, REG 4, RME 1, RME 20, RME 29, RME 31, RME 35, SEI 1, -SRP 3, SRP 6, SRP 8, UTK 4, WAQ 12 - -Barrow, Public Meeting 13144 ACK 1, CEF 4, CEF 7, CEF 8, CEF 10, COR 1, COR 3, GPE 4, GSE 2, -ICL 1, ICL 3, MIT 20, MIT 31, MIT 47, MIT 82, MIT 108, MIT 114, NEP -14, NEP 26, NEP 47, OSR 1, OSR 3, OSR 6, OSR 13, PER 3, RME 2, -RME 31, RME 36, SRP 3, UTK 1, UTK 2, UTK 3, UTK 4, WAQ 12 - -Bednar, Marek 3002 ACK 1 - -Black, Lester (Skeet) 2095 MIT 5, NED 1, SEI 3 - -Boone, James 2394 CEF 9, MIT 1, NEP 14, OSR 1 - -Bouwmeester, Hanneke 82 MMI 1, REG 1 - -North Slope Borough -Brower, Charlotte - -3779 ALT 17, ALT 21, ALT 22, CEF 5, CEF 9, DATA 3, DATA 17, DATA 21, -DATA 22, EDI 1, EDI 4, EDI 5, EDI 9, EDI 11, EDI 12, EDI 14, GSE 3, -MIT 20, MIT 82, MIT 91, MIT 92, MIT 93, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI 4, MMI -22, MMI 25, NEP 29, NEP 35, OSR 1, OSR 7, OSR 9, OSR 10, OSR 11, -OSR 16, OSR 18, OSR 19, RME 1, RME 12, RME 13, RME 17, RME 18, -RME 19, RME 20, RME 21, RME 22, RME 33, RME 35 - -Conocophillips -Brown, David - -3775 ALT 4, ALT 6, ALT 8, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 30, COR 8, MIT 2, MIT 3, -MIT 9, MIT 22, MIT 23, MIT 24, MIT 63, MIT 81, MMI 1, MMI 8, NEP -1, NEP 4, NEP 5, NEP 7, NEP 11, NEP 12, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 17, -NEP 21, REG 4 - -Burnell Gutsell, Anneke- -Reeve - -1964 CEF 9, MIT 1, NEP 14, OSR 3, RME 1 - -Cagle, Andy 81 OSR 3, REG 5, WAQ 1 - -Alaska Inter-Tribal -Council -Calcote, Delice - -2093 ALT 1, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 7, COR 1, EDI 3, ICL 2, MIT 1, NEP 2, NEP -13, OSR 4, REG 5, RME 2, RME 31, SEI 4 - -Cathy Giessel, Sen. 2090 NEP 7, REG 4 - -Childs, Jefferson 3781 ALT 9, COR 12, DATA 3, EDI 15, GPE 3, HAB 2, MIT 82, MMI 6, MMI -30, MMI 31, NEP 13, NEP 16, NEP 46, RME 8, RME 24, RME 28, RME -35 - -Christiansen, Shane B. 80 ACK 1 - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-2 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -Cornell University -Clark, Christopher - -3772 CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, DATA 2, MIT 72, MIT 73, MIT 74, MMI 19, -NEP 27, RME 2, RME 16 - -Clarke, Chris 76 NED 1, REG 5 - -Cummings, Terry 87 MMI 35, OSR 1, OSR 15, REG 5, SRP 3 - -Danger, Nick 77 NED 1 - -Davis, William 2884 CEF 9, MIT 1, NEP 14, OSR 3, RME 1 - -International Fund for -Animal Welfare -Flocken, Jeffrey - -3762 ALT 1, ALT 33, CEF 4, CEF 9, COR 7, MIT 20, MIT 42, MIT 43, MIT -44, MIT 45, MIT 8, OSR 1, OSR 7, RME 34, RME 39, RME 6, RME 9 - -Foster, Dolly 89 COR 18 - -ION Geophysical -Corporation -Gagliardi, Joe - -3761 ALT 6, ALT 12, ALT 16, CEF 6, COR 8, EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI 8, -EDI 9, EDI 13, MIT 9, MMI 8, MIT 22, MIT 23, MIT 29, MIT 30, MIT -33, MIT 34, MIT 35, MIT 36, MIT 37, MIT 38, MIT 39, MIT 40, MIT 41, -MIT 60, NEP 8, NEP 9, NEP 11, REG 4, SEI 1 - -Giessel, Sen., Cathy 2090 NEP 7, REG 4 - -Arctic Slope Regional -Corporation -Glenn, Richard - -3760 CEF 5, EDI 10, EDI 12, MIT 31, MIT 32, MIT 61, NED 1, NEP 7, NEP -11, NEP 12, OSR 3, OSR 14, SEI 2, SEI 3 - -Harbour, Dave 3773 REG 4, SEI 2 - -Ocean Conservancy -Hartsig, Andrew - -3752 ALT 4, ALT 21, CEF 1, CEF 2, CEF 8, CEF 9, CEF 11, DATA 2, DATA -9, DATA 10, EDI 3, EDI 4, EDI 7, EDI 10, MIT 19, MIT 20, MIT 21, -MIT 47, MMI 2, MMI 12, MMI 13, NEP 14, NEP 15, OSR 1, REG 5, -RME 1, RME 2, RME 9, RME 31, RME 37, SRP 4, SRP 7, SRP 8, UTK -2, UTK 4 - -The Pew Environmental -Group -Heiman, Marilyn - -3752 ALT 4, ALT 21, CEF 1, CEF 2, CEF 8, CEF 9, CEF 11, DATA 2, DATA -9, DATA 10, EDI 3, EDI 4, EDI 7, EDI 10, MIT 19, MIT 20, MIT 21, -MIT 47, MMI 2, MMI 12, MMI 13, NEP 14, NEP 15, OSR 1, REG 5, -RME 1, RME 2, RME 9, RME 31, RME 37, SRP 4, SRP 7, SRP 8, UTK -2, UTK 4 - -Hicks, Katherine 2261 COR 10, NED 1, NEP 11 - -Hof, Justin 83 ALT 1 - -Greenpeace -Howells, Dan - -3753 ALT 1, ALT 4, ALT 6, CEF 2, COR 4, DATA 11, EDI 1, GSE 1, GSE 5, -GSE 7, GSE 8, NEP 14, OSR 3, OSR 5, REG 6, SRP 1, SRP 6 - -World Wildlife Fund -Hughes, Layla - -3780 ALT 1, ALT 5, ALT 6, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 15, ALT 17, ALT 18, ALT -19, ALT 21, ALT 32, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, COR 14, -DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, DATA 27, DATA -28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, -EDI 11, GPE 1, GPE 2, GSE 3, GSE 8, HAB 2, MIT 20, MIT 45, MIT 47, -MIT 82, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT 99, MIT 100, -MIT 101, MIT 102, MIT 103, MIT 104, MIT 105, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI -6, MMI 7, MMI 8, MMI 9, MMI 21, MMI 22, MMI 23, MMI 24, MMI 25, -MMI 26, MMI 27, MMI 28, MMI 29, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-3 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -NEP 27, NEP 36, NEP 37, NEP 38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, -NEP 43, NEP 44, NEP 45, OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 14, REG 15, -REG 18, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 11, RME 16, RME 20, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME -39, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 9, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, -WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Natural Resources -Defense Council -Jasny, Michael - -3780 ALT 1, ALT 5, ALT 6, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 15, ALT 17, ALT 18, ALT -19, ALT 21, ALT 32, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, COR 14, -DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, DATA 27, DATA -28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, -EDI 11, GPE 1, GPE 2, GSE 3, GSE 8, HAB 2, MIT 20, MIT 45, MIT 47, -MIT 82, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT 99, MIT 100, -MIT 101, MIT 102, MIT 103, MIT 104, MIT 105, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI -6, MMI 7, MMI 8, MMI 9, MMI 21, MMI 22, MMI 23, MMI 24, MMI 25, -MMI 26, MMI 27, MMI 28, MMI 29, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, -NEP 27, NEP 36, NEP 37, NEP 38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, -NEP 43, NEP 44, NEP 45, OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 14, REG 15, -REG 18, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 11, RME 16, RME 20, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME -39, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 9, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, -WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -National Ocean -Industries Association -Johnson, Luke - -3766 ALT 2, ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 6, ALT 8, ALT 13, ALT 14, ALT 23, ALT -24, ALT 25, ALT 26, CEF 5, CEF 6, DATA 14, DATA 15, DATA 16, -EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI 4, MIT 2, MIT 9, MIT 22, MIT 23, MIT 29, -MIT 31, MIT 32, MIT 37, MIT 38, MIT 50, MIT 51, MIT 52, MIT 53, -MIT 54, MIT 55, MIT 56, MIT 57, MIT 58, MIT 59, MIT 60, MIT 61, -MMI 1, MMI 8, MMI 14, MMI 15, MMI 16, MMI 17, NED 1, NEP 5, -NEP 11, NEP 16, NEP 20, NEP 21, NEP 22, NEP 23, NEP 24, NEP 25, -NEP 26, NEP 27, NEP 28, NEP 29, NEP 30, NEP 51, NEP 52, REG 4, -REG 7, SEI 1, SEI 2, SEI 5 - -Friends of the Earth -Kaltenstein, John - -3780 ALT 1, ALT 5, ALT 6, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 15, ALT 17, ALT 18, ALT -19, ALT 21, ALT 32, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, COR 14, -DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, DATA 27, DATA -28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, -EDI 11, GPE 1, GPE 2, GSE 3, GSE 8, HAB 2, MIT 20, MIT 45, MIT 47, -MIT 82, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT 99, MIT 100, -MIT 101, MIT 102, MIT 103, MIT 104, MIT 105, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI -6, MMI 7, MMI 8, MMI 9, MMI 21, MMI 22, MMI 23, MMI 24, MMI 25, -MMI 26, MMI 27, MMI 28, MMI 29, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, -NEP 27, NEP 36, NEP 37, NEP 38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, -NEP 43, NEP 44, NEP 45, OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 14, REG 15, -REG 18, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 11, RME 16, RME 20, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME -39, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 9, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, -WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Kivalina Public Meeting - - -13146 COR 1, NEP 48, NEP 53, OSR 3, OSR 7 - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-4 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -Kotzebue Public Meeting - - -13145 CEF 9, EDI 14, ICL 1, MIT 109, MIT 110, MMI 32, MMI 33, REG 17, -RME 2, SRP 3, UTK 5 - -U.S. Chamber of -Commerce -Kovacs, William L. - -3766 ALT 2, ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 6, ALT 8, ALT 13, ALT 14, ALT 23, ALT -24, ALT 25, ALT 26, CEF 5, CEF 6, DATA 14, DATA 15, DATA 16, -EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI 4, MIT 2, MIT 9, MIT 22, MIT 23, MIT 29, -MIT 31, MIT 32, MIT 37, MIT 38, MIT 50, MIT 51, MIT 52, MIT 53, -MIT 54, MIT 55, MIT 56, MIT 57, MIT 58, MIT 59, MIT 60, MIT 61, -MMI 1, MMI 8, MMI 14, MMI 15, MMI 16, MMI 17, NED 1, NEP 5, -NEP 11, NEP 16, NEP 20, NEP 21, NEP 22, NEP 23, NEP 24, NEP 25, -NEP 26, NEP 27, NEP 28, NEP 29, NEP 30, NEP 51, NEP 52, REG 4, -REG 7, SEI 1, SEI 2, SEI 5 - -Krause, Danielle 3625 CEF 9, MIT 1, NEP 14, OSR 3, RME 1 - -Lambertsen, Richard 2096 MIT 6 - -Pacific Environment -Larson, Shawna - -3780 ALT 1, ALT 5, ALT 6, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 15, ALT 17, ALT 18, ALT -19, ALT 21, ALT 32, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, COR 14, -DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, DATA 27, DATA -28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, -EDI 11, GPE 1, GPE 2, GSE 3, GSE 8, HAB 2, MIT 20, MIT 45, MIT 47, -MIT 82, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT 99, MIT 100, -MIT 101, MIT 102, MIT 103, MIT 104, MIT 105, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI -6, MMI 7, MMI 8, MMI 9, MMI 21, MMI 22, MMI 23, MMI 24, MMI 25, -MMI 26, MMI 27, MMI 28, MMI 29, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, -NEP 27, NEP 36, NEP 37, NEP 38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, -NEP 43, NEP 44, NEP 45, OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 14, REG 15, -REG 18, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 11, RME 16, RME 20, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME -39, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 9, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, -WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Lish, Chris 3763 ALT 1, CEF 9, MIT 1, NEP 14, NEP 16, OSR 3, RME 1 - -Locascio, Julie 86 ACK 1 - -Lopez, Irene 88 ALT 1 - -Shell Alaska Venture -Macrander, Michael - -3768 ALT 2, ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 6, ALT 8, ALT 10, ALT 13, ALT 16, ALT -17, ALT 29, ALT 36, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 11, COR 5, COR 6, COR 8, -COR 10, COR 13, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 17, DATA 18, DATA 19, -DCH 2, EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI 4, EDI 5, EDI 7, EDI 8, EDI 9, EDI 10, -EDI 11, EDI 12, EDI 13, EDI 16, GPE 1, GPE 5, GSE 1, GSE 6, MIT 2, -MIT 20, MIT 22, MIT 23, MIT 26, MIT 27, MIT 28, MIT 29, MIT 30, -MIT 33, MIT 37, MIT 38, MIT 39, MIT 40, MIT 41, MIT 57, MIT 59, -MIT 60, MIT 62, MIT 63, MIT 64, MIT 65, MIT 66, MIT 67, MIT 68, -MIT 69, MIT 70, MIT 71, MIT 9, MIT 115, MMI 8, MMI 34, MMI 35, -NEP 8, NEP 9, NEP 10, NEP 11, NEP 12, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, NEP -29, NEP 30, NEP 31, NEP 32, NEP 33, NEP 54, NEP 55, NEP 56, OSR -14, REG 4, REG 8, REG 9, RME 14, RME 15, RME 33, SEI 1, SEI 2, SEI -5 - -Loggerhead Instruments -Mann, David - -3772 CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, DATA 2, MIT 72, MIT 73, MIT 74, MMI 19, -NEP 27, RME 2, RME 16 - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-5 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -Earthjustice -Mayer, Michael - -3780 ALT 1, ALT 5, ALT 6, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 15, ALT 17, ALT 18, ALT -19, ALT 21, ALT 32, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, COR 14, -DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, DATA 27, DATA -28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, -EDI 11, GPE 1, GPE 2, GSE 3, GSE 8, HAB 2, MIT 20, MIT 45, MIT 47, -MIT 82, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT 99, MIT 100, -MIT 101, MIT 102, MIT 103, MIT 104, MIT 105, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI -6, MMI 7, MMI 8, MMI 9, MMI 21, MMI 22, MMI 23, MMI 24, MMI 25, -MMI 26, MMI 27, MMI 28, MMI 29, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, -NEP 27, NEP 36, NEP 37, NEP 38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, -NEP 43, NEP 44, NEP 45, OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 14, REG 15, -REG 18, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 11, RME 16, RME 20, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME -39, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 9, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, -WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Oceana -Mecum, Brianne - -3774 ALT 1, CEF 5, COR 9, DATA 20, EDI 5, EDI 14, MIT 31, MIT 47, MIT -75, MIT 76, MIT 77, MIT 78, MIT 79, MIT 80, MIT 85, MMI 9, MMI 20, -OSR 1, REG 5, RME 4, RME 23, RME 32, RME 35, WAQ 2 - -Northern Alaska -Environmental Center -Miller, Pamela A. - -3780 ALT 1, ALT 5, ALT 6, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 15, ALT 17, ALT 18, ALT -19, ALT 21, ALT 32, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, COR 14, -DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, DATA 27, DATA -28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, -EDI 11, GPE 1, GPE 2, GSE 3, GSE 8, HAB 2, MIT 20, MIT 45, MIT 47, -MIT 82, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT 99, MIT 100, -MIT 101, MIT 102, MIT 103, MIT 104, MIT 105, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI -6, MMI 7, MMI 8, MMI 9, MMI 21, MMI 22, MMI 23, MMI 24, MMI 25, -MMI 26, MMI 27, MMI 28, MMI 29, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, -NEP 27, NEP 36, NEP 37, NEP 38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, -NEP 43, NEP 44, NEP 45, OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 14, REG 15, -REG 18, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 11, RME 16, RME 20, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME -39, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 9, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, -WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -University of St. -Andrews -Miller, Patrick - -3772 CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, DATA 2, MIT 72, MIT 73, MIT 74, MMI 19, -NEP 27, RME 2, RME 16 - -Miller, Peter 2151 CEF 9, MIT 1, NEP 14, OSR 3, RME 1 - -U.S. Oil & Gas -Association -Modiano, Alby - -3766 ALT 2, ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 6, ALT 8, ALT 13, ALT 14, ALT 23, ALT -24, ALT 25, ALT 26, CEF 5, CEF 6, DATA 14, DATA 15, DATA 16, -EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI 4, MIT 2, MIT 9, MIT 22, MIT 23, MIT 29, -MIT 31, MIT 32, MIT 37, MIT 38, MIT 50, MIT 51, MIT 52, MIT 53, -MIT 54, MIT 55, MIT 56, MIT 57, MIT 58, MIT 59, MIT 60, MIT 61, -MMI 1, MMI 8, MMI 14, MMI 15, MMI 16, MMI 17, NED 1, NEP 5, -NEP 11, NEP 16, NEP 20, NEP 21, NEP 22, NEP 23, NEP 24, NEP 25, -NEP 26, NEP 27, NEP 28, NEP 29, NEP 30, NEP 51, NEP 52, REG 4, -REG 7, SEI 1, SEI 2, SEI 5 - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-6 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -Statoil USA E&P Inc. -Moore, Bill - -3758 ALT 8, ALT 13, DATA 38, EDI 3, EDI 4, EDI 5, EDI 8, EDI 9, MIT 2, -MIT 30, MMI 2, NEP 4, NEP 7, NEP 11, NEP 12, NEP 14 - -Alaska Oil and Gas -Association -Moriarty, Kara - -3754 ALT 3, ALT 8, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 30, EDI 7, MIT 9, MIT 22, MIT -23, MIT 24, MMI 1, MMI 8, NEP 1, NEP 4, NEP 5, NEP 7, NEP 11, NEP -12, NEP 14, NEP 17, REG 4 - -Mottishaw, Petra 3782 CEF 7, NED 1, NEP 14, RME 1 - -Oceana -Murray, Susan - -3780 ALT 1, ALT 5, ALT 6, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 15, ALT 17, ALT 18, ALT -19, ALT 21, ALT 32, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, COR 14, -DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, DATA 27, DATA -28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, -EDI 11, GPE 1, GPE 2, GSE 3, GSE 8, HAB 2, MIT 20, MIT 45, MIT 47, -MIT 82, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT 99, MIT 100, -MIT 101, MIT 102, MIT 103, MIT 104, MIT 105, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI -6, MMI 7, MMI 8, MMI 9, MMI 21, MMI 22, MMI 23, MMI 24, MMI 25, -MMI 26, MMI 27, MMI 28, MMI 29, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, -NEP 27, NEP 36, NEP 37, NEP 38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, -NEP 43, NEP 44, NEP 45, OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 14, REG 15, -REG 18, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 11, RME 16, RME 20, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME -39, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 9, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, -WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Audubon Alaska -Myers, Eric F. - -3780 ALT 1, ALT 5, ALT 6, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 15, ALT 17, ALT 18, ALT -19, ALT 21, ALT 32, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, COR 14, -DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, DATA 27, DATA -28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, -EDI 11, GPE 1, GPE 2, GSE 3, GSE 8, HAB 2, MIT 20, MIT 45, MIT 47, -MIT 82, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT 99, MIT 100, -MIT 101, MIT 102, MIT 103, MIT 104, MIT 105, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI -6, MMI 7, MMI 8, MMI 9, MMI 21, MMI 22, MMI 23, MMI 24, MMI 25, -MMI 26, MMI 27, MMI 28, MMI 29, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, -NEP 27, NEP 36, NEP 37, NEP 38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, -NEP 43, NEP 44, NEP 45, OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 14, REG 15, -REG 18, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 11, RME 16, RME 20, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME -39, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 9, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, -WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -National Resources -Defense Council (form -letter containing 36,445 -signatures) - -3784 MMI 1, OSR 3, REG 5 - -Center for Biological -Diversity -Noblin, Rebecca - -3780 ALT 1, ALT 5, ALT 6, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 15, ALT 17, ALT 18, ALT -19, ALT 21, ALT 32, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, COR 14, -DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, DATA 27, DATA -28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, -EDI 11, GPE 1, GPE 2, GSE 3, GSE 8, HAB 2, MIT 20, MIT 45, MIT 47, -MIT 82, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT 99, MIT 100, - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-7 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -MIT 101, MIT 102, MIT 103, MIT 104, MIT 105, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI -6, MMI 7, MMI 8, MMI 9, MMI 21, MMI 22, MMI 23, MMI 24, MMI 25, -MMI 26, MMI 27, MMI 28, MMI 29, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, -NEP 27, NEP 36, NEP 37, NEP 38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, -NEP 43, NEP 44, NEP 45, OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 14, REG 15, -REG 18, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 11, RME 16, RME 20, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME -39, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 9, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, -WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Duke University -Nowacek, Douglas P. - -3772 CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, DATA 2, MIT 72, MIT 73, MIT 74, MMI 19, -NEP 27, RME 2, RME 16 - -International Association -of Drilling Contractors -Petty, Brian - -3766 ALT 2, ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 6, ALT 8, ALT 13, ALT 14, ALT 23, ALT -24, ALT 25, ALT 26, CEF 5, CEF 6, DATA 14, DATA 15, DATA 16, -EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI 4, MIT 2, MIT 9, MIT 22, MIT 23, MIT 29, -MIT 31, MIT 32, MIT 37, MIT 38, MIT 50, MIT 51, MIT 52, MIT 53, -MIT 54, MIT 55, MIT 56, MIT 57, MIT 58, MIT 59, MIT 60, MIT 61, -MMI 1, MMI 8, MMI 14, MMI 15, MMI 16, MMI 17, NED 1, NEP 5, -NEP 11, NEP 16, NEP 20, NEP 21, NEP 22, NEP 23, NEP 24, NEP 25, -NEP 26, NEP 27, NEP 28, NEP 29, NEP 30, NEP 51, NEP 52, REG 4, -REG 7, SEI 1, SEI 2, SEI 5 - -World Wildlife Fund -Pintabutr, America May - -3765 ALT 1 - -Point Hope Public -Meeting - - -13147 COR 19, COR 8, GSE 5, ICL 1, MIT 84, NEP 49, OSR 1, RME 1, SRP -10, SRP 3, SRP 8 - -Resource Development -Council -Portman, Carl - -2303 ALT 3, ALT 6, MIT 2, MIT 9, MIT 27, NED 1, NEP 1, NEP 10, NEP 11, -NEP 12, REG 4, SEI 3 - -American Petroleum -Institute -Radford, Andy - -3766 ALT 2, ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 6, ALT 8, ALT 13, ALT 14, ALT 23, ALT -24, ALT 25, ALT 26, CEF 5, CEF 6, DATA 14, DATA 15, DATA 16, -EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI 4, MIT 2, MIT 9, MIT 22, MIT 23, MIT 29, -MIT 31, MIT 32, MIT 37, MIT 38, MIT 50, MIT 51, MIT 52, MIT 53, -MIT 54, MIT 55, MIT 56, MIT 57, MIT 58, MIT 59, MIT 60, MIT 61, -MMI 1, MMI 8, MMI 14, MMI 15, MMI 16, MMI 17, NED 1, NEP 5, -NEP 11, NEP 16, NEP 20, NEP 21, NEP 22, NEP 23, NEP 24, NEP 25, -NEP 26, NEP 27, NEP 28, NEP 29, NEP 30, NEP 51, NEP 52, REG 4, -REG 7, SEI 1, SEI 2, SEI 5 - -Marine Mammal -Commission -Ragen, Timothy J. - -3767 ALT 4, ALT 7, ALT 17, ALT 19, ALT 26, ALT 28, CEF 11, COR 6, COR -8, EDI 3, EDI 8, EDI 9, MIT 20, MIT 61, MIT 62, MMI 18, NEP 14, NEP -26, REG 2, RME 6, RME 10, RME 12, RME 13, RME 37 - -Randelia, Cyrus 78 ACK 1, CEF 5, OSR 1, OSR 2 - -The Nature Conservancy -Reed, Amanda - -3764 CEF 10, COR 17, COR 9, DATA 13, EDI 5, EDI 11, EDI 12, GPE 1, -MIT 46, MIT 47, MIT 48, MIT 49, NEP 15, OSR 1, OSR 15, OSR 7, OSR -8, RME 1, RME 2, RME 9, RME 31 - -US EPA, Region 10 -Reichgott, Christine - -3783 DATA 34 - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-8 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -Reiner, Erica 2098 NEP 16, PER 1, REG 6 - -Sierra Club -Ritzman, Dan - -3780 ALT 1, ALT 5, ALT 6, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 15, ALT 17, ALT 18, ALT -19, ALT 21, ALT 32, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, COR 14, -DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, DATA 27, DATA -28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, -EDI 11, GPE 1, GPE 2, GSE 3, GSE 8, HAB 2, MIT 20, MIT 45, MIT 47, -MIT 82, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT 99, MIT 100, -MIT 101, MIT 102, MIT 103, MIT 104, MIT 105, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI -6, MMI 7, MMI 8, MMI 9, MMI 21, MMI 22, MMI 23, MMI 24, MMI 25, -MMI 26, MMI 27, MMI 28, MMI 29, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, -NEP 27, NEP 36, NEP 37, NEP 38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, -NEP 43, NEP 44, NEP 45, OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 14, REG 15, -REG 18, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 11, RME 16, RME 20, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME -39, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 9, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, -WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Cultural REcyclists -Robinson, Tina - -3759 ALT 1, CEF 2, CEF 11, GPE 1, NEP 13, OSR 6 - -Rossin, Linda 3548 CEF 9, MIT 1, NEP 14, OSR 3, RME 1 - -Schalavin, Laurel 79 NED 1 - -Alaska Wilderness -League -Shogan, Cindy - -3780 ALT 1, ALT 5, ALT 6, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 15, ALT 17, ALT 18, ALT -19, ALT 21, ALT 32, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, COR 14, -DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, DATA 27, DATA -28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, -EDI 11, GPE 1, GPE 2, GSE 3, GSE 8, HAB 2, MIT 20, MIT 45, MIT 47, -MIT 82, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT 99, MIT 100, -MIT 101, MIT 102, MIT 103, MIT 104, MIT 105, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI -6, MMI 7, MMI 8, MMI 9, MMI 21, MMI 22, MMI 23, MMI 24, MMI 25, -MMI 26, MMI 27, MMI 28, MMI 29, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, -NEP 27, NEP 36, NEP 37, NEP 38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, -NEP 43, NEP 44, NEP 45, OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 14, REG 15, -REG 18, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 11, RME 16, RME 20, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME -39, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 9, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, -WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Sierra Club (form letter -containing 12,991 -signatures) - -90 CEF 9, MIT 1, NEP 14, OSR 3, REG 5, RME 1 - -Simon, Lorali 2094 MIT 2, MIT 3, MIT 4, REG 4 - -Center for Regulatory -Effectiveness -Slaughter, Scott - -2306 DATA 6, DATA 7, DATA 8, DATA 13, EDI 2, EDI 3, MIT 2, MIT 10, -MIT 11, MIT 27, MMI 8 - -SEA Inc. -Southall, Brandon - -3772 CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, DATA 2, MIT 72, MIT 73, MIT 74, MMI 19, -NEP 27, RME 2, RME 16 - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-9 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -Ocean Conservation -Research -Stocker, Michael - -2099 CEF 9, DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, MIT 7, MIT 8, -MMI 4, MMI 5, MMI 6, MMI 7, NEP 2, NEP 3, OSR 2, OSR 20, PER 2, -RME 3, RME 37, RME 4, RME 5 - -Ocean Conservation -Research -Stocker, Michael - -3780 ALT 1, ALT 5, ALT 6, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 15, ALT 17, ALT 18, ALT -19, ALT 21, ALT 32, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, COR 14, -DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, DATA 27, DATA -28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, -EDI 11, GPE 1, GPE 2, GSE 3, GSE 8, HAB 2, MIT 20, MIT 45, MIT 47, -MIT 82, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT 99, MIT 100, -MIT 101, MIT 102, MIT 103, MIT 104, MIT 105, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI -6, MMI 7, MMI 8, MMI 9, MMI 21, MMI 22, MMI 23, MMI 24, MMI 25, -MMI 26, MMI 27, MMI 28, MMI 29, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, -NEP 27, NEP 36, NEP 37, NEP 38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, -NEP 43, NEP 44, NEP 45, OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 14, REG 15, -REG 18, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 11, RME 16, RME 20, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME -39, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 9, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, -WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -Stoutamyer, Carla 2465 CEF 9, MIT 1, NEP 14 - -AK Dept Natural -Resources -Sullivan, Daniel - -3756 ALT 3, ALT 8, ALT 11, ALT 13, COR 5, COR 6, COR 12, DATA 39, -DATA 40, DCH 1, EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI 4, EDI 7, EDI 8, EDI 9, EDI -10, EDI 11, EDI 12, EDI 13, GPE 2, GSE 1, GSE 6, GSE 7, MIT 2, MIT -22, MIT 26, MIT 27, MIT 28, MIT 29, MIT 31, NED 1, NEP 6, NEP 7, -NEP 12, NEP 18, NEP 19, REG 4, RME 7, SEI 1, SEI 3, SEI 5 - -Thorson, Scott 2097 ALT 3, NED 1, NEP 11 - -International Association -of Geophysical -Contractors -Tsoflias, Sarah - -3766 ALT 2, ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 6, ALT 8, ALT 13, ALT 14, ALT 23, ALT -24, ALT 25, ALT 26, CEF 5, CEF 6, DATA 14, DATA 15, DATA 16, -EDI 1, EDI 2, EDI 3, EDI 4, MIT 2, MIT 9, MIT 22, MIT 23, MIT 29, -MIT 31, MIT 32, MIT 37, MIT 38, MIT 50, MIT 51, MIT 52, MIT 53, -MIT 54, MIT 55, MIT 56, MIT 57, MIT 58, MIT 59, MIT 60, MIT 61, -MMI 1, MMI 8, MMI 14, MMI 15, MMI 16, MMI 17, NED 1, NEP 5, -NEP 11, NEP 16, NEP 20, NEP 21, NEP 22, NEP 23, NEP 24, NEP 25, -NEP 26, NEP 27, NEP 28, NEP 29, NEP 30, NEP 51, NEP 52, REG 4, -REG 7, SEI 1, SEI 2, SEI 5 - -World Society for the -Protection of Animals -Vale, Karen - -3749 ALT 1, MMI 3, MMI 9, MMI 10, MMI 11, NEP 14, OSR 1, OSR 3 - -Vishanoff, Jonathan 84 OSR 1, OSR 13 - -Wainwright Public -Meeting - - -13143 ACK 1, GSE 4, MIT 107, NED 1, NEP 48 - -Walker, Willie 2049 CEF 9, MIT 1, NEP 14, OSR 3, RME 1 - - - -FINAL -APRIL 10, 2012 - - - -Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean EIS A-10 -Comment Analysis Report - -Commenter Submission ID Comments - -Defenders of Wildlife -Weaver, Sierra - -3780 ALT 1, ALT 5, ALT 6, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 15, ALT 17, ALT 18, ALT -19, ALT 21, ALT 32, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, COR 14, -DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, DATA 27, DATA -28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, -EDI 11, GPE 1, GPE 2, GSE 3, GSE 8, HAB 2, MIT 20, MIT 45, MIT 47, -MIT 82, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT 99, MIT 100, -MIT 101, MIT 102, MIT 103, MIT 104, MIT 105, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI -6, MMI 7, MMI 8, MMI 9, MMI 21, MMI 22, MMI 23, MMI 24, MMI 25, -MMI 26, MMI 27, MMI 28, MMI 29, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, -NEP 27, NEP 36, NEP 37, NEP 38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, -NEP 43, NEP 44, NEP 45, OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 14, REG 15, -REG 18, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 11, RME 16, RME 20, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME -39, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 9, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, -WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -The Wilderness Society -Whittington-Evans, -Nicole - -3780 ALT 1, ALT 5, ALT 6, ALT 11, ALT 13, ALT 15, ALT 17, ALT 18, ALT -19, ALT 21, ALT 32, CEF 4, CEF 5, CEF 9, CEF 10, CEF 11, COR 14, -DATA 1, DATA 2, DATA 3, DATA 4, DATA 5, DATA 12, DATA 13, -DATA 22, DATA 23, DATA 24, DATA 25, DATA 26, DATA 27, DATA -28, DATA 29, DATA 30, DATA 31, DATA 32, DATA 33, DATA 37, -EDI 11, GPE 1, GPE 2, GSE 3, GSE 8, HAB 2, MIT 20, MIT 45, MIT 47, -MIT 82, MIT 94, MIT 95, MIT 96, MIT 97, MIT 98, MIT 99, MIT 100, -MIT 101, MIT 102, MIT 103, MIT 104, MIT 105, MMI 1, MMI 2, MMI -6, MMI 7, MMI 8, MMI 9, MMI 21, MMI 22, MMI 23, MMI 24, MMI 25, -MMI 26, MMI 27, MMI 28, MMI 29, NEP 14, NEP 16, NEP 21, NEP 26, -NEP 27, NEP 36, NEP 37, NEP 38, NEP 39, NEP 40, NEP 41, NEP 42, -NEP 43, NEP 44, NEP 45, OSR 1, OSR 11, OSR 12, OSR 14, REG 15, -REG 18, RME 1, RME 7, RME 8, RME 11, RME 16, RME 20, RME 23, -RME 24, RME 25, RME 26, RME 27, RME 28, RME 29, RME 30, RME -39, SRP 1, SRP 2, SRP 9, WAQ 2, WAQ 3, WAQ 7, WAQ 8, WAQ 9, -WAQ 10, WAQ 11 - -AEWC -Winter, Chris - -3778 ALT 20, ALT 21, ALT 31, ALT 34, CEF 2, CEF 5, CEF 7, CEF 8, CEF -11, COR 11, COR 15, DATA 2, DATA 5, EDI 3, MIT 20, MIT 31, MIT -47, MIT 84, MIT 85, MIT 86, MIT 87, MIT 88, MIT 89, MIT 90, MMI -11, MMI 27, NEP 1, NEP 11, NEP 14, NEP 26, NEP 50, REG 11, REG -12, REG 13, REG 14, REG 3, RME 6, UTK 3 - -Wittmaack, Christiana 85 ALT 1, MMI 2, OSR 1, OSR 13, OSR 17 - - - - - -EFFECTS OF OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN DRAFT EIS -COMMENT AND RESPONSE MATRIX - -(April 2012) - -Matrix Completed By: [Enter Agency Name and Office] - - -Issue -Category - -Code -SOC # Response - -Change -to EIS? -(Y or N) - -Section # Needing Change and Text of Suggested -Change - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Issue -Category - -Code -SOC # Response - -Change -to EIS? -(Y or N) - -Section # Needing Change and Text of Suggested -Change - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Issue -Category - -Code -SOC # Response - -Change -to EIS? -(Y or N) - -Section # Needing Change and Text of Suggested -Change - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Issue -Category - -Code -SOC # Response - -Change -to EIS? -(Y or N) - -Section # Needing Change and Text of Suggested -Change - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ FW_ Final Comment Analysis Re - FINAL Comment Analysis Report_Arctic EIS (041012) - Cover P age - TABLE OF CONTENTS - LIST OF TABLES - LIST OF FIGURES - LIST OF APPENDICES - ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS - 1.0 INTRODUCTION - 2.0 BACKGROUND - 3.0 THE ROLE OF PUBLIC COMMENT - Table 1. Public Meetings, Locations and Dates - - 4.0 ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS - Table 2. Issue Categories for DEIS Comments - Figure 1: Comments by Issue - - 5.0 STATEMENTS OF CONCERN - Comment Acknowledged (ACK) - Alternatives (ALT) - Cumulative Effects (CEF) - Coordination and Compatibility (COR) - Data (DAT) - Discharge (DCH) - Editorial (EDI) - Physical Environment – General (GPE) - Social Environment – General (GSE) - Habitat (HAB) - Iñupiat Culture and Way of Life (ICL) - Mitigation Measures (MIT) - Marine Mammal and other Wildlife Impacts (MMI) - National Energy Demand and Supply (NED) - NEPA (NEP) - Oil Spill Risks (OSR) - Peer Review (PER) - Regulatory Compliance (REG) - Research, Monitoring, Evaluation Needs (RME) - Socioeconomic Impacts (SEI) - Subsistence Resource Protection (SRP) - Use of Traditional Knowledge (UTK) - Water and Air Quality (WAQ) - - APPENDIX A - - DEIS Comment Response Matrix (template) - diff --git a/test_docs/090004d2802b5efd/record.json b/test_docs/090004d2802b5efd/record.json deleted file mode 100644 index a83d213..0000000 --- a/test_docs/090004d2802b5efd/record.json +++ /dev/null @@ -1,18 +0,0 @@ -{ - "agency": "DOC", - "author": null, - "download_url": "https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/getContent?objectId=YZ7HBFlcf2i8KO54U6ioukTnwCtXfVYT", - "exemptions": null, - "file_size": "0.1762714385986328", - "file_type": "pdf", - "landing_id": "090004d2802b5efd", - "landing_url": "https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/view/record?objectId=090004d2802b5efd", - "released_on": "2014-09-05", - "released_original": "Fri Sep 05 10:19:39 EDT 2014", - "request_id": "DOC-NOAA-2012-000918", - "retention": "6 year", - "title": "2014-000941_Response_signed", - "type": "record", - "unreleased": false, - "year": "2012" -} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/test_docs/090004d2802b5efd/record.pdf b/test_docs/090004d2802b5efd/record.pdf deleted file mode 100644 index c0a7369..0000000 Binary files a/test_docs/090004d2802b5efd/record.pdf and /dev/null differ diff --git a/test_docs/090004d2802b5efd/record.txt b/test_docs/090004d2802b5efd/record.txt deleted file mode 100644 index daf5bf7..0000000 --- a/test_docs/090004d2802b5efd/record.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,93 +0,0 @@ - -Rashah McChesney -Peninsula Clarion -150 Trading Bay -Kenai, Alaska 99611 - -UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE -1 31 5 East-West Highway -Silver Spring, Maryland 2081 0 - -THE DIRECTOR - -JUN l 6 2014 - -Re: FOIA Request # DOC-NOAA-2014-000941 - -Dear Ms. McChesney: - -This letter is in response to your Freedom oflnformation Act (FOIA) request# DOC-NOAA- 2014- -000941 dated May 19, 2014, and received by our office on May 23, 2014. You specifically requested : " - -... access to and a copy of comments submitted to NOAA Fisheries in regards to fishery disaster funds -for the 2012 fishing season. I would like both the Cook Inlet region and Yukon-Kuskokwim region -comments to be given in their original, un-redacted form. -I agree to pay any reasonable copying and postage fees of not more than $10. Ifthe cost would be -greater than this amount, please notify me. Please provide a receipt indicating the charges for each -document. - -As provided by state regulation, I will expect your response within ten (10) business days. lfyou -choose to deny this request, please provide a written explanation for the denial including a reference to -the specific statutory exemption(s) upon which you rely. Also, please provide all segregable portions -of otherwise exempt material. " - -This letter completes our response to your request. This search was conducted within the Alaska National -Marine Fisheries Service, Operations and Management Division, and located 57 documents responsive to -your request. Enclosed is an index of the released and exempt records. A summary follows: - -56 documents are enclosed and released in full - -1 document is enclosed and released in part pursuant to: - -5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(6) which protects personnel and medical files and similar files about individuals when -the disclosure of such information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. -The redacted portion of the document contains personal phone and address information of the employees, -which they did not directly provide to the agency. - -@ Printed on Recycled Paper -THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR - -FOR FISHERIES - - - -Under 15 C.F.R. § 4.IO(a) (2012), you have the right to appeal this denial determination. The Assistant -General Counsel for Administration must receive your appeal within 30 calendar days of the date of the -initial denial letter. Address and send your appeal to the following office: - -Assistant General Counsel for Administration (Office) -U.S. Department of Commerce - -Room 5898-C -14th and Constitution Avenue, NW - -Washington, DC 20230 - -You may also send your appeal by e-mail to FOIAAppeals@doc.gov or by facsimile (fax) to (202) 482- -2552. The appeal must include a copy of the original request, the response to the request, and a statement -of the reasons why withheld records should be made available and why denial of the records was in error. -The submission (including e-mail and fax submissions) is not complete without the required enclosures. -The appeal , the envelope, the e-mail subject line, and the fax cover sheet should be clearly marked -"Freedom oflnformation Act Appeal." The e-mail, fax machine, and Office of the General Counsel are -monitored only on working days during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, -Monday through Friday). FOIA appeals posted to the e-mail box, or sent to the fax machine, or received -by the Office of General Counsel after normal business hours will be deemed received on the next normal -business day. - -If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Ms. Ellen Sebastian, FOIA Coordinator -Alaska Region at (907) 586-7152 or ellen.sebastian@noaa.gov. - -Enclosures - -2 - -Sincerely, - -Ileen Sobeck, -Assistant Administrator - -for Fisheries - - diff --git a/tests.py b/tests.py new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2ad506b --- /dev/null +++ b/tests.py @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +import unittest +import doc_process_toolkit as dpt + + +class TestDocProcessToolkit(unittest.TestCase): + + def test_get_doc_length(self): + """ + Tests to ensure that doc length function only captures words with + over 3 characters + """ + + text = "word words more words" + self.assertEqual(dpt.get_doc_length(text), 4) + + text = "12323 word w a9s90s" + self.assertEqual(dpt.get_doc_length(text), 1) + + def test_check_for_text(self): + """ + Check if check_for_text returns True when document contains text + """ + + doc_path = "fixtures/record_text.pdf" + self.assertTrue(dpt.check_for_text(doc_path)) + + doc_path = "fixtures/record_no_text.pdf" + self.assertFalse(dpt.check_for_text(doc_path)) + +if __name__ == '__main__': + unittest.main()