Alaska Outer Continental Shelf OCS EIS/EA 

 BOEMRE 2011-036 

Chukchi Sea Planning Area 

Statoil USA E&P Inc. 

2011 Ancillary Activities 

Chukchi Sea, Alaska 

Environmental Assessment 

Prepared by: 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement 

Alaska OCS Region 

Office of Leasing and Environment

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Regulation, and Enforcement 

Alaska OCS Region 

 July 2011 
Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Statoil 2011 Chukchi Sea Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Table of Contents i

Table of Contents 

1. Purpose of the Proposed Action ........................................................................ 1

2. Prior Environmental Analyses............................................................................ 2

3. Proposed Action .................................................................................................. 4

3.1 Shallow Hazards Survey ...........................................................................................................4

3.2 Geotechnical Investigation ........................................................................................................5

3.3 Mitigation and Monitoring ........................................................................................................6

4. Existing Environment and Environmental Evaluation...................................... 8

4.1 Preliminary Screening of Potential Impacts and Affected Biological Resources. ....................9

4.1.1 Levels of Effects Definitions for Biological Resources ..................................................9

4.1.2 Marine Mammals...........................................................................................................11

4.1.3 Birds ..............................................................................................................................12

4.1.4 Fish, Essential Fish Habitat, and Lower Trophic Species .............................................13

4.2 Presence and Habitat Use ........................................................................................................15

4.2.1 Marine Mammals...........................................................................................................15

4.2.2 Birds ..............................................................................................................................18

4.3 Species Carried into Effects Analysis .....................................................................................20

4.4 Preliminary Screening of Potential Effects to Economics, Public Health, and Subsistence 

Resources and Activities .................................................................................................................24

4.5 Proposed-Action-Related Activities and Considerations ........................................................25

5. Environmental Consequences and Effects Analyses..................................... 28

5.1 Topics for Consideration .........................................................................................................29

5.2 Water Quality ..........................................................................................................................29

5.3 Analysis of Effects on Biological Resources from the Proposed Action ................................30

5.3.1 Vessel Traffic and Vessel Noise....................................................................................30

5.3.2 Bird-Strikes (Collisions)................................................................................................34

5.3.3 Sound from Discharging Airguns..................................................................................35

5.3.4 Conclusion for Effects on Biological Resources ...........................................................41

5.4 Additional Mitigation Considered but Not Recommended for Implementation .....................42

5.5 Alternatives .............................................................................................................................42

5.5.1 No Action Alternative ...................................................................................................42

5.5.2 Alternatives Considered but Not Included for Further Analysis ...................................43

5.6 Cumulative Effects..................................................................................................................43

6. Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 45

7. Consultations and Public Input ........................................................................ 45

7.1 Endangered Species Act Consultation.....................................................................................45

7.2 Essential Fish Habitat Consultation.........................................................................................46

7.3 National Historic Preservation Act Consultation ....................................................................46

7.4 Opportunities for Public input.................................................................................................46
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

ii Table of Contents 

8. Verification..........................................................................................................49

9. Reviewers and Preparers ..................................................................................50

Bibliography ...........................................................................................................51

Appendix A: Environmental Resources Maps.......................................................1
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Purpose of the Proposed Action 1

1. Purpose of the Proposed Action 

On March 31, 2011, Statoil USA E&P Inc. (Statoil) submitted to the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) an Ancillary Activities Notice (Statoil, 

2011a) and Plan of Operations (Statoil, 2011b) for a proposed 2011 open-water, shallow hazards 

seismic survey program within the federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of the Chukchi Sea 

Planning Area (Figure 1). The purpose of the seismic survey is to collect bathymetric and shallow 

sub-seafloor data for site clearance and shallow hazards assessment in support of future oil and gas 

exploration and development activities on Statoil’s OCS leases in the Chukchi Sea. Statoil also 

proposes a geotechnical soil investigation to evaluate the properties of the seafloor on Statoil leases 

and leases held jointly with ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc. (CPAI). 

Figure 1. Area of Statoil’s proposed shallow hazards survey and geotechnical investigation (Statoil, 

2011c). 

On May 13, 2011, Statoil submitted an Environmental Evaluation Document (EED) (Statoil, 2011c) 

in support of their Ancillary Activities Notice. Ancillary activities are regulated by 30 CFR 250 

subpart B. Statoil submitted the Ancillary Activities Notice in compliance with 30 CFR 250.208. The 

Notice can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=BOEM-2011-0052-0001. 

BOEMRE conducts environmental assessments (EAs) to ensure proposed activities do not 

unreasonably interfere with other uses of the OCS and do not cause undue or serious harm or damage 

to the human, marine, or coastal environment (30 CFR 250.202(d) and (e)) and to help in BOEMRE 

decision making and planning. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR 1501.3(b) and 1508.9, 

Department of the Interior (USDOI) regulations implementing NEPA at 43 CFR Part 46, and 

BOEMRE policy, BOEMRE prepared this EA of the potential effects of Statoil’s proposed 2011 

shallow hazards survey and geotechnical program in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area of the Alaska 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

2 Prior Environmental Analyses 

OCS. The purpose of the EA is to assist with BOEMRE planning and decision making (40 CFR 

1501.3(b)), and to determine whether the potential effects of Statoil proposed ancillary activities 

would require Statoil to propose these activities in an Exploration Plan (EP). 

2. Prior Environmental Analyses 

BOEMRE previously addressed seismic activities, such as Statoil’s proposed shallow hazards survey, 

throughout the Chukchi Sea (USDOI, MMS, 2006b; 2007b). This EA tiers from or incorporates by 

reference the following documents: 

 Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment, Arctic Ocean Outer Continental Shelf, 

Seismic Surveys-2006 (OCS EIS/EA MMS 2006-038). June 2006 (USDOI, MMS, 2006b or 

PEA). 

 Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chukchi Sea Planning Area, Oil and Gas Sale 193 

EIS and Seismic Surveying Activities in the Chukchi Sea (OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-026), 

May 2007 (USDOI, MMS, 2007b or Sale 193 EIS). 

 Environmental Assessment, Chukchi Sea Planning Area, Statoil USA E&P Inc., Geological 

& Geophysical Permit, 2010 3D/2D Seismic Acquisition, Chukchi Sea, Alaska (OCS EIS/EA 

BOEMRE 2010-020) (USDOI, BOEMRE, 2010b or 2010 Statoil G&G EA). 

The tiering process is established by regulation (40 CFR 1502.20 and 1508.28) and is intended to 

eliminate repetitive discussions of similar issues and focus the analysis on issues related to the 

proposed activities. Incorporation by reference is also established by regulation (40 CFR 1502.21) 

and is intended to reduce the bulk of NEPA documents without impeding agency and public review. 

Statoil’s proposed activities are within the scope of seismic surveys previously evaluated (see Table 

2-1). 

Statoil’s proposed ancillary activities are within the scope of current BOEMRE consultations with the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under 

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The consultation documents listed below have been 

reviewed, summarized, and incorporated, as appropriate, in this EA. 

 Biological Evaluation of the Potential Effects of Oil and Gas Leasing and Exploration in the 

Alaska OCS Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas on Endangered Bowhead Whales 

(Balaena mysticetus), Fin Whales (Balaenoptera physalus), and Humpback Whales 

(Megaptera novaeangliae) (USDOI, MMS, 2006a). 

 Supplement to the 2006 Biological Evaluation of the Potential Effects of Oil and Gas Leasing 

and Exploration in the Alaska OCS Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas on 

Endangered Bowhead Whales (Balaena mysticetus), Fin Whales (Balaenoptera physalus), 

and Humpback Whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) (USDOI, MMS, 2008a). 

 Biological Opinion (BO) for Oil and Gas Leasing and Exploration Activities in the U.S. 

Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, Alaska and Authorization of Small Takes under the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (USDOC, NMFS, 2008a). 

 Biological Opinion for Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Program Area Lease Sales and Associated 

Seismic Surveys and Exploratory Drilling (USDOI, FWS, 2009). 

 Supplemental Essential Fish Habitat Analysis: Arctic Cod, Saffron Cod and Opilio Crab, for 

July-December, 2010 (USDOI, BOEMRE, 2010). 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Prior Environmental Analyses 3

Table 2-1. Statoil's proposed 2010 survey parameters compared with those in the PEA (USDOI, MMS, 

2006b). 

Comparative 

Parameters 

Statoil’s Proposed Shallow Hazards 

Survey (Statoil, 2011b&c) 

2006 Final Seismic PEA (USDOI, MMS, 

2006b) 

Survey Type High-resolution 2D/3D streamer; ocean-bottom-cable; high resolution

Geographic Survey Area Chukchi Sea OCS (See Figure 1) Chukchi Sea OCS/Beaufort Sea OCS 

Ancillary Activity 

Authorization Period 8/1–11/15 (2011) 7/1 - 12/31 

Number of Seismic 

Source Vessels 1 Up to 4 

Energy Source Array four 10-in3 airguns 1,800 - 4,000 in3

Streamer/Receiver Array 

1 streamer/receiver cable 

~600-m long 

1 streamer/receiver cable ~150 m long 

4-12 streamer/receiver cables 

each cable 3-8 km long 

Streamer/Receiver Array 

Width n/a 400-900 m (1,312-2,953 ft) 

Streamer Buoyancy 150 m streamer – 180 liters of kerosene 

600 m streamer – solid/gel Liquid paraffin or solid/gel 

Support Vessels 

1-2 (1 dynamically positioned soil investigation 

vessel; 1 support boat to transfer personnel and 

equipment through Nome, if necessary) 

Up to 3 per survey (including crew boats, supply 

boats, monitoring vessels, icebreakers) 

Aircraft None Fixed-wing and/or helicopter 

Mitigation & Monitoring 

Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) 

application to NMFS and Marine Mammal 

Monitoring and Reporting Plan (February 2009); 

Letter of Authorization (LOA) application to 

FWS (12/31/2011); Plan of Cooperation (POC) 

(5/13/2011); NMFS BOs (2008a&b),FWS BOs 

(2007; 2008; and 2009) 

IHA from NMFS; ITA from FWS; POC; Marine 

Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation Plan 

Sources: BOEMRE (USDOI, MMS, 2006b) and Statoil (2011b&c). 

The PEA and the Sale 193 EIS addressed seismic activities throughout the Chukchi Sea, including 

Statoil’s proposed project area. In developing this EA, BOEMRE has focused on site-specific 

information associated with the proposed action, considering and analyzing new information, such as 

recent environmental studies, that update previous NEPA analyses. BOEMRE reviewed and 

evaluated Statoil’s EED (Statoil, 2011b) pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.5(a) below, supplementing the 

information provided in the EED where necessary (40 CFR 1506.5(a)): 

40 CFR 1506.5 Agency responsibility. 

(a) Information. If an agency requires an applicant to submit environmental information for 

possible use by the agency in preparing an environmental impact statement, then the agency 

should assist the applicant by outlining the types of information required. The agency shall 

independently evaluate the information submitted and shall be responsible for its accuracy. 

If the agency chooses to use the information submitted by the applicant in the environmental 

impact statement, either directly or by reference, then the names of the persons responsible 

for the independent evaluation shall be included in the list of preparers (Sec. 1502.17). It is 

the intent of this paragraph that acceptable work not be redone, but that it be verified by the 

agency. 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

4 Proposed Action 

3. Proposed Action 

Statoil proposes to conduct a shallow hazards seismic survey and geotechnical investigation during 

the 2011 open-water season in the Chukchi Sea. The primary objectives of the proposed ancillary 

activities are the acquisition of high-resolution seismic data and geotechnical coring samples. The 

shallow hazards survey is designed to collect data to evaluate the potential for shallow faults, gas 

zones, and archaeological features on Statoil’s leases. 

The proposed geotechnical soil investigation activities are categorically excluded and do not meet any 

of the criteria for extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215(a)-(l) under which, actions 

otherwise covered by a categorical exclusion would require further analysis under NEPA in 

accordance with 43 CFR 46.205(c). 

Information on Statoil’s proposed action was obtained from the following documents: 

 Ancillary Activities Notice, March 31, 2011 (Statoil, 2011a). 

 Plan of Operations, 2011 Shallow Hazards Survey, Chukchi Sea, Alaska, submitted March 

31, 2011 (Statoil, 2009b). 

 Environmental Evaluation Statoil 2011 Chukchi Shallow Hazards Survey, Chukchi Sea, 

Alaska, May 2011, submitted May 13, 2011 (Statoil, 2011c). 

 Request by Statoil to NMFS for an Incidental Harassment Authorization to Allow the 

Incidental Take of Marine Mammals During a Shallow Hazards Survey in the Chukchi Sea, 

Alaska, 2011, February 2011 (Statoil, 2011d). 

 Request by Statoil to FWS for Letter of Authorization for the Incidental Take of Polar Bears 

and Pacific Walrus and Intentional Take of Polar Bears by Harassment, Statoil USA E&P 

Inc., 2011 Shallow Hazards Survey: Chukchi Sea, Alaska, March 2011 (Statoil, 2009e) 

 Statoil’s Plan of Cooperation (POC), 2011 Shallow Hazards Survey, Chukchi Sea, Alaska, 

submitted on 16 May 2011 (Statoil, 2011f). 

The proposed activity area encompasses the 16 leases owned by Statoil and 3 leases jointly owned by 

Statoil and CPAI. All leases were obtained in Lease Sale 193 held in February 2008 (USDOI, MMS, 

2008a). The activity area on Statoil’s leases is located ~165 km (~103 mi) northwest of Wainwright 

and ~240 km (~150 mi) west of Barrow in the Chukchi Sea (Figure 1). The Statoil/CPAI lease area is 

located ~188 km (~117 mi) west of Wainwright and ~304 km (~189 mi) west of Barrow (Figure 1). 

The ice-strengthened seismic survey vessel M/V Duke (or a similarly equipped vessel) and the 

dynamically positioned (DP) soil investigation vessel M/V Fugro Synergy (or a similarly equipped 

vessel) would begin work in the lease area on or about August 1, and continue working through 

October. If all permitted activities have not been completed and weather conditions permit, operations 

may continue as late as November 15. Upon completion of operations, the vessels will leave the lease 

area. 

3.1 Shallow Hazards Survey 

The shallow hazards survey will use a towed airgun array with a single ~600 m towed hydrophone 

streamer, as well as lower-power, higher-frequency survey instrumentation to collect bathymetric and 

sub-bottom data. Statoil will also use a 150-m-long streamer with up to 180 liters (approximately 48 

gallons) of kerosene. The proposed survey would collect about 2,500 km (1,553 mi) of data on or 

near Statoil’s leases, covering an area of ~625 km2

 (245 mi2). The site-survey work on Statoil’s leases 

would take approximately 23 days to complete. 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Proposed Action 5

Table 3-1. Operating frequency and sound source levels for equipment associated with the proposed 

ancillary activity. Asterisk (*) indicates that information was unavailable. (Statoil, 2011a; 2011d). 

Equipment Operating Frequency Source Levels 

Four 10-in3 airgun array 10–120 kHz >190 dB re 1 μPa · m 

Single 10-in3 airgun 10–120 kHz >190 dB re 1 μPa · m 

Kongsberg SBP3000 sub-bottom 

profiler 2–7 kHz ~225 dB re 1 μPa · m 

GeoAcoustics 160D side-scan 

sonar 114–410 kHz ~233 dB re 1 μPa · m 

Kongsberg EM 2040 multibeam 

echosounder 200–400 kHz 210 dB re 1 μPa · m 

Kongsberg HiPAP 500 21–30.5 kHz 200–210 dB re 1 μPa · m 

Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler 500 kHz + ~230 dB re 1 μPa · m 

Ice Profiling Sonar 420 kHz ~220 dB re 1 μPa · m 

Kongsberg EA600 Echosounder 18–200 kHz 210 dB re 1 μPa · m 

Operating frequencies and estimated source levels of these systems are provided in Table 3-1. 

Measurements from previous airgun use in the Chukchi Sea were used to estimate the distances at 

which received levels are likely to fall below 120, 160, 180, and 190 dB rms for the proposed airgun 

configurations, and are depicted in Table 3-2. The modeled distances (Table 3-2) will be used as 

temporary safety radii until measurements of the airgun sound sources are conducted in the field prior 

to operations (Table 3-1). Sound source verification (SSV) data would be collected as soon as the 

systems are deployed and operational. 

The proposed action activities would commence with the deployment of the airgun array and 

hydrophone streamer. The airgun array would be towed at a depth of 2 m (6.5 ft) and at a distance of 

roughly 25 m (82 ft) astern for the mini airgun, and at a 2-m (6.5 feet) depth and ~40 m (130 ft) astern 

for the main gun, firing every 10 seconds. The M/V Duke would proceed along pre-planned survey 

lines at a speed of 4 to 5 knots, discharging at 8 second intervals in an alternating mode. A single 10-

in3

 mitigation airgun would be used as the M/V Duke repositions to discourage marine mammals and 

fish from approaching. 

Table 3-2. Distances to specified received levels measured from a 40 in3 airgun cluster and a 10 in3 

airgun on the Burger prospect in 2009 as reported by Reiser et al. (2010) and 2011 estimated “Pre-SSV” 

distances implementing a 25% increase over modeled distances. Data for coring activities were adapted 

from Statoil USA E&P Inc.’s IHA application (Statoil, 2011d). 

3.2 Geotechnical Investigation 

Geotechnical coring would be performed to collect detailed data on seafloor sediments and geological 

structure to a maximum depth of 100 m (328 ft) at prospective drilling locations. The proposed coring 

locations would be surveyed and cleared of historic resources and surface hazards before the cores are 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

6 Proposed Action 

collected. The diameter of the borehole would be around 10 in. (25.4 cm) depending on soil type, and 

samples would be taken through and in front of the drill bit with a sampler ID (inner diameter) of 2.1–

2.83 inches (5.3–7.2 cm) and a sampler OD (outer diameter) of 2.25–3.0 inches (5.7–7.6 cm). The 

cores would be stored on the vessel until transport to shore facilities for geotechnical analysis. 

Three to four cores would be collected at each of up to 5 potential drilling locations on Statoil leases 

and 6–9 cores at 3 drilling locations on leases jointly owned by Statoil and CPAI. A maximum of 29 

cores would be taken collectively by Statoil during the geotechnical survey. The geotechnical soil 

investigation component of the ancillary activity would not involve anchoring. Lubrication of the 

coring holes would be performed using sea water, and in some instances bentonite and/or barite. As a 

consequence, some drilling muds and/or cuttings could be picked up and transported by currents. 

The Fugro Synergy operates a Kongsberg EA600 echo sounder and uses a Kongsberg 400 high 

precision acoustic position system for precise positioning during coring. 

3.3 Mitigation and Monitoring 

Statoil has proposed the mitigation and monitoring below as part of their proposed ancillary activities. 

Mitigation 

Statoil will adhere to the following mitigation measures during the shallow hazards survey and 

geotechnical soil investigation, and during the performance of any other operations in support of 

survey activities: 

 Prior to the SSV, the safety radii for all three dB levels that were modeled and described in 

the Statoil’s 2011 Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation Program will be implemented. 

At a minimum, SSV would measure where the received level is: 

o Greater to or equal to 180 dB relative to one microPascal (re 1 μPa) 

o Greater to or equal to 190 dB re 1 μPa 

o Greater to or equal to 160 dB re 1 μPa 

MMOs will actively monitor for marine mammals and provide direction to vessel crew regarding 

mitigation measures (e.g., power down, shutdown) specified below: 

 Speed and course alterations to maintain safety radii relative to observed marine mammals. 

 Ramp-up, power-down, and shutdown procedures if a marine mammal comes within the 

safety radii. 

 Both vessels will be staffed with MMOs who will alert the crew to the presence of marine 

mammals so that vessel crews can initiate appropriate mitigation measures. 

 One marine mammal observer (MMO) would be located on the bridge or weatherdeck of 

each vessel to watch for marine mammals. 

 Vessels will reduce speed, and alter course as appropriate, when approaching groups of 

marine mammals and maintain the maximum practicable distance from groups of marine 

mammals. 

 If weather or visibility conditions make it necessary, vessels should reduce speed to avoid the 

likelihood of injury to walruses. 

 Vessels should not approach pacific walruses or polar bears on ice or land closer than 0.5 

miles. 

 Vessels must take precautions to avoid harassment of concentrations of feeding walruses. 

Vessels should reduce speed and stay a minimum of 0.5 miles from groups of feeding walrus. 

 Vessels will be operated so that they do not separate members of groups of marine mammals. 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Proposed Action 7

 If a marine mammal is detected outside the exclusion zone radius and appears to be entering 

the zone radius while the vessel is conducting surveys (e.g., seismic or sonar activities), the 

source vessel may alter its speed and/or track to prevent the marine mammal from entering 

the exclusion zone. If these actions cannot prevent the marine mammal from entering the 

exclusion zone, power-down procedures will be initiated (addressed below). 

 Ramp-up. The following ramp-up procedures will be adhered to for all shallow hazards 

surveys involving seismic and sonar sound sources, including airgun testing, to allow marine 

mammals to depart the exclusion zone before the seismic data acquisition begins: 

o Visually monitor the exclusion zone and adjacent water for marine mammals for at least 

30 minutes before initiating ramp-up procedures. Ramp-up procedures will not be 

initiated until no marine mammals are observed in the exclusion zone for a 30 

consecutive minute observation period. 

o Ramp-up cannot be performed at night or when the MMOs cannot visually monitor the 

exclusion zone for marine mammals. 

o Ramp-up procedures should be initiated by discharge of a single airgun. Ramp-up will 

continue by gradual activation of additional airguns over a period of time as specified in 

the applicable permit until the operating energy output is reached. 

o If one airgun has maintained operation during a power-down period (e.g., a mitigation 

gun), ramp-up to full power will be permissible at night or during poor visibility 

conditions, based upon the assumption that marine mammals will be alerted by sounds 

from the mitigation gun and could move away from the airgun array with a very low 

possibility of a TTS or PTS. 

 Power Down/Shutdown. Power down/shutdown involves decreasing the number of operating 

airguns to decrease the size of the safety radii. Power-down/shutdown procedures will be 

adhered to in the following situations: 

o Immediately power down/shut down the airgun array (or other acoustic sources) 

whenever marine mammals are sighted approaching close to, entering, or within the 

permit-stipulated exclusion zone. 

o Power down in the event that aggregations of marine mammals (e.g., twelve or more 

walruses in water; four or more whale cow/calf pairs) are observed within the 160 dB re 1 

μPa safety radii so that the sound pressure level received by the walrus does not exceed 

160 dB re 1 μPa. 

o If power down cannot reduce the received sound pressure level to that mandated by 

permit stipulations (180 dB re 1 μPa for whales and walrus; 190 dB re 1 μPa for polar 

bear and seals), the sound source must immediately be shut down. 

 Emergency Shutdown. If observations are made or credible reports are received that one or 

more marine mammals are within the seismic survey area and are injured, dead, dying, or 

indicate acute distress due to seismic sounds, the airgun array should undergo emergency 

shutdown and the applicable regulatory agency (i.e., NMFS or FWS) would be contacted 

immediately. 

 Adaptive Response for Walrus Aggregations. Whenever an aggregation of 12 or more walrus 

in the water is observed within the 160 dB re 1 μPa exclusion zone ahead of or perpendicular 

to the seismic vessel track, the vessel must: 

o Immediately power down/shutdown the airgun array and other acoustic sources so that 

the sound pressure level received by the walruses does not exceed 160 dB re 1 μPa. 

o Not power up until it can be established that there are no walrus within the 160 dB re 1 

μPa zone, based upon vessel course, direction, and distance from the last walrus sighting. 

If shutdown was required, ramp-up procedures should be followed. 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

8 Existing Environment and Environmental Evaluation 

 Vessels will reduce their use of high-intensity lighting during periods of darkness and 

inclement weather (i.e., rain, fog) to minimize the potential for birds to become disoriented 

and strike these vessels. 

 To avoid conflict with other users of the OCS, Statoil intends to maintain an open and 

transparent process with all stakeholders throughout the activities in the Chukchi Sea. 

 Statoil has developed a Plan of Cooperation (POC) that identifies the actions Statoil will take 

to identify important subsistence activities, inform subsistence users of the proposed survey 

activities, and obtain feedback from subsistence users regarding how to provide cooperation 

between subsistence activities and the Statoil survey. 

Monitoring 

Statoil will maintain trained MMOs to carry out the monitoring necessary to perform mitigation as 

required by the LOA and IHA. At least one Alaska Native knowledgeable about marine mammals 

will be part of the MMO team located on each survey vessel, and at least one MMO (when 

practicable, two MMOs) will monitor for marine mammals during daylight operations and during 

nighttime startups. For low-visibility and nighttime monitoring night-vision equipment (Generation 3 

binocular image intensifiers, or equivalent units) will be available for use as needed. Statoil plans to 

have 5 MMOs aboard the site survey vessel and 3 MMOs aboard the coring vessel, working shifts not 

to exceed 4 hours. 

 MMOS will carry out the specific monitoring activities necessary to evaluate the effect of 

activities authorized by the LOA on walruses, polar bears, and subsistence uses of walruses 

and polar bears and by the IHA on marine mammals; and document marine mammal 

sightings and interactions with vessels. 

4. Existing Environment and Environmental Evaluation 

The activity area is at least ~165 km (~103 mi) northwest of Wainwright and ~240 km (~150 mi) 

west of Barrow in the Chukchi Sea (Figure 1). Water depth in the activity area is ~30–50 m (~100–

165 ft). The environmental conditions in the proposed activity area are expected to be the same as the 

general conditions described in the PEA and Sale 193 EIS; no recent studies or site-specific 

information indicate the area would differ from what was described in these previous NEPA 

documents. 

Summers frequently exhibit fog and southwesterly wind conditions, while winter snowstorms are 

accompanied by strong easterly, northeasterly, and northerly winds. In general, the region has 6–10 

storm-days per month with storms typically lasting from 6 to 24 hours; however, individual storms 

may last up to 14 days. 

The start of project activities onsite would begin on or after August 1, which is after the retreat of the 

ice in most years (early June to late July). Two forms of sea ice can be found in the activity area, 

including (1) grounded ridge ice that is not associated with landfast ice and (2) pack ice that may 

accumulate under the influence of winds and currents. The duration of open-water conditions in the 

central Chukchi Sea averages 17 weeks; however, the duration of open water is variable from year to 

year and ice could be present at the proposed location. Statoil’s ancillary activities are planned for the 

open-water season when grounded ice is not expected in the activity area, with a possible exception of 

Hanna Shoal for part of the open water season. Winds and currents could move pack ice into the area 

at any time during operations. 

Hanna Shoal (Appendix A, Figure A-1): Hanna Shoal rises from the ocean floor to within 20 m of 

the surface waters in some places. It is believed to be a feeding area for seals, Pacific walrus, some 

sea birds, and historically, gray whales (USDOI, MMS, 2009). The shoal often retains grounded sea 

ice well into early summer, providing resting and foraging platforms for seals and walrus. Gray 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Existing Environment and Environmental Evaluation 9

whales are believed to use offshore shoals, such as Hanna Shoal, in the Chukchi Sea for feeding 

during the summer months. Gray whales typically have shown documented disturbance reactions at 

levels at or above 160 dB. Hanna Shoal lies more than 8 mi from the shallow hazards survey area and, 

as indicated in Tables 3-2 and 5-1, 160 dB levels associated with the proposed ancillary activities 

would not extend to Hanna Shoal. Due to the small scale of the proposed ancillary activities and the 

distance between the surveys and Hanna Shoal, it is extremely unlikely anything related to the 

proposal would affect Hanna Shoal. Consequently, Hanna Shoal will not be analyzed further in this 

EA. 

Ledyard Bay Critical Habitat Unit (LBCHU) (Appendix A, Figure A-4): LBCHU is a critical 

habitat area designated by the FWS for the protection of spectacled eiders. Spectacled eiders are listed 

as threatened under the ESA. The nearest proposed shallow hazards survey area is more than 90 mi 

(144 km) from LBCHU (Appendix A, Figure A-4). Due to the small scale of the proposed ancillary 

activities and the distance between the surveys and LBCHU, it is extremely unlikely anything related 

to the proposal would affect LBCHU. Consequently, LBCHU will not be analyzed further in this EA. 

4.1 Preliminary Screening of Potential Impacts and Affected 

Biological Resources. 

Previous NEPA analyses (BOEMRE, 2010b, 2010c; MMS, 2007, 2008, 2010); Statoil’s 

Environmental Evaluation Document (EED), Plan of Operation (POO), Plan of Cooperation (POC), 

and IHA application (Statoil, 2011c, 2011b, 2011f, 2011d) were reviewed to provide information to 

evaluate expected levels of potential effects from the proposed activities. Recent biological surveys 

(Blanchard et al., 2010; Blees et al., 2010; Brueggeman et al., 1992; Brueggeman, 2009a; 

Brueggeman, 2009b; Funk et al, 2007; Funk et al, 2008; Funk et al, 2010; Gall and Day, 2009; 

Ireland et al, 2008; Ireland et al, 2009a; Ireland et al, 2009b; Ireland et al, 2009c) were also reviewed 

to determine the presence or absence of biological resources during the July–November operational 

timeframe in the vicinity of the proposed survey area. MMPA and ESA protected species, and any 

resources affected to a minor or greater level of effects are carried into the effects analyses in Sections 

5.2, 5.3, and 5.5. 

4.1.1 Levels of Effects Definitions for Biological Resources 

4.1.1.1 Significance 

Biological significance is a term used in association with ESA consultations. It refers to effects from 

an activity or event impacting the health, well-being, behavior, or reproductive potential of individual 

animals or plants and how many of those get transferred to population level effects. 

Significantly is defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 CFR 

1500-1508) in terms of both context and intensity (40 CFR 1508.27). “Context” considers the setting 

of the Proposed Action, what the affected resource might be, and whether the effect on this resource 

would be local or more regional in extent. Factors to be considered in evaluating “intensity” include: 

(1) the severity of the impact; (2) whether the impact is beneficial or adverse; (3) the degree to which 

the Proposed Action affects public health and safety; (4) the unique characteristics of the affected 

area; (5) the degree of controversy; (6) uncertainty; (7) establishing precedence; (8) the cumulative, 

direct, and indirect aspects of the impact; (9) the affects upon endangered or threatened species; and 

(10) whether Federal, State, or local laws may be violated. 

The terms Significance (Significant) and Biological significance (Biologically Significant) are not 

interchangeable. 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

10 Existing Environment and Environmental Evaluation 

4.1.1.2 Level of Effects Definitions 

The following definitions are used for biological resources in this document to apply specific levels of 

effects, as indicated: 

Negligible: Negligible levels of effects would not be considered to be significant impacts.

 No measurable physiological impacts and/or no population-level effects. 

 A small number of mortalities could occur among invertebrates. 

 No mortalities are expected to occur among vertebrates. 

 May cause brief behavioral reactions such as temporary avoidances or deflections around an 

area. 

 May involve localized and small numbers of invertebrates mortalities. 

 Localized short-term disturbance or habitat effects experienced during one season are not 

anticipated to accumulate across multiple seasons. 

 No detectable impacts to reproductive success or recruitment are anticipated. 

 Mitigation measures are fully implemented or are unnecessary. 

Minor: Minor levels of effects would not be considered to be significant impacts.

 Low but measurable physiological impacts with no population-level effects. 

 Larger but highly localized mortalities among invertebrates could occur. 

 A small number of mortalities are unlikely but possible with vertebrate species. 

 May cause behavioral reactions such as avoidances of or deflections around an area lasting 

from one hour to several days. 

 Localized, disturbance or habitat effects experienced during one season may accumulate 

across subsequent seasons, but not over one year. 

 No mortality or detectable impacts to reproductive success or recruitment are anticipated. 

 Mitigation measures are fully implemented or are unnecessary. 

Moderate: Moderate levels of effects would not be considered to be significant impacts.

 Numerically moderate levels of mortalities or disturbances could occur, but with no 

detectable population-level effects. 

 Mortalities are likely, but not to an extent resulting in detectable population level effects. 

 Adverse impacts to ESA-listed species could occur. 

 Widespread annual or chronic disturbances or habitat effects could persist for multiple years 

and up to a decade. 

 Widespread implementation of mitigation measures for similar activities may be effective in 

reducing the level of avoidable adverse effects. 

 Unmitigated or unavoidable adverse effects may be short term and widespread, or are long 

term and localized. 

Major: Major levels of effects would be considered to be significant impacts.

 Mortalities or disturbances occur that have detectable population-level effects. 

 For marine mammals, mortality might occur at or above the estimated Potential Biological 

Removal as a result of the proposed action. 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Existing Environment and Environmental Evaluation 11

 For fish and benthic invertebrates, the anticipated mortality is estimated or measured in terms 

of tens of thousands of individuals or >20% of a local breeding population and/or >5% of a 

regional population, which may produce population-level effects. 

 Widespread seasonal or chronic effects are cumulative and are likely to persist for more than 

one decade. 

 Mitigation measures are implemented only for a small portion of similar impacting activities, 

but more widespread implementation for similar activities could be more effective in 

reducing the level of avoidable adverse effects. 

 Unmitigatable or unavoidable adverse effects are widespread and long lasting. 

Tables 4-1 through 4-4 indicate the expected levels of impact based upon previous NEPA analyses 

wherein the same mitigations were implemented (USDOI, MMS, 2006a; 2007b; USDOI, BOEMRE, 

2010b). The impact levels presented in Section 4.3 describe the expected impact levels of the 

proposed activities on the biota in the vicinity of ancillary activities. The impact level determinations 

are based on the types and levels of effects outlined in previous NEPA documents (see Section 2.0; 

USDOI, MMS, 2006b, 2007b; USDOC, NMFS, 2008b), BOEMRE’s EFH Arctic Consultation with 

NMFS (USDOI, BOEMRE, 2011), and Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation documents 

(USDOI, MMS 2006a, 2008a; USDOI, FWS, 2009; USDOC, NMFS, 2008a). Effects level 

determinations are applied independent of the presence, absence, or numbers of a species that might 

occur at the site-specific level, but do consider any mitigations that are part of the proposed action. 

4.1.2 Marine Mammals 

Table 4-1 shows the expected level of effects of ancillary activities on marine mammal species. 

BOEMRE considered whether additional studies of marine mammals would be necessary to 

determine the effects for an analysis of shallow hazard surveys in the Chukchi Sea. Although 

information on marine mammal species in the Chukchi Sea is sometimes limited compared to other 

regions of Alaska, there is sufficient data to evaluate the effects on marine mammals from the 

Table 4-1. NEPA effects level determination results for marine mammal species expected to occur in the 

Chukchi Sea Planning Area. 

Species Vessel 

Traffic 

Vessel 

Noise 

Sub-bottom 

Profiler 

Sidescan 

Sonar 

Single or 

Multi-beam 

Echosounder 

Sediment 

Coring 

Airgun 

Noise 

Cumulative 

Effects 

Bearded Seal NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Beluga Whale NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Bowhead Whale NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Fin Whale NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Gray Whale MN NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Harbor Porpoise NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Humpback Whale NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Killer Whale NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Minke Whale NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Narwhal NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Pacific Walrus MN NG NG NG NG NG NG MN 

Polar Bear NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Ribbon Seal NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

12 Existing Environment and Environmental Evaluation 

Species Vessel 

Traffic 

Vessel 

Noise 

Sub-bottom 

Profiler 

Sidescan 

Sonar 

Single or 

Multi-beam 

Echosounder 

Sediment 

Coring 

Airgun 

Noise 

Cumulative 

Effects 

Ringed Seal NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Spotted Seal NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Note: NG = negligible, MN = minor, MO = moderate, MJ = major. Determinations are based on existing 

analyses in USDOI, MMS, 2006b and USDOI, MMS, 2007b, and incorporate more recent information from other 

sources, as appropriate. 

proposed activities. These effects include noise, physical disturbance, and temporary displacement. 

The area of disturbance would be very limited in time and space. The largest effect determination was 

for the Pacific walrus where a minor level of effect from vessel traffic led to a minor cumulative level 

of effect. 

Vessel traffic related to the proposed activities would not occur in sensitive nearshore waters, such as 

Ledyard Bay. Vessels would have marine mammal observers posted at all times and would slow 

down and/or change course to avoid close approaches to marine mammals as necessary. 

4.1.3 Birds 

Tables 4-2 and 4-3 summarize the level of effects for similar activities analyzed in previous NEPA 

documents (USDOI, MMS, 2006b; 2007b). Birds are typically present in the proposed survey area in 

low densities, and would easily move away from vessel traffic and noise, airgun noise, and other 

disturbances associated with survey activity (Statoil, 2010b). The distance between the survey area 

and aggregations such as colonies or nesting/brood-rearing areas for waterfowl, seabirds, loons, and 

shorebirds makes their occurrence in the vicinity of the survey area sporadic with comparatively low 

population densities. Minor levels of cumulative effect were generally determined for bird species in 

the Chukchi Sea in the PEA and in Lease Sale 193 EIS; however, mitigations that are part of the 

proposed action and other project-specific characteristics have interacted to lower the levels of effect 

to negligible for some species. 

Table 4-2. NEPA effects level determination results for seabird and shorebird species that occur in the 

Chukchi Sea Planning Area. 

Species Vessel 

Traffic 

Vessel 

Noise 

Sub-bottom 

Profiler 

Sidescan 

Sonar 

Single or 

Multi-beam 

Echosounder 

Sediment 

Coring 

Airgun 

Noise 

Bird/Ship 

Collisions

Cumulative 

Effects 

Common Murre NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Thick-Billed Murre NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Tufted Puffin NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Horned Puffin NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Black Guillemot NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Parakeet Auklet NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Least Auklet NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Crested Auklet NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Kittlitz’s Murrelet NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Black-legged Kittiwake NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Short-Tailed Shearwater NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Northern Fulmar NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Pelagic Cormorant NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Glaucous Gull NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Ivory Gull NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Ross’s Gull NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Sabine’s Gull NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Arctic Tern NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Existing Environment and Environmental Evaluation 13

Species Vessel 

Traffic 

Vessel 

Noise 

Sub-bottom 

Profiler 

Sidescan 

Sonar 

Single or 

Multi-beam 

Echosounder 

Sediment 

Coring 

Airgun 

Noise 

Bird/Ship 

Collisions

Cumulative 

Effects 

Pomarine Jaeger NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Parasitic Jaeger NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Long-Tailed Jaeger NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Red-Necked Phalarope NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Red Phalarope NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Note: NG = negligible, MN = minor, MO = moderate, MJ = major; Determinations are based on existing 

analyses in USDOI, MMS, 2006b and USDOI, MMS, 2007b, and incorporate more recent information from other 

sources, as appropriate. 

Recent BOs (FWS, 2009) and Lease Stipulation No. 7 (MMS 2007-0026) limits the use of high 

intensity shipboard lights to critical operations for safety, lessening the chance of attracting or 

disorienting birds. Most bird species are likely to avoid ongoing surveys (Statoil, 2010b); 

accordingly, BOEMRE (USDOI, MMS, 2006a; 2007b) has concluded many bird species would not 

occur near the survey. 

Table 4-3. NEPA effects level determination for waterfowl species that occur in the Chukchi Sea 

Planning Area. 

Species Vessel 

Traffic 

Vessel 

Noise 

Sub-bottom 

Profiler 

Sidescan 

Sonar 

Single or 

Multi-beam 

Echosounder 

Sediment 

Coring 

Airgun 

Noise 

Bird/Ship 

Collisions

Cumulative 

Effects 

Common Eider NG NG NG NG NG NG NG MN MN 

Spectacled Eider NG NG NG NG NG NG NG MN MN 

Steller's Eider NG NG NG NG NG NG NG MN MN 

King Eider NG NG NG NG NG NG NG MN MN 

Northern Pintail NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Red-Breasted Merganser NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Long-tailed Duck NG NG NG NG NG NG NG MN MN 

Black Scoter NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

White-Winged Scoter NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Greater Scaup NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Lesser Snow Goose NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Greater White-Fronted 

Goose NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Canada Goose NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Pacific Black Brant NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Tundra Swan NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Pacific Loon NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Red-Throated Loon NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Yellow-Billed Loon NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Note: NG = negligible, MN = minor, MO = moderate, MJ = major; Determinations are based on existing 

analyses in USDOI, MMS, 2006b and USDOI, MMS, 2007b, and incorporate more recent information from other 

sources, as appropriate. 

4.1.4 Fish, Essential Fish Habitat, and Lower Trophic Species 

More than 66 species of fish have been documented in the northeastern Chukchi Sea (Barber et al., 

1997; Statoil, 2010b). These include marine fish (largely restricted to marine habitats) and 

diadromous (migratory) fish that utilize both marine and freshwater habitats. Most of the literature 

that is available on Arctic fish is related to adult fish in the nearshore environment during the openwater season and addresses general distribution and abundance. Information regarding discrete 

populations, migration, offshore occurrence and life history of most fish species in the U.S. Arctic is 

limited. The distribution of marine fish species in the Chukchi Sea is driven by salinity, water depth, 

and percentage of gravel in the sediments (Barber et al., 1997; Norcross et al., 2010) and often shifts 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

14 Existing Environment and Environmental Evaluation 

as seasonal changes occur. There is sufficient information to describe the types of marine fish that 

would be expected to occur in the survey area. Barber et al. (1994) identified Arctic cod as the most 

abundant fish species in the survey area. Arctic cod depend on a variety of habitats throughout their 

life history, including nearshore, offshore, and sea ice (Craig, 1984; Craig, et al, 1982). 

The five species of Pacific salmon occurring in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area are managed under 

the Alaska Salmon Fishery Management Plan (NMFS, 1990, and amendments). The EFH for salmon 

encompasses the entire Chukchi Sea OCS Planning Area (Appendix A, Figure A-5). FH for Pacific 

salmon eggs and larvae do not occur in the activity area. 

The Arctic Fishery Management Plan (NMFS, 2009a) identified Arctic cod, saffron cod and snow 

crab (opilio crab) as target species in the region north of the Bering Strait (Appendix A, Figure A-6 

for Arctic Cod, and Appendix A, Figure A-7 for Saffron Cod). The EFH for these three species 

occurs in the Chukchi Sea. Only the Arctic cod EFH fully overlaps with the proposed activity area. 

EFH for the Saffron cod and Opilio crab do not occur in the activity area. 

Benthic and epibenthic organisms are diverse and abundant in the survey area. The northeastern 

quadrant of the Chukchi Sea generally supports a higher biomass of benthic organisms than other 

areas of the Chukchi Sea (Grebmeier and Dunton, 2000). 

Hard-bottom communities are aggregations of macrophytic algae (large kelps), benthic microalgae, 

and benthic invertebrates associated with rocks and other hard substrate. Seafloor surveys conducted 

in the area have not revealed any unusual or special benthic features or communities. No kelp beds, 

hard-bottom communities, or other special benthic habitats are known to occur in the area or have 

been identified in nearby areas. 

Table 4-4 shows the more common fish and invertebrate species expected to occur within the survey 

area and the expected level of effects of ancillary activities on these species. 

Table 4-4. NEPA effects level determination results for fish and invertebrate species that regularly occur 

in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area. 

Species Vessel 

Traffic 

Vessel 

Noise 

Sub-bottom 

Profiler 

Sidescan 

Sonar 

Single or 

Multi-beam 

Echosounder 

Sediment 

Coring 

Airgun 

Noise 

Cumulative 

Effects 

Arctic Cod NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Saffron Cod NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Sculpin NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Staghorn Sculpin NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Bering Flounder NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Warty Sculpin NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Hamecon NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Walleye Pollock NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Ribbed Sculpin NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Capelin NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Wattled Eelpout NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Pacific Herring NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Slender Eelblenny NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Canadian Eelpout NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Eelpout NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Sturgeon Poacher NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Pacific Cod NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Variegated Snailfish NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Butterfly Sculpin NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Hookear Sculpin NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Sandlance NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Existing Environment and Environmental Evaluation 15

Species Vessel 

Traffic 

Vessel 

Noise 

Sub-bottom 

Profiler 

Sidescan 

Sonar 

Single or 

Multi-beam 

Echosounder 

Sediment 

Coring 

Airgun 

Noise 

Cumulative 

Effects 

polychaetes NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

echinoderms NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

sipunculids NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

bivalves NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

amphipods NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Opilio crab NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

copepods NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

euphausids NG NG NG NG NG NG NG NG 

Note: NG = negligible, MN = minor, MO = moderate, MJ = major; Determinations are based on existing 

analyses in USDOI, MMS, 2006b and USDOI, MMS, 2007b, and incorporate more recent information from other 

sources, as appropriate. 

Pelagic schooling species, such as adult Arctic cod and salmon are highly mobile and would likely 

avoid areas where airguns are active. Sedentary and epibenthic-obligated fish could likely experience 

a higher level of effects from seismic activities because of their limited mobility; however, they 

would only be subjected to very brief periods of exposure. As summarized in Section 4.4.3 and Table 

4-4, the PEA and Sale 193 EIS (USDOI, MMS, 2006b; 2007b) concluded negligible effects from 

airgun noise to marine fish species in the Arctic OCS. Consequently, fish and EFH will not be 

assessed further in this EA. 

Studies conducted during the past ten years have indicated there may be adverse effects from survey 

sound on certain developmental stages of lower trophic species (such as snow crabs) as described the 

PEA and Lease Sale 193 (USDOI, MMS, 2006 b and 2007b). Available information indicates that 

these effects are considered to be negligible (Sale 193 EIS; Blanchard et al., 2010). Therefore, lower 

trophic organisms will not be further analyzed in this EA. 

Marine seismic streamers do not physically disrupt the benthic habitat and, therefore, are not expected 

to cause direct or long-lasting alteration of benthic habitat or invertebrate populations in the survey 

area of the Chukchi Sea. Sediments and drilling lubricants from coring activities would be released 

into the Chukchi Sea as cores are drilled. Any released sediments or lubricants released into the water 

column would be quickly dispersed into the Chukchi Sea via ocean currents. The low-level drilling 

noises should not affect any benthic organisms appreciably. Consequently, any benthic invertebrates 

in the vicinity of the proposed coring activities are expected to be negligibly affected. Because of the 

relatively small size of these streamers, they are likely to affect pelagic biota to a negligible degree. 

Therefore, benthic habitat, benthic populations, and other pelagic biota will not be further analyzed in 

this EA. 

4.2 Presence and Habitat Use 

Population estimates, habitat preferences, and anticipated exposure of species to sound are discussed 

in this section. 

4.2.1 Marine Mammals 

Results from surveys conducted in nearby areas (Blees et al., 2010; Funk et al, 2007; Funk et al, 

2008; Funk et al, 2010; Brueggeman, 2009; Nelson et al., 1993; Ljungblad et al., 1988; Ireland et al, 

2008; Ireland et al, 2009a; Ireland et al, 2009b; Ireland et al, 2009c) acknowledged the presence of 

polar bear, five pinnipeds (four ice seal species and the Pacific walrus), and nine cetaceans (four 

odontocetes [toothed whales] and five mysticetes [baleen whales]) (Funk et al., 2009). Pacific walrus 

were most often encountered along with ringed seals, bearded seals, and gray whales. Less common 

were spotted seals, ribbon seals, bowhead whales, beluga whales, harbor porpoises, killer whales, 

minke whales, and polar bears (Brueggeman, 2009a; 2009b). Fin and humpback whales are 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

16 Existing Environment and Environmental Evaluation 

considered rare or uncommon (Table 4-5) in the survey area (USDOI, MMS, 2006b and 2008b; 

NMFS, 2008a and 2008b). 

Allen and Angliss (2010) characterize the population estimates for ice seals (ringed, ribbon, bearded, 

and spotted seals) as unreliable or tentative, noting populations are known to be in the tens to 

hundreds of thousands across the Arctic. Ice seals are associated with sea ice for all or part of the 

year. Some species tend to remain near the ice edge during the summer months, but regularly occur in 

open water. Seals are likely to be widely dispersed as they forage through the area. 

Table 4-5. Population information and habitat use for marine mammal species occurring in the Chukchi 

Sea Planning Area. 

Species Population Size Area Habitat Preferences During Open Water Season 

Bearded Seal 

No reliable population estimate in 

Bering/Chukchi/ Beaufort Seas (Allen and 

Angliss, 2010). Cameron et al. (2010) 

estimated 155,000 bearded seals in the 

Beringian Distinct Population Segment 

(DPS), about 27,000 of which reside in 

the Chukchi Sea. Cameron et al. (2010) 

reported the population density of 

bearded seals in the Chukchi Sea to 

average 0.07 and 0.14 bearded 

seals/km2 based on coastal aerial 

surveys flown between Barrow and 

Shishmaref, Alaska (Bengtson et al. 

2005) 

Circumpolar distribution, ranging south into the Sea of Okhotsk. 

Shallow waters less than 200 m deep that are at least seasonally ice 

covered. Areas of broken sea ice and sometimes fast ice areas with 

access to open waters. Typically found in continental shelf waters 

with 70 - 90% ice cover and between 20 and 100 nautical miles 

offshore. May remain near ice, or in open waters. 

Beluga Whale 

32,453 Bering/Chukchi/Beaufort Seas 

stock, 3,710 eastern Chukchi Sea stock, 

and 18,142 eastern Bering Sea stock 

(Allen and Angliss, 2010). 

Usually follow lead systems and nearshore areas in spring migration. 

Summer habitat use is segregated with older males using the 

continental shelf break and heavy ice, while females with young 

prefer shallower water over the shelf. Belugas migrate westward 

along the shelf edge during their fall migration. Common in nearshore 

waters and lagoons where they most likely molt. 

Bowhead 

Whale 

1,836 Western Arctic Stock (Allen and 

Angliss, 2010). 

Migrate through the Chukchi Sea in spring and fall, feeding over deep 

water and in shallow waters in U.S. Beaufort Sea, and to a lesser 

extent, Chukchi Sea, in summer. An unknown portion of the 

population migrates westward or southward through or through the 

160 dB noise footprint of the proposed survey area in the fall. 

Fin Whale 5,700 northeast Pacific stock (Allen and 

Angliss, 2010). 

Deep offshore waters and continental shelf waters in the project area. 

Considered uncommon in the Alaska Chukchi Sea, but sightings are 

becoming more frequent. 

Gray Whale Minimum estimate of 17,752 Eastern 

Pacific/Stock (Allen and Angliss, 2010). 

Waters over continental shelf, nearshore waters, and shallow offshore 

areas. Historically Hanna Shoal was an important feeding ground for 

Eastern Pacific gray whales. In recent years (2008-2010) fewer 

feeding gray whales have been observed near Hanna Shoal. 

Harbor 

Porpoise 

Unreliable estimate of 48,215 Bering Sea 

stock (Allen and Angliss, 2010). 

Uncommon in open waters of the Chukchi Sea. Usually found over 

the continental shelf and in coastal lagoons. 

Humpback 

Whale 

Minimum estimate of 732 western North 

Pacific stock (Allen and Angliss, 2010). 

Considered rare and extralimital, Sightings are becoming more 

common recently. 

Killer Whale >314 Bering Sea transient stock (Allen 

and Angliss, 2010). 

Open water and ice front, some coastal areas. Uncommon in the 

eastern Chukchi Sea. More common in waters off Chukotka. 

Minke Whale 

No estimates available, no min. 

abundance estimate available (Allen and 

Angliss, 2010). 

Common but not abundant in the Bering/Chukchi Seas., may 

penetrate loose ice in summer, migratory. 

Narwhal Estimate of 60,000-80,000 world wide 

(Richard et al., 2010). 

A few records exist for the Chukchi Sea, Rare and most likely 

extralimital. Feed in deep waters near continental shelf edge. 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Existing Environment and Environmental Evaluation 17

Species Population Size Area Habitat Preferences During Open Water Season 

Pacific 

Walrus 

129,000 in the Bering/Chukchi Seas 

(Allen and Angliss, 2010; Garlich-Miller, 

20l11). 

Seasonally abundant in area. Usually foraging over continental shelf. 

Hanna Shoal is an important feeding ground. Brueggeman et al. 

(2009) observed 965 walrus during marine mammal surveys in the 

Chukchi Sea Open Water Surveys, while Blees et al. (2010) observed 

at least 1042 individual walruses during 2010 seismic operations at 

the proposed project area, enroute to coastal haulouts. 

Polar Bear 

2,000 Chukchi-Bering Stock(Allen and 

Angliss, 2010 , 1,526 Southern Beaufort 

Sea Stock (Allen and Angliss, 2010) 

Areas of sufficient sea ice cover north of the project location from 

July-October. Some in open water transiting between sea ice and the 

coast. Females with young, and sub adults may occur onshore. 

Ribbon Seal 49,000 in eastern and central Bering Sea 

(Allen and Angliss, 2010). 

Pelagic waters in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. Brueggeman et al. 

(2009) observed 6 ribbon seals by MMOs during Chukchi Sea seismic 

surveys, while Blees et al. (2010) observed at least 1 ribbon seal 

during Statoil’s 2010 2D/3D seismic data collection. Larger numbers 

of ribbon seals are found in the southern and southwestern Chukchi 

Sea, and in the Northern Bering Sea during the open water season. 

Ringed Seal 

Unreliable estimate of 249,000 in 

Bering/Chukchi Seas (Allen and Angliss, 

2010). Kelly et al. (2010) estimates 

1,000,000 ringed seals occur in the 

Beaufort and Chukchi Seas in varying 

densities. 

Shallow waters over continental shelf. Brueggeman et al. (2009) 

observed >117 ringed seals by MMOs during Chukchi Sea seismic 

surveys, while Blees et al. (2010) noted >35 ringed seals identified 

during 2010 3D seismic data collections. 

Spotted Seal 

Unreliable estimate of 59,214 

Bering/Chukchi Seas (Allen and Angliss, 

2010). 

Seasonal visitor to Chukchi Sea. Shallow waters over continental 

shelf. Occupy terrestrial haulout outs in summer, including Kasegaluk 

Lagoon. 

Source: Information sources are USDOC, NMFS (2008a; 2008b; and 2009b) and USDOI, FWS (2007; 2008; 

and 2009), unless otherwise noted. 

Also dependent upon available sea ice are walrus and polar bears. Partial counts indicated a minimum 

of 129,000 walrus in the Bering and Chukchi Seas (Allen and Angliss, 2010; Garlich-Miller et al., 

2011), but a more accurate population estimate is unavailable. Pacific walrus remain along the ice 

edge for much of the year, with most males migrating to terrestrial haulout sites along the coast in 

summer. Females and calves remain along the ice edge until sea ice retreats north of the continental 

shelf. Then females and calves move to terrestrial haulout sites along the coast of the Chukchi Sea. 

Polar bears prefer to remain with the sea ice, using it as a resting or hunting platform during summer 

months, but may be found transiting open water after sea ice disappears from the region. 

In recent years, the sea ice edge has retreated north of the proposed survey area by mid to late July 

(Statoil, 2011a; Polar Research Group, 2010). 

From July to October bowhead whale feeding concentrations occur in the Canadian Arctic and near 

Point Barrow or Wrangel Island (Appendix A, Figure A-10). Unknown numbers pass through the 

proposed survey area as they migrate from the Beaufort Sea to Wrangel Island or to the Chukotka 

coastal waters. Although data are preliminary, results from recent tagging projects (Quakenbush, 

2010) indicate varied movements of migrating bowhead whales in the Chukchi Sea. 

Gray whales have historically been found in shallow nearshore waters or shallow offshore areas, such 

as Hanna Shoal more than 8 mi from the shallow hazards survey area, feeding on benthic organisms 

(Appendix A, Figure A-11). 

The actual presence and abundance of each species of marine mammal within the survey area 

depends upon factors such as food presence, water depth, time of year, and the sea ice presence. 

Depth preference varies between species and sea ice abundance has a direct bearing on the number of 

ice-associated marine mammals, particularly polar bears, ice seals, and Pacific walrus that may be 

present during shallow hazards surveys. Further, sea ice abundance and presence has varied greatly in 

past years in the prospect areas (Polar Research Group, 2010). 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

18 Existing Environment and Environmental Evaluation 

Marine mammals are federally protected under the MMPA. There are no state-listed marine mammal 

species of special concern within the northeastern Chukchi Sea area. Polar bears and bowhead, 

humpback, and fin whales are listed under the ESA. Pacific walrus, ringed seals, and bearded seals 

have been proposed for protected status under the ESA (Federal Register, 2011; 2010c; 2010d). 

Blees et al. (2010) noted bearded seals (128 individuals) were the most commonly identified seals in 

the project area during 2010 seismic operations, followed by ringed (35 individuals), spotted (5 

individuals), and ribbon seals (1 individual). The same survey identified 1,042 Pacific walruses, 6 

bowhead whales, 10 gray whales, 5 minke whales, 20 unidentifiable mysticete whales, 3 

unidentifiable toothed whales, and no polar bears. In 2008, Brueggeman et al. (2009) observed 119 

bearded seals, 117 ringed seals, 60 spotted seals, 6 ribbon seals, 181 ringed or spotted seals, and 607 

unidentifiable seals. This study also detected 965 walruses, 22 gray whales, 9 killer whales, 7 harbor 

porpoises, 1 bowhead whale, 1 minke whale, 1 Dall’s porpoise, and 9 polar bears. A total of 2,149 

marine mammals were observed during 610 hours of survey work over 5,344 miles of track line at the 

Burger and Klondike prospect areas. Dall’s porpoise was observed off Point Hope Alaska during the 

retrograde phase of the survey and one polar bear mother with a pair of cubs was observed just 

offshore from Wainwright, Alaska. 

4.2.2 Birds 

Bird habitat use in the northeastern Chukchi Sea was studied by Divoky (1987) from mid-July 

through mid-October in the 1970s and 1980s. His studies found three species of jaegers (pomarine, 

parasitic, and long-tailed) were common in the Chukchi Sea until late September and dispersed 

throughout his study areas. Encounters with gulls varied by species and time throughout the JulyOctober time frame. 

Glaucous gulls were found to be present in all areas and ivory gulls were common to abundant in 

areas where ice was present, including the area of the Burger prospect from late September until the 

end of the observations on October 12 (Divoky, 1987). The lack of ice during his surveys likely had 

an effect on the number of ivory gull sightings. Ross’s gulls became common in late September at the 

ice edge, though small numbers were seen well south of the ice, but they were found over most of his 

survey area and would be expected in the area of Statoil’s survey. 

Black-legged kittiwakes were common throughout most of the Divoky (1987) survey area in the 

1970s - 1980s, including the area of the Burger prospect, from mid-July until late September. 

Densities increased from 1 to more than 2 birds/sq mi from late August to early September and 

subsequently decreased as they left the Chukchi Sea (Divoky, 1987). 

Sabine’s gulls and Arctic terns were rarely found in the pelagic Chukchi Sea; most observations were 

within 29 mi (46 km) from shore (Divoky, 1987). The lack of offshore sightings indicates migration 

likely occurs landward of the 66 ft (20 m) isobath. Divoky (1987) reported alcids (murres, auklets, 

murrelets, and puffins) were commonly encountered during the July-October period, but densities 

varied by species and time. 

Murres were most abundant in the southern and south central areas of the Chukchi Sea, and less 

abundant in the northeastern Chukchi Sea (Divoky, 1987)(Table 4-6). Murre sightings decreased after 

August 20 as they migrated south. Black guillemots were regularly found in low densities in the 

central and northern Chukchi Sea when ice was present and were common in offshore areas during 

July and August. Parakeet auklets were uncommon until late August when they temporarily became 

common in the southern Chukchi Sea, becoming uncommon again in late September (Divoky, 1987). 

Crested auklets move from the Bering Sea into the central Chukchi Sea in late August and early 

September; they were regularly encountered from August 27 into the first half of October. However, 

crested auklets were encountered in patches, likely reflecting the availability of zooplankton (Divoky, 

1987). He found small numbers of least auklets in the central Chukchi Sea after late September and 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Existing Environment and Environmental Evaluation 19

few after October 1. Tufted puffins occurred in the central and southern Chukchi Sea but were only 

regularly found in the southern Chukchi Sea (Divoky, 1987). Few horned puffins occurred in the 

central Chukchi Sea in August and numbers increased in September after the breeding season 

(Divoky, 1987). Most horned puffins in the central Chukchi Sea were observed near Cape Lisburne. 

Puffins were not observed during recent studies in the vicinity of the Burger prospect near the 

proposed survey area (Gall and Day, 2009). 

Recent surveys conducted at nearby prospects during July–October 2008 (Gall and Day, 2009), 

identified Pacific loon, northern fulmar, short-tailed shearwater, black-legged kittiwake, glaucous 

gull, thick-billed murre, least auklet, and crested auklet as the bird species most commonly 

encountered. Generally, birds were more numerous in early fall, and less numerous in late summer or 

late fall. Short-tailed shearwaters were the most numerous species at both sites with an average 

density of 40 birds/km2

 in the area of the Klondike prospect in early fall, and 32 birds/km2 in the area 

of the Burger prospect in early fall (Gall and Day, 2009). 

Table 4-6. Population information, density, and habitat use for bird species occurring in the Chukchi Sea 

Planning Area. 

Species Population Size Range of Estimated 

DensitiesA 

Area Habitat Preferences During Open Water 

Season 

Black-Legged 

Kittiwake 

Estimate of 1,322,000 in 

Alaska, (FWS, 2006). 0.2-17.7 birds/km2 Nest southeast Alaska north to Point Hope; winters at 

sea Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska 

Crested Auklet 2.9 million in North 

America, (FWS, 2006). 0.0-0.3 birds/km2 Nest Aleutian / Bering Sea islands. Non-breeding in Chukchi Sea. Winters offshore. 

Glaucous Gull 

Population numbers are 

poorly known, but estimate 

100,000 in Alaska (FWS, 

2006). 

0.1-4.2 birds/km2 Colonial nester along most of coastline, most 

common gull 

Kittlitz’s 

Murrelet 

20,000 in Alaska (90% of 

the world’s population) 

(FWS, 2009) 

uncommon, no 

observations 

(Grebmeier, 2009) 

Occur at sea in substantial numbers along the ice 

edge in late summer and fall, particularly in the central 

Chukchi Sea. 

Least Auklet 

Difficult to census, 

estimates of 5.5-9 million 

in North America, (FWS, 

2006). 

0.0-0.1 birds/km2 Nest AK Peninsula/Aleutians - Bering Sea islands. 

Non-breeding in Chukchi Sea. Winters offshore. 

Long-tailed 

Ducks 

Estimate of 116,400 on 

Arctic Coastal Plain (Sea 

Duck Joint Venture, 

2003a). 

Maximum density of 

2.2/km2

 in northern 

Chukchi Sea (Sept.-

Oct.) (Divoky, 1987). 

Nearshore areas in 20-m isobath. Most feeding is in 

water <9 m (30 ft) deep, but dives >60 m (200 ft) do 

occur. Nest inland and on Arctic coast near water. 

Molting occurs in coastal areas. (Sea Duck Joint 

Venture, 2003b) 

Northern Fulmar 

2.1 million breeding birds 

in North America, (FWS, 

2006). 

0.1-1.1 birds/km2 Nests on Alaska Peninsula and Bering Sea islands. 

Winters at sea – Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska 

Pacific Loon 

39,945 for the Arctic 

coastal plain survey area 

(FWS, 2006) 

0-4.9 birds/km2

Breeds on freshwater tundra lakes. Rests on open 

ocean during migration. Winters on ocean waters 

near coast, and sometimes on bays or estuaries 

Short-Tailed 

Shearwater 

Estimate 23 million 

breeding birds world-wide, 

(FWS, 2006). 

0.0-31.6 birds/km2 Most at sea in south Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, fewer 

in Chukchi & Beaufort Seas. 

Spectacled Eider 

5,047-7,368 nest on 

Alaska’s North Slope 

(Larned et al, 2009) 

rare 

Currently breeding distribution includes the central 

coast of the Yukon-Kuskokwim (Y-K) Delta, the Arctic 

Coastal Plain of Alaska, and the Arctic Coastal Plain 

of Russia (USDOI, FWS 2005). After nesting, 

spectacled eiders move to coastal waters where they 

migrate to molting areas. 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

20 Existing Environment and Environmental Evaluation 

Species Population Size Range of Estimated 

DensitiesA 

Area Habitat Preferences During Open Water 

Season 

Steller’s Eider 

100-866 on Alaska’s North 

Slope (USDOI, FWS, 

2009) 

rare 

Coastal and offshore areas provide habitat for 

Steller’s eiders. The Alaska-breeding population is 

primarily confined to the Arctic Coastal Plain of 

Alaska’s North Slope, with a distinguished 

concentration around Pt. Barrow (FWS, 2002c) 

Thick-Billed 

Murre 

Estimates of 2.2 million 

birds in Alaska (USDOI, 

FWS, 2006). 

0.0-0.1 birds/km2 Nest SE Alaska to Cape Lisburne. Winter in open 

water Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska 

Yellow-Billed 

Loon 

3,000-4,000 in Alaska 

(USDOI, FWS, 2009). rare 

Breeds on coastal and inland low-lying tundra in 

association with fish-bearing lakes, winters in coastal 

waters. 

Note: A Late summer, early fall, late fall (from nearby Burger area, 2008 surveys). 

Source: USDOI, MMS, 2006b; 2007b and USDOI, FWS, 2007; 2008; 2009, unless otherwise noted. 

During surveys conducted as part of the BOEMRE-funded COMIDA (Chukchi Offshore Monitoring 

in Drilling Area) studies from mid-July through mid-August in 2009 no ESA-listed species were 

observed, and the highest bird densities occurred in the nearshore waters and at Hanna Shoal, which 

is more than 8 mi from the shallow hazards survey area (Grebmeier, 2009). 

Northern fulmars were (Divoky, 1987; Gall and Day, 2009) present in the central Chukchi Sea before 

late August, and became more common from late August to mid-September and absent after late 

September. Shearwaters were common to abundant in the Chukchi Sea during the late August to late 

September ice retreat and their distribution appears to follow zooplankton abundance and distribution 

(Divoky, 1987; Gall and Day, 2009). 

Based on the available literature, northern fulmars; short-tailed shearwaters; red and red-necked 

phalaropes; glaucous, ivory, and Ross’s gulls; kittiwakes; pomarine, parasitic, and long-tailed jaegers; 

common and thick-billed murres; black guillemots; and least and crested auklets can be expected to 

occur in the vicinity of Statoil’s survey area during the August–November time frame. These species 

often forage in the pelagic Chukchi Sea. Loons and sea ducks are typically found in nearshore waters 

where depths are shallower, but occasionally they can be found in pelagic habitat. Overall, bird 

densities in offshore waters are lower than in nearshore waters (Divoky, 1987; Gall and Day, 2009). 

Surveys along 35 x 35 mi (56 x 56 km) transects in the vicinity of the survey area were performed by 

ABR, Inc. from July 23 to October 12, 2008 (Gall and Day, 2009). Comparisons between the ABR 

data and data collected by Divoky are difficult. The ABR data was collected during a single year, the 

studies have poor spatial overlap, and survey designs differed, as did sample sizes (Gall and Day, 

2009). Both studies found shearwaters, crested auklets, black-legged kittiwakes, northern fulmars, 

and thick-billed murres to be the most abundant species, accounting for 65% of the observations (Gall 

and Day, 2009). 

Of the 31 bird species recorded during surveys, eight were detected frequently enough to generate 

reliable estimates of density (Gall and Day, 2009). Densities for the eight most-abundant species 

differed substantially between seasons; however, seasonal patterns of abundance differed by species. 

Thick-billed murres were most numerous in late summer and early fall, while short-tailed 

shearwaters, northern fulmars, black-legged kittiwakes, and Pacific loons were most numerous in 

early fall; glaucous-gulls and least auklets were most numerous in both early and late fall; and crested 

auklets were most numerous only in late fall (Gall and Day, 2009). 

4.3 Species Carried into Effects Analysis 

Tables 4-1 through 4-4 provide information regarding effector-specific and cumulative levels of 

effects that can be expected for marine mammal, bird, and fish species in the northeastern Chukchi 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Existing Environment and Environmental Evaluation 21

Sea. This information was reviewed along with information provided in Tables 4-5 and 4-6 to 

determine which species are most likely to be encountered (based on habitat use, and presence), a 

species’ ESA status, the expected cumulative level of effects that would apply to each of these species 

(Table 4-7), and the effectors needing to be analyzed, by species, in Section 5. The information 

presented in Table 4-7 was then reviewed to identify all species that (a) had an ESA status, (b) 

MMPA status, or (c) would experience a minor level of effects or greater. The results from the Table 

4-7 review were then summarized in Table 4-8. Those species featured in Table 4-8 that were not 

excluded from further analysis were carried forward to Section 5.3 for more detailed analyses. 

Table 4-7. Northeastern Chukchi Sea species listed under the ESA and MMPA, and those that may 

occur in the proposed survey area during the open water season. 

Marine Mammal Species 

(All marine mammals have MMPA status) 

ESA 

Status 

Cumulative Level 

of Effects Effectors 

Bearded Seal P NG None 

Beluga Whale NS NG None 

Bowhead Whale E NG Vessels, Airguns 

Fin Whale E NG Vessels, Airguns 

Gray Whale NS NG Vessels, Airguns 

Harbor Porpoise NS NG Vessels 

Humpback Whale E NG Vessels, Airguns 

Killer Whale NS NG Vessels 

Minke Whale NS NG Vessels, Airguns 

Pacific Walrus P MN Vessels, Airguns 

Polar Bear T NG Vessels 

Ribbon Seal NS NG Vessels 

Ringed Seal P NG Vessels, Airguns 

Spotted Seal NS NG Vessels, Airguns 

Bird Species ESA 

Status Level of Effects Effectors 

Black-legged Kittiwake NS NG Vessels 

Crested Auklets NS NG Vessels 

Glaucous Gulls NS NG Vessels 

Kittlitz’s Murrelet C NG Vessels 

Least Auklet NS NG Vessels 

Long-tailed Duck NS MN Vessels 

Northern Fulmar NS NG Vessels 

Pacific Loon NS NG Vessels 

Short-tailed Shearwater NS NG Vessels 

Spectacled Eider E NG Vessels 

Steller’s Eider E NG Vessels 

Thick-billed Murre NS NG Vessels 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

22 Existing Environment and Environmental Evaluation 

Marine Mammal Species 

(All marine mammals have MMPA status) 

ESA 

Status 

Cumulative Level 

of Effects Effectors 

Yellow-billed Loon C NG Vessels 

Note: NS = No ESA Status, E = Endangered ESA Status, T = Threatened ESA Status, C = Candidate ESA 

Status, P = Proposed ESA Status, NG = negligible, MN = minor, MO = moderate, MJ = major 

Source: BOEMRE (USDOI, MMS, 2006b; 2007b); FWS (USDOI, FWS, 2007; 2008; 2009); Divoky (1987); Gall 

and Day (2009). 

Table 4-8. Species included and excluded from subsequent effects analysis. 

Species 

Excluded from 

further analysis? 

Yes or No (Y/N) 

Reason for 

Exclusion 

Marine Mammals 

Bearded Seal N -- 

Beluga Whale N -- 

Bowhead Whale N -- 

Fin Whale N -- 

Gray Whale N -- 

Harbor Porpoise N -- 

Humpback Whale N -- 

Killer Whale N -- 

Minke Whale N -- 

Narwhal Y EO 

Pacific Walrus N -- 

Polar Bear N -- 

Ribbon Seal N -- 

Ringed Seal N -- 

Spotted Seal N -- 

Birds 

Black-legged Kittiwake Y LE 

Crested Auklets Y LE 

Glaucous Gulls Y LE 

Kittlitz’s Murrelet N -- 

Least Auklet Y LE 

Long-tailed Duck N -- 

Northern Fulmar Y LE 

Pacific Loon Y -- 

Short-tailed 

Shearwater Y LE 

Spectacled Eider N -- 

Steller’s Eider N -- 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Existing Environment and Environmental Evaluation 23

Species 

Excluded from 

further analysis? 

Yes or No (Y/N) 

Reason for 

Exclusion 

Thick-billed Murre Y LE 

Yellow-billed Loon N -- 

Note: Y = Yes, N = No, LE = Level of Effects, EO = Extralimital Occurrence, - = not excluded (i.e., included for 

further analysis). 

Source: BOEMRE (USDOI, MMS, 2006b; 2007b), FWS (USDOI, FWS, 2007; 2008; 2009), Gall and Day (2009), 

Divoky (1987), Ireland et al (2008; 2009a; 2009b), Funk et al, (2007; 2008; 2010), Brueggeman (2009b). 

The species most likely encountered in the proposed activity area would be Pacific walrus, bearded 

and ringed seals, gray whales, bowhead whales, beluga whales, and a very small number of 

humpback whales, fin whales, killer whales, minke whales and ribbon or spotted seals. Species 

protected by the MMPA (all marine mammals), ESA-listed species, ESA-candidate species, and 

species proposed for ESA listing are analyzed further in Section 5.3. 

Pacific walrus densities are generally relatively low in the proposed activity area because walrus are 

likely to remain on the sea ice north of the survey area, and later occur onshore later in the summerfall period. Hanna Shoal, more than 8 mi from the shallow hazards survey area, can be a foraging area 

for Pacific walruses at certain times of the year (USGS, 2007; 2008). Tagging studies indicate that 

walrus forage in shallow waters throughout the area during this time period. Consequently, 

individuals and groups of walrus could be encountered by the proposed ancillary activities at some 

point during the open water season as they migrate between the ice edge and shore and between 

feeding areas in the nearshore area and those associated with offshore shoals. A large number (346 

sightings for a total of 1042 individuals; an average of 3 walrusus per sighting) of walrus were sighted 

by MMOs aboard Statoil’s seismic acquisition vessel in 2010 (Blees et al., 2010). The major portion 

of these walrus sightings (250 sightings of 823 individuals) occurred between 28 and 31 August while 

the walrus were moving from the ice edge toward shore. By far, the typical number of walrus 

observed in any one group was 1-3. This is true even for the period 28-31 August. 

Ice seals are widely dispersed offshore. In December 2010, NMFS proposed to designate the 

Beringian DPS of bearded seals and the Arctic population of ringed seals as protected by the ESA, 

due to the anticipated effects of future climate change on their respective habitats. 

Gray whales feed in shallow nearshore and offshore areas of the Chukchi Sea. Hanna Shoal, more 

than 8 mi from the shallow hazards survey area, can be a foraging area for gray whales at certain 

times of the year (USGS, 2007; 2008). Consequently, individuals and groups of gray whales could be 

encountered by the proposed ancillary activities at some point during the open water season as they 

move between nearshore and offshore shoal areas, or opt to use resources where the ancillary 

activities are proposed. 

The literature indicates bowhead whales predominately feed near Point Barrow or Wrangel Island in 

the Chukchi Sea between July and October; and unknown numbers pass through the survey area as 

they depart the Beaufort Sea (Quakenbush, 2010), peaking in late September and early October. 

The remaining cetaceans widely dispersed offshore. 

Polar bear are likely to remain on the sea ice north of the survey area. Any polar bears encountered 

are expected to be swimming in the open water between sea ice and the coast or searching for ice 

floes to use as resting or hunting platforms. 

Steller’s and spectacled eiders were included in the 2009 BO (FWS, 2009) addressing the effects of 

exploratory activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas on ESA-listed birds. Both species will be 

included in the bird-strikes analysis below, as will yellow-billed loons and Kittlitz’s murrelet. Long-
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

24 Existing Environment and Environmental Evaluation 

tailed ducks will also be analyzed due to their numbers in the Chukchi Sea and their presence in the 

survey area during certain times of the year. 

The offshore waters of the proposed survey area are too deep to provide effective habitat for most 

bird species including Steller’s eiders and yellow-billed loons. Groups of Kittlitz’s murrelets have 

been noted in the ocean west of Point Barrow. Humpback and fin whales are believed to be rare 

visitors to the northern Chukchi Sea; however, they may occur in the area and their ESA-protected 

status necessitates an analysis. 

4.4 Preliminary Screening of Potential Effects to Economics, 

Public Health, and Subsistence Resources and Activities 

In evaluating the potential adverse effects from OCS activities, BOEMRE examines both the 

magnitude and duration of the disruption. For the screening analysis of subsistence activities and 

sociocultural issues BOEMRE used the following four categories of impact levels (ranging from 

negligible to high as documented in previous analyses) to characterize effects: 

Negligible: Negligible levels of effects would not be considered to be significant impacts.

 Periodic, brief effects that have no consequent effects on subsistence resources or harvests. 

 Periodic, brief effects with no measurable effects on normal or routine community functions. 

 Periodic, brief effects with no measurable effects on individual or community health. 

Minor: Minor levels of effects would not be considered to be significant impacts.

 One or more subsistence resources would be affected for up to one year (a harvest season), 

but none of these resources would become unavailable, undesirable for use, or experience 

population reductions. 

 Sociocultural systems being affected for a period up to one year, but effects would not disrupt 

normal or routine community functions and could be avoided with proper mitigation. 

 Individual or public health is affected for up to one year but not to a level of severity that 

interferes with the function of individuals or a community. 

Moderate: Moderate levels of effects would not be considered to be significant impacts.

 Although one of more subsistence resources would be unavailable, undesirable for use, or 

experience population reductions for a period up to 1 year (1 harvest season), with 

subsistence harvests being affected for that period, the affected subsistence resources and 

harvests would be expected to recover completely if proper mitigation is applied or proper 

remedial action is taken once mitigation is implemented. 

 Effects on sociocultural systems would be unavoidable for a period longer than 1 year. 

Affected normal or routine community functions would have to adjust somewhat to account 

for impact disruptions, but they would be expected to recover completely if proper mitigation 

is applied during the life of the proposed action or proper remedial action is taken once the 

impacting agent is eliminated. 

 Individual or public health is affected for greater than one year, but in a manner insufficient 

to create long-term health issues for individuals or communities. 

Major: Major levels of effects would be considered to be significant impacts. 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Existing Environment and Environmental Evaluation 25

 The affected subsistence resources and harvests would not be expected to fully recover within 

1 year, even if proper mitigation is applied during the life of the proposed action, or even if 

proper remedial action is taken once the impacting agent is eliminated. 

 One or more important subsistence resources would become unavailable, undesirable for use, 

or available only in greatly reduced numbers for a period of 1–2 years. 

 Chronic disruption of sociocultural systems occurs for a period of 2–5 years, with a tendency 

toward the displacement of existing social patterns. 

 Effects on sociocultural systems would be unavoidable and normal or routine community 

functions would experience disruptions to a degree beyond what is normally acceptable. Once 

the impacting agent is eliminated, affected community functions may retain measurable 

effects, even if proper remedial action is taken. This would constitute a major impact on 

sociocultural systems. 

 Individual or public health is affected for greater than one year, and long-term health issues 

for individuals or communities have ensued. 

The subsistence communities closest to the proposed survey area are Barrow (150 mi to the east), 

Wainwright (103 mi to the southeast), and Point Lay (140 mi to the south) (Appendix A, Figure A-1). 

The subsistence areas for these communities are discussed in the Sale 193 FEIS (USDOI, MMS, 

2007b). The proposed survey area is far beyond the subsistence use areas for these communities 

(Braund, 2000; Braund and Burnham, 1984; Stephen R. Braund & Associates, 1989a; Stephen R. 

Braund & Associates, 1989b; Stephen R. Braund & Associates, 2010; Huntington, 1999; Huntington, 

H.P. and N.I. Mymrin, 1996; Huntington and Quakenbush, 2009; Huntington and The Communities 

of Buckland, Elim, Koyuk, Point Lay, and Shaktoolik, 1999: Kassam, K-A.S. and Wainwright 

Traditional Council, 2001; North Slope Borough, Planning Dept., 1993; USDOI, MMS, 2007a; 

2007b) making any measurable impacts to subsistence extremely unlikely. Furthermore, the proposed 

ancillary activities would occur after the close of the spring whale hunt, with much of the work 

completed before the fall migration of bowheads and other marine mammals begins. We conclude 

there will be negligible effects to subsistence activities. Therefore, no further analysis of the potential 

effects to subsistence activities is necessary. 

The number of local residents employed for the proposed activities is expected to be small 

(4 individuals hired as MMOs) (Statoil, 2011f) and the effect is expected to be negligible at the 

community level. In terms of Environmental Justice, because the proposed activities are expected to 

have negligible impacts on subsistence resources, subsistence practices, and sociocultural systems, 

and the proposed activities are expected to have no disproportionate adverse impacts on low-income 

or minority populations. The proposed activities are not expected to have adverse impacts on the 

health of the residents of the NSB. Therefore, no further analysis of the potential economic or public 

health effects is necessary. 

4.5 Proposed-Action-Related Activities and Considerations 

Crews will be housed aboard their respective ships. Personnel and equipment may also be transferred 

through Barrow or Wainwright in case of emergency or other unforeseen circumstances. Statoil has 

determined that the M/V Fugro Synergy cannot dock in the port of Nome because of its deep draft. If 

there is a need for access through Wainwright, Olgoonik’s Tukpuk will be used. The Tukpuk is a 32-ft 

(9.75 m) vessel with the capacity to carry a maximum six people. 

Aircraft support operations are not planned as part of this survey, although in an emergency, 

helicopter transport of individuals and equipment may be used. 

The proposed activities would be supported from existing infrastructure located outside the coastal 

area of the Chukchi Sea Planning area. These business interactions are expected to have a minor 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

26 Existing Environment and Environmental Evaluation 

positive effect on the economies of Dutch Harbor and Nome and are not expected to adversely affect 

community health within these communities. The economic impacts to North Slope Borough (NSB) 

communities are expected to be negligible. In terms of Environmental Justice, because the proposed 

activities are expected to have negligible impacts on subsistence resources, subsistence practices, and 

sociocultural systems, and the proposed activities are expected to have no disproportionate adverse 

impacts on low-income or minority populations. The proposed activities are not expected to have 

adverse impacts on the health of the residents of the NSB, Nome, or Dutch Harbor. Therefore, no 

further analysis of the potential economic or public health effects is necessary. 

Refueling is expected to take place at Nome though it is possible that fuel re-supply could occur at 

sea, if necessary. Statoil estimates the following volumes of fuel could discharge should there be an 

operational or equipment failure. BOEMRE finds these to be reasonable volume estimates: 

 If a disconnection occurs during a fuel transfer, Statoil estimates that 33 gallons (0.79 barrels) 

of No. 2 Marine gas oil could be spilled. This volume includes the use of positive pressure 

fuel hoses and dry quick disconnect coupling. 

 If a hose ruptures and there is total line drainage, Statoil estimates that up to 66 gallons (1.57 

barrels) of No. 2 Marine gas oil could be spilled. This volume includes the volume in the 

hose; maximum time to discover release; maximum time to shutdown pumping; and 

maximum flow rate. 

BOEMRE conducted a spill effects analysis for a range of refueling spills including 5 gallons, 13 

barrels, and 48 barrels. The oil weathering model estimates approximately 21% of a 13 bbl spill 

would evaporate and 79% would disperse within 48 hours and is consistent with the weathering 

analysis of a 48 bbl fuel-transfer spill in the 2010 Statoil G&G EA (USDOI, BOEMRE, 2010) and 

Shell’s 2010 Exploration Plan for the Burger, Crackerjack, and SW Shoebill Prospects (USDOI, 

MMS, 2009). The analyses in the PEA of a 5-gallon spill and in Shell’s 2009 Exploration Plan EA of 

a 48-bbl spill concluded any effects from a diesel fuel spill would be localized, and temporary 

(persisting up to 3 days). The effects of the 33–66 gallon diesel fuel spill estimated for the proposed 

activity also would be expected to be localized, persisting less than 3 days. The effects of such a spill 

would be negligible. Accordingly, refueling spills will not be further analyzed in this EA. 

Damage to the 150-m streamer could release kerosene into the marine environment. The chance of 

damage to streamers depends on the hazards in the area (e.g., other vessels), the weather conditions, 

and the operational procedures. Previous seismic survey work indicates damage to one segment of 

each streamer occurs every three to six months (SEIC, 2003 as cited in LGL, Limited, Royal 

Haskonging, and Jasco Research Ltd., 2009). Should a segment of streamer be damaged and leak 

kerosene, approximately 5 gallons could be released. The PEA analyzed a 5-gallon spill and 

determined that impacts would be negligible to minor from fuel or streamer spills; therefore, such 

spills were not further analyzed (USDOI, MMS, 2006). 

The following factors are expected to mitigate the likelihood and potential effects if an accidental 

release of kerosene were to occur from the 150-m streamer: 

 The potential of streamer fluid release is mitigated by best industry practices for the handling 

of oil-based products in a marine environment. A Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) will be 

maintained and appropriate management protocols implemented. 

 In the event of a discharge, a thin slick in a localized area in the immediate vicinity of the 

streamer could occur. This slick would evaporate and disperse rapidly, thus minimizing the 

potential impact to marine mammals. 

 The Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Program (SOPEP), as required under MARPOL, 

identifies reporting procedures and counter-pollution actions necessary to respond to a 

discharge. All planning and response procedures are in compliance with state and federal 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Existing Environment and Environmental Evaluation 27

regulations. The SOPEP will be employed to take appropriate countermeasures to respond to 

a potential streamer fluid release. 

Emissions and discharges from the survey vessels must comply with regulations and apply to all 

vessels. Discharges from Statoil’s proposed activities would be regulated under the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Vessel General Permit for 

Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels (USEPA, 2009). The U.S. Coast Guard 

(USCG) regulations related to pollution prevention and discharges for vessels carrying oil, noxious 

liquid substances, garbage, municipal or commercial waste, and ballast water are at 33 CFR Part 151. 

Previous PEA and Sale 193 EIS analyses of emissions and discharges related to seismic surveys 

concluded any effects would be localized, temporary, and negligible. Therefore, effects to air quality 

from emissions will not be further analyzed in this EA. The effects to water quality will be analyzed 

since small quantities of sediments, cuttings, and perhaps drilling muds from coring activities could 

enter the environment. 

Ballast-water discharge, hull fouling, and equipment placed overboard (e.g., anchors, seismic airguns, 

hydrophone arrays) are potential vectors for introducing invasive species. Vessels brought into State 

of Alaska or Federal waters are subject to USCG regulations (33 CFR Part 151, Subpart D), which are 

intended to reduce the risk of introduction of invasive species. The regulations require vessels coming 

from overseas to conduct mid-ocean ballast water exchange at least 200 nautical miles from shore, 

preferably in water depths greater than 200 m prior to entering U.S. waters; retain the ballast water on 

board while in U.S. water; or use a USCG-approved alternative environmentally sound method to 

treat the ballast water. The regulations require ballast water management plans and vessel inspections. 

As documentation of compliance with these USCG regulations, Statoil submitted a copy of the ballast 

water management plans for the vessels. Statoil has asserted that their standard practice is to fill 

ballast tanks with freshwater, alleviating the risks of introducing non-native or invasive species into 

the marine environment. 

Standard practice in the seismic survey industry is to remove species such as barnacles from 

hydrophone streamers and other equipment when recovering the gear at the completion of a project 

by scraping or a high-pressure, sea-water wash. Statoil’s contractors would follow standard 

procedures aboard the M/V Duke and M/V Fugro Synergy to remove species such as barnacles from 

hydrophone streamers and other equipment when recovering the gear at the completion of the project 

by scraping or with a high-pressure, sea-water wash. 

These procedures, USCG regulations and inspections, and the limited duration and area of the 

proposed surveys, the contribution of the proposed activity to risk of introducing invasive species and 

impacts are not anticipated. Therefore, invasive species will not be further analyzed in this EA. 

Statoil will adhere to the following mitigation measures when mobilizing to the survey area and 

demobilizing from the survey area, and during any vessel traffic to port for crew, changes, supplies, 

or fuel: 

 Vessel transits will be timed to avoid subsistence use areas. 

 Statoil will participate in cost sharing for the Communications Center in the Chukchi Sea 

coastal community of Wainwright and the vessels will communicate with coastal 

communities according to established protocol. 

 One marine mammal observer (MMO) would be located on the bridge or weatherdeck of 

each vessel to watch for marine mammals during vessel transit. 

 Both vessels will be staffed with MMOs who will alert the crew to the presence of marine 

mammals so that vessel crews can initiate appropriate mitigation measures. 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

28 Environmental Consequences and Effects Analyses 

 Vessels will reduce speed, and alter course as appropriate, when approaching groups of 

marine mammals and maintain the maximum practicable distance from groups of marine 

mammals. 

 If weather or visibility conditions make it necessary, vessels should reduce speed to avoid the 

likelihood of injury to walruses. 

 Vessels should not approach pacific walruses or polar bears on ice or land closer than 0.5 

miles. 

 Vessels must take precautions to avoid harassment of concentrations of feeding walruses. 

Vessels should reduce speed and stay a minimum of 0.5 miles from groups of feeding walrus. 

 Vessels will be operated so that they do not separate members of groups of marine mammals. 

 Vessels will avoid areas of active or anticipated subsistence hunting. 

Statoil will provide reports to NMFS and FWS regarding the progress of authorized activities, as 

required by the permits (e.g., prior to the beginning of shallow hazards survey and geotechnical soil 

investigation activities, periodic progress reports, incidents involving marine mammals and birds, and 

upon completion of shallow hazards survey and geotechnical soil investigation activities), and Statoil 

will maintain a log of seismic activity noting the date and time of all changes in airgun activity (ramp 

up, power down, changes in active airguns, etc.) and any corresponding changes in monitoring radii. 

Statoil will maintain a record of all marine mammal observations. This information will be provided 

to FWS and NMFS and will be used to complete the 90-Day Report at the conclusion of the survey. 

The 90-Day Final Reports will describe the operations that were conducted and provide a summary of 

the monitoring effort and the results of the monitoring effort. Estimates and nature of takes based 

upon marine mammal sightings will also be included in the 90-Day Final Report. 

Vessels are required to document and report any bird strikes. These measures will avoid or minimize 

adverse effects to marine and coastal birds using pelagic, nearshore, or other coastal habitats during 

the open-water season. 

5. Environmental Consequences and Effects Analyses 

This section provides an assessment of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of those items 

carried forward from Section 4 for detailed analysis. 

As discussed above in Section 3 Proposed Action and Section 4 Existing Environment and 

Environmental Evaluation, the following issues and environmental resources were considered but are 

not further analyzed in the EA. 

 Freshwater and Marine fishes 

 Essential Fish Habitat 

 Benthic invertebrates 

 Most non-ESA listed marine birds 

 Air quality 

 Hanna Shoal 

 Ledyard Bay Critical Habitat Unit 

 Terrestrial mammals 

 Coastal wetlands 

 Subsistence activities 

 Economic Effects 

 Public Health 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Environmental Consequences and Effects Analyses 29

5.1 Topics for Consideration 

The energy emitted from airguns, i.e., the acoustic source for ancillary seismic surveys, has the 

greatest potential to have adverse effects on environmental resources, particularly marine mammals. 

Vessel traffic, noise, and lights associated with survey source and support vessels might potentially 

have adverse impacts, particularly on marine mammals and birds. Issues and concerns associated with 

seismic survey operations have been extensively documented by the scientific community, in 

government publications, and at scientific symposia. 

See Section 4.1 for a description of the issues and concerns identified by technical analysts for 

consideration in this EA. 

5.2 Water Quality 

The impact levels used for this water quality analysis are taken from the Arctic MultiSale Draft EIS 

(MMS, 2008c) and adjusted as they relate to water quality. The impact levels are defined as follows: 

Negligible 

 No measurable impacts. 

Minor 

 Most impacts to water quality could be avoided with proper mitigation 

 If impacts occur, water quality would recover completely without any mitigation once the 

impacting agent is eliminated. 

Moderate 

 Impacts to water quality are unavoidable; but water quality is not threatened although some 

impacts may be irreversible. 

 Water Quality would recover completely if proper mitigation is applied during the life of the 

proposed action or if proper remedial action is taken once the impacting agent is eliminated. 

Major 

 Impacts to water quality are unavoidable. 

 Water quality may be threatened; and would not fully recover even if proper mitigation is 

applied during the life of the proposed action or remedial action is taken once the impacting 

agent is eliminated. 

The proposed ancillary activities are expected to produce highly localized, brief, and negligible to 

minor effects to the water quality and the aquatic environment. 

The geotechnical soil investigation component of the ancillary activities is expected to cause 

resuspension of a small amount of sediments at each location. The re-suspended materials are 

expected to settle from the water column in close vicinity to the coring location and may have minor 

temporary effects on water quality in the immediate vicinity. 

Lubrication of the coring holes would be performed using sea water, and in some instances bentonite 

and barite. The relatively small amounts of materials are expected to settle out of the water column in 

close vicinity to coring location and may have minor temporary effects on water quality in the 

immediate vicinity. 

Small wastewater and ballast water discharges would be limited to what is permissible under USCG 

regulations and are not expected to affect water quality more than locally and temporarily. 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

30 Environmental Consequences and Effects Analyses 

There is a remote chance of a spill occurring during refueling operations at sea. In the event of an 

accidental spill, up to 13 bbl of No. 2 marine gas could contact nearby marine waters, and persist in 

the environment for up to 3 days before removal via weathering processes. 

The ~150 m (492 ft) long streamer may contain up to 180 liters (50 gallons) of kerosene for electrical 

insulation and to maintain neutral buoyancy. The kerosene is kept in several isolated segments within 

the streamer. The likelihood of a rupture of any particular segment of the streamer and, therefore, the 

potential for a discharge, is low. However, if a rupture were to occur, the kerosene would quickly 

evaporate into the atmosphere, resulting in extremely small effects to water quality. 

The analysis of the potential effects of seismic-survey-related vessel discharges was analyzed in the 

Sale 193 EIS. This analysis is incorporated by reference. The Sale 193 EIS (USDOI, MMS, 2007b: 

Section IV.C.1.a(7)) determined that impacts to marine water quality from seismic survey vessels and 

support vessels would not represent appreciable impacts to the marine water quality due to limited 

duration of such activities and low degree of likelihood of major discharges. Therefore, direct and/or 

long term degradation of marine water quality would be unlikely. 

The overall, unmitigated effects to Chukchi Sea water quality from Statoil’s proposed ancillary 

activities would be negligible to minor. 

5.3 Analysis of Effects on Biological Resources from the Proposed 

Action 

The following analyses address the significance of the Proposed Action’s potential impacts on 

appropriate biological resources, considering such factors as the nature of the impact (e.g., habitat 

disturbance or mortality), the spatial extent (local and regional), temporal and recovery times (years, 

generations), and the effects of mitigation and any associated mitigation monitoring plan. Impacts on 

some environmental resources may be measurable, but are not considered significant, because their 

potential effects and contribution to cumulative effects (additive, synergistic, and countervailing) 

would be minimal and/or brief. 

BOEMRE has determined that no unique resources or seafloor habitats occur in the vicinity of the 

proposed seismic survey area. The anticipated effects of the proposed action are consistent with those 

in previous BOEMRE NEPA documents (USDOI, MMS, 2006b; 2007b) and authorizations pursuant 

to MMPA and ESA. 

5.3.1 Vessel Traffic and Vessel Noise 

The effects of vessel traffic and vessel noises on marine mammals have been fully analyzed in the 

PEA, Sale 193 EIS, and NMFS IHA (NMFS, 2009b). Those effects are summarized below or hereby 

incorporated by reference. Vessels typically produce sounds in the lower frequency bandwidths from 

156–186 Hz with decibel levels ranging from 128–186 dB re 1μPa2-m (Greene and Moore, 1995). 

Greene (2003) concluded that a broadband source level of 171 dB re 1μP at 1 m is a reasonable and 

potentially a conservative (higher than the likely actual source level) estimate to use as a source level 

for the smaller vessels used by ConocoPhillips during demobilization activities in the Beaufort Sea. 

After evaluating alternative models for estimating transmission loss, and considering likely ambient 

noise levels (based on data collected in 1996 offshore of Northstar), Greene (2003) applied the 

estimated source level to what he viewed as the most reasonable sound-propagation-loss model to 

estimate the received level of sound at four distances (0.1–63 km [0.6–39.1 mi]) from the tug and 

barge. He estimated the following received sound levels at specific distances: 131 dB re 1 μPa at 

0.1 km (0.6 mi); 111 dB re 1 μPa at 1.0 km (0.62); 102 dB re 1 μPa at 2.8 km (1.7 mi); and 75 dB re 1 

μPa at 63 km (39 mi). Given the assumptions associated with hearing and the approximations 

regarding sound transmission loss, Greene (2003) stated it would be best to consider the estimates of 

received sound levels as “guidelines.” 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Environmental Consequences and Effects Analyses 31

5.3.1.1 Pinnipeds 

Seals. Richardson (1995) found that vessel noise does not seem to strongly affect ice seals already in 

the water. Richardson explained seals on haulouts often respond more strongly to the presence of 

vessels by slipping into the water. Since the brief disturbance would occur during the open water 

season, and seals have a high tolerance to vessels and vessel noise while in the water, BOEMRE 

anticipates the proposed action would result in a negligible level of effects to seals. 

Pacific Walrus. Vessel traffic could disturb walruses at sea and may interrupt the movements or 

foraging of walrus by temporarily displacing some animals as vessels pass through an area. Such 

traffic is expected to have a short-term (a few hours to a few days) effect on walrus movements or 

distributions. Adult walruses and sub-adults have the ability to cover large distances in a relatively 

small amount of time. Walrus calves with their mothers usually concentrate near haulout sites at areas 

of residual sea ice or along the Chukchi coasts. However, repeated disturbances from vessel traffic 

could have energetic costs and have the potential to separate walrus calves from cows, although 

repeated disturbances are unlikely given the survey design. Because of the expected lack of sea ice in 

most of the survey area during the open water season, and the distance between the survey area and 

coastal haulout sites, BOEMRE does not expect many walrus cow/calf pairs to be affected. Because 

of the brief disturbance and the mitigations incorporated in the proposed activities, including 

interaction plans (Statoil, 2011c and 2011e) and use of MMOs, BOEMRE anticipates a minor level of 

effects on Pacific walrus from the proposed action. 

5.3.1.2 Polar Bears and Polar Bear Critical Habitat 

Ancillary operations are proposed for the open water season when there is less than 10% ice cover in 

the survey area. Any polar bears encountered during the course of the proposed action would most 

likely be swimming towards shore, pack ice, or between ice floes, and not actively hunting in open 

water. The disturbance created by the presence and noise of survey vessels presents a brief 

disturbance, without lasting effects (BOEMRE, 2010b). The negligible level of effects from vessel 

traffic and noise would be further mitigated by implementing the mitigation measures described in 

Statoil’s application for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (Statoil, 2011b). This includes the 

use of MMOs on each vessel, resulting in a negligible level of effects on polar bears. 

The potential effects of the proposed action on the primary constituent elements (PCEs) of the polar 

bear critical habitat units are evaluated below. 

Unit 1, Sea ice: Sea ice habitat is used by polar bears for feeding, breeding, denning, and movements 

(75 FR 76086). As it is impossible to predict the precise distribution and composition of future sea 

ice, some sea ice may drift into the proposed action area during operations. Statoil’s vessels are not 

equipped for ice management or icebreaking and would need to avoid concentrations of sea ice for 

safety reasons. Vessels would be shifted to work in another ice-free portion of the proposed action 

area should sea ice be blown southward into the open water area during operations. No adverse 

impacts to Unit 1, sea ice habitat, are anticipated from the proposed action. 

Unit 2, Terrestrial denning: Terrestrial denning habitat includes topographic features such as coastal 

bluffs and riverbanks with steep stable slopes that have water or relatively level ground below (75 FR 

76086). No terrestrial denning habitat occurs within the proposed project area and no activities will 

take place on or near terrestrial denning habitat. No adverse impacts to Unit 2, terrestrial denning 

habitat, are anticipated. 

Unit 3, Barrier island: Barrier island habitat includes all barrier islands along the Alaskan Chukchi 

coastline and their associated spits and a 1.6 km (1 mile) buffer zone around the barrier islands and 

spits. Polar bears use barrier island habitat for denning, as a refuge from human disturbance, and for 

movements along the coastline between denning and foraging habitats (75 FR 76086). No planned 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

32 Environmental Consequences and Effects Analyses 

activities associated with the proposed action will take place on or near barrier island critical habitat. 

No adverse impacts to Unit 3, barrier island habitat, are anticipated. 

5.3.1.3 Cetaceans 

The best available information indicates bowhead, fin, gray, humpback, and minke whales respond to 

vessel traffic and vessel noise by avoidance. Vessels could strike or entangle (with streamers or gear) 

whales, causing injury or death. Potential effects of vessel traffic and noise depend on the size, 

propulsion systems, use, speed, and temporal/spatial relationships to whales, their habitat, and other 

human activities. The proposed action would occur at a time after the spring whale migrations and 

end during or after the fall whale migrations. 

Bowhead whales are increasingly being observed in the Chukchi Sea during the open water season; 

however, their numbers peak during their migration out of the Beaufort Sea. In the fall, migrating 

bowhead whales disperse across the Chukchi Sea after passing Point Barrow, while gray whales tend 

to use coastal waters in their migrations, and belugas typically associate with coastal areas or the ice 

front (Appendix A, Figure A-11). Consequently, vessel noise, presence, and activity related to the 

proposed ancillary activities would not restrict fall cetacean migrations out of the Chukchi Sea. 

Tagging studies indicate substantial numbers of bowheads migrate through or adjacent to the overall 

noise footprint of the proposed ancillary activity, and small alterations by individual whales may 

occur as they divert around areas of noise or activity. NMFS has concluded that such activities and 

small alterations in migration by whales are likely to result in negligible effects to bowhead whales 

(USDOC, NMFS 2008). 

The ability of cetaceans to communicate, navigate, and echolocate can be compromised by 

underwater noises such as those produced by vessel engines and propulsion systems that can mask or 

interfere with sound reception in whales. Masking is the obscuring of the perception stimulus, 

resulting from the presence of a stronger interfering stimulus in the same range (Richardson et al., 

1995a; Richardson et al, 1995b). Decibels (dB) are used to describe the strength or “volume” of a 

sound. The proposed pressure criterion for non-pulsed energy leading to injury is 230 dB re 1μPa 

(peak). The sound exposure level criterion for nonpulse injury was calculated at 215 dB re 1μPa2-s 

(Southall et al., 2007). These can result in temporary threshold shifts (TTS), with recovery after 

minutes or hours, or to permanent threshold shifts (PTS) with no recovery (Gordon et al., 2004; 

1998). The sound produced by vessels typically falls within the 128 to 186 dB range (Greene and 

Moore, 1995). 

Frequency sensitivity is also a consideration for marine mammals. Frequencies and frequency 

sensitivities are described in units of hertz (Hz), kilo-hertz (kHz), etc. (the range of sounds detectable 

by an animal). Vessel strikes resulting in injury and/or mortality of large cetaceans are theoretically 

possible; however, slow operational speeds, MMO and vessel mitigation responses, and the historical 

absence of confirmed cetacean injuries or mortalities from vessel strikes in the Arctic indicate 

negligible levels of effect from vessel presence and movement. 

Odontocetes (belugas, killer whales, harbor porpoises, etc.). Belugas and other toothed whales 

seem to be most sensitive to frequencies near or above 10 kHz; sensitivity to frequencies below 10 

kHz declines rapidly as frequencies decrease (Cosens and Dueck, 1993). For belugas, detection of 

vessel noise below 5 kHz appears to be limited by their auditory threshold. Belugas tend to react to 

sounds when they are just detectable, so their reaction zone is equivalent to their detection zones. 

Belugas apparently are unable to detect low frequencies beyond a few hundred meters from the 

source. However, reaction distances for belugas will be larger when industry noise contains high 

frequency components (Cosens and Dueck, 1993). 

Some belugas have an aversion to anthropogenic noise, particularly outboard-powered boat traffic 

(Huntington, 1999; Huntington and Mymrin, 1996), but may be capable of habituating to loud noises 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Environmental Consequences and Effects Analyses 33

not associated with hunting (Huntington, 1999). The PEA and Sale 193 EIS concluded belugas could 

react to the approach of vessels at great distances. Statoil (2011b) proposes to conduct their seismic 

surveys during the open water season when sea ice has retreated far north of the proposal area. 

Consequently most belugas will be molting and feeding in coastal waters such as Kasegaluk Lagoon, 

or near the ice front, north of the survey area. Because of the low likelihood of encountering belugas, 

slow survey speeds, ice avoidance, and the mitigation plans (Statoil, 2011c; 2011d) in place, 

BOEMRE anticipates a negligible level of effects on belugas from vessel traffic. 

The rarity of killer whales in the survey area leads us to conclude that there is a very low likelihood of 

encountering an individual, let alone any groups during the activities. Toothed whales such as killer 

whales and porpoises are sensitive to high frequency noise, not the mostly low-frequency noise 

produced by vessel traffic. Therefore, killer whales and porpoises are expected to experience 

negligible levels of effects from vessel traffic. 

Mysticetes (bowhead whale, fin whale, gray whale, humpback whale, minke whale, etc.). From a 

behavioral perspective, increased noises (including vessel noise) could mask whale vocalizations and 

interfere with whale communications, or alter natural behaviors (i.e., displacement from migration 

routes or feeding areas; disruption of feeding, resting, or nursing). Behavioral impacts may vary by 

gender, reproductive status, age, accumulated hearing damage, type of activity engaged in at the time, 

group size, and/or whether the animal has heard the sound previously (e.g., Olesiuk et al., 1995; 

Richardson et al., 1995a; Kraus et al., 1997; NRC, 2003, 2005). For example, mysticete females with 

calves show a heightened behavioral response to seismic noise (Henley and Ryback, 1995; McCauley 

et al., 2000). In other studies on responses of feeding bowhead to seismic activity, some animals 

ceased feeding and others continued feeding (Fraker, Richardson, and Würsig, 1995; Richardson, 

Wells, and Würsig, 1985). 

Gray whales are low-frequency hearing specialists, with an auditory range starting at 10 Hz and 

possibly extending to 30 kHz (Ketten, 1998). Erbe (2002) (inferring from gray whale vocalizations) 

suggested they would be sensitive to frequencies between 20 Hz and 4.5 kHz, with their greatest 

sensitivity occurring in the 20 Hz–1.2 kHz range. Clicks were reported up to 10 kHz, with main 

frequencies between 1.4 and 4 kHz. The lowest response threshold reported was 82–95 dB at 800 Hz 

(Erbe, 2002). Other studies suggest gray whales habituate to whale-watching vessels and may even 

approach them. Gray whales showed no evident avoidance to underwater playback of outboard 

engine noise, but call rates and call structure changed with exposure to actual boats, perhaps to 

compensate for outboard noise masking their calls (Richardson et al., 1995b). 

Minke whales appear most sensitive to sound between 100 and 200 Hz, with good sensitivity 

extending from 60 Hz–2 kHz. High-frequency clicks were analyzed in two studies, indicating some 

sensitivity between 4 and 7.5 kHz, up to 20 kHz (Erbe, 2002). BOEMRE anticipates the effects to be 

generally similar to those noted for other mysticete whales because of shared morphological 

characteristics and similar biological needs. A more accurate level of effects determination cannot be 

made since little is known regarding minke whale-habitat use, distribution, movements, or 

productivity in the Chukchi Sea; however, the existing information is sufficient to inform the decision 

maker of the likely effects of the Proposed Action. 

Bowhead whales react to the approach of vessels at greater distances than they react to most other 

industrial activities. According to Richardson and Malme (1993), most bowheads begin to quickly 

swim away when vessels approach rapidly and directly. This avoidance may be related to the fact that 

bowheads have been commercially hunted within the lifetimes of some individuals within the 

population, and they continue to be hunted for subsistence throughout portions of their range. 

Avoidance usually begins when a rapidly approaching vessel is 1–4 km (0.62–2.5 mi) away. A few 

whales may react at distances from 5–7 km (3.1–4.3 mi), and a few whales may not react until the 

vessel is <1 km (<0.62 mi) away. Received noise levels as low as 84 dB re 1 μPa or 6 dB above 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

34 Environmental Consequences and Effects Analyses 

ambient may elicit strong avoidance of an approaching vessel at a distance of 4 km (2.5 mi) 

(Richardson and Malme, 1993). 

In the Canadian Beaufort Sea, bowheads observed in vessel-disturbance experiments began to orient 

away from an oncoming vessel at a range of 2–4 km (1.2–2.5 mi) and to move away at increased 

speeds when approached closer than 2 km (1.2 mi) (Richardson and Malme, 1993). Vessel 

disturbance during these experimental conditions temporarily disrupted activities and sometimes 

social groups, scattering as vessels approached. Reactions to slow-moving vessels, especially those 

that do not approach directly, are much less dramatic. Bowheads are often more tolerant of vessels 

moving slowly or in directions other than toward them (Richardson, 1995). Fleeing from a vessel 

generally stopped within minutes after the vessel passed, but scattering may persist for hours. After 

some disturbance incidents, at least some bowheads returned to their original locations (Richardson 

and Malme, 1993). Some whales may exhibit subtle changes in their surfacing and blow cycles, while 

others appear unaffected. Bowheads actively engaged in social interactions, feeding, or mating may 

be less responsive to vessels. 

Vessel activities associated with proposed activities are not expected to disrupt the bowhead fall 

migration, and brief deflections in individual bowhead-swimming paths and temporary reductions in 

use of possible bowhead-feeding areas near activity area would not result in adverse effects on the 

species (NMFS, 2008a; 2008b; 2009b). 

In addition to acting as a source of noise and disturbance, marine vessels potentially could strike 

bowhead, fin, gray, and humpback whales, causing injury or death. Available information indicates 

that current rates of vessel strikes of bowheads are low and there have been no known fin or 

humpback whale strikes in the Alaskan Arctic (USDOI, MMS, 2006b; 2007b). 

Similar data regarding humpback and fin whale-specific responses to vessel traffic and vessel noise in 

the Arctic is unavailable; however, BOEMRE assumes that their responses would be similar to 

bowhead responses due to similarities in perception, morphology, and the environment (but 

differences might still exist). Few fin or humpback whales are expected to occur in the eastern 

Chukchi Sea, and even fewer are anticipated to occur in the proposed activity area. 

The presence of MMOs onboard the vessels and a general slow speed for surveys (4–5 knots) (Statoil, 

2011d) is expected to prevent ship-whale collisions. While conducting day or nighttime seismic 

surveys, the propagation of noise from seismic activity would briefly divert most, if not all, cetaceans 

out of the immediate area of effects for vessel activity. 

The small chance of encountering bowhead, humpback, fin, or minke whales greatly lowers the 

potential impact of the proposed action on those species. In the unlikely event of an encounter with 

one of these species, the approaching and repetitive noise of discharging 40-cm3

 airguns would likely 

deflect individuals from the area of effects until the shallow hazards survey vessel has passed 

(expected to be a few minutes). Consequently, BOEMRE anticipates a negligible to minor level of 

effects from vessel traffic and vessel noise to all cetacean species. 

5.3.2 Bird-Strikes (Collisions) 

The effects of bird-ship collisions have been fully analyzed in the PEA, Sale 193 EIS, and NMFS 

IHA (NMFS, 2009b). Those effects are summarized below or incorporated by reference. 

Population information, density, and habitat use for bird species likely to occur in the survey area are 

shown in Table 4-6. The birds likely to occur in the activity area are components of larger populations 

with ranges that extend beyond the boundaries of the activity area. The greatest potential for collision 

occurs where structures are in nearshore or coastal areas where birds, particularly eiders and longtailed ducks, are known to migrate. 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Environmental Consequences and Effects Analyses 35

Statoil (2011c) estimates no ESA-listed birds strikes with vessels participating in the proposed action. 

This estimate is in line with the FWS (2009) predictions, which called for no more than one Steller's 

eider take, and six spectacled eider takes per year, across the entire Sale 193 area in the Chukchi Sea. 

The FWS estimate (0.239 Stellar's eider, and 5.27 spectacled eider takes per year, rounded up to the 

nearest whole number) were based on the maximum level of permissible exploratory activity, and an 

intentional, conservative, overestimate of potential ESA-listed bird collisions with seismic survey 

vessels. Because the proposed ancillary activities are planned for an area far away from the known 

preferred habitat of ESA-listed eiders, yellow-billed loons, and Kittlitz’s murrelets, the collision 

probabilities would be less than what was analyzed by the FWS (2009). 

The proposed ancillary activities would occur 103 mi northwest of Wainwright and 150 mi west of 

Barrow, and far from any migration or concentration areas for Spectacled and Steller’s eiders 

(Appendix A, Figure A-13), yellow-billed loons (Appendix A, Figure A-14), or long-tailed ducks. 

During the period of proposed activities spectacled eiders concentrate in Ledyard Bay (Appendix A, 

Figure A-12) and coastal waters from 12–30 mi (19–48 km) offshore (Petersen, Larned, and Douglas, 

1999). Long-tailed ducks and yellow-billed loons are usually found at their inland breeding areas 

during this timeframe, or in the case of non-breeding individuals, coastal waters. Very few if any 

threatened eiders are expected to use the proposed activity area because of the water depths and the 

distance offshore. No threatened eiders were observed in the vicinity of the nearby Burger Prospect 

during intensive bird surveys carried out in the 2008 open water season (Gall and Day, 2009). Based 

on this data, no bird strikes between vessels and spectacled or Steller’s eiders are expected for the 

proposed activities. 

Bird-ship collisions could result in injury or death. While an individual collision could be mortal to 

the individual, such events are unlikely to approach population-level significance effects. Statoil’s 

ancillary activities in the Chukchi Sea is not expected to result in ESA-listed eider strikes because 

operations are planned in areas where spectacled and Steller’s eider presence is extremely unlikely 

and when there are prolonged periods of daylight. Bird strikes would not occur during the spring 

migration of spectacled and Steller’s eiders since those migrations occur well before the vessels 

would enter the Chukchi Sea. 

Long-tailed ducks are prone to collisions with structures and vessels, and they frequently venture into 

OCS areas. The diving ability of long-tailed ducks permits them to forage on the seafloor in the 

proposed activities area; however, during much of August the long-tailed duck remains in coastal 

areas where they molt, and the likelihood of any long-tailed duck strikes on ships during most of 

August is remote. 

Because of the small numbers of birds expected to occur in the activity area because of its location far 

offshore, the scarcity of ESA-listed bird species, and our expectation that birds will move away from 

slow-moving vessels, BOEMRE has concluded it is unlikely ESA-listed birds will strike any of the 

vessels. Furthermore the low likelihood of strikes by waterfowl and seabirds, including ESA-listed 

eiders, would be further reduced by mitigation measures such as mandating lighting protocols, and 

impact recording/reporting to minimize adverse effects to Steller’s and spectacled eiders (Lease 

Stipulation No. 7) (MMS 2007-0026). Consequently, a negligible level of effects is expected for all 

species except long-tailed ducks, which could experience a minor level of effects from birds striking 

vessels. 

5.3.3 Sound from Discharging Airguns 

The effects of seismic surveys were assessed in MMS (2006b; 2007b), NMFS (2007b; 2008b; 

2009b), and biological surveys that have occurred in the vicinity of the proposed survey area 

(Brueggeman et al., 2009b; Funk et al., 2010; Blees et al., 2010, and others). Table 5-1 shows the 

estimated distance to received sound radii associated with the use of a 40-in3

 airgun in the Chukchi 

Sea (Statoil, 2011c; 2011d), and Table 5-2 shows the anticipated marine mammal Level B 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

36 Environmental Consequences and Effects Analyses 

Harassment takes in the IHA request to NMFS (Statoil, 2011d). NMFS has established 180 dB as the 

minimum noise levels for Level A harassment with mysticete whales might occur, and 190 dB for 

pinnipeds and most odontocete whales. Likewise the NMFS established noise levels for Level B 

harassment are 160 dB for cetaceans, and 170 dB for pinnipeds and most odontocete whales. There is 

no specific evidence or documentation indicating exposure to airgun pulses has resulted in a PTS for 

any marine mammal in Alaskan waters. Because both the animals and the seismic vessel are moving 

and the required implementation of mitigation measures (Section 3.3), exposure of any one animal to 

seismic sound levels 180 dB or above is expected to last of several minutes or less. 

Table 5-1. Measure of distance to received sound levels from a 4x10 in3 airgun (Statoil, 2011d). 

Table 5-2. Number of Anticipated Marine Mammal Exposures to Sound Levels > 160 dB re 1μPa, for 

Statoil’s 2011 Chukchi Sea Shallow Hazards Survey (Statoil, 2011d). 

Summer Fall Grand Total 

Open Water Ice Margin Open Water Ice Margin 

Avg Max Avg Max Avg Max Avg Max Avg Max1

Odontocetes 

Belugas 3 5 1 3 13 26 1 3 18 36 

Narwhal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 

Killer Whale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 

Harbor Porpoise 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 5 

Mysticetes 

Bowhead Whale 1 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 15 31 

Fin Whale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 

Gray Whale 6 13 1 1 5 10 1 1 13 25 

Humpback Whale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 

Minke Whale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 

Pinnipeds 

Bearded Seal 8 16 1 2 8 16 1 2 19 37 

Ribbon Seal 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 5 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Environmental Consequences and Effects Analyses 37

Ringed Seal 289 478 43 71 194 321 43 71 568 941 

Spotted Seal 6 10 1 1 4 6 1 1 11 19 

Note: Where population data does not support the conclusion that more than 5 individuals would be affected, 

a grand total maximum value of 5 individuals was adopted by Statoil. BOEMRE believes the value of 5 is most 

likely a significant overestimate of the true number of individuals that would be affected in this case. 

Source: Statoil USA E&P Inc. IHA request (Statoil, 2011). 

5.3.3.1 Pinnipeds 

Ringed, Spotted, Ribbon, and Bearded Seals. Ice seals use the acoustic properties of seawater to aid in 

social communication, and possibly, predator avoidance. Ice seals may spend >80% of their time 

submerged in the water (Gordon et al., 2004) depending upon the season; consequently, they may be 

exposed to noise from seismic surveys. Southall et al. (2007) estimated the functional hearing of seals 

to be 75 Hz–75 kHz underwater and 75 Hz–30 kHz in the air. Southall et al. (2007) likewise found 

that pinnipeds in the water exhibited little if any reactions to sound pulses between 150 and 180 dB re 

1 μPa, noting that it took Received Levels (RL) ≥190 dB re 1 μPa to elicit responses in some ringed 

seals. The authors concluded: 

Thus, in the case of ringed seals exposed to sequences of airgun pulses from an approaching 

seismic vessel, most animals may show little avoidance unless the noise level is high enough 

for mild TTS to be likely. 

Reported seal responses to seismic surveys have been variable and often contradictory, although they 

do suggest that pinnipeds frequently do not avoid the area within a few hundred meters of operating 

airgun arrays (Richardson, 2000). However, Brueggeman et al. (1991) reported that 96% of the seals 

they encountered during seismic operations in the Beaufort Sea were encountered during non-seismic 

activities, suggesting avoidance of active seismic operations. Miller and Davis (2002) reported on 

average, seals sighted during active seismic surveys in the Beaufort Sea were substantially farther 

from the vessel (210 m [689 ft]) than those sighted during periods without airgun use (150 m [492 

ft]). At the 210-m (689-ft) distance, seals would have been exposed to noise levels of about 190 dB re 

1 μPa (rms), supporting Southall et al.’s (2007) position. 

Sighting rates of ringed seals from another seismic vessel in the Beaufort Sea showed no difference 

between periods with the full array, partial array, or no guns firing (Harris, Miller, and Richardson, 

2001). Mean distances to seals sighted did increase during full airgun array operations, suggesting 

some local avoidance at levels between 190 and 200 dB rms. By contrast, telemetry work by 

Thompson et al. (1998, as cited in Gordon et al., 2004) suggests avoidance and behavioral reactions 

to small airgun sources may be more dramatic than ship-based visual observations indicate. 

Instrumented gray seals (Halichoreus grypus) and harbor seals exhibited avoidance behavior of small 

airguns, swimming rapidly away from the seismic source. Many ceased feeding and some hauled out, 

possibly to avoid the noise. The behavior of most of the seals seemed to return to normal within 

2 hours after the event had concluded. Consequently, the discharging of airgun arrays in the proposed 

area is expected to result in brief, temporary disturbances with no long-lasting effects, leading 

BOEMRE to conclude there is a negligible level of effects to ice seals. 

More recently Funk et al. (2010) reported the MMO effort was required where noise levels were <120 

dB re 1 μPa during 2006-2008 Beaufort and Chukchi Sea seismic survey activities. In the same 

report, pinniped sighting rates from monitoring vessels in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas were higher 

than those from seismic vessels, with the highest rates occurring in the <120 dB re 1 μPa zone, 

suggesting localized avoidance of active seismic vessels. 

During a 2010 seismic survey in the Chukchi Sea, MMOs from the seismic vessel had the highest 

sighting rate in the ≥160 dB re 1 μPa zone, while MMOs on the monitoring vessels had their highest 

sighting rates in the 159–120 dB re 1 μPa (Blees et al. 2010). MMOs on both vessels observed 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

38 Environmental Consequences and Effects Analyses 

roughly similar sighting rates of 12.5 (seismic vessel) and 11.8 (monitoring vessels) during periods of 

non-seismic activity or when dB levels were <120 dB re 1 μPa. Results from Blees et al. (2010) 

conflict with the position that seismic surveys would likely displace ringed seals from an area where 

received noise levels are in excess of 159 dB re 1 μPa since monitoring vessels enjoyed their highest 

seal sighting rates from monitoring vessels in the 159-120 dB re 1 μPa zone (18.8) as opposed to the 

seismic vessel where the highest seal sighting rate was in the ≥160 dB re 1 μPa zone (31.5). Although 

146 seals were observed from the seismic vessel during airgun operations, only 10 were detected in 

the ≥190 dB re 1 μPa zone, while 154 seals were observed by monitoring vessels where there was no 

≥190 dB re 1 μPa zone. 

Ultimately Blees et al. (2010) estimated 416 ringed seals may have been exposed to airgun pulses ~21 

each with pulses ≥160 dB re 1 μPa, based on the assumption that ~19.1% (416/2180=0.191, and 

0.191 x 100%= 19.1%) of the seals observed were ringed seals. By applying this 19.1% estimate to 

the number of seals observed in the ≥190 dB re 1 μPa zone (652), a rough estimate (0.191 x 

652=124.5≈125 seals) can be derived suggesting 125 ringed seals were exposed to noise levels ≥190 

dB re 1 μPa for approximately 2 times each, if there was no avoidance of the sound source. Caution 

should be used in interpreting this calculation since Blees et al. (2010) did not specify the ringed seals 

estimate for the ≥190 dB re 1 μPa zone, because the estimate of 652 exposed seals is much higher 

than the 10 seals that were actually witnessed in the zone, and because the author states that the actual 

numbers of seals exposed to RSL ≥190 dB re 1 μPa was likely greater than the 10 observations, but 

lower than the estimate of 652 seal exposures. 

Pacific Walrus. Based on previous monitoring efforts in the Chukchi Sea, seismic surveys are 

expected to result in the take (Level B harassment) of small to large numbers of walrus (FWS, 2008; 

Blees et al., 2010; Funk et al., 2010). Seismic operations occur in open water, where walrus may be 

feeding or passing through but are typically less likely to be maintain a presence in large numbers. 

Seismic operators are required to have marine mammal observers on board to avoid large 

aggregations of walrus and to shut down if walrus enter the safety zone, identified as the zone where 

noise levels reach or exceed 180 dB. Statoil proposes to immediately power down/shutdown the 

airgun array and other acoustic sources so that the sound pressure level received by the walruses does 

not exceed 160 dB re 1 μPa whenever an aggregation of 12 or more walrus in the water is observed 

within the 160 dB re 1 μPa exclusion zone ahead of or perpendicular to the seismic vessel track. 

Effects from seismic activity would be negligible due to Statoil’s (2009b) proposed mitigation 

measures. Some walrus may exhibit temporary avoidance reactions or possibly experience brief TTS 

in hearing with no lasting effects and quick recoveries (FWS, 2008). Impacts from seismic-survey 

activities to walrus in the Chukchi Sea are anticipated to be negligible to minor. 

5.3.3.2 Polar Bears 

Polar bears generally swim with their heads above water. They may dive below the surface when 

hunting between ice floes, but are very unlikely to have their heads underwater near an active airgun 

and no adverse effects are anticipated since their ears will not be exposed to audible airgun noises. 

5.3.3.3 Cetaceans 

Odontocetes (Beluga Whale, Killer Whale, Harbor Porpoise). Few belugas are expected to occur 

in the proposed survey area during the open water season. During the open water season most belugas 

occur along the coast or the ice front north of the survey area; however, some individuals may opt to 

visit the survey area for unknown reasons. Mitigation measures incorporated in the proposed 

activities and any additional mitigation imposed through the MMPA authorization process are 

expected to reduce potential effects to a level of negligible adverse impacts to beluga whales. 

The rarity of killer whales in the proposed survey area leads BOEMRE to conclude there is a very 

low likelihood of encountering an individual or pod during the survey. Odontocetes including killer 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Environmental Consequences and Effects Analyses 39

whales and porpoises are most sensitive to high frequency noise, not the low-frequency noise 

produced by seismic surveying and vessel traffic. Consequently, killer whales and harbor porpoises 

would be affected negligibly by seismic survey noise. 

Mysticetes (bowhead whale, fin whale, gray whale, humpback whale, minke whale). Bowhead, 

fin, gray, humpback, and minke whales could reasonably be expected to occur in the Chukchi Sea 

during the open water season, and a small number may occur in the proposed survey area. 

Bowheads appear to continue normal behavior when exposed to the noise generated by highresolution seismic surveys. In a study by Richardson, Wells, and Würsig (1985), four controlled tests 

were conducted by firing a single 40 in3

 airgun at a distance of 2–5 km (1.2–3.1 mi) from the whales. 

Bowheads sometimes continued normal activities (skim feeding, surfacing, diving, and travel) when 

the airgun began firing 3–5 km (1–3 mi) away (received noise levels at least 118–133 dB re 1 μPa 

rms). Some whales oriented away during an experiment at a range of 2–4.5 km (1.2–2.8 mi), and 

another experiment at a range of 0.2–1.2 km (0.12–0.75 mi) (received noise levels at least 124–131 

and 124–134 dB, respectively). Frequencies of turns, pre-dive flexes, and fluke-out dives were similar 

with and without airguns; and surfacing and respiration variables and call rates did not change 

substantially during the experiments. 

It is unlikely there would be adverse effects from noise and disturbance associated with seismicsurvey activities in the proposed survey area on fin whales because of their low numbers and rare 

occurrence in the Alaska Chukchi Sea, and distance (hundreds of kilometers) from the majority of the 

Northeastern Pacific fin whale population. Negligible population-level impacts are likely for fin 

whales, but effects, though highly unlikely, could occur to a small number of individuals. 

Effects of such noise detection on fin, humpback, and minke whales would be brief, resulting in short, 

temporary behavioral changes that result in negligible population-level effects. Long distances 

between the survey area and populations of fin whales would put received survey noise levels below 

the noise-exposure-criteria levels that could result in injury or the onset of detrimental behavioral 

responses. The most probable effects would be some increased attentiveness to the survey noise, 

slightly increased attentiveness to other sounds, and possible vocalization changes. 

Humpback whale observations during the open-water periods from 2006-2009 in the western 

Beaufort Sea and southern and eastern Chukchi Sea indicate the presence of this species in the 

planning areas during times that seismic-survey activities would be conducted. Assuming humpbacks 

continue to use habitats in the Chukchi Sea, individuals could be affected by seismic-survey-related 

noise. 

During one study, the mean airgun noise level at which avoidance was observed was 140 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms), the mean standoff range was 143 dB re 1 μPa (rms), and the startle response was observed at 

112 dB re 1 μPa (rms) (McCauley et al., 2000). Standoff ranges were 1.22–4.4 km (0.76–2.73 mi). 

McCauley found that adult male humpbacks were much less sensitive to airgun noise than were 

females. At times, they approached the seismic-survey source vessel. McCauley et al. (2000) 

speculated that males that did so may have been attracted by the sound because of similarities 

between a single airgun signal and a whale-breaching event. 

Malme et al. (1985) noted approaches by humpback whales to a single 100 in3

 airgun source at ranges 

corresponding to sound-exposure levels of up to 172 dB re 1 μPa rms, but they did not speculate on 

gender or similarity of a single airgun noise and the potential attraction response to the sound of a 

breaching whale. Based on the aforementioned, it is likely that any humpback whales feeding or 

resting in areas within and adjacent to areas within the proposed survey area could have their 

movement and feeding behavior affected by noise associated with seismic surveys. The most likely 

demographic group to be impacted in that humpback population would be females with calves. 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

40 Environmental Consequences and Effects Analyses 

Humpbacks make a variety of sounds. Their song is complex, with components ranging from <20 

Hz–4 kHz, and occasionally up to 8 kHz. Songs can be detected by hydrophones up to 13–15 km 

(8.1–9.3 mi). Songs can last as long as 30 minutes. Humpbacks can make general sounds as high as 

192 dB at the source. They typically are heard on low-latitude wintering grounds and occasionally 

have been heard on northern feeding grounds (McSweeney et al., 1989). It is unlikely that seismicsurvey noise would interfere with hearing these songs in the open-water season in the Chukchi Sea. 

Humpbacks on high-latitude summer grounds are less vocal. Calls, clicks, and buzzes are made while 

feeding and may serve to manipulate prey and as “assembly calls” (Richardson et al., 1995a; NMFS, 

2007a). These calls are between 20 and 2,000 Hz. 

No studies that address the effects of seismic survey noise on minke whales are available; however, 

BOEMRE expects the reactions of minke whales to be similar to those of other mysticete whales 

because of similar physiologies, shared evolutionary lineages, similar environmental challenges, and 

similar adaptations to meet those challenges (Southall et al., 2007). 

Gray whales are low-frequency hearing specialists, with an auditory range starting at 10 Hz and 

possibly moving as high as 30 kHz (Ketten, 1998). Erbe (2002), inferring from gray whale 

vocalizations, suggested they would be sensitive to frequencies between 20 Hz and 4.5 kHz, with best 

sensitivity around 20 Hz–1.2 kHz. Clicks are reported up to 10 kHz, with main energy between 1.4 

and 4 kHz. The lowest response threshold reported was 82–95 dB at 800 Hz (Erbe, 2002). By 

comparison, minke whales appear most sensitive to sound between 100 and 200 Hz, with good 

sensitivity extending from 60 Hz–2 kHz. High-frequency clicks were published in two studies, 

indicating some sensitivity between 4 and 7.5 kHz, up to 20 kHz (Erbe, 2002). The PEA outlines the 

potential effects of noise and disturbance that can be expected from marine mammals, with a 

particular focus on cetaceans (USDOI, MMS, 2006a: Sections III.F.3.f(3), III.F.3.f(5), III.F.3.f(6), 

and III.F.3.f(8)). 

Overall, studies of gray, bowhead, and humpback whales have shown that received levels of impulses 

in the 160-170 dB re 1 μPa rms range appear to cause avoidance behavior in a significant portion of 

the animals exposed. Dahlheim (1987) reported that in noisy environments, gray whales increase the 

timing and level of their vocalizations and use more frequency-modulated signals. Malme et al. 

(1986) studied the responses of feeding eastern Pacific gray whales to pulses from a single 100-in3

airgun off St. Lawrence Island in the northern Bering Sea. Based on small sample sizes, these authors 

estimated that 50% of feeding gray whales ceased feeding at an average received pressure level of 

173 dB re 1 μPa on an (approximate) rms basis, and that 10% of feeding whales interrupted feeding at 

received levels of 163 dB. Malme at al. (1986) estimated that an average pressure level of 173 dB 

occurred at a range of 2.6–2.8 km (1.4–1.5 mi) from an airgun array with a source level of 250 dB (0–

peak) in the northern Bering Sea. These findings generally were consistent with the results of 

experiments conducted on larger numbers of gray whales that were migrating along the California 

coast. 

Malme and Miles (1985) concluded that, during migration, changes in swimming pattern occurred for 

received levels of about 160 dB re 1 μPa and higher, on an approximate rms basis. The 50% 

probability of avoidance was estimated to occur at a closest point of approach distance of 2.5 km 

(1.3 mi) from a 4,000-in3 array operating off central California. This would occur at an average 

received sound level of about 170 dB (rms). Some slight behavioral changes were noted at received 

sound levels of 140–160 dB (rms). However, these slight behavioral changes at levels below 160 dB 

may have been more relevant to the location of the noise source as the seismic array was placed in the 

middle of the gray whale migratory pathway. In Würsig et al. (1999), observations of gray whales 

near Sakhalin Island showed no indication that gray whales exposed to seismic noise were displaced 

from these feeding grounds in 1999 and 2001. However, there were indications of subtle behavioral 

effects and, in 2001, whales shifted their distribution away from a region where geophysical seismic 

surveys were being conducted (Johnson, 2002; Weller et al., 2002). 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Environmental Consequences and Effects Analyses 41

There is no specific evidence that exposure to pulses of airgun noise have caused PTS to the hearing 

of any marine mammal, even with large arrays of airguns. However, a PTS injury (Level A 

Harassment) from seismic surveys could theoretically occur if animals were to enter a ≥230 dB zone 

immediately surrounding a discharging airgun array (Southall et al, 2007). Southall et al. (2007) 

placed the functional hearing of bowhead, fin, gray, humpback, and minke whales in a group of 

cetaceans hearing in the low-frequency bandwidth between 7Hz–22kHz, with a likely PTS Sound 

Pressure Level threshold of 230 dB re 1 μPa (peak), and a TTS Sound Exposure Level threshold of 

198 dB re 1 μPa. These thresholds for mysticete whales were obtained from study data and modeling 

of morphological measurements. However the 180 dB level remains the established standard for a 

TTS in cetaceans resulting in a Level A Harassment, while the Level B Harassment standard occurs at 

160 dB (NMFS, 2008b). 

Consequently, Southall et al. (2007) suggests the area posing an actual TTS or PTS threat may be 

smaller than the 160 dB (2,250 m) or 180 dB (190 m) re 1 μPa radii from operating airguns imposed 

through the IHA. BOEMRE and NMFS believe that with the ramp up mitigation protocols, posted 

MMOs, and the tendency of mysticete whales to avoid the “noisy” areas by a measure of kilometers, 

there is a very remote likelihood of inflicting a TTS or PTS on a mysticete whale for a shallow 

hazards survey. Regardless, the operator shall comply with the standards described in NMFS (2008b). 

In summary, mysticete and odontocete cetaceans are expected to experience a negligible level of 

effect from firing airguns, after using the proposed mitigations. 

5.3.4 Conclusion for Effects on Biological Resources 

Vessel presence is likely to have the greatest impact on the largest number of species, because of the 

possibility of bird strikes and avoidance behavior by marine mammals. Nevertheless, bird strikes are 

expected to have a negligible population level effect on spectacled and/or Steller’s eiders, yellowbilled loons, or long-tailed ducks even in the event of a small number of mortalities. Bird-ship 

collisions would be limited because of bird scarcity, the low densities of birds expected to be present 

in the survey area relative to significantly larger numbers present elsewhere, mandatory lighting 

protocols, and the flight behavior of most bird species. Additional avoidance of bird strikes are 

anticipated as a result of long daylight hours, lighting protocols, and slow vessel speeds. Therefore, 

the effects of birds striking vessels are expected to be negligible for all species except long-tailed 

ducks. 

Discharging a small (40 in3

) airgun array could elicit temporary avoidance reactions from some 

marine mammals at a distance, precluding exposures to higher dB levels closer to the survey. 

Fall migrating bowheads generally disperse across the Chukchi Sea, with most moving on to Wrangel 

Island or the Chukotka coastal areas. The ancillary activities, including the firing of airgun arrays, 

would result in occasional diversions around the area of operations as whales migrate west. For 

mysticete whale populations and ice seals, the effects of discharging airguns would be negligible. 

Pacific walrus usually avoid vessels and may take days to reoccupy an area, which qualifies as a 

minor level of effect. Beluga whales tend to aggregate in Ledyard Bay, Kasegaluk Lagoon, and near 

the ice front over deeper waters, and not in the vicinity of Statoil’s operations. Likewise, killer 

whales, minke, fin, humpback whales, ribbon seals, and harbor porpoises tend to use areas farther 

south and/or east, occurring sporadically or rarely in waters near the proposed ancillary activities, 

while polar bears would not be affected by underwater airgun discharges. Gray whales on the other 

hand are typically found in shallower, nearshore areas, and historically around Hanna Shoal during 

the open water season 

Considering the low survey speeds (4–5 knots), the expected marine mammal avoidance of airgun 

noise sources, MMO presence on all vessels during operations, and the fact that the disturbance zones 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

42 Environmental Consequences and Effects Analyses 

for vessel noise would be smaller than that for discharging airguns; the likelihood of injury to marine 

mammals from vessel collisions are expected to be extremely low. 

5.4 Additional Mitigation Considered but Not Recommended for 

Implementation 

A mitigation measure considered was a requirement for passive acoustic recorders to identify the 

presence of cetaceans and pinnipeds while underwater. This measure is not being recommended, 

because review of passive acoustic monitoring during prior seismic surveys has shown that it was 

ineffective in identifying the presence of marine mammals during seismic surveying in the Chukchi 

Sea. In 2006, GXT towed a passive acoustic array to attempt to monitor the 120 dB zone. This proved 

to be ineffective in identifying whale sounds and has not been required by NMFS in MMPA 

authorizations since. 

A mitigation measure considered was to require survey shutdown during periods of low visibility 

(darkness, high sea states, and inclement weather) to avoid whale-ship collisions. This measure is not 

being recommended. Previous NEPA analyses by BOEMRE and NMFS determined that the 

appropriate mitigation when the full arrays are not operating is the continuous firing of a small airgun 

to deter approaching marine mammals. The vessel must maintain forward thrust when the receiver 

streamers are deployed, deployment of the streamers and airgun arrays takes several days, and 

retrieval of the equipment is likely to take more than 24 hours. Therefore, complete shutdown of 

operations from data collection to no vessel movement is not possible on a daily basis. 

A mitigation measure was considered to prohibit ramp-up procedures during conditions of darkness, 

to prevent airguns from discharging in close proximity to marine mammals, potentially resulting in 

TTS or PTS incidents among exposed marine mammals. In larger 3D/2D seismic surveys the ≥190 

dB is too large to allow for night time scanning with artificial lights. However, the radius of minimum 

noise levels that could result in a TTS or PTS (≥190 dB according to Southall et al., 2007) only 

extends 10 m (~33 ft) from the mitigation airgun (Tables 4-2 and 5-1). Consequently, this measure is 

not being recommended, because the small size of the ≥190 dB zone would allow MMOs to scan the 

area for marine mammals using artificial lights. 

A mitigation measure considered was to require that vessels to disengage propellers if a surfacing 

whale is observed within 300 ft (100 m) of the ship to avoid potential propeller injury to the whale 

(prop strike) and, to a lesser degree, collision, and that propellers would remain disengaged until the 

whale moves beyond 300 ft (100 m) from the ship. This measure is not being recommended, because 

the survey vessel must maintain forward thrust when the receiver streamers are deployed, and the 

existing required mitigation calls for marine mammal avoidance. 

5.5 Alternatives 

5.5.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, Statoil’s application for ancillary activities permit would be denied. 

Statoil’s shallow hazard and coring surveys would not occur as proposed. The data and information 

collected from the proposed activities would be used to evaluate operational and safety-related 

aspects of possible future exploration drilling operations. Failure to collect, evaluate, and consider 

such data and information could result in lost opportunities for discovery and production of oil and 

gas resources. Disapproval of the proposed ancillary activities could ultimately result in lost 

opportunity for discovery and production of oil and gas resources and any associated economic 

benefits for Alaska and the United States of America. 

The No Action Alternative would eliminate any potential adverse effects from the acquisition of 

shallow hazard seismic survey or coring data in the Statoil and ConocoPhillips/Statoil Chukchi Sea 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Environmental Consequences and Effects Analyses 43

leases during the 2011 open-water season. Potential economic benefits to the communities and 

residents of Dutch Harbor, Nome, and the North Slope would be delayed or would not be realized. 

Although the number of local residents employed for the proposed activities is expected to be 

relatively small and the effect to be negligible at the community level, any BOEMRE disapproval of 

the proposed activities during the 2011 season would have a considerable adverse effect on 

individuals who lost potential employment. 

5.5.2 Alternatives Considered but Not Included for Further Analysis 

CEQ has indicated that “Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from the 

technical and economic standpoint and using common sense...” (CEQ NEPA’s 40 Most Asked 

Questions, Question #2 ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/40/1-10.HTM). Alternatives must also meet the 

purpose and need of the proposal (40 CFR 1502.13). The purpose of the proposed seismic survey is 

to collect shallow hazards and coring data on Statoil and ConocoPhillips/Statoil Chukchi Sea leases 

for use in evaluating the potential for hydrocarbon accumulations on their leases and making 

decisions related to leasing and making decisions about future leasing and exploration activities. 

Statoil’s proposed surveys of their Chukchi Sea leases is consistent with the overall objectives of the 

OCS Lands Act to determine the extent of the oil and natural gas resources of the OCS at the earliest 

practicable time. No additional alternatives that meet the purpose and need for the proposal were 

identified by BOEMRE. 

5.6 Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative impacts result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place 

over time. The scope of the cumulative impacts for this analysis is the incremental impact from 

Statoil’s proposed seismic surveys, plus the aggregate effects of other activities known or reasonably 

expected to occur in the same timeframe (July–November 2010) and in the vicinity of Statoil’s 

activities, and to have potential effects on the same environmental resources. It is not helpful to 

consider other activities outside of this timeframe, since the notable impacts of seismic surveys are 

almost entirely temporal in nature, generally lasting only as long as the duration of the seismic 

surveying activities. 

The cumulative effects from OCS activities, plus past, current, and reasonable foreseeable activities 

in the Chukchi Sea OCS and adjacent areas have been assessed in recent BOEMRE NEPA 

documents. Cumulative effects analyses were included in the PEA (USDOI, MMS, 2006b) and the 

Sale 193 EIS (USDOI, MMS, 2007b). The reasonably foreseeable level of OCS activity in the 

Chukchi Sea Planning Area during the open-water season in 2011 is within the level of activities 

evaluated in these prior NEPA documents. This level of activities is also within the scope of the 2008 

BO (NMFS, 2008a) and 2009 BO (FWS, 2009). 

No other oil and gas related activities are currently planned for the 2011 open water season in the 

Chukchi Sea. The proposed ancillary activities are expected to result in negligible short-term and 

long-term effects on local and regional water quality. 

Currently, Statoil’s proposal has the only application to conduct survey activities in the Chukchi Sea 

OCS during the 2011 open water season. On February 10, 2010, BOEMRE received an application 

from ION Geophysical to perform late-season seismic surveys in the Beaufort and northeastern 

Chukchi Sea near Point Barrow in 2010. ION has since withdrawn the permit application. 

The University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF),Geophysical Institute (GI) intends to conduct a 2-D 

seismic survey of the Chukchi Borderland at ~72.5°N, 162°W, >200 km (120 mi) from Barrow, from 

September 5 through October 9, 2011. Most work will be performed in the Chukchi Borderland area 

to the North of Statoil’s proposed surveys. At the closest point of the UAF GI’s survey approaches to 

30 km (18.5 mi) from the area for ancillary activities. 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

44 Environmental Consequences and Effects Analyses 

The UAF GI’s project involves the use of the 235 ft R/V Marcus G. Langseth that will tow an array of 

10 airguns (1,830 in3

) and a 2-km hydrophone streamer, and employ the use of a multibeam 

echosounder and a sub-bottom profiler over 3,419 mi (~5,502 km) of survey lines (Statoil, 2011c; 

Bailey, 2011). 

The 160 dB re 1 μPa rms ensonification zones for Statoil’s and UAF GI’s proposed surveys will not 

overlap at any point during their respective programs (Statoil, 2011c), and would not exceed the 

estimates for concurrent seismic activities that were analyzed in the PEA (MMS, 2006b) and Sale 193 

EIS (MMS, 2007b). Consequently, very minor effects are expected from the combined influence of 

Statoil’s 2011 ancillary activities, the proposed ION 2011 seismic activity in the Beaufort Sea, and 

the UAF GI 2011 2D seismic survey in the northern Chukchi Sea. 

Effects on marine mammals, marine birds, and fishes from Statoil’s proposed activities would be 

restricted to disturbance with associated changes in behavior and temporary displacement. 

Disturbance factors include vessel presence, vessel sound, sounds produced by discharging 40 in3

airguns and other acoustic equipment such as subbottom profilers, sonar, etc. Studies have shown that 

many of the effects on marine mammals are ephemeral, ending within minutes or hours after the 

disturbance has ceased, depending on the noise duration, frequency, and decibel levels that an animal 

would be subjected to. Previous, much larger, 2D and 3D seismic surveys in the analysis area are not 

known to have had any lasting deleterious effects on biological resources, nor have adverse effects to 

any of the bird, fish, or mammal species been attributed to previous ancillary activities in the Chukchi 

or Beaufort seas. 

Sound levels and frequency characteristics of vessels are generally related to vessel size and speed. 

Larger vessels generally emit more sound than smaller vessels, and those underway with a full load, 

or those pushing or towing a load, are noisier than unladen vessels. The primary sources of sounds are 

engines, propellers, bearings, and other mechanical parts. The sound from these sources reaches the 

water through the vessel hull. Other than during icebreaking activities, the loudest sounds from 

vessels are made by cavitation of the propellers. Navigation and other vessel-operation equipment 

also generate subsurface sounds. The dominant source of noise from vessels is from the propeller 

operation, and the intensity of this noise is largely related to ship size and speed. Vessel noise from 

activities resulting from the proposed action will produce low levels of noise, generally in the 150- to 

170-dB re 1 μPa-m at frequencies below 1,000 Hz. Vessel noise is transitory and generally does not 

propagate at great distances from the vessel (Richardson et al., 1995). 

Other than vessels associated with the proposed activities, traffic in the project area is expected to 

include icebreakers, another seismic vessel, and a few USCG vessels, supply ships and barges. Vessel 

traffic in the proposed survey area is expected to be very limited. With the exception of Statoil’s 

ancillary activities, most vessels are expected to transit through the Chukchi Sea area within 12.5 mi 

(20 km) of the coast. During ice-free months (June-October), barges are used for supplying the local 

communities, Alaskan Native villages, and the North Slope oil-industry complex at Prudhoe Bay with 

larger items that cannot be flown in on commercial air carriers. Usually, one large fuel barge and one 

supply barge visit the villages per year and one barge per year traverses the Arctic Ocean to the 

Canadian Beaufort Sea. 

Vessel strikes with marine mammals in the Arctic Ocean are rare, in part because overall vessel 

traffic in the Alaska Chukchi Sea is very limited. Impacts to marine mammals from Statoil’s vessels 

are expected to be short term and mostly negligible, because of the slow survey speed (4–5 knots) of 

the survey vessel and the limited scope of the support vessels’ activities. 

The proposed activities would result in negligible or minor incremental contributions to the existing 

environment for water quality, marine mammals, birds, fishes, and marine invertebrates by briefly 

disrupting behaviors in some individuals. Mitigation measures incorporated in the proposed action, 

and additional measures imposed by NMFS and FWS through ESA consultation and MMPA 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Conclusions 45

authorizations processes would prevent Level A Harassment (injury), minimize Level B Harassment, 

and mitigate the potential for population-level adverse effects. 

Statoil has agreed to participate with other operators in baseline science studies in the Chukchi Sea. 

Olgoonik/Fairweather LLC will operate the research vessel and perform the following scientific 

baseline studies: 

 Seabed, water column, and plankton sampling at historical exploratory drilling locations in 

the Chukchi Sea. 

 Distribution, abundance, and ecology of Arctic marine fishes in the northeastern Chukchi 

Sea. 

 Offshore acoustic monitoring program using seabed acoustic recorders to record and analyze 

marine mammal activity in the Chukchi Sea. 

Statoil’s proposed activities are expected to have no effects on subsistence activities and are not 

expected to add incrementally to cumulative effects on subsistence activities, particularly in light of 

the large distances between known subsistence use areas and Statoil’s OCS lease holdings in the 

Chukchi Sea. 

The incremental contribution to cumulative impacts from Statoil’s proposed activities to overall 

cumulative effects on biological resources and the marine environment is expected to be negligible. 

Statoil’s proposed activities are not expected to add to cumulative effects on subsistence activities. 

6. Conclusions 

Statoil’s proposed 2011 ancillary activities are within the scope of activities covered by the PEA 

(USDOI, MMS 2006b) and the Sale 193 EIS (USDOI, MMS, 2007b), which concluded four 

concurrently operating seismic surveys in the Chukchi Sea would result in adverse, but not 

significant, effects (USDOI, MMS, 2006b: Table 3.1). Potential cumulative impacts would not exceed 

those described in the PEA and the Sale 193 EIS. No proposed action or site-specific circumstances 

indicate that the proposed activities would have any effects different from those analyzed in the PEA 

and Sale 193 EIS. 

Statoil’s proposed monitoring and mitigation (as identified in Statoil’s IHA application to NMFS and 

LOA application to FWS) are expected to reduce adverse effects to marine mammals. Statoil’s POC 

and the distance of the proposed survey area from subsistence harvest areas are expected to avoid 

adverse effects to subsistence activities. 

The potential incremental contribution of the proposed action to cumulative impacts is expected to be 

negligible. Overall, cumulative effects are not likely to exceed those described in the PEA and the 

Sale 193 EIS. 

BOEMRE has concluded: 

No major adverse effects, as defined in Sections 4 and 5, on the quality of the human 

environment are expected to occur from Statoil’s ancillary activities as proposed in their 

permit application. 

7. Consultations and Public Input 

7.1 Endangered Species Act Consultation 

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires each Federal Agency to ensure that any action that they authorize, 

fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the 

adverse modification of designated critical habitat. BOEMRE consults with FWS and NMFS for 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

46 Consultations and Public Input 

listed species under each Service’s jurisdiction. For ESA consultation on proposed lease sales, 

BOEMRE specifically requests incremental section 7 consultation. Regulations at 50 CFR 402.14(k) 

allow consultation on part of the entire action as long as that step does not violate section 7(a)(2), 

there is a reasonable likelihood that the entire action will not violate section 7(a)(2), and the agency 

continues consultation with respect to the entire action, obtaining a biological opinion for each step. 

Thus, at the lease sale stage, BOEMRE consults on the early lease activities (seismic surveying, 

ancillary activities, and exploration drilling) to ensure that activities under any leases issued will not 

result in jeopardy to a listed species or cause adverse modification of designated critical habitat. 

A letter requesting NMFS concurrence that Statoil’s proposed ancillary activities is covered by the 

July 17, 2008, BO for Oil and Gas Leasing and Exploration Activities in the U.S. Beaufort and 

Chukchi Seas, Alaska and Authorization of Small Takes Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(NMFS, 2008) (http://www.mms.gov/alaska/ref/BioOpinions/2008_0717_bo.pdf) was sent on June 

28, 2011. 

On July 08, 2011, BOEMRE forwarded to FWS a biological evaluation for consultation on Statoil’s 

proposed ancillary activities with regard to polar bear critical habitat and Pacific walrus, a candidate 

species. BOEMRE also requested FWS concurrence that Statoil’s proposed ancillary activities are 

covered by the September 3, 2009, BO for Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Program Area Lease Sales and 

Associated Seismic Surveys and Exploratory Drilling (FWS, 2009; http://www.mms.gov/alaska/ref/ 

BioOpinions/2009_0903_BO4BFCK.pdf) for other species under FWS jurisdiction. 

7.2 Essential Fish Habitat Consultation 

The most recent Pacific salmon EFH consultation for OCS ancillary activities in the Chukchi Sea was 

conducted concurrently with the preparation and public review of the Arctic Multiple-Sale Draft EIS 

(2009). NMFS provided conservation recommendations in a letter dated June 26, 2009. After the 

Department of Commerce adopted the Arctic Fisheries Management Plan on May 4, 2010, BOEMRE 

reinitiated consultation for Arctic cod, saffron cod, and opilio crab on 24 June, 2010. On June 10, 

2011, BOEMRE requested concurrence from NMFS that Statoil’s proposed ancillary activities are 

covered by the June 24, 2010, EFH consultation. 

7.3 National Historic Preservation Act Consultation 

Per the National Historic Preservation Act, BOEMRE consulted with the State Historic Preservation 

Officer (SHPO) via letter dated June 22, 2011. BOEMRE provided the following findings to the 

SHPO: 

 Because the proposed coring locations would be surveyed and cleared of historic resources 

and surface hazards before cores are collected, offshore historic sites (e.g., shipwrecks) are 

not expected to be affected by the proposed activities. 

 Should a submerged and buried site be encountered, the disturbance would be minimal and 

the cores themselves would be the appropriate means for identifying and documenting such 

sites by a qualified specialist. 

On June 23, 2011 SHPO responded with a concurrence letter. 

7.4 Opportunities for Public input 

Public participation regarding Statoil’s proposed activities has been provided for through a notice of 

preparation of an EA, community meetings held by the applicant, and the NMFS Incidental 

Harassment Authorization (IHA) process. 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Consultations and Public Input 47

In addition to the public involvement opportunities related specifically to Statoil’s proposed action, 

the public has participated in the on-going discussion of seismic survey activities in the Arctic OCS 

throughout preparation of several environmental analyses and related processes. A brief summary of 

these public input opportunities is provided below. The environmental documents listed below are 

available at http://www.mms.gov/alaska/ref/EIS_EA.htm. BOEMRE has considered the issues, 

alternatives, and mitigation measures identified from this ongoing process during preparation of this 

EA. 

Notification of Preparation of the EA. On June 6, 2011, a notice of preparation of an EA on 

Statoil’s proposed ancillary activities was posted on the Alaska OCS Region website. The notice 

provided “opportunity for the public to provide input that may inform the decision-making process, 

including issues or information regarding environmental impacts that should be considered in the 

preparation of the EA, prior to a decision being made by the Responsible Official(s).” The notice 

stated that written comments would be accepted for consideration through June 16, 2011. 

In response to the notice, BOEMRE received timely input from AEWC and Alaska Wilderness 

League et al. A brief summary of the substantive issues in the comments received and our 

consideration of them was prepared for the responsible BOEMRE decision-maker. 

Applicant Outreach and Plan of Cooperation (POC). Statoil has indicated that it intends to 

maintain an open and transparent process with all stakeholders throughout the life-cycle of their 

proposed activities in the Chukchi Sea. Statoil began the stakeholder engagement process in 2011 

with meetings with Chukchi Sea community leaders at the tribal, city, and corporate level. 

As part of stakeholder engagement for the proposed 2011 shallow hazards survey, Statoil has 

developed a POC (Statoil, 2011c). The POC identifies the actions Statoil will take to identify 

important subsistence activities, inform subsistence users of the proposed survey activities, and obtain 

feedback from subsistence users regarding how to provide cooperation between subsistence activities 

and the Statoil program. 

A POC is required to comply with federal regulations [50 CFR 216.104(a)(12)ii)] and meet the 

requirements of three major federal authorizations: (1) the NMFS Incidental Harassment 

Authorization, (2) the FWS Letter of Authorization, and (3) the BOEMRE Ancillary Activities 

Notice. 

Statoil intends to maintain an open and transparent process with all stakeholders throughout the 

lifecycle of activities in the Chukchi Sea. Statoil began the stakeholder engagement process in 2009 

with meetings with Chukchi Sea community leaders at the tribal, city, and corporate level. In 2010 

and into 2011, Statoil met again with leadership to present the 2010 seismic survey results and to 

introduce their 2011 shallow hazards survey program. The meetings included the following: 

 November 9-10, 2010: presentation to the Beluga Whale Committee and attendance at the Ice 

Seal Committee meeting 

 November 3-5, 2010: joint village meetings with CPAI in Kotzebue, Point Hope, Point Lay, 

Wainwright, and Barrow 

 December 8-9, 2010: attendance at the 4th Quarter Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission 

(AEWC) Commissioner’s Meeting in Anchorage 

 December 16, 2010: presentation to the North Slope Borough Planning Commission 

 December 17, 2010: presentation to the North Slope Borough Wildlife Department 

 February 18, 2011: attendance at the AEWC Mini-Convention Conflict Avoidance 

Agreement Meeting in Barrow 

 March 7-8, 2011: presentation at the Arctic Open Water Meeting 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

48 Consultations and Public Input 

 March 22-26, 2011: Plan of Cooperation meetings held jointly with CPAI in Point Hope, 

Point Lay, Wainwright, and Barrow, Alaska 

 March 29-31, 2011: attendance at the North Slope Science Initiative Workshop in Barrow 

 April 28, 2011: presentation to the North Slope Borough Planning Commission 

On several occasions, Statoil met with NSB Mayor Itta and his staff and other leadership groups to 

present the results of the 2010 seismic survey, introduce the 2011 Chukchi Sea shallow hazards 

survey and geotechnical soil investigation project, and to discuss local concerns regarding subsistence 

activities, timing of operations, and local hire and workforce development. Statoil intends to continue 

to engage with leaders, community members, and subsistence groups (as well as local, state, and 

federal regulatory agencies) in preparation for the 2011 program and throughout the exploration 

process. 

The POC will document all consultations with community leadership, subsistence-user groups, 

individual subsistence users, and community members. The POC will be submitted to NMFS, FWS, 

and BOEMRE upon completion of consultation and will include feedback from the leadership 

meetings and POC meetings. The POC will be submitted to each member of the leadership Statoil 

met with during their October to December leadership meetings, as well as other selected community 

members. Statoil will continue to document all consultations with the communities and subsistence 

stakeholders. 

NMFS IHA process. Statoil has applied for incidental harassment authorization issued under the 

MMPA by NMFS. The NMFS IHA review and decision process includes opportunities for public 

participation. The Open Water and Peer Review meetings are part of IHA process. NMFS publishes 

draft authorizations in the Federal Register for public review and comment. 

Programmatic EA for Arctic Ocean Outer Continental Shelf Seismic Surveys (OCS EIS/EA 

MMS 2006-038). The BOEMRE and NMFS jointly prepared the PEA. A draft PEA was circulated 

for public review. The majority of comments received by BOEMRE addressed similar issues (e.g., 

EIS versus EA, significance criteria, potential mitigation measures, reasonable alternatives, data 

quality, and data gaps). A summary of the major categories of comments and our response to those 

comments can be found in Appendix D of the PEA. After careful consideration and evaluation, many 

of these substantive comments resulted in modifying the text in the PEA. 

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS) Seismic Surveys in the 

Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, Alaska (OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-001). BOEMRE and NMFS jointly 

initiated this Programmatic EIS. Publication of the notice of intent (NOI) began the official scoping 

period. In addition to the NOI, the NMFS and BOEMRE pursued other avenues for scoping seismic 

survey issues. At the October 2006 Open Water Meeting, industry representatives, BOEMRE and 

NMFS and other federal and state agencies, tribal government representatives, subsistence 

stakeholders, and other interested parties participated in presentations and discussions about the 2006 

open water seismic survey season. During public hearings for the BOEMRE Chukchi Sea Lease Sale 

193 draft EIS and Draft Proposed Program for 2007-2012 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing (5-Year 

Program), BOEMRE personnel discussed how seismic surveys are conducted. Public hearings on the 

DPEIS were held in April 2007 in Anchorage, Nuiqsut, Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, and 

Barrow. Based on verbal requests during the public hearings and two written requests, the DPEIS 

comment period was extended from May 14, 2007 to June 29, 2007 (72 FR 26788, May 11, 2007). At 

the request of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, the comment period was extended a second 

time, from June 29, 2007 to July 30, 2007 (72 FR 36427, July 3, 2007). NMFS withdrew the DPEIS 

in 2009 (74 FR 55539, October 28, 2009) and published a Notice of Intent to begin a new EIS process 

(75 FR 6175, February 8, 2010). 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Verification 49

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 and Seismic Surveying 

Activities in the Chukchi Sea (OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-026). Scoping meetings for the EIS were 

held in Barrow, Wainwright, Point Hope, Point Lay, and Anchorage, Alaska in January–February 

2006. Government-to-Government Consultation meetings were held with the Native Villages of Point 

Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, and Barrow and the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope (ICAS) in 

January–February 2006. Public hearings on the draft EIS were held in Barrow, Wainwright, Point 

Hope, Point Lay, and Anchorage, Alaska in November–December 2006. See Section VI of the FEIS 

for a description of public involvement process. Volume II of the Final EIS contains the substantive 

comments and responses to those comments, which include comments on seismic surveying 

activities. NMFS was a cooperating agency for this EIS. 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas - Oil and 

Gas Lease Sales 209, 212, 217, and 221 OCS EIS/EA MMS 2008-055. Scoping meetings for the 

EIS were held in Barrow, Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, Point Hope, Point Lay, and Anchorage in 

September–November 2007. Government-to-Government meetings were held with the Nuiqsut Tribal 

Council, the Native Village of Point Hope, and ICAS in September and October 2007. The draft EIS 

was filed with the EPA and the Notice of Availability (NOA) was announced in the Federal Register

on December 19, 2008. The NOA provided for a 90-day public comment period, which was extended 

by 2 weeks. Public hearings were held in January-March 2009, in Barrow, Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, 

Wainwright, Point Hope, Point Lay, and Anchorage. Government-to-Government consultation 

meetings with the Native Villages of Nuiqsut and Barrow, and ICAS were also held during this 

period. The Government-to-Government meeting with the Native Village of Point Hope did not occur 

because of lack of a quorum. BOEMRE requested Government-to-Government meetings with the 

Native Villages of Kaktovik, Point Lay, and Wainwright, but the requests were declined or no 

response was received. A number of comments received on the draft EIS related to seismic surveys 

and mitigation. Volume III, Chapter V, describes the public involvement process. 

Environmental Impact Statement on the Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean, 

February 2010. NMFS, with BOEMRE as a cooperating agency, is preparing an EIS to analyze the 

environmental impacts of issuing incidental take authorizations pursuant to the MMPA to the oil and 

gas industry for the taking of marine mammals incidental to offshore exploration seismic surveying 

and exploration drilling activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, including seismic surveys. The 

Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS on the effects of oil and gas activities (seismic surveys and 

exploratory drilling) in the U.S. Arctic Ocean was published in the Federal Register on Monday, 

February 8, 2010. The NOI announced a 60-day public scooping period. Public scoping meetings for 

this EIS were held during in February and March, 2010, in Kotzebue, Point Hope, Point Lay, 

Wainwright, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Anchorage. Both NMFS and BOEMRE representatives 

were at each scoping meeting. Because the EIS will be completed after the 2010 open-water season, 

BOEMRE’s preparation of EAs for proposed 2010 OCS activities open-water season, including 

Statoil’s proposed seismic survey, was discussed at each meeting. BOEMRE received some 

comments on the Statoil proposed seismic survey and BOEMRE’s EA during these public scoping 

meetings. 

8. Verification 

Pursuant to the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1506.5(a)) that acceptable work by an applicant not be 

redone but be verified by the agency, BOEMRE reviewed, evaluated, and verified the information 

and analysis provided in Statoil’s EED (Statoil, 2011c), which BOEMRE considered in preparation of 

this EA. 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

50 Reviewers and Preparers 

9. Reviewers and Preparers 

In compliance with 40 CFR 1506.5(a), the persons responsible for the review of Statoil’s Ancillary 

Activities Notice and supporting information and analysis, and for preparation and review of this EA 

are listed below: 

Name Title 

Augustine, Gene Biologist 

Blackburn, Scott Technical Editor 

Campbell, Chris Archeologist / Sociocultural Specialist 

Cody, Mary Wildlife Biologist 

Cranswick, Deborah Supervisory Environmental Specialist, Chief, Environmental 

Analysis Section I 

Crews, Christopher Wildlife Biologist 

Denton, Jeffrey Wildlife Biologist 

Deschu, Nancy Fisheries Biologist 

Hartung, Daniel Regulatory Analyst 

Scordino, Steven Solicitor, BOEMRE 

Smith, Caryn Oceanographer / Oil spill Risk Analysis 

Swears, Bill Technical Editor 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Bibliography 51

Bibliography 

Allen, B.M. and R.P Angliss. 2010. Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2009. NOAA TM 

NMFS-AFSC-206. Seattle, WA. USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science Center. 

Barber, W., M. Vallarino, and R. Smith. 1994. Fish and Fish Assemblages of the Northeastern 

Chukchi Sea, Alaska. In Fisheries Oceanography of the Northeast Chukchi Sea. OCS Study 

MMS 93-0051, W. Barber, R. Smith and T. Weingartner (eds.). Pp. 9-1 to 9-22. USDOI 

Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, AK. 

Barber, W., R. Smith, and R. Meyer. 1997. Demersal Fish Assemblages of the Northeastern Chukchi 

Sea, Alaska. Fishery Bulletin 95:195-209. 

Blanchard, A.L., H. Nichols, and C. Parris. 2010. 2008 Environmental Studies Program in the 

Chukchi Sea: benthic ecology of the Burger and Klondike survey areas. Annual Report for 

ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc. and Shell Exploration & Production Company, Anchorage, AK 

pp. 72. 

Blees, M.K., K.G. Hartin, D.S. Ireland, and D. Hannay. 2010. Marine Mammal Monitoring and 

Mitigation During Open Water Seismic Exploration by Statoil USA E&P Inc. in the Chukchi 

Sea, August-October 2010: 90-day Report. LGL Rep. P119. Rep. from LGL Alaska Research 

Associates Inc., LGL Ltd., and JASCO Research Ltd. For by Statoil USA E&P Inc., National 

Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 102 pp+ App. 

Bowles, A.E., M. Smultea, B. Würsig, D.P. DeMaster, and D. Palka. 1994. Relative Abundance and 

Behavior of Marine Mammals Exposed to Transmissions from the Heard Island Feasibility 

Test. J. Acoust. Soc. America 96:2469-2484. 

Braund, S.R. 2000. Delong Mountain Terminal Resource Use Areas. Preliminary Report DACW85-

00-P-0074. Anchorage, AK: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Braund, S.R. and D.C. Burnham. 1984. Subsistence Economics and Marine Resource Use Patterns. 

In: The Barrow Arch Environment and Possible Consequences of Planned Offshore Oil and 

Gas Development. Proceedings of a Synthesis Meeting, J.C. Truett, ed., Girdwood, AK., Oct. 

30-Nov. 1, 1983. Anchorage, AK: USDOI, MMS, Alaska OCS Region and USDOC, NOAA, 

OCSEAP. 

Brueggeman, J. 2009a. Marine Mammal Research Program. PowerPoint document prepared for 

ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. and Shell Offshore, Inc. by Canyon Creek Consulting. Seattle, 

WA. 

Brueggeman, J. J. 2009b. Marine Mammal surveys at the Klondike and Burger Survey Areas in the 

Chukchi Sea during the 2008 Open Water Season. Anchorage, AK: ConocoPhillips Alaska, 

Inc. and Shell Exploration and Production. 45 pp. 

Brueggeman, J. J., R.A. Grotefendt, M.A. Smultea, G.A. Green, R.A. Rowlett, C.C. Swanson, D.P. 

Volsen, C.E. Bowlby, C.I. Malme, R. Mlawski, and J.J. Burns. 1992. Final Report, Chukchi 

Sea 1991, Marine Mammal Monitoring Program (Walrus and Polar Bear) Crackerjack and 

Diamond Prospects. Anchorage, AK: Shell Western E&P Inc. and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

52 Bibliography 

Brueggeman, J.J., C.I. Malme, R.A. Grotefendt, D.P. Volsen, J.J. Burns, D.G. Chapman, D.K 

Ljungblad, and G.A. Green. 1990. 1989 Walrus Monitoring Program: The Klondike, Burger, 

and Popcorn Prospects in the Chukchi Sea. Houston, TX: Shell Western E&P, Inc. 

Brueggeman, J.J., D.P. Volsen, R.A. Grotefendt, G.A. Green, J.J. Burns, and D.K. Ljungblad. 1991. 

1990 Walrus Monitoring Program/The Popcorn, Burger and Crackerjack Prospects in the 

Chukchi Sea. Houston, TX: Shell Western E&P, Inc. 

Cameron, M.F. J.L. Bengtson, P.L. Boveng, J.K. Jansen, B.P. Kelly, S.P. Dahle, E.A. Logerwell, J.E. 

Overland, C.L. Sabine, G.T. Waring, and J.M. Wilder. 2010. Status Review of the Bearded 

Seal (Erignathus barbatus). U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-AFSC-211. 246 p. 

Center for Regulatory Effectiveness. 2010. The Federal Government’s Long-Standing Regulation of 

Seismic Airguns Protects Marine Mammals From TTS, PTS, and Physical Injury. Center for 

Regulatory Effectiveness, 1601 Connetcticut Ave., N.W. St. 500, Washington, DC. 7 pp. 

http://www.thecre.com/pdf/THE_FEDERAL_GOVERNMENTS_LONGSTANDING_REG

ULATION_OF_SEISMIC_AIRGUNS.pdf 

Cosens, S.E. and L.P. Dueck. 1993. Icebreaker Noise in Lancaster Sound, N.W.T., Canada: 

Implications for Marine Mammal Behavior. Marine Mammal Science 93: 285-300. 

Craig, P.C. 1984. Fish Use of Coastal Waters of the Alaska Beaufort Sea: A Review. Transactions of 

American Fisheries Society 113:265-282. 

Craig, P.C., W.B. Griffiths, L. Halderson, and H. McElderry. 1982. Ecological Studies of Arctic Cod 

(Boreogadus saida) in Beaufort Sea Coastal Waters, Alaska. Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Science 39:395-406. 

Dahlheim, M. E. 1987. Bio-Acoustics of the Gray Whale (Eschrichtius robustus). [Ph.D. 

Dissertation.]. Vancouver, B.C.: University of British Columbia. 315 pp. 

Divoky, G.J. 1987. The Distribution and Abundance of Birds in the Eastern Chukchi Sea in Late 

Summer and Early Fall. Unpublished final report. Anchorage, AK: USDOC, NOAA and 

USDOI, MMS, 96 pp. 

Erbe, C. 2002. Hearing Abilities of Baleen Whales. Report CR 2002-065. Ottawa, Ont., 

Canada:Defense Research and Development Canada. 

Federal Register. 2001. Final Determination of Critical Habitat for the Spectacled Eider. Federal 

Register 66(25):9145-9185. 

Federal Register. 2008. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened 

Status for the Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Throughout Its Range; Final Rule. Vol. 73(95): 

28212-28303. 

Federal Register. 2009. Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement; Seismic Surveys in the 

Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Alaska. 74(207):55539. 

Federal Register. 2010a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Polar Bear in the United States. Federal Register 75(86):24545-24549. 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Bibliography 53

Federal Register. 2010b. Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on the 

Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean 75(25):6175-6177. 

Federal Register. 2010c. Endangered and Threatened Species; Proposed Threatened Status for 

Subspecies of the Ringed Seal. 75(237):77476-77495. 

Federal Register. 2010d. Endangered and Threatened Species; Proposed Threatened and Not 

Warranted Status for Subspecies and Distinct Population Segments of the Bearded Seal. 

75(237):77496-77515. 

Federal Register. 2011. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition to List the Pacific Walrus as Endangered or Threatened. 76(28): 7634-7679. 

Finney, H. and Fugro-McClelland Marine GeoSciences. 1989. Summary Biological Reconnaissance 

Burger Prospect, Sale 109, Chukchi Sea, Alaska. Houston, TX: Shell Western E&P, Inc. 

Fraker, M.A., W.J. Richardson, and B. Würsig. 1995. Disturbance Responses of Bowhead. 

In: Behavior, Disturbance Responses and Feeding of Bowhead Whales, Balaena mysticetus, 

in the Beaufort Sea, 1980-1981. Unpublished report. Washington, DC: USDOI, BLM, pp. 

145-248. 

Funk, D. W., Rodrigues, R., Ireland, D. S., and Koski, W. R. 2007. Joint Monitoring Program in the 

Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, July - November 2006, eds. LGL Report P891-2. Prepared for: 

Shell Offshore Inc., ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., GX Technology , USDOC, NMFS and 

USFWS. Anchorage, AK: LGL Alaska Research Associates, LGL Limited, Greeneridge 

Sciences, Inc., Bioacoutstics Research Program, Cornell University, and Bio-Qave, Inc., 316 

pp. plus appendices. 

Funk, D. W., Hannay, D., Ireland, D. S., Rodrigues, R., and Koski, W. R. 2008. Marine Mammal 

Monitoring and Mitigation During Open Water Seismic Exploration by Shell Offshore Inc. in 

the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, July-October 2007: 90 Day Report, eds. LGL Report P969-1. 

Prepared for: Shell Offshore Inc., USDOC, NMFS and USFWS. Anchorage, AK: LGL 

Alaska Research Associates Inc., LGL Limited, and JASCO Research Ltd., 218 pp. plus 

appendices. 

Funk, D.W., D.S. Ireland, R. Rodrigues, and W.R. Koski (eds.). 2010. Joint Monitoring Program in 

the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, open water seasons, 2006–2008. LGL Alaska Report P1050-

2, Report from LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., LGL Ltd., Greeneridge Sciences, Inc., 

and JASCO Research , Ltd., for Shell Offshore, Inc. and Other Industry Contributors, and 

National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 506 p. plus appendices. 

Gall, A. and R. Day. 2009. Distribution and Abundance of Seabirds in the Northeastern Chukchi Sea, 

2008. Anchorage, AK: ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. and Shell Exploration & Production 

Company. 46 pp. 

Garlich-Miller, J. J.G. MacCracken, J. Snyder, R. Meehan, M. Myers, J.M. Wilder, E. Lance, A. 

Matz. 2011. Status Review of the Pacific Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens). U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Office of Marine Mammals Management, 1011 E. Tudor Rd., 

Anchorage, AK. pp. 155. 

Goold, J.C., and P J Fish. 1998. Broadband spectra of seismic survey air-gun emissions, with 

reference to dolphin auditory thresholds. J.Acoust.Soc.Am. 103(4) (1998): 2177-2184. 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

54 Bibliography 

Gordon J.C.D.,G. Gillespie, J. Potter, A. Frantzis, M. Simmonds, R. Swift. 1998. The effects of 

Seismic Surveys on Marine Mammals. In: Seismic and Marine Mammals Workshop, 

London, 23- 25 June 1998, chapter 5, 27 pp 

Gordon, J.C D., D. Gillespie, J. Potter, A. Frantzis, M.P. Simmonds, R. Swift, and D. Thompson. 

2003. A Review of the Effects of Seismic Surveys on Marine Mammals. Marine Technology 

Society Journal 374:16-34. 

Gordon J.C.D., D. Gillespie, J. Potter, A. Frantzis, M. Simmonds, R. Swift, D. Thompson. 2004. A 

review of the effects of Seismic Survey on Marine Mammals. Marine Technology Society 

Journal. 37(4):14-34. 

Grebmeier, J. and K. Dunton. 2000. Benthic Processes in the Northern Bering/Chukchi Seas: Status 

and Global Change. In. Impacts of Change in Sea Ice and Other Environmental Parameters in 

the Arctic. Marine Mammal Workshop, Girdwood, AK. Bethesda, MD: Marine Mammal 

Commission. pp. 61-71. 

Grebmeier, J. 2009. COMIDA Chemistry and Benthos Study, R/V Alpha Helix Year 1 Cruise Report, 

23 September. pp. 19. 

Greene, C.R. Jr., and S.E. Moore. 1995. Man-made Noise. In: Marine Mammals and Noise, 1995, 

W.J. Richardson, C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson, eds., p 10l-158. 

Academic Press, New York, NY. 576 pp. 

Greene, C.R., Jr. and W.J. Richardson. 1988. Characteristics of Marine Seismic Survey Sounds in the 

Beaufort Sea. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 836:2246-2254. 

Greene, C.R., Jr. 2003. An Assessment of the Sounds Likely to be Received from a Tug-and-Barge 

Operating in the Shallow Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Anchorage, AK: ConocoPhillips, Alaska, 

Inc. Harris, R.E., G.W. Miller, and W.J. Richardson. 2001. Seal Responses to Airgun Sounds 

During Summer Seismic Surveys in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Marine Mammal Science 174. 

p. 795-812. 

Henley, C.M. and L.P. Rybak. 1995. Ototoxicity in Developing Mammals. Brain Res. Rev. 204:68-

90. 

Huntington, H.R. 1999. Traditional Knowledge of the Ecology of Beluga Whales (Delphinapterus 

leucas) in the Eastern Chukchi and Northern Bering Seas, Alaska. Arctic 531:49-61. 

Huntington, H.P. and N.I. Mymrin. 1996. Traditional Ecological Knowledge of Beluga Whales. An 

Indigenous Knowledge Pilot Project in the Chukchi and Northern Bering Seas. Final Report. 

Anchorage, AK: Inuit Circumpolar Conference. 

Huntington, H.P. and The Communities of Buckland, Elim, Koyuk, Point Lay, and Shaktoolik. 1999. 

Traditional Knowledge of the Ecology of Beluga Whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in the 

Eastern Chukchi and Northern Bering Seas, Alaska. Arctic 601:47-54. 

Huntington, H.P., and L.T. Quakenbush. 2009. Traditional Knowledge Regarding Bowhead Whales 

in the Chukchi Sea. OCS Study MMS 2009- 063. Anchorage, AK: MMS, Alaska OCS 

Region. 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Bibliography 55

Ireland, D. S., Funk, D. W., Rodrigues, R., and Koski, W. R. 2008. Joint Monitoring Program in the 

Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, July - November 2007, eds. LGL Report P971-1. Prepared for: 

Shell Offshore Inc., ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., USDOC, NMFS and USFWS. Anchorage, 

AK: LGL Alaska Research Associates Inc. LGL Limited, Greeneridge Sciences, Inc., JASCO 

Research Ltd., 445 pp. plus appendices. 

Ireland, D. S., Funk, D. W., Rodrigues, R., and Koski, W. R. 2009a. Joint Monitoring Program in the 

Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Open Water Seasons, 2006-2007, Eds. LGL Report P971-2. 

Prepared for: Shell Offshore Inc., ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., USDOC, NMFS and USFWS. 

Anchorage, AK: LGL Alaska Research Associates Inc. LGL Limited, Greeneridge Sciences, 

Inc., JASCO Research Ltd. 

Ireland, D. S., Rodrigues, R., Funk, D. W., Koski, W. R., and Hannay, D. 2009b. Marine Mammal 

Monitoring and Mitigation During Open Water Seismic Exploration by Shell Offshore Inc. in 

the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, July-October 2008: 90 Day Report, eds. LGL Report P1049-

1. Prepared for: Shell Offshore Inc., USDOC, NMFS and USFWS. Anchorage, AK: LGL 

Alaska Research Associates Inc., LGL Limited, and JASCO Research Ltd., 277 pp. plus 

appendices. 

Ireland, D. S., Funk, D. W., Rodrigues, R., and Koski, W. R. 2009c. Preliminary Draft Joint 

Monitoring Program in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Open Water Seasons, 2006-2008, 

Eds. LGL Report P1050-1. Prepared for: Shell Offshore Inc., ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., 

Eni U.S. Operating Co., Inc. other Industry Contributors USDOC, NMFS and USFWS. 

Anchorage, AK: LGL Alaska Research Associates Inc. LGL Limited, Greeneridge Sciences, 

Inc., JASCO Research Ltd. 

Johnson, S.R. 2002. Marine Mammal Mitigation and Monitoring Program for the 2001 Odoptu 3-D 

Seismic Survey, Sakhalin Island, Russia. Paper WC/02/WGW10 presented to the IWC 

Scientific Committee. Cambridge, UK: IWC, 49 pp. 

Kassam, K-A.S. and Wainwright Traditional Council. 2001. Passing on the Knowledge. Mapping 

Human Ecology in Wainwright, Alaska. Calgary, Alb., Canada: University of Calgary, The 

Arctic Institute of North America. 

Ketten, D.R. 1998. Marine Mammal Auditory Systems: A Summary of Audiometric and Anatomical 

Data and its Implications for Underwater Acoustic Impacts. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-256. 

LaJolla, CA: USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 74 pp. 

Kraus, S., A. Read, E. Anderson, K. Baldwin, A. Solow, T. Spradlin, and J. Williamson. 1997. A 

Field Test of the Use of Acoustic Alarms to Reduce Incidental Mortality of Harbor Porpoise 

in Gill Nets. Nature 388: 341. 

Larned, W.W., R. Stehn, J. Fischer, and R. Platte. 2009. Waterfowl Breeding Population Survey 

Arctic Coastal Plain, Alaska 2008. Anchorage, AK: USDOI, FWS Migratory Bird 

Management, 42 pp. 

LGL, Limited, Royal Haskonging and Jasco Research Ltd. 2009. Environmental Impact Assessment 

Of Sakhalin Energy Investment Company’s 3-D Seismic Programme In The Piltun-Astokh 

Area, Sakhalin Island, Russia, Prepared for Sakhalin Energy Investment Company, Ltd. 35 

Dzerzhinskogo Street Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, 693020 Russia 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

56 Bibliography 

Ljungblad, D.K., S.E. Moore, J.T. Clarke, and J.C. Bennett. 1988. Distribution, Abundance, Behavior 

and Bioacoustics of Endangered Whales in the Western Beaufort and Northeastern Chukchi 

Seas, 1979-87. Final Report, OCS Study MMS 87-0122. 103 pp. 

Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, P. Tyack, C.W. Clark, and J.E. Bird. 1985. Investigation of the Potential 

Effects of Underwater Noise from Petroleum Industry Activities on Feeding Humpback 

Whale Behavior. OCS Study MMS 85-0019. Anchorage, AK: USDOI, MMS, Alaska OCS 

Region, 150 pp. plus appendices. 

Malme, C.I., B. Würsig, C. Clark, J.E. Bird, and P. Tyack. 1986. Behavioral Responses of Gray 

Whales to Industrial Noise: Feeding Observations and Predictive Modeling. OCS Study 

MMS 88-0048. Anchorage, AK: USDOC, NOAA and USDOI, MMS, pp. 393-600. 

McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M.-N. Jenner, J.D. Penrose, R.I.T. Prince, A. 

Adhitya, J. Murdoch, and K. McCabe. 2000. Marine Seismic Surveys: Analysis and 

Propagation of Air-Gun Signals; and Effects of Air-Gun Exposure on Humpback Whales, Sea 

Turtles, Fishes and Squid. Report R99-15, Project CMST 163. Curtin, Western Australia: 

Australian Petroleum Production Exploration Assoc. 

McSweeney, D.J. K.C. Chu, W.F. Dolphin, and L.N. Guinee. 1989. North Pacific Humpback Whale 

Songs: A Comparison of Southeast Alaskan Feeding Ground Songs with Hawaiian Wintering 

Ground Songs. Marine Mammal Science 5(2):139-148. 

Miller, G.W. and R.A. Davis. 2002. Marine Mammal and Acoustical Monitoring of Anderson 

Exploration Limited’s Open-Water Seismic Program in the Southeastern Beaufort Sea, 2001. 

LGL Report TA 2618-1. King City, Ontario, Canada, LGL Ecological Research Associates, 

Inc. 

Moore S.E. and D.P. DeMaster. 1997. Cetacean Habitats in the Alaskan Arctic. Journal of Northwest 

Atlantic Fishery Science 22:55-69. 

National Research Council. 2003. Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals. Washington, DC: The 

National Academy Press. 

National Research Council. 2005. Marine Mammal Populations and Ocean Noise. Determining When 

Noise Causes Biologically Significant Effects. Washington, DC: The National Academies 

Press. 

Nelson, C.H., R.L. Phillips, J. McRea Jr., J.H. Barber Jr., M.W. McLaughlin, J.L. Chin. 1993. Gray 

Whale and Pacific Walrus Benthic Feeding Grounds and Sea Floor Interaction in the Chukchi 

Sea. Technical Report for the Minerals Management Service, IA No: 14157, OCS Study: 

MMS 93-0042. Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, AK. 119 pp. 

Norcross, B.L., B.A. Holladay, M.S. Busby and K.L. Mier. 2010. Demersal and larval fish 

assemblages in the Chukchi Sea. IN: Observations and Exploration of the Arctic's Canada 

Basin and the Chukchi Sea: the Hidden Ocean and RUSALCA Expeditions Deep Sea 

Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography. 57(1-2): 57-70. 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Bibliography 57

Olesiuk, P.E., L.M. Nichol, M.J. Sowden, and J.K.B. Ford. 1995. Effect of Sounds Generated by 

Acoustic Deterrent Device on the Abundance and Distribution of Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena 

phocoena) in Retreat Passage, British Columbia. Nanaimo, BC, Canada: Fisheries and 

Oceans Canada, Pacific Biological Station, 47 pp. 

Petersen, M.R., W.W. Larned, and D.C. Douglas. 1999. At-Sea Distribution of Spectacled Eiders: A 

120-Year-Old Mystery Resolved. Auk 1164:1009-1020. 

Polar Research Group. 2010. The Cryosphere Today. Polar Research Group, University of Illinois at 

Urbana-Champaign, Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences. Last Accessed on 16 June 2011. 

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ 

Potter, J.R., M. Thillet, C. Douglas, M.A. Chitre, Z. Doborzynski, and P.J. Seekings. 2007. Visual 

and passive acoustic marine mammal observations and high-frequency seismic source 

characteristics recorded during a seismic survey. IEEE J. Oceanic Eng. 32(2):469-483. 

Quakenbush, L. 2010. Satellite Tracking of Western Arctic Bowhead Whales. Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game, 1300 College Road, Fairbanks, AK. http://www.wc.adfg.state.ak.us/ 

index.cfm?adfg=marinemammals.bowhead. 

Reiser, C.M., D.W. Funk, R. Rodrigues, and D. Hannay. (eds). 2010. Marine Mammal Monitoring 

and Mitigation During Open Water Seismic Exploration by Shell Offshore, Inc. in the 

Alaskan Chukchi Sea, July-October 2009: 90-day Report. LGL Report P1112-1. Rep. from 

LGL Alaska Research Associates Inc. and JASCO Research Ltd. For Shell Offshore Inc., 

National Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. pp. 104 + Appx. 

Richard, P.R., J.L. Laake, R.C. Hobbs, M.P. Heide-Jorgensen, N.C. Asselin, and H. Cleator. 2010. 

Baffin Bay Narwhal Population Distribution and Numbers: Aerial Surveys in the Canadian 

High Arctic, 2002-04. Arctic, 63(1). p. 85-99. 

Richardson, W.J., R.S. Wells, and B. Würsig. 1985. Disturbance Responses of Bowheads, 1980-1984. 

In: Behavior, Disturbance Responses, and Distribution of Bowhead Whales, Balaena 

mysticetus, in the Eastern Beaufort Sea, 1980-84, W.J. Richardson, ed. OCS Study MMS 85-

0034. Anchorage, AK: USDOI, MMS, Alaska OCS Region, pp. 255-306. 

Richardson, W.J. 1995. Documented Disturbance Reactions. In: Marine Mammals and Noise, W.J. 

Richardson, C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson, eds. San Diego, CA: 

Academic Press, Inc. pp. 241-324. 

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr. , J.S. Hanna, W.R. Koski, G.W. Miller, N.J. Patenaude, and M.A. 

Smultea. 1995a. Acoustic Effects of Oil Production Activities on Bowhead and White 

Whales Visible During Spring Migration Near Pt. Barrow, Alaska-1991 and 1994 Phases: 

Sound Propagation and Whale Responses to Playbacks of Icebreaker Noise. OCS Study 

MMS 95-0051. Anchorage, AK: USDOI, MMS, Alaska OCS Region, pp. 1-392. 

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, J.S. Hanna, W.R. Koski, G.W. Miller, N.J. Patenaude, and M.A. 

Smultea. 1995b. Acoustic Effects of Oil Production Activities on Bowhead and White 

Whales Visible During Spring Migration Near Point Barrow. OCS Study MMS 95- 0051. 

Anchorage, AK: USDOI, MMS, Alaska OCS Region, 452 pp. 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

58 Bibliography 

Richardson, W.J. and C.I. Malme. 1993. Man-Made Noise and Behavioral Responses. In: The 

Bowhead Whale, J.J. Burns, J.J. Montague, and C.J. Cowles, eds. Special Publication of The 

Society for Marine Mammalogy, 2. Lawrence, KS: The Society for Marine Mammalogy, pp. 

631- 700. 

Richardson, W.J., R.S. Wells, and B. Würsig. 1985. Disturbance Responses of Bowheads, 1980-1984. 

In: Behavior, Disturbance Responses, and Distribution of Bowhead Whales, Balaena 

mysticetus, in the Eastern Beaufort Sea, 1980-84, W.J. Richardson, ed. OCS Study MMS 85-

0034. Anchorage, AK: USDOI, MMS, Alaska OCS Region, pp. 255-306. 

Richardson, W.J., ed. 2000. Marine Mammal and Acoustical Monitoring of Western Geophysical’s 

Open-Water Seismic Program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 1999. LGL Report TA-2313-4. 

King City, Ont, Canada: LGL Ltd., Environmental Research Associates, 155 pp. 

Ruis, G and C. Hewitt, 2009. Latitudinal patterns of biological invasions in marine ecosystems: a 

polar perspective. In Smithsonian at the Poles: Contributions to International Polar Year 

Science. Krupnik, I. M. Lang, and S,Miller, (eds), p. 347-358. 

Sea Duck Joint Venture. 2003. Sea Duck Joint Venture Species Status Reports. Continental Technical 

Team. SDJV Coordinator, U.S./West U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road 

Anchorage, AK. 85pp. http://www.seaduckjv.org/meetseaduck/species_status_summary.pdf 

Southall, B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J.J. Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C.R. Greene, Jr., D. Kastak, 

D.R. Ketten, J.H. Miller, P.E. Nachtigall, W.J. Richardson, J.A. Thomas, and P.L. Tyack. 

2007. Marine Mammal Noise Exposure Criteria: initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic 

Mammals 33(4). pp i-414. 

Stephen R. Braund & Associates. 1989a. North Slope Subsistence Study, Barrow, 1988. OCS Study 

MMS 89-0077. Anchorage, AK: USDOI, MMS, Alaska OCS Region. 

Stephen R. Braund & Associates. 1989b. North Slope Subsistence Study, Wainwright 1988. OCS 

Study MMS 89-0078. Anchorage, AK: USDOI, MMS, Alaska OCS Region. 

Stephen R. Braund & Associates. 2010. Subsistence Mapping of Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Barrow. 

MMS OCS Study Number 2009-003. Anchorage, Alaska: Stephen R. Braund and Associates. 

State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation. 2008. Alaska's Final 2008 Water 

Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. Juneau, AK: ADEC. pp. 136. 

Statoil USA E&P Inc. 2011a. Ancillary Activities Notice. Statoil USA E&P Inc. dated 31 March 

2011. 2 p. 

———. 2011b Plan of Operations 2011 Shallow Hazards Survey Chukchi Sea, Alaska. Statoil USA 

E&P Inc., 2130 City West Boulevard, Suite 800 Houston, TX; and ASRC Energy Services, 

2700 Gambell St., Suite 200, Anchorage, AK. pp.. pp. 23. 

———. 2011c. Environmental Evaluation Document. Statoil USA E&P Inc., 2130 City West 

Boulevard, Suite 800 Houston, TX; and ASRC Energy Services, 2700 Gambell St., Suite 

200, Anchorage, AK. pp. 424. 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Bibliography 59

———. 2011d. Request by Statoil for an Incidental Harassment Authorization to Allow the 

Incidental Take of Marine Mammals During a Shallow Hazards Survey in the Chukchi Sea, 

Alaska, 2011. Prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., and submitted by Statoil 

USA E&P Inc. in February 2011. pp. 129 

———. 2011e. Request for Letter of Authorization for the Incidental Take of Polar Bears and 

Pacific Walrus and Intentional take of Polar Bears by Harassment, Statoil USA E&P Inc. 

2011 Shallow Hazards Survey. Chukchi Sea, Alaska. Statoil USA E&P Inc., 2130 City West 

Boulevard, Suite 800 Houston, TX; and ASRC Energy Services, 2700 Gambell St., Suite 

200, Anchorage, AK. pp. 28+Appx. 

———. 2011f. Draft Plan of Cooperation 2011 Shallow Hazards Survey Chukchi Sea, Alaska. 

Statoil USA E&P Inc., 2130 City West Boulevard, Suite 800 Houston, TX; and ASRC 

Energy Services, 2700 Gambell St., Suite 200, Anchorage, AK. pp. 11+Appx. 

USDOC, NOAA, NMFS. 1990. Fishery Management Plan for the Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ Off 

the Coast of Alaska. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK. 210 pp. 

———. 2000. Small takes of marine mammals incidental to specified activities; marine seismic 

reflection data collection in southern California/Notice of receipt of application. Fed. Register 

65(60, 28 Mar.): 16374-16379. 

——— 2007a. Environmental Assessment for the Shell Offshore, Inc. Incidental Harassment 

Authorization to Take Marine Mammals Incidental to Conducting an Offshore Drilling 

Project in the U.S. Beaufort Sea under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Seattle, WA: 

USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, 39 pp. 

———. 2007b. Incidental Harassment Authorization to Take Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Conducting an Offshore Drilling Project in the U.S. Beaufort Sea Under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act. Seattle, WA: USDOC, NOAA. 

——— 2008a. Endangered Species Act, Section 7, Biological Opinion: Oil and Gas Leasing and 

Exploration Activities in the U.S. Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, Alaska and Authorization of 

Small Takes Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Seattle, WA: USDOC, NOAA, 140 

pp. http://www.mms.gov/alaska/ref/BioOpinions/2008_0717_bo.pdf 

——— 2008b. Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the Issuance of Incidental harassment 

Authorizations to Take Marine Mammals by Harassment Incidental to Conducting Open 

Water Seismic Surveys and Shallow Hazard and Site Clearance Surveys in the Chukchi and 

Beaufort Seas, Alaska. Silver Springs, MD. USDOC, NMFS. 

——— 2009a. Fishery Management Plan for Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area. North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK. 146 pp. 

——— 2009b. Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Open-Water 

Marine Survey Program in the Chukchi Sea, Alaska, During 2009-2010. Federal Register 

74(206):55368. 

USDOC, NOAA, NOS. 2006. Small Diesel Spills (500-5000 gallons). Seattle, WA: NOAA, National 

Ocean Service, Office of Response and Restoration, Seattle, WA. 2 pp. 

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/974_diesel.pdf 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

60 Bibliography 

USDOI, BLM and MMS. 2003. Northwest National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska Final Integrated 

Activity Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. Anchorage, AK: USDOI, BLM and MMS, 3 

Vols. 

USDOI, BOEMRE, 2010a. Supplemental Essential Fish Habitat Analysis: Arctic Cod, Saffron Cod 

and Opilio Crab, for July-December, 2010. May, 2010. 

——— 2010b. Environmental Assessment: Chukchi Sea Planning Area, Statoil USA E&P Inc., 

Geological and Geophysical Permit 2010 3D/2D Seismic Acquisition Chukchi Sea, Alaska. 

OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2010-020. Anchorage, AK: USDOI, BOEMRE, Alaska OCS 

Region. 

——— 2010c. Chukchi Sea Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193, and Seismic Surveying 

Activities in the Chukchi Sea Revised Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. 

OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2010-034. Anchorage, AK: USDOI, BOEMRE, Alaska OCS 

Region. 

USDOI, FWS. 1999. Oil Spill Response Plan for Polar Bears in Alaska. Anchorage, AK: 

USDOI,FWS. 

——— 2002. Steller’s Eider Recovery Plan. Fairbanks, AK: USDOI, FWS, 27 pp. 

——— 2005. Status of Polar Bears. Anchorage, AK: USDOI, FWS. 

——— 2006. Action Plan for the Pacific Common Eider. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, 

AK. Unpublished Report. 55 pp + appendices. 

——— 2007. Biological Opinion for Chukchi Sea Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 and 

Associated Seismic Surveys and Exploratory Drilling. Anchorage, AK: USDOI, FWS Region 

10. 109 pp. 

——— 2008. Environmental Assessment: Final Rule to Authorize the Incidental Take of Small 

Numbers of Pacific Walruses (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) and Polar Bears (Ursus 

maritimus) During Oil and Gas Industry Exploration Activities in the Chukchi Sea. 

Fairbanks, AK: USDOI, FWS. pp 56 

——— 2009. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion, Beaufort and 

Chukchi Sea Program Area Lease Sales and Associated Seismic Surveys and Exploratory 

Drilling. Fairbanks, AK: USDOI, FWS. 

——— 2010. Polar Bear Proposed Critical Habitat in Alaska USFWS Releases Draft Economic 

Analysis of Polar Bear Critical Habitat. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals 

Management, Fisheries & Ecological Services, Anchorage, Alaska. Last updated: May 5, 

2010.http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/criticalhabitat.htm 

USDOI, MMS. 2006a. Biological Evaluation of the Potential Effects of Oil and gas leasing and 

Exploration in the Alaska OCS Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas on Endangered 

Bowhead Whales (Balaena mysticetus), Fin Whales (Balaenoptera physalus), and Humpback 

Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). Anchorage, AK: USDOI, MMS, Alaska OCS Region. 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Bibliography 61

——— 2006b. Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment: Arctic Ocean Outer Continental 

Shelf Seismic Surveys - 2006. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2006-038. Anchorage, AK: USDOI, 

MMS, Alaska OCS Region. 

——— 2007a. Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 2007-2012 Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-003, Herndon, VA: USDOI, MMS. 

——— 2007b. Chukchi Sea Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193, and Seismic Surveying 

Activities in the Chukchi Sea Final Environmental Impact Statement. OCS EIS/EA MMS 

2007- 026. Anchorage, AK: USDOI, MMS, Alaska OCS Region. 

——— 2008a. Information to Lessees. In: Final Notice of Sale Package: Chukchi Sea Oil and Gas 

Lease Sale 193. Anchorage, AK: USDOI, MMS, Alaska OCS Region. p. 11. 

http://www.mms.gov/alaska/cproject/Chukchi193/FNOS193/ITL.pdf 

——— 2008b. Supplement to the 2006 Biological Evaluation of the Potential Effects of Oil and Gas 

Leasing and Exploration in the Alaska OCS Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas 

on Endangered Bowhead Whales (Balaena mysticetus), Fin Whales (Balaenoptera physalus), 

and Humpback Whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). Anchorage, AK: USDOI, MMS, Alaska 

OCS Region. pp. 59. 

——— 2008c. Draft Environmental Impact Assessment: Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning 

Areas, Oil and Gas lease Sales 209, 212, 217, and 221. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2008-055. 

Anchorage, AK: USDOI, MMS, Alaska OCS Region. 

——— 2009. Shell Gulf of Mexico, Inc., 2010 Exploration Drilling Program, Burger, Crackerjack, 

and SW Shoebill Prospects, Chukchi Sea Outer Continental Shelf, Alaska, and Finding of No 

Significant Impacts. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2009-061.Anchorage, AK: USDOI, MMS, Alaska 

OCS Region. 

——— 2010. Environmental Assessment: Shell Exploration and Production, Beaufort Sea Planning 

Area, Shell Exploration and Production, Ancillary Activities, Marine Surveys, Beaufort Sea, 

Alaska. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2010-022. Anchorage, AK: USDOI, MMS, Alaska OCS Region. 

USDOI, USGS. 2007.Walrus Tracking and Telemetry Data Acquired From Walruses Instrumented 

on Ice in the Eastern Chukchi Sea in Summer of 2007: Radio-tagging Field Report. 

Anchorage, AK: USDOI, USGS, Alaska Science Center, Walrus Research Project, 

Anchorage, Alaska. 3 pp. http://alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/walrus/pdfs/ 

BA07_Radio_Tagging_Field_Report.pdf

USDOI, USGS. 2008.Walrus Tracking and Telemetry Data Acquired During 2008 in the Chukchi 

Sea: Radio-tagging Field Report. Anchorage, AK: USDOI, USGS, Alaska Science Center, 

Walrus Research Project, Anchorage, Alaska. 5 pp. http://alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/ 

walrus/pdfs/NM08_Radio_Tagging_Field_Report.pdf

USEPA. 2009. Fact Sheet - Final Area Designations for the 24-hour Fine Particle Standard 

Established in 2006. http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2006standards/documents/2009-10-

08/factsheet.htm. 
BOEMRE Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

62 Bibliography 

Weller, D.W., Y.V. Ivaschenko, G.A. Tsidulko, A.M. Burdin, and R.L. Brownell, Jr. 2002. Influence 

of Seismic Surveys on Western Gray Whales off Sakhalin Island, Russia in 2001. Paper 

SC/54/BRG 14. Cambridge, UK: IWC. 

Williams, K.P., C. Bradley, D. Wiley, S. Pearson, and P. Webb. 2010. MMS Request for Information 

on Spill Response Plans for Research Vessels. U.S. Coast Guard email correspondence on 1 

June 2010. 2 pp. 

Würsig, B., Weller, D.W., Burdin, A.M., Blokhin, S.A., Reeve, S.H., Bradford, A.L. and Brownell, 

R.L., Jr. 1999. Gray whales summering off Sakhalin Island, Far East Russia: July-October 

1997. A joint U.S.-Russian scientific investigation. Final contact report to Sakhalin Energy 

Investment Company. (unpublished) 101 pp. 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Appendix A: Environmental Resources Maps 1

Appendix A: Environmental Resources Maps 

List of Figures 

Figure A-1. Statoil 2011 Chukchi Sea marine survey project area (Statoil 2011). ...............................2

Figure A-2. Statoil 2011 Site Survey Area and proposed soil investigation locations (Statoil 2011)...3

Figure A- 3. Statoil 2011 Shallow Hazard survey line layouts (Statoil 2011). .....................................4

Figure A-4. Ledyard Bay Critical Habitat Unit.....................................................................................5

Figure A-5. EFH for Pacific Salmon (NMFS, 1990). ...........................................................................6

Figure A-6. EFH for Arctic Cod (NMFS, 2009a). ................................................................................7

Figure A-7. EFH for Saffron Cod (NMFS, 2009a). ..............................................................................8

Figure A-8. Polar Bear Sea Ice Critical Habitat (FWS, 2010). .............................................................9

Figure A-9. Polar bear shoreline critical habitat (FWS, 2010)............................................................10

Figure A-10. Bowhead whale sightings in the Chukchi Sea 1979 – 2007 (Statoil 2011). ..................11

Figure A-11. Beluga whale and gray whale sightings in the Chukchi Sea 1979–2007 (Statoil 2011).

..............................................................................................................................................................12

Figure A-12. Spectacled eider densities and Ledyard Bay CHU (Statoil, 2011). ..............................13

Figure A-13. Steller's Eider densities and Ledyard Bay Critical Habitat Unit (Statoil 2011).............14

Figure A-14. Yellow-billed Loon densities and Ledyard Bay Critical Habitat Unit (Statoil 2011)....15

Figure A-15. Chukchi Sea Ice Seal Sightings (Statoil 2011). .............................................................16

Figure A-16. Chukchi Sea Pacific walrus sightings, 1979-2007 (Statoil 2011)..................................17

Figure A-17. Transit Map for Statiol Operations into the Chukchi Sea (Statoil 2011).......................18
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

Appendix A: Environmental Resources MapsFigure A-1. Statoil 2011 Chukchi Sea marine survey project area (Statoil 2011). 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

Appendix A: Environmental Resources MapsFigure A-2. Statoil 2011 Site Survey Area and proposed soil investigation locations (Statoil 2011). 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

Appendix A: Environmental Resources MapsFigure A- 3. Statoil 2011 Shallow Hazard survey line layouts (Statoil 2011). 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA BOEMRE 

Appendix A: Environmental Resources Maps 5

Figure A-4. Ledyard Bay Critical Habitat Unit 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

Appendix A: Environmental Resources MapsFigure A-5. EFH for Pacific Salmon (NMFS, 1990). 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

Appendix A: Environmental Resources MapsFigure A-6. EFH for Arctic Cod (NMFS, 2009a). 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

Appendix A: Environmental Resources MapsFigure A-7. EFH for Saffron Cod (NMFS, 2009a). 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

Appendix A: Environmental Resources MapsFigure A-8. Polar Bear Sea Ice Critical Habitat (FWS, 2010). 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

Appendix A: Environmental Resources Maps Figure A-9. Polar bear shoreline critical habitat (FWS, 2010). 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

Appendix A: Environmental Resources Maps Figure A-10. Bowhead whale sightings in the Chukchi Sea 1979 – 2007 (Statoil 2011). 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

Appendix A: Environmental Resources Maps Figure A-11. Beluga whale and gray whale sightings in the Chukchi Sea 1979–2007 (Statoil 2011). 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

Appendix A: Environmental Resources Maps Figure A-12. Spectacled eider densities and Ledyard Bay CHU (Statoil, 2011). 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

Appendix A: Environmental Resources Maps Figure A-13. Steller's Eider densities and Ledyard Bay Critical Habitat Unit (Statoil 2011). 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

Appendix A: Environmental Resources Maps Figure A-14. Yellow-billed Loon densities and Ledyard Bay Critical Habitat Unit (Statoil 2011). 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

Appendix A: Environmental Resources Maps Figure A-15. Chukchi Sea Ice Seal Sightings (Statoil 2011). 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

Appendix A: Environmental Resources Maps Figure A-16. Chukchi Sea Pacific walrus sightings, 1979-2007 (Statoil 2011). 
Statoil Ancillary Activities EA 

Appendix A: Environmental Resources Maps Figure A-17. Transit Map for Statiol Operations into the Chukchi Sea (Statoil 2011).