WESTERN GRAY WHALE ADVISORY PANEL NTF-14 ... › sites › dev › files ›...

Report of the Noise Task Force at its 14th Meeting, 14-16 March 2018, Gland, Switzerland

1

WESTERN GRAY WHALE ADVISORY PANEL

NOISE TASK FORCE

NTF-14

REPORT OF THE NOISE TASK FORCE

AT ITS 14TH

MEETING

14-16 MARCH 2018

GLAND, SWITZERLAND

CONVENED BY THE INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE


2

Contents

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................... 4

1 INTRODUCTORY ITEMS .................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Introductions including expectations from the meeting .................................................................... 5

1.2 Logistics ............................................................................................................................................ 5

1.3 Adoption of the Agenda .................................................................................................................... 5

1.4 Available documents/materials .......................................................................................................... 5

2 Update on plans for seismic work by sakhalin energy in 2018 (SEIC) ............................................... 5

2.1 Updates from the company on seismic survey plans ......................................................................... 5

2.1.1 Order of survey .......................................................................................................................... 5

2.1.2 Sound source reduction tests ..................................................................................................... 5

2.1.3 Permits and the SEER process .................................................................................................. 5

2.2 Discussion and conclusions ............................................................................................................... 5

3 Finalisation of the MMP and any associated practical details (SEIC) ............................................... 7

3.1 Chain of Command Protocol ............................................................................................................. 7

3.1.1 Presentation by Company .......................................................................................................... 7

3.1.2 Conclusion on the draft protocol ............................................................................................... 7

3.2 Acoustic monitoring .......................................................................................................................... 7

3.2.1 Numbers of archival and monitoring buoys .............................................................................. 7

3.2.2 NTF discussion and conclusions ............................................................................................... 8

3.3 Visual monitoring including final protocol ....................................................................................... 8

3.3.1 Mysticetus software and incorporation of factors such as tidal data and height of platform for

positional information ............................................................................................................................... 8

3.3.2 Poor visibility technology .......................................................................................................... 9

3.3.3 MMOs, schedules and duties ................................................................................................... 10

3.3.4 Definition of ‘aberrant’ behaviour in light of previous seismic survey guidelines ................. 10

3.3.5 Conclusions on the visual protocols ........................................................................................ 11

3.4 Other matters ................................................................................................................................... 11

3.4.1 Final Terms of Reference (TOR) and selection of the Independent Observer (update from

IUCN) 11

3.4.2 Advisory Group including communications protocol .............................................................. 11

3.5 Conclusions and recommendations ................................................................................................. 12

4 PREPARATION for Data analyses for the 2018 SEISMIC survey .................................................. 12

4.1 Data archiving and QA/QC plans .................................................................................................... 12

4.2 Planning for analyses including who, how and when, and incorporation of previous datasets ....... 12

5 Progress (IF ANY) with analyses of data from the 2015 SEISMIC SURVEY................................. 13

6 Non-seismic-related acoustic issues ...................................................................................................... 13

6.1 Issues concerning ‘control’ station(s) .............................................................................................. 13

6.2 POI analyses of acoustic data .......................................................................................................... 13

6.2.1 Follow-up on matters raised from the 2015 data as discussed at WGWAP-18....................... 13

6.2.2 Consideration of 2015 acoustic data provided to the Panel at WGWAP-18 ........................... 13


3

6.3 Company plans for ‘noisy’ activities in 2018 e.g. use of echo sounders ......................................... 14

6.4 Progress on automatic detection algorithms .................................................................................... 14

6.6 Gray whale sounds ................................................................................................................................ 16

6.7 Plans for noise monitoring in 2018 outside the seismic survey period, if any ................................ 16

7 OTHER BUSINESS .............................................................................................................................. 17

ANNEX A - LIST OF PARTICIPANTS IN NTF-14 MEETING ............................................................. 18

ANNEX B – Agenda ...................................................................................................................................... 19

ANNEX C - LIST OF DOCUMENTS ......................................................................................................... 21


4

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AG Advisory Group

AUAR Automated Underwater Acoustic Recorder

Company Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Ltd.

CC Central Commander

CMS Camera Monitoring System

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

ENL Exxon Neftegas Limited

ESHIA Environmental, Social and Health Impact Assessment

GSM Global System for Mobile Communications

GW Gray whale

IFC International Finance Corporation

IO Independent Observer

IR Infrared

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

Joint Programme Sakhalin Energy/ENL Joint Programme on Gray Whale Monitoring

LAN Local Area Network

LF Low frequency

MMO Marine Mammal Observer

MMP Monitoring and Mitigation Programme/Plan

MMPP Marine Mammal Protection Plan

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US)

NTF Noise Task Force

OBN Ocean Bottom Node

OVOS Russian Federation Environmental Impact Assessment

Panel Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel

PAM Passive Acoustic Monitoring

P-A Piltun-Ashtok

PML Perimeter Monitoring Line

POI Pacific Oceanological Institute

PTS Permanent Threshold Shift

QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control

RF Russian Federation

RMS Root-Mean-Square

Sakhalin Energy Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Ltd.

SCF SovComFlot Geo

SEER State Environmental Expert Review

SEIC Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Ltd.

SEL Sound Exposure Level

TTS Temporary Threshold Shift

VHF Very High Frequency

WGWAP Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel


5

1 INTRODUCTORY ITEMS

1.1 Introductions including expectations from the meeting

The 14th meeting of the Noise Task Force (hereafter NTF) was held at the IUCN headquarters in Gland,

Switzerland, from 14-16 March 2018, under the chairmanship of Greg Donovan. The list of participants is

given as Annex A.

Giulia Carbone welcomed the group on behalf of IUCN, and Donovan thanked her and her team for the

efficient organization of the meeting.

Donovan explained that the purposes of the workshop were three-fold: (1) to receive updates on the proposed

2018 seismic survey and finalise the MMP, work plan and field protocols for that survey, including

consideration of data collection and aspects of future analyses; (2) to review progress, if any, with analyses

of data collected during the Sakhalin Energy seismic survey in 2015; and (3) to review non-seismic acoustic

issues.

1.2 Logistics

Duramy and Carbone provided information on the logistics for the meeting

1.3 Adoption of the Agenda

The adopted agenda is given as Annex B.

1.4 Available documents/materials

The list of documents is given as Annex C. Donovan thanked the authors for making papers available in

advance of the workshop.

2 UPDATE ON PLANS FOR SEISMIC WORK BY SAKHALIN ENERGY IN 2018

(SEIC)

2.1 Updates from the company on seismic survey plans

2.1.1 Order of survey

Blonk summarized the status of the 2018 survey plans, with a key workshop held in February involving

SEIC, Shell, and all contractors, and focusing on technical survey design, logistics, and complex

simultaneous operations. Depending on ice retreat, a notional start of operations is planned for 8 June,

starting with 3-4 weeks of streamer operations, followed by Astokh OBN (in the south of the area) and then

Piltun OBN (in the north) with each OBN survey lasting 1.5-2 weeks; the latter sequence is not ideal but is

driven by Piltun drilling, and Astokh diving and platform shutdown activities (Fig. 1).

2.1.2 Sound source reduction tests

After completion of the Piltun OBN survey, 1-2 days of source reduction tests are planned using a few

selected seismic sail lines to the east of the Piltun platform (i.e. furthest away from the PML). The tests will

be recorded by the OBNs and the AUARs, and will make it possible to assess the smallest source that

provides a technically acceptable 4D image whilst reducing the associated noise levels at the PML. The

results from this work will not be available before late 2019. JASCO and the NTF are expected to play key

roles in assessing of noise levels at the PML.

2.1.3 Permits and the SEER process

Public hearings were held from 17-18 January in Nogliki and Okha. Regulatory ecological material prepared

by a specialized consultancy agency was submitted to the SEER in early February, including the draft MMP

and the discussion of the exclusion zone. SEIC follows the communication with the SEER and will intervene

whenever needed or possible.

2.2 Discussion and conclusions

The NTF thanked Blonk for this updated information and for his informative and helpful monthly summaries

of progress received since NTF-13. It looked forward to the continuation of this process.

The NTF welcomed the confirmation of the sound source experiments. It re-emphasised the importance of

this work for future mitigation as expressed at NTF-13 and WGWAP-18 and thanked the Company for

dedicating resources to this effort. Noting the importance of this work outside as well as within the Sakhalin


6

region, the NTF urged publication of the results (including any implications for whales) once the analyses

are complete and expressed a willingness to help in relevant aspects of the analysis (e.g. interpretation of

received sound levels).

Fig. 1. Area for the 2018 seismic survey.

A number of points were raised in discussion related to the experiments themselves and their design

including the steps in reduction (down to 10% of the original source level), the general applicability of

results obtained from the limited area of the experiments and the need to continue to investigate other

approaches to minimising sound energy released into the environment (e.g. Marine Vibroseis).

Blonk indicated that the Company hoped this work would allow reduction of the sound source in future

surveys to levels likely to have little or no impact on whales but of course that will depend on the results. An

additional source of uncertainty that would need to be considered (but will not be possible to address in this

experiment) relates to the ability to accurately reposition the OBNs. The focus of the geophysicists analysing

the data obtained will be on determining the lowest source level that enables reliable compatibility with the

results from previous surveys. Once this has been achieved, the implications for whales and future mitigation

can be examined by a future NTF. Blonk also noted that the Company was continuing to monitor potential

alternatives to seismic surveys.

There was also some discussion of the likelihood of shooting A-lines at night. It was noted at NTF-13 that

this could be investigated by considering various scenarios regarding start date, line sequences and available

tide information. Blonk indicated that, given the uncertainties in start date (ice conditions are very hard to


7

predict this far ahead of the surveys), it was difficult to say more at this point than that surveys at night

would be limited as much as possible. He added that it was not yet feasible to predict whether there would be

less night-time shooting than in 2015.

3 FINALISATION OF THE MMP AND ANY ASSOCIATED PRACTICAL DETAILS (SEIC)

At WGWAP-18, the Panel had endorsed the Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (MMP) developed at NTF-13,

recognising that there were some outstanding issues to be resolved at NTF-14.

3.1 Chain of Command Protocol

3.1.1 Presentation by Company

The Company presented the proposed Chain of Command protocol summarised in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Summary of the Chain of Command protocol.

Successful implementation of the MMP requires effective communication between SEIC management,

vessel contractors and field MMOs. Communication protocols have been developed to facilitate efficient

deployment and movement of MMO resources and to assure that the SEIC Central Commander is kept fully

apprised of the progress and effectiveness of the MMP.

3.1.2 Conclusion on the draft protocol

The NTF welcomed the comprehensive work undertaken with respect to communications and the Chain of

Command protocol, noting that the experience in 2015 (both successes and challenges) had been taken into

account. It agreed that the protocol (and the associated backup provisions) were appropriate and sufficient.

3.2 Acoustic monitoring

3.2.1 Numbers of archival and monitoring buoys

MMO SOUTH TEAM 1(4 MMOs - DAYS)

ACOUSTIC BUOYS (AUR SOUND LEVEL => IRIDIUM =>

CENTRAL CAMP)

CENTRAL COMMANDER

JASCO MODEL CALIBRATION WITH

ACOUSTIC FOOTPRINTS

MMO TEAM (4 MMOs DAYS)

CMS TECHNOLOGIST (NIGHTS)

MMO TEAM (2 MMOs DAYS)

LEAD MMO

SCF PARTY MANAGER

MMO NORTH TEAM 1(4 MMOs - DAYS)

CENTRAL COMMAND/FIELD STATIONS SEISMIC VESSEL

CHASE VESSEL

MMO NORTH TEAM 2(4 MMOs - DAYS)

MMO SOUTH TEAM 2(4 MMOs - DAYS)

AIS VESSEL POSITION

TRACKED WHALE POSITIONS LINKED TO CC

WHALE POSITION

DECISION (A-ZONE)

INFORMATION

EXCLUSION ZONE or CC-DECIDED SHUT DOWN


8

At NTF-13 there had been some uncertainty about the number of archival buoys that would be available. The

Company confirmed that there would be 10 monitoring buoys (including 1 spare) and announced that there

would be three archival buoys that were kindly being lent by ENL.

3.2.2 NTF discussion and conclusions

The NTF welcomed the news that there would be three archival buoys and thanked both the Company and

ENL for their efforts in this regard. At NTF-13 it had been envisioned that there would be an Acoustic

Monitoring Protocol attached to the MMP but it was agreed that the specifications provided in the text of the

MMP were sufficient.

3.3 Visual monitoring including final protocol

The Company produced two draft protocols for visual monitoring – onshore (that includes distribution,

abundance and behavioural monitoring) and offshore (onboard the vessels). In addition, a number of related

issues had been raised at NTF-13 as discussed below.


positional information

The use of Mysticetus software at the visual camps and in the command centre had been considered at NTF-

13 but some aspects were identified that required further consideration at this meeting. This item was

discussed with Dave Steckler (developer of Mysticetus) and Dave Weller (a Panel member who had been

unable to attend the meeting) present remotely. Steckler provided a brief update of the work undertaken thus

far (in co-operation with JASCO scientists) to modify the Mysticetus platform for the forthcoming survey.

Steckler noted that there are three screens for observers – a real-time map to display, for example, theodolite

work, ensonification regions, whales with buffer rings, and vehicles. A second, data-entry part, to enter, for

example, behavioural and theodolite data in a separate part of screen is a table like Excel. A third small

window shows the overall status. The goal is to make the display as simple as possible for observers.

In discussion it was noted that there is a need for the interface to be customised for two quite different

situations. At the observation towers, the primary function is to enable observers to enter data efficiently.

However, at the command centre the primary need is to visualise the noise footprint, positions of whales and

the positions of vessels in real time. The NTF agreed that Steckler and JASCO would work together (in

conjunction as necessary with Dorrian, the Central Commander, and the visual monitoring team leads) to

ensure the most effective interfaces for these two situations.

Much of the discussion in the NTF focussed on testing and training, given the unacceptable amount of time

lost in 2015, particularly at the start (when pre-survey monitoring was supposed to have taken place) because

of a lack of testing and training with the Pythagoras software and the associated use of theodolites with that

software.

It was reported that final tests for the Sakhalin configuration would take place in Seattle at the end of April

and that Eloise Frouin (JASCO) would undertake a two-day intensive course using the final configuration.

She will be present on Sakhalin during the survey and will train the team leads (all of whom have some

experience in Mysticetus, Pythagoras or similar software).

As discussed at NTF-13, relevant participants (e.g. Team Leads, Central Commander and at least some

MMOs) would be able to participate in simulated training exercises. As the system is cloud-based, the

location of these training exercises is not especially important - Steckler confirmed that specially configured

computers would be set up for the exercises and sent to the locations where they would take place. The NTF

welcomed this recognition of training and testing but also stressed the importance of testing in situ, noting

that ideally the systems including theodolites should be tested a week or so before the expected date of the

pre-seismic monitoring.

The system in Sakhalin would also be cloud-based and the NTF welcomed the information provided on

back-up mechanisms including the ability for the monitoring teams to enter data offline and use alternative

communication methods to provide positional information to the Central Commander.

In response to questions raised at NTF-13 regarding the ability of the software to incorporate information on

tides, platform heights, and other local conditions on Sakhalin, Steckler indicated that this was possible and

that Mysticetus had been successfully used in areas with very strong tidal activity. The NTF recalled that the


9

Company had already agreed that the height of the towers would be fully surveyed prior to the 2018 seismic

survey.

The importance of ensuring that data collected in 2018 is compatible with that collected on previous

occasions using Pythagoras was emphasised. It was noted that there was no reason why this should not be

possible and it was agreed that Steckler and Weller would work together to ensure that this was the case. It

was also agreed that the final specifications should be circulated to the Panel to ensure that data to allow all

the necessary parameters to be estimated were being collected and in a suitable format.

The NTF also agreed that some clarifying wording was required with respect to decisions taken by team

leaders as to when to undertake, for example, focal follows, recognising the dual objectives of collecting

behavioural (and distribution) data for later analysis and prioritising collection of positional data for real-

time mitigation efforts.

3.3.2 Poor visibility technology

At NTF-13 it had been agreed that the Company would provide more detailed information on the poor

visibility technology it was proposing to use, recognising that such technology was not a formal component

of the MMP.

Dorrian reported that the seismic vessel will be fitted with a Seiche Camera Monitoring System (CMS; Dual

Thermal Imaging / High Definition system). Installing a CMS on the chase vessel was considered, but was

not selected. CMS footage will be stored for key observations at night-time, and selected, limited daytime

observations will be collected and stored to allow focussed CMS – MMO comparisons. Discussions are

ongoing for a good comparison set-up, and the Advisory Group looks forward to details during the monthly

updates. The Company was encouraged to consider storing as much data as possible to allow a proper

evaluation of the technology – noting that the cost of storage is cheap compared to the cost of data collection.

An experienced Seiche CMS Technologist, the Seiche Project Manager Lorenzo Scala who is also a certified

MMO/PSO/PAM Technician with over 10 years mitigation field experience, will be onboard the seismic

vessel to assist in monitoring the exclusion zone, specifically at night and as feasible in poor visibility

conditions. The radar system, which would probably be installed some distance from the CMS, would be

used during fog and operated by the CMS expert (CMS does not function in fog). This Technologist will also

opportunistically train the other offshore MMOs in CMS usage, without allowing this to interfere with their

base duties.

Dorrian closed by providing some information obtained from Seiche Ltd comparing its CMS system against

MMOs and PAM for mitigation monitoring during a seismic survey (2017). Seiche Ltd concluded that the

results demonstrated a firm ‘proof of concept’ and thus a future for IR/HD as a supplementary method to

existing marine mammal monitoring technology; a quantitative comparison of CMS system observations and

MMO/PAM data is still lacking. It is expected by Sakhalin Energy that the deployment of CMS will increase

the monitoring capabilities of the survey through the hours of darkness.

In discussion, the NTF thanked the Company for providing this information and it especially welcomed the

presence of an experienced operator onboard during the surveys and the provision for training. The task force

noted that it was not possible, on the basis of the limited information provided, to draw any firm conclusions

about the relative merits of the CMS system when compared to MMOs, and it encouraged Seiche to develop

a formal paper with a full analysis for publication. A question was raised concerning the field of vision of the

system and the Company agreed to consult with Seiche and provide this information as part of its monthly

progress reports.

The NTF agreed that in order to take advantage of the opportunity to formally compare the CMS system

with MMOs, it was essential that a proper experimental design is developed (recognising that the ultimate

success would depend on the number of gray whales present). This would better inform the Company about

future (and possibly more formal) use of such technology in mitigation. The Panel members of the NTF

indicated their willingness to participate in discussions about how best to conduct an experiment without

interfering with the formal mitigation role of the MMOs, and to review any experimental protocols. The

Company welcomed this offer and agreed to report on progress with this issue as part of the monthly

progress reports.


10

The NTF also noted the importance of considering if and how real-time CMS detections would be used in

mitigation (e.g. at night). Difficulties of identifying correctly to species were noted and the importance of not

instigating shutdowns based upon false positives was recognised as this would unnecessarily extend the

survey (and potentially increase the cumulative exposure of gray whales to noise). The Company noted that

authority for shutdowns aboard the vessel rested with the lead MMO (see Fig.2) who would need to be

contacted by the CMS operator but noted that the Company may consider whether, given his experience, the

CMS operator might be given such responsibility at night. Blonk agreed to provide any information on a

proposed updating of the Chain of Command protocol in his monthly reports for consideration by the

Advisory Group.

3.3.3 MMOs, schedules and duties

The Company reported that contractual arrangements are proceeding for the following highly qualified

international MMOs: four onshore Team Leads, four Theodolite Operators, two Rotators with capacity to fill

either the Team Lead or Theodolite Operator role, and three offshore MMOs, including the Lead MMO.

These MMOs will be complemented with ten Russian onshore MMOs, including two more rotators, and

three offshore MMOs. The CV’s of all MMOs were vetted by Dorrian. Twenty onshore MMOs will staff

four 4-person teams on a rotating basis, and four offshore MMOs will be based on the seismic vessel and two

on the chase vessel.

On the North Spit, the Pioneer Camp will be used, as in 2015. The decision was made to use the existing

IFM Chaivo Camp as Central Command Post instead of rebuilding the South Piltun Camp. This decision was

driven by reduced bear-related risks, a more stable communication / internet network, daily comfort, good

food and showers, and less critical dependence on the access bridge and road conditions. The associated long

commutes on the South Spit will be mitigated through having rotator MMOs, having night-driving protocols,

and optimizing the team logistics. In addition, each observation post will also have a shelter for poor weather

or long waiting conditions.

In discussion, the NTF welcomed the excellent progress made in identifying and recruiting experienced

personnel in response to previous recommendations of the Panel. The need for a backup plan in light of the

present geopolitical climate was noted. The NTF reviewed the draft schedules provided in the onshore and

offshore visual monitoring protocols and agreed that they provided sufficient rest periods whilst producing

adequate monitoring capability.

It was noted that on the seismic vessel, the ‘Big Eyes’ would not be used continuously but would be used

primarily to supplement efforts of the chase vessel to monitor the PML when conditions prevented this from

shore or to confirm species identification if required. The importance of ensuring that the ‘Big Eye’ mounts

were suitably dampened was recognised.

3.3.4 Definition of ‘aberrant’ behaviour in light of previous seismic survey guidelines

NTF-13 had identified the need to examine definitions of ‘aberrant’ behaviour in light of the process

undertaken in previous surveys. It was noted that in the 2010 survey, one shutdown had been initiated for

‘repeated breaching’ by an animal outside the A-zone; Bröker et al. (2015) had reported the definition of

aberrant behaviour as

“…. a consistently high speed of travel (>10 km h−1), mother−calf pair separation of >5 body lengths, or repeated multiple

breaching (i.e. leaping above the sea surface) with correspondingly high speeds of movement away from a potential source

of disturbance.”

This had been based upon the guidance provided in the April 2010 Seismic Survey Task Force report1

(SSTF-5). No shut-downs due to aberrant behaviour occurred during the 2015 seismic operations.

There was considerable discussion of this important, albeit rare, issue, recognising the need to develop field

guidelines that protect individuals, and especially mother-calf pairs, while avoiding unnecessarily extending

the survey. A small working group was formed (Dorrian, Nowacek, Samatov, Southall and Vedenev) to

develop wording for consideration by the full NTF. The suggested wording was brought back to the NTF and

it was agreed that any aberrant gray whale behaviour observed from any platform would be reported to the

Central Commander. However, this will not necessarily trigger a shutdown (except an immediate shutdown

1 Available at:

https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/content/documents/wgwap_5th_seismic_survey_task_force_meeting_re

port.pdf

https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/content/documents/wgwap_5th_seismic_survey_task_force_meeting_report.pdf

https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/content/documents/wgwap_5th_seismic_survey_task_force_meeting_report.pdf


11

will occur in the case of an M-C pair exhibiting aberrant behaviour within 2 km of the seismic source) but

will raise a warning flag such that the Central Commander will monitor the situation and the potential

associated risk. In this circumstance, sustained occurrence (increasing duration) of the behaviour,

high/increasing noise exposure level, and close/increasing proximity to the sound source would be among the

risk factors to be considered in deciding whether to order a shutdown.

The final wording is given in the relevant visual protocols (see below).

3.3.5 Conclusions on the visual protocols

The NTF thanked the Company for the draft visual monitoring protocols and adopted them as given in

Annexes B and C to the final MMP, recognising that:

(a) some details would be added as they became available e.g. make of theodolite, updated

information on the Mysticetus software and usage notes in the onshore protocol;

(b) there would be some purely editorial changes; and

(c) they would be modified to incorporate the changes agreed at NTF-13 including consideration of

aberrant behaviour, clarifications of the behavioural codes to ensure common understanding amongst

teams, the importance of maximising data and the need to undertake basic QA/QC work at the end of

each shift.

The NTF also noted that the exclusion zone distance could only be finalised once the outcome of the Russian

SEER process was known but the Company confirmed that if the SEER were to choose a value below that

recommended by the NTF and Panel (i.e. 1 km as detailed in the NTF-13 report) it would adhere to the 1 km

value.

The NTF encouraged the sharing of the draft documents with at least Team Leads as soon as possible

(including a Russian translation) and well before formal training to ensure that any issues of interpretation or

suggestions that they may have based upon their experience can be addressed. The Company concurred

with this and also requested that individual Panel members send any suggested modifications directly to

Dorrian. Suggested changes and updates to the protocols would be circulated to the Advisory Group (see

Item 3.4.2) for consideration before final adoption.

3.4 Other matters

3.4.1 Final Terms of Reference (TOR) and selection of the Independent Observer (update from IUCN)

Carbone reported that IUCN had appointed Tsidulko as the Independent Observer (IO) for the 2018 survey

(he had also acted as the IO for the 2015 survey). This position was created initially at the Panel’s

recommendation. The final TORs (as discussed at NTF-13 and annexed to the final MMP) were based on the

experience gained in 2015.

This appointment was welcomed by the NTF and it was agreed that Tsidulko and Blonk should work

together to confirm logistics as soon as possible

3.4.2 Advisory Group including communications protocol

As discussed at NTF-13 and approved at WGWAP-18, a small Advisory Group consisting of a subset of

NTF Panel members (Donovan, Reeves, Nowacek, Southall, Vedenev and Weller) has been established to

assist with issues arising during the final run-up to and the execution of the MMP (the terms of reference for

this group, including the communications protocol agreed at WGWAP-18, can be found here and will be

attached to the final MMP).

There was a short discussion of the importance of providing information on the MMP and the survey to the

‘outside world’. Lock reported that the next meeting of the Biodiversity Working Group of the Sakhalin

Oblast Interdepartmental Environmental Council would be in May, and that the Company would be sharing

plans, including appointment of the IO, at that meeting. It was also noted that the NTF-14 report and the final

MMP and protocols would be made available on the WGWAP website.

It was agreed that Lock and Carbone would discuss this issue further in terms of the IUCN website content.

https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/ntf13-6_ag_communication_protocol_2018_survey.pdf


12

3.5 Conclusions and recommendations

The NTF recommends that the MMP and associated annexes are adopted as recommendations by the Panel

for use in the 2018 seismic survey.

4 PREPARATION FOR DATA ANALYSES FOR THE 2018 SEISMIC SURVEY

NTF-13 and WGWAP-18 had stressed the importance of preparations for data analysis from this and

previous surveys. It has been emphasised in the past that the considerable investment (financially and in

terms of human effort) by the Company in monitoring as part of its MMP would be effectively wasted if the

data are not analysed rigorously and thoroughly to gain insights relevant to mitigation planning for future

seismic surveys; the NTF reiterated this view. The Company noted that it had yet to receive approval of

funding for data analysis.

4.1 Data archiving and QA/QC plans

The first phase of any study is to obtain reliable data that are carefully archived and ensuring that:

(a) the data collection protocols are fully developed and properly followed by well-trained personnel

such that the data obtained are compatible with those previously obtained and include all of the

information likely to be useful in analyses;

(b) initial data validation is carried out regularly in the field such that any problems are identified

early and can be corrected in timely fashion rather than being discovered at the end of the survey, or

later; and

(c) processes are in place to archive the various data types – ideally in a relational database (or

databases) to facilitate data extraction for proposed multivariate and other analyses.

Points (a) and (b) are dealt with under Item 3. The Company agreed to provide information to the Advisory

Group on the data archiving procedures it plans to use.

In discussion, it was noted that ‘censoring’ of data should only occur at the analytical stage by the analysts

themselves - all data collected should be archived and made available if required. However, when

summarising the data collected in a report it is reasonable to provide some idea of the proportion of data in

particular categories, e.g. focal follows of a certain length or lengths.

4.2 Planning for analyses including who, how and when, and incorporation of previous datasets

The Company provided a brief summary document of its tentative plans for analyses, noting that in addition

to financial constraints:

(1) clearly any analyses were dependent on the amount of data collected;

(2) it planned to use data from all three surveys (2010, 2015 and 2018) where possible;

(3) the previous analyses from the 2010 datasets would be repeated using the larger datasets;

(4) further analyses would be considered in light of the expected published analyses of the 2015 data

collected and analysed by ENL; and

(5) work was needed to identify suitable Russian scientists to lead the analytical work in accord with

present Company and Russian Party policy.

The Company requested advice on any aspects of its plans, including after this meeting. The objective was to

have a scope of work that could be used to request funding and provide advice to analysts by the start of the

seismic survey, if possible.

The NTF made some general points during the meeting for the Company’s consideration.

(1) In addition to repeating previous analyses that attempted to identify and characterize significant

effects of seismic surveys on whales, it was important to consider whether alternative hypotheses

could be identified and tested. Such testing likely would require additional expertise.

(2) Panel members are available to provide advice in developing the scope of work and in the

subsequent analyses undertaken with Russian scientists in the lead. The NTF established an


13

Advisory Group comprising Cooke, Tsidulko, Nowacek, Donovan, Samatov, Racca and Dorrian,

initially to assist in developing the scope of work.

(3) It is important that whoever acts as lead scientist in any analyses consults/collaborates with

scientists who were involved in data collection in the field.

5 PROGRESS (IF ANY) WITH ANALYSES OF DATA FROM THE 2015 SEISMIC SURVEY

Lock confirmed that there had been no further progress to report, for reasons discussed at NT-13 and

WGWAP-18.

6 NON-SEISMIC-RELATED ACOUSTIC ISSUES

6.1 Issues concerning ‘control’ station(s)

In its WGWAP-18 report (Item 2.1.1.2) the Panel reiterated its concern about the functionality of the current

control site for acoustic monitoring and recommended (Recommendation WGWAP-18/04) that Sakhalin

Energy provide a summary of available control site data, averaged on an hourly basis, for consideration by

the NTF at this meeting so that, if warranted, a recommendation for a new control station could be made in

time for implementation in the 2018 field season. No such summary was provided and Sakhalin Energy

indicated that it did not intend to implement the recommendation until a statistically well-informed basis was

available for evaluation.

In discussion, it was noted that the automated system described by Racca (see item 6.4) could be applied to

the acoustic recordings from the control station as a means of generating an informative profile of the

ambient sound (‘soundscape’) at that site through time. The WGWAP recommendation (WGWAP-18/04)

remains open, though the NTF recognizes that the Racca tool could inform this process.

The NTF agreed that after conferring with Racca, Panel members (Southall, Nowacek and Vedenev) would

provide any necessary specifications beyond those given in Recommendation WGWAP-18/04 (e.g.

identification of particular time periods with recorded sound at particular levels in particular bands), and this

advice would be passed on to Lock for implementation by the Company’s contractors. The eventual report

on this work would then be subject to further discussion by the NTF.

6.2 POI analyses of acoustic data

6.2.1 Follow-up on matters raised from the 2015 data as discussed at WGWAP-18

The rationale for continuing to consider this issue is that (a) excessive noise in or near the feeding area in

2015 caused by activities other than the seismic surveys would need to be taken into account in analyses of

the effects of those surveys on, for example, whale behaviour and (b) given the Company’s commitment in

its MMPP to avoid exposing the whales to noise above specific ‘safe’ levels, it is important to identify and

address any noise sources that could lead to violation of MMPP guidelines.

Both Racca and Lock confirmed that Sakhalin Energy had no ongoing noise-generating activities, either on

the water or on the platforms, that would have coincided in time with the Company’s seismic survey in 2015.

Lock noted that other possible explanations for noise events unrelated to the seismic survey in 2015 were

still being pursued.

6.2.2 Consideration of 2015 acoustic data provided to the Panel at WGWAP-18

Under this item, Racca gave a presentation entitled “Investigation of periodic noise events from August 2015

– comparison of recordings at multiple stations, and other insights.” He began by showing a map of the

Piltun-Astokh licence area identifying the assets (i.e. oil and gas structures) in the region (specifically the

two drilling and production platforms PA-A and PA-B belonging to Sakhalin Energy, plus the two platforms

to the south operated by ENL) and the locations of AUAR recorders that were active during August 2015. He

called attention to three of the recorders: Piltun-S to the south and shoreward of PA-A, the primary location

at which the episodes of periodic noise had been identified in earlier analyses; Molikpaq to the north and


14

shoreward of PA-A, and Piltun further north yet, about half-way between PA-A and PA-B. He noted how the

location of origin of sound picked up at one recorder could be at least approximately inferred if the same

sound pattern was detected with different intensity at the other two. Racca then presented examples of daily

spectrograms for the dates of 1, 8 and 10 August from the three stations, all showing recognizable patterns of

progressive sound level increase with abrupt cessation, which would be consistent with the acquisition of

lines by a seismic source vessel or possibly two working in alternation. The levels of the matching sound

patterns were consistently loudest at Piltun-S, lesser at Molikpaq and least at Piltun, pointing to an activity

occurring to the south or south-east of the Piltun-Astokh area. Racca remarked that it had been difficult to

find examples like the ones presented, in which common sound trends from the alleged seismic survey

activities could be discerned at the two more northern stations, because of the confounding contribution to

the sound ensemble from more proximal operations which on many days altered or obliterated altogether the

weaker patterns. He indicated that the origin of these louder sound events was still the subject of active

investigation. To conclude, Racca informed the NTF that he had made inquiries with ENL regarding the

spatial-temporal agreement of the observed sound patterns at Piltun-S with its schedule of seismic line

acquisition in the Arkutun-Dagi license area. ENL confirmed that the two things – the Piltun-S sound

patterns and the ENL acquisition schedule – were consistent, thus corroborating the inferred origin of the

observed sound level patterns.

Nowacek pointed out that sonograms had shown on numerous occasions, and for long periods, including e.g.

at PAB-20 in early August, that noise levels over 120dB were recorded for 6-8 hours a day, and for up to 12

hours a day on occasion. These events have continued to be recorded, but now that the regular acoustic

monitoring programme has stopped, Sakhalin Energy is no longer in a position to ensure that its own noise

guidelines (as specified in the MMPP) are being followed.

It was generally agreed that, as noted under item 6.1, the automatic detection tool being developed by Racca

and his team (see item 6.4) would make the process of identifying periods of higher-than-permissible noise

levels in the feeding area(s), and their causes, more efficient. This in turn could be expected to facilitate

mitigation, which thus far has too often proven difficult to achieve. Therefore, development and

implementation of the automatic detection tool should be a high priority for Sakhalin Energy. It will allow a

statistical description of the soundscape for the first time and make it possible to determine more accurately

and precisely which periods of high noise levels are associated, for example, with weather events. The

diagnostic value of spectrograms is intrinsically limited in that they are already averaged, so that individual

events cannot be detected. Though in the present circumstances it is not possible for the NTF (or the Panel)

to examine original data, it would be possible to run detectors on those data, which would make it easier to

identify events and determine their causes.

A number of suggestions were made concerning the kinds of information that were not provided in the 2015

report but that should be provided more consistently in future acoustic monitoring reports. The 2015 report,

for example, did not make clear where the pile driving took place although it noted that it the location had

shifted. Periods of extremely loud noise were not discussed in the report. It would have been useful for the

report to relate loud noise events to where whales were and how they were behaving. In future reports, it

would also be useful if the type, timing and duration of storms were included.

6.3 Company plans for ‘noisy’ activities in 2018 e.g. use of echo sounders

Lock reported that the summary of activities presented at the last WGWAP meeting still stood. At that

meeting, Sakhalin Energy had provided the Panel with specifications for a multi-beam echosounder used for

a survey in 2015 (WGWAP-18 report, item 2.1.1.2) and the Panel recommended (recommendation

WGWAP-18/03) that the specifications for echosounders (at least output and operational plans) to be used in

any planned future surveys be shared ‘to ensure that appropriate and adequate measures are taken should

mitigation be necessary’.

In response to a question of whether any ‘noisy’ activities were planned for the PA-A platform in 2018 and

whether the timing of any such activities might conflict with that of seismic survey-related work, Lock stated

that she did not recall any but agreed to check and report back.

6.4 Progress on automatic detection algorithms


15

Racca stated as a preamble that his progress report on the use of automatic detectors (“Use of automatic

detectors in retrospective analysis of Joint Program acoustic data, and some ideas about information

management”) would be more organizational in nature than technical, but nonetheless important. He

summarized the situation until recently with regard to testing various automated detection algorithms

developed by JASCO by applying them to acoustic data at POI. He noted that the testing had to be

performed physically on POI computers because acoustic time series data cannot be exported in any sizable

quantity due to potential national security issues. In the past JASCO had provided to POI sample detection

modules (running within JASCO’s PAMlab visualization and analysis software) for seismic and vessel noise.

Without a specific mandate and budget to set up a systematic test project, however, POI’s ability to work on

the task had been on a “best effort” basis. Furthermore, communications between JASCO and POI regarding

the detectors and their operation had been limited because of the lack of a clear framework, causing

reluctance on the part of POI to use a “black box” approach to the technology. The significant progress now

achieved in this matter, Racca explained, was the decision on the part of the Joint Program partners (Sakhalin

Energy and ENL) to incorporate a full test of automatic detection in an agreed retrospective study of the

annual acoustic data collected systematically until 2016. If proven effective, this would complement with a

“noise type aware” discrimination the more generic methods of comparing acoustic data across years based

on statistical (percentile) analyses of spectral composition to differentiate between transient and sustained

levels of sound in various frequency bands. Racca explained that under the framework of this retrospective

study, adequate time will be allocated for POI to install at its laboratories the most current version of

JASCO’s PAMlab software incorporating the required detectors and to test the system’s performance on a

representatively diverse sample from the Joint Program’s annual datasets. JASCO will work closely with

POI to review the outcome and if necessary adjust the detector parameters to optimize results, fully engaging

POI’s expertise in the process. After the trial, JASCO and POI will make a recommendation to the

companies on whether automated detection of noise events should be included as a systematic component of

their research and monitoring work.

In a follow-up section of his presentation, Racca gave a brief overview, using screen shots from the Web-

based interface of the software, of a framework for storing, retrieving and analyzing detected acoustic events

that could be a viable paradigm in a future effort to make the results from automated analysis easily

accessible. The software application (PAMview) developed by JASCO is already used in a variety of

contexts, primarily for the management and interpretation of detected marine animals’ vocalizations, but it

could work equally well for detecting anthropogenic noise events.

During discussion, Racca said that the first step in testing the representative trial dataset would be to look for

autocorrelation and boil down the entire time series to a series of detection windows. This involves stripping

down the dataset of what can already be identified and looking for additional events. The idea is to identify

the presence of noise from different sources on the whole dataset. Donovan emphasized that the Panel (and

presumably also the Company) was particularly interested in examining acoustic data retrospectively,

looking for areas and times that would merit closer scrutiny to evaluate whether Sakhalin Energy is

following the guidelines as specified in the MMPP. Southall asked whether, for example, the algorithms

would be able to detect periods of time over which sound exceeded particular levels at particular frequencies.

Racca responded in the affirmative and noted that a plan was needed for having the NTF review and test the

system and become familiar with how it functions. It was agreed that the NTF would work intersessionally

with Racca to learn more about the system, and, hopefully, some test data could be run through the system,

which could then be reviewed at NTF-15.

Participants thanked Racca and encouraged him and others involved to continue developing and testing this

promising new tool. It was understood that the Company had been unable to meet the Panel’s request for an

opportunity to review “selected informative sound recordings, based on the newly developed detections

schemes”, per recommendation WGWAP-18/05, by the time of this meeting, but that recommendation

remains open.

Lock indicated that Sakhalin Energy is positively disposed towards this new approach as it should allow

better, more detailed characterization of loud events. The Company would be able to use its event logs, at

least in recent years, together with weather records, to interpret past and future high noise events. It would be

very useful to have a statistical understanding of how many of these events were related to Sakhalin Energy

activities, and of whether anthropogenic noise in the feeding area was having an impact on the whales. She

noted that there would continue to be some ‘unexplained events’ caused by third-party activities over which


16

the Company has no control, but she acknowledged that the new tool would definitely help the Company to

assess compliance with its MMPP.

6.5 Future of Joint Programme

The NTF had an inconclusive discussion of the future of the Joint Program, specifically in regard to the

acoustic monitoring component. There was no acoustic monitoring in 2017 and none was planned for 2018

(other than that associated with the Sakhalin Energy seismic survey). Some NTF members noted that it was

difficult to see why the Company would refer in its MMPP to specific allowable noise levels for its

operations in the area if there was no monitoring to determine whether the actual levels are or are not within

those limits.

Lock indicated that she expected to make progress during the coming months on the Joint Program scope of

work for 2019, as well as on plans for the longer term (2020 and beyond). She stressed that ENL was taking

the lead in preparing analyses of Joint Program data (for publication) and that the design of any future, long-

term work would depend heavily on the results of those analyses. It was not clear when such results would

become publicly available but at least a summary was expected to be presented at the April-May 2018

meeting of the IWC Scientific Committee, and this would perforce be a public document.

Although it was suggested that Lock might be able to provide the Panel with a draft of a proposed long-term

program ‘intersessionally’ (i.e. sometime between April 2018 and the WGWAP meeting in November 2018),

this seemed considerably less feasible than her being able to share some information on the ‘short-term’

plans for the 2019 season during that period. However, even if she was able to do that, an arrangement would

need to be made for the Panel to consider and discuss the information and prepare its advice in a sufficiently

timely way for that advice to have a chance of making a difference. Thus, the NTF recommends that the

Company provide, by 1 September, the plans for at least the 2019 research program, preferably for the long-

term JP plans. This timing would provide sufficient opportunity for the Panel to review the plans and

provide advice by the November WGWAP-19 meeting and, thus, have that advice incorporated into the final

plans for 2019.

Sakhalin Energy reported that Gazprom Neft had expressed interest in benefiting from and contributing to

the monitoring work on gray whales conducted under the Joint Program. Lock noted that the companies had

initiated discussions on how they might collaborate with Gazprom Neft on work of mutual interest but that

few decisions had been made thus far.

6.6 Gray whale sounds

In its WGWAP-18 report (item 2.1.1.2), the Panel noted that gray whale sounds recorded at Sakhalin

might prove “very useful in evaluating the whale sounds recorded by the U.S. Navy in the East China

Sea.” Southall reiterated that point at this meeting. Racca reported that his initial discussions with POI

about the possibility of releasing small amounts of uncontroversial data collected under the Joint Program to

help determine the species identity of whales recorded in other areas (e.g. the South China Sea) suggested

that this would not be a problem.

The NTF welcomed this news and strongly endorsed the idea of Joint Program data being used for this

scientific purpose.

6.7 Plans for noise monitoring in 2018 outside the seismic survey period, if any

As mentioned above, Sakhalin Energy had no current plans to monitor noise in 2018 other than during the

seismic survey. Lock noted that the only exception was some noise measurements of new vessels to be taken

in 2018 as discussed in the WGWAP meeting (see WGWAP-18 report, item 5.14, recommendation

WGWAP-18/18).

In response to questions from NTF members, Lock stated that there was no plan to deploy an acoustic buoy

or buoys at the control station in 2018, including during the seismic survey. However, she noted that the

Company had decided to redeploy a number of buoys immediately after the survey and to leave them

deployed until the end of September. The locations of these buoys had not yet been decided. Vedenev

suggested that one of these buoys should be deployed at a control station (after the survey) and Lock

responded that she had no objection to this but would need to confirm with colleagues.


17

Donovan queried whether the acoustic buoys intended to continue monitoring for a short period after the

seismic might be deployed for longer, given that the only change required would be to retrieve them later

than originally planned. The Company agreed to leave the buoys in the water and operating for ca. two

weeks.

7 OTHER BUSINESS

Final review of the MMP

The Task Force went through the previous draft of the MMP and agreed on revisions that are reflected in the

final version available here. Donovan commended the Company (including Dorrian) as well as all NTF

members for the hard work and for producing an excellent product.

Jon Hancox update on status of the Marine Mammal Protection Plan (MMPP)

Hancox recalled that Ramboll had undertaken to go through all the comments received on the MMPP.

Donaghy had addressed all comments and submitted the final version of the MMPP, including an audit trail

in the form of a spreadsheet summarizing how the comments were addressed. The final version should be

definitively checked in the coming week; Donovan said the Panel would like to see the revised MMPP, and

Hancox said that the report was now with Ramboll for final approval.

Conclusion of meeting

Lock concluded the meeting with thanks to all participants. She also thanked the Advisory Group in advance

for their forthcoming assistance. She expressed hope that the weather and insects would be kind, and wished

all a safe, productive, well mitigated and well monitored survey.

Donovan added his thanks to IUCN for organization of the meeting, the end result of which had been very

successful. He also extended his thanks to the sound technician, the interpreters, and all others present for

their contributions.

Adoption of report

Donovan recalled that the NTF report had to obtain the full approval of the panel, most of whom were

present. The report would be circulated to the full panel. There would normally be a full WGWAP meeting

close to the time of the NTF meeting, but the next WGWAP meeting would probably take place by

email/teleconference2. Written comments on the report would be requested, with a deadline for submission.

The MMP would remain open for comment from Panel members, but would be posted upon approval and

adoption.

2 Due to circumstances beyond the control of participants, the report was not finalized until mid-June, by which time the

seismic survey was under way. The plan to hold a WGWAP meeting to consider and comment on the MMP agreed by

the NTF was overtaken in April-May 2018 by conflicting commitments of Panel members and the unanticipated need

for all parties – Sakhalin Energy, IUCN and the Panel – to deal with the denial by Russian authorities of the Company’s

permit to allow acoustic monitoring during the seismic survey (see

https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/panel_statement_2018_seismic_survey_en_ru.pdf and associated responses).

https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/wgwap_mmp_2018.pdf

https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/panel_statement_2018_seismic_survey_en_ru.pdf


18

ANNEX A - LIST OF PARTICIPANTS IN NTF-14 MEETING

Panel Members

1. Justin Cooke

2. Greg Donovan (Panel Co-Chair / Noise Task Force Chair)

3. Douglas Nowacek

4. Randall Reeves (Panel Co-Chair)

5. Brandon Southall

6. Grigory Tsidulko

7. Alexander Vedenev

Apologies: Dave Weller

Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Ltd.

8. Stephanie Lock , HSE General Manager

9. Bastian Blonk, Chief Geophysicist

10. Roberto Racca, JASCO Applied Sciences / Acoustics expert

11. Mike Donaghy, MDA Ltd / Environmental Adviser

12. Neil Niru Dorrian, Environmental Adviser

13. Andrey Samatov, Head of Corporate Environmental Division

Invited experts

14. Jon Hancox, Ramboll Environ

IUCN

15. Giulia Carbone, Deputy Director, Global Business and Biodiversity Programme

16. Jerome Duramy, Programme Officer

17. Simon Delany, Rapporteur

Interpreters 18. Alexander Danilov

19. Grigory Shkalikov

Technical support:

20. Rainer Jacob, Brahler


19

ANNEX B – AGENDA

1 introductory items

1.1 Introductions including expectations from the meeting

1.2 Logistics

1.3 Adoption of agenda

1.4 Available documents/materials

2 UPDATE ON PLANS FOR SEISMIC WORK BY SAKHALIN ENERGY IN 2018 (SEIC)

2.1 Updates from the company on seismic survey plans including:

• Permits and exclusion zone discussions with SEER

• Order of survey (OBN/PA-streamer)

• Time to be allocated to sound source experiments (reduced levels for future surveys)

• A-lines at night (related to tides and feathering)

2.2 Panel conclusions

3 FINALISATION OF THE MMP AND ANY ASSOCIATED PRACTICAL DETAILS(SEIC)

3.1 Chain of Command Protocol

3.1.1 Presentation by Company


3.2 Acoustic monitoring including final protocol

3.2.1 Numbers of archival and monitoring buoys

3.2.2 Time allocated to sound source tests with reduced noise levels for future surveys


3.3 Visual monitoring including final protocol


positional information

3.3.2 Further information on poor visibility technology (including results of use by NOAA)

3.3.3 MMO schedules and duties

3.3.4 Definition of ‘aberrant’ behaviour, in light of previous seismic survey guidelines

3.3.5 Conclusion on the visual monitoring protocol

3.4 Other matters

3.4.1 Final Terms of Reference and selection of the Independent Observer (update from IUCN)

3.4.2 Advisory Group including communications protocol


4 PREPARATION FOR DATA ANALYSES FOR THE 2018 SURVEY

4.1 Data archiving and QA/QC plans (SEIC)

4.2 Planning for analyses including who, how, when and incorporation of previous datasets



20

5 PROGRESS (IF ANY) WITH ANALYSES OF DATA FROM THE 2015 SEISMIC SURVEYS

(SEIC)

6 NON-SEISMIC-RELATED ACOUSTIC ISSUES

6.1 Deployment of ‘control’ stations

Consideration of the development of a new recommendation in light of discussions at WGWAP-18

(Nowacek)

6.2 POI analyses of acoustic data

6.2.1 Follow up on matters raised from the 2015 data as discussed at WGWAP-18 (Racca)

6.2.2 Consideration of 2016 acoustic data provided to the Panel at WGWAP-18

6.3 Information on Ruban’s echo sounder (IUCN, SEIC)

6.4 Company plans for ‘noisy’ activities for 2018 e.g. use of echo sounders (SEIC)

6.5 Progress on automatic detection algorithms (POI, JASCO)

6.5.1 Periods of loud noise loud noise

6.5.2 Gray whale sounds

6.6 Plans for noise monitoring in 2018 outside the seismic survey period, if any (SEIC)

7 OTHER BUSINESS

8 ADOPTION OF REPORT


21

ANNEX C - LIST OF DOCUMENTS

DOCUMENT # TITLE LANGUAGE STATUS

NTF-13/

REPORT

Report from the 13th

meeting of the Noise Task

Force

English Public

NTF-14/01 Monitoring and mitigation plan (MMP) for the

2018 Piltun-Astokh 4D seismic survey of Sakhalin

Energy v26.04.2018

English Public

NTF-14/02 NTF-14 Status Update of 2018 4D Seismic Survey

at Piltun-Astokhskoye.

English Internal

NTF-14/03 Terms of Reference for the IUCN’s Independent

Observer (IO) to 2018 4D Seismic Survey at Piltun-

Astokhskoye

English Public

NTF-14/04 A: Offshore MMO Manual

B: Onshore MMO Manual

English Public, See Annexes C

& D of the MMP

NTF-14/05 Presentation on camera system (CMS), duties and

schedule for camera technician(s)

English Internal

NTF-14/06 Presentation on automated anthropogenic noise and

gray whale sounds

English Internal

NTF-14/07 From Sakhalin Energy: Presentation on periodic

loud noise events with data from additional

monitoring stations

English Internal

NTF-14/08 Pre-read: Mysticetus software English Internal

https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/ntf-13_report_final.pdf

https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/ntf-13_report_final.pdf




https://spideroak.com/share/IFBGK4T2NFXGCSKVINHA/ntf-docs/c%3A/Users/Duramyj/Documents/SpiderOak%20Hive/WGWAP/Noise%20Task%20Force/2018_14_03-17_03_NTF-14_Gland/NTF14-02-05-04_Future_4D_Piltun-Astokhskoye_PreRead.docx

https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/ntf14-03_io_2018_tor_final.pdf





https://spideroak.com/share/IFBGK4T2NFXGCSKVINHA/ntf-docs/c%3A/Users/Duramyj/Documents/SpiderOak%20Hive/WGWAP/Noise%20Task%20Force/2018_14_03-17_03_NTF-14_Gland/NTF14_04A_SEIC_MMO_Manual_2018_Offshore_v4_2018-03-08.docx

Date post:	25-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times