notes that even if underwater noise does not cause a significant biological effect for the whales themselves, “there could be a significant sociocultural effect if the bowheads do not migrate b he agency must conduct greater analysis of how Shell’s activities in these particular locations, using two drillships and two icebreakers, will affect the Inupi-at’s reliance on the bowhead harvest. MMS asserts that any threat to the Inupiat’s subsistence whaling would be minimized through a conflict avoidance agreement. Again, the deficiencies in the agency’s analysis are not cured through its proposed mitigation measure. In order to rely on mitigation to obviate further analysis, the measure must be identified and its effectiveness analyzed. Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n, 241 F.3d at 733-36 (<HOLDING>). Additionally, “[mjitigation must be discussed
holding that eas satisfied nepa where they considered appropriate alternatives including mitigation measures holding that warrants of deportation were properly characterized as nontestimonial official records that were prepared independent of this litigation and were not prepared to prove facts for use in future criminal prosecutions holding that an ea prepared by an agency in that case was not the functional equivalent of an eis holding eis must be prepared where monitoring and mitigation measures were uncertain holding that the rod and eis for a program were final agency action