Final

Programmatic Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Statement/

Overseas Environmental Impact Statement Overseas Environmental Impact Statement

for

Marine Seismic Research Marine Seismic Research

Funded by the National Science Foundation Funded by the National Science Foundation

or

Conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey Conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey

June 2011 June 2011

Final

Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement/

Overseas Environmental Impact Statement

for

Marine Seismic Research

Funded by the National Science Foundation

or

Conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey

June 2011

Final

Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement/

Overseas Environmental Impact Statement

for

Marine Seismic Research

Funded by the National Science Foundation

or

Conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey

June 2011

C

A D

O

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF CO MMERCE

NAT OI NAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRAT OI N

FINAL

PROGRAMMATIC

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/

OVERSEAS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

FOR

MARINE SEISMIC RESEARCH

FUNDED BY THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

OR

CONDUCTED BY THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

JUNE 2011

Prepared for:

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 725

Arlington, VA

and

U.S. Geological Survey

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive

Reston, VA

For additional information, contact:

Mr. Bauke (Bob) Houtman, Head, Integrative Programs Section or

Ms. Holly Smith, Assistant Program Officer, Integrative Programs Section

Division of Ocean Sciences,

National Science Foundation

(703) 292–8583 or nepacomments@nsf.gov

Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1 INTRODUCTION

This Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas Environmental Impact 

Statement (OEIS) (hereafter called PEIS) for Marine Seismic Research funded by the National Science 

Foundation or Conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey has been prepared by the National Science 

Foundation (NSF) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United 

States Code [USC] §4321 et seq.); the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for 

Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §§ 1500-

1508); NSF procedures for implementing NEPA and CEQ regulations (45 CFR 640); and Executive 

Order (EO) 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions.

NSF is the proponent for the NSF-funded marine seismic research and is the lead agency for the 

preparation of this Final PEIS. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) are cooperating agencies.

ES.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

This Final PEIS examines the potential impacts that may result from geophysical exploration and 

scientific research using seismic surveys that are funded by NSF or conducted by the USGS. The 

Proposed Action is for academic and U.S. government scientists in the U.S., and possible international 

collaborators, to conduct marine seismic research from research vessels operated by U.S. academic 

institutions and government agencies. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to fund the investigation of 

the geology and geophysics of the seafloor by collecting seismic reflection and refraction data that reveal 

the structure and stratigraphy of the crust and/or overlying sediment below the world‘s oceans. NSF has a 

continuing need to fund seismic surveys that enable scientists to collect data essential to understanding 

the complex Earth processes beneath the ocean floor. Data collected from marine seismic surveys:

 were important in hypothesizing, and subsequently demonstrating, the validity of the theory of 

plate tectonics;

 are vital to making ocean drilling scientifically useful and environmentally safe;

 provide imaging of ocean faults, which is key to studies of earthquake and landslide hazards;

 are essential to evaluate the potential for tsunami generation, which, in most cases, result from 

submarine slumping associated with earthquakes;

 are used to define potential failure regions, slip planes, oversteepened slopes, creep, zones of 

potential overpressures, and concentrations of gas hydrates or shallow free gas that may play a 

role in destabilization of sedimentary slopes;

 are used to map sedimentary horizons, allowing correlation of sediment type and age across long 

distances, and providing information on spatial and temporal distributions of processes (such as 

climatic or oceanographic events) at geologic time scales;

 can be used to directly image magma chambers in volcanoes or mid-ocean ridges, and repeat 

surveys can be used to image changes in magma reservoirs related to eruptions; and

 can be used to interpret processes of compaction, folding, dewatering, and other processes in 

subduction zones that lead to uplift, earthquakes, slumping, and other processes that will impact 

land and people.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

ES-2

The funding and conducting of marine seismic research would continue to meet NSF‘s critical need to 

foster a better understanding of Earth‘s history, natural hazards, and climate history. A few representative, 

recent examples of NSF-funded or USGS marine seismic research include:

 locating stratigraphic records of environmental change that assist in understanding anthropogenic 

warming and the melting of glaciers;

 understanding source mechanisms, fault locations, and hazard potentials for large earthquakes 

and tsunamis along faults and segments of tectonic plate boundaries, allowing prioritization of 

tsunami and earthquake warning systems;

 imaging sedimentary packages that indicate how erosion and sedimentation have impacted and 

changed the size and shapes of the continental shelves over time;

 examining the formation and evolution of volcanic islands, mid-ocean ridges, and igneous 

provinces; 

 understanding the evolution and movement of tectonic plates;

 providing essential geological information needed for initiation of scientific ocean drilling and 

bore hole observatory monitoring of the ocean crust;

 studying structures produced by asteroid impacts;

 mapping the seafloor and its topographic relief and understanding the causes of submarine 

geologic structures;

 mapping hydrothermal vent systems and determining the pattern of circulation of sub-seafloor 

fluids;

 evaluating the distribution and volume of methane gas in free and hydrated form within a region, 

and the potential impact on the ocean and atmosphere of a release of large volumes of methane 

gas; and

 understanding the distribution and amount of sediment-hosted natural gas beneath the world‘s 

oceans.

In addition to specific marine seismic research, geoscience exploration through ocean drilling has been an 

ongoing effort by NSF with international partners since the early 1970s. Seismic reflection surveying is a 

critical, required element for every site that gets drilled under the auspices of the Integrated Ocean 

Drilling Program, as well as under the program‘s predecessors: Ocean Drilling Program and Deep Sea 

Drilling Project. 

ES.3 PROGRAMMATIC APPROACH

Currently, Environmental Assessments (EAs) are prepared for individual or a small group of research 

cruises. The potential impact identified has been the sound from seismic surveys on marine resources and 

species listed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

The EAs have been used to provide the necessary information to initiate and conduct informal or formal 

consultation with the NOAA Office of Protected Resources (OPR) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. For research cruises with the potential for adverse impacts to 

listed species, NOAA OPR and/or USFWS have issued a Biological Opinion and related Incidental Take 

Statements, which included terms and conditions to minimize impacts on threatened and endangered 

species. In parallel with this effort, when applicable, a separate application for an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization (IHA) under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA was submitted for each cruise to another 

division within NOAA OPR, which subsequently issued the IHA. 

NSF and the USGS have decided that a Programmatic EIS/OEIS would minimize duplication of effort in 

environmental documentation and to address the potential for cumulative effects of marine seismic 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

ES-3

research acoustic sources upon marine resources. This PEIS addresses a variety of acoustic sources used 

for research activities conducted from various research vessels operated by U.S. academic institutions or 

government agencies. A variety of other geoscience research activities, such as, but not limited to,

mapping, dredging, drilling, and coring, might also be conducted on any seismic research cruise. 

The programmatic NEPA approach provides a format for a comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis 

by taking a view of the planned marine seismic research activities as a whole. This is accomplished by 

assembling and analyzing the broadest range of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with 

all marine seismic research activities in addition to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

projects in the region of influence. Furthermore, the collective analysis of representative project locations 

will provide a strong technical basis for a more global assessment of the potential cumulative impacts of 

NSF-funded and USGS marine seismic activities in the future. 

Subsequent project and cruise-specific NEPA documents or other appropriate environmental documents 

would use the framework of this programmatic document and address the potential impacts of specific 

cruise- and site-specific actions.

ES.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

ES.4.1 Exemplary Analysis Areas

Due to the potential for NSF-funded marine seismic cruises to occur across the world‘s oceans, it was 

necessary to narrow the focus of the impact analysis presented in this Final PEIS to a number of 

representative or exemplary analysis areas. The exemplary analysis areas were selected in areas where it 

was considered likely that a future marine seismic research cruise would be proposed for NSF funding by 

a scientific investigator, while at the same time including analysis areas within a wide range of Longhurst 

Biomes. The pelagic biogeography by Longhurst was utilized as a guide to identify areas with similar 

ecological dynamics.

This concept describes how individual species are distributed in the ocean, and explains how these species 

aggregate to form characteristic ecosystems under regional conditions of temperature, nutrients, and 

sunlight exposure. Although Longhurst Biomes are extremely large, the biome concept provided a largescale selection criterion. For the purposes of this PEIS, 13 exemplary (representative) analysis areas were 

proposed for analysis within this Final PEIS, as listed in Table ES-1 and depicted in Figure ES-1: 5 areas 

were subject to detailed analysis [Detailed Analysis Areas (DAAs)] and 8 subject to qualitative analysis 

[Qualitative Analysis Areas (QAAs)].

Table ES-1. Detailed and Qualitative Analysis Areas

Site Name

Survey

Track Area Latitude Longitude

Longhurst

Biome

Survey

Season

DAA

Western Gulf of Alaska

(W Gulf of Alaska)

Between Kodiak &

Shumagin Islands 53o–55°N 151–159°W Pacific Westerly Winds Summer

Southern California

(S California) Santa Barbara Basin 35° N 120° W Pacific Coastal Late Spring/Early Sum

Galapagos Ridge W of Galapagos

Islands 4°S 103.6°W Pacific Trade Wind Austral Sum

Caribbean Sea

(Caribbean)

Offshore of 

Venezuela 12° N 65° W Atlantic Coastal Spring/Summer

Northwestern Atlantic

(NW Atlantic)

Offshore of New 

Jersey 39.5° N 73.5° W Atlantic Coastal Summer
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

ES-4

Table ES-1. Detailed and Qualitative Analysis Areas

Site Name

Survey

Track Area Latitude Longitude

Longhurst

Biome

Survey

Season

QAA

British Columbia Coast

(BC Coast)

Queen Charlotte 

Basin 52° N 129° W Pacific Coastal Fall

Mid-Atlantic Ridge

Deep water

(>9,842 ft 

[3,000m])

26° N 40° W Atlantic 

Westerly Winds

Spring, Summer,

or Fall

Mariana Islands

(Marianas) Marianas Islands 17° N 145° E Pacific Trade Wind Spring

Sub-Antarctic E of New Zealand 42° S 145° W Antarctic 

Westerly Winds Austral Summer

Northern Atlantic/Iceland

(N Atlantic/Iceland) S of Iceland 59°–65° N 33°–25° W Atlantic Polar Summer

Southwestern Atlantic

(SW Atlantic) NE of Brazil 5° N 45° W Atlantic Trade 

Winds Anytime

Western India 

(W India) W of India 20° N 65° E Indian Ocean Coastal

Late Spring or

Early Fall

Western Australia 

(W Australia)

Offshore of NW

Australia 18° S 120° E Indian Ocean Coastal

Austral Spring

or Fall

ES.4.2 Proposed Marine Seismic Research Activities

NSF-funded Marine Seismic Research

Under the Proposed Action, marine seismic surveys funded by NSF may take place across the world‘s 

oceans, including the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, Arctic, and Southern Oceans, and in the Mediterranean 

Sea, and may be located in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) or territorial waters of the U.S. or foreign 

countries. About 4-7 cruises are conducted each year with cruises lasting about 1-7 weeks, are generally 

more than 3 nautical miles (nm) (5.6 kilometers [km]) off the coast, and primarily utilize high-energy 

source systems such as strings or arrays of 6-36 airguns. The amount of time in which seismic operations 

are conducted during any specific research cruise may range from 20 to >800 hours (hr) and depends 

upon the objectives of the research and the requirements of the geophysical study. Seismic operations 

generally occur in deeper, open ocean waters but can range from <328 feet (ft) (100 meters [m]) to 

>26,247 ft (8,000 m). The research vessels have the capability of towing different airgun configurations, 

depending on the need of the research and the scientific objectives. A variety of other research can also be 

conducted on NSF-funded marine seismic research cruises, including, but not limited to, mapping, water 

sampling, and scientific dredging, drilling, and coring. 
ANTARCTIC OCEAN

ARCTIC OCEAN

INDIAN

OCEAN

PACIFIC

OCEAN

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

ANTARCTIC CIRCLE

ARCTIC CIRCLE

EQUATOR

0° 20° 40° 60° 80° 100° 120° 140° 160° 180° 160° 140° 120° 100° 80° 60° 40° 20°

80°

0°

80°

70°60°50°40°30°20°10°

0°

10°20°30°40°50°60°70°80°

70°60°50°40°30°20°

0°

10°10°20°30°40°50°60°70°80°

0° 20° 40° 60° 80° 100° 120° 140° 160° 180° 160° 140° 120° 100° 80° 60° 40° 20° 0°

Figure (6-1

Longhurst Biomes and Proposed Detailed and Qualitative Analysis Areas

Q7

Q8

Q3

Q1

Q4

Q6

Q2

Q5

D1

D2

D5

D4

D3
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

ES-6

USGS Marine Seismic Research

USGS seismic research for the past 3-5 years has been primarily coastal, utilizing high-resolution, lowenergy source systems in primarily coastal waters. Among the USGS Coastal Centers in California 

(Menlo Park and Santa Cruz), Massachusetts (Woods Hole), and Florida (St. Petersburg), about 8-12 

cruises are conducted each year. The cruises last about 1-3 weeks, are generally only within 3-5 nm (5.6-

9.3 km) of the coast, and primarily utilize low-energy source systems such as chirp and sparker systems. 

Although USGS operated many large-source multichannel seismic reflection and refraction cruises in the 

1970s, 1980s and 1990s, these kinds of cruises have been more the exception than the rule for USGS 

during the past decade. Water depths vary by area of operations, for example, on the Pacific west coast 

water depths are generally <328 ft (100 m), and generally not >3,281 ft (1,000 m). On the Atlantic east 

coast, water depths are generally <66 ft (20 m), and generally not >328 ft (100 m). 

The research vessels used by USGS have the capability of towing different seismic sources and airgun 

configurations, depending on the need of the research and the scientific objectives. USGS cruises have 

variable scientific objectives ranging from fault identification (Pacific coast) to geological habitat 

mapping (all coasts) to assessing methane vents in thawing permafrost regions (North Slope of Alaska). 

Recent mapping on the west coast has focused on multiyear systematic mapping of California state waters 

with multiple acoustic systems (e.g., swath mapping, side-scan sonar, and high-resolution chirp subbottom imaging). Similarly, the Woods Hole office is engaged in a multiyear systematic mapping of 

Massachusetts State waters using similar systems for overall coastal management. USGS has conducted 

similar studies off North Carolina, South Carolina, and New York to evaluate the geologic basis for 

coastal erosion. Similar systematic mapping studies are expected to continue off Oregon and Washington 

in future years. 

ES.5 ACOUSTIC MODELING

Under the Proposed Action, a variety of airgun configurations ranging from small arrays of 1-4 airguns to 

large arrays of 18-36 airguns, as well as other lower energy non-seismic acoustic sources including 

MBESs, SBPs, and pingers, would be operated. Because of the complexities and variability of sound 

propagation from these sources in different ocean environments, acoustic modeling is a key component in 

an effective scientific analysis of the extent of the potential acoustic impacts. As described previously, 

five exemplary areas were identified for detailed acoustic analysis, and a representative seismic survey 

scenario using airguns as the seismic acoustic source was modeled for each area. 

For a quantitative assessment of the potential impact of an exemplary marine seismic survey, it is 

necessary to integrate the predicted (modeled) seismic survey sound field with the expected distribution 

of marine animals. This is a three-part process:

1. Estimate the 3-dimensional (3-D) sound field while the airguns are operating at representative 

locations within the analysis area using an airgun array source model and a sound propagation 

model.

2. Estimate the 3-D locations and movements of simulated animals in space and time.

3. Integrate these two sets of model outputs to estimate the maximum and cumulative airgun sound 

that would be received by each simulated animal, and then assess the potential impact of the 

seismic survey sound source on a specific species or group.

The computer models used to develop these estimates are described in detail in Appendix B, Acoustic 

Modeling Report. A further step in the analysis process is to assess, in a qualitative manner, how the 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

ES-7

impacts in eight additional scenarios would be expected to compare with those in the five scenarios 

analyzed in detail. 

In this Final PEIS, the full process outlined above is applied for marine mammals. Marine mammals are a 

resource of particular concern with regard to seismic surveys. Also, marine mammals are the animals for 

which most progress has been made in identifying the specific sound exposure criteria that need to be 

defined in order to undertake a quantitative assessment of impact. Other resources are analyzed in a less 

detailed and more qualitative way, but taking into account specific impact criteria where available.

ES.6 ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Two action alternatives and the No-Action Alternative are proposed. The two action alternatives are:

 Alternative A: Conduct Marine Seismic Research Using Cruise-specific Mitigation Measures

 Alternative B: Conduct Marine Seismic Research Using Cruise-specific Mitigation Measures 

with Generic Mitigation Measures for Low-energy Acoustic Sources (Preferred Alternative)

Marine seismic research cruises would use a variety of airgun (pneumatic sound source) array

configurations, and often use other non-seismic acoustic sources as well, including multi-beam echo 

sounders (MBESs), sub-bottom profilers (SBPs), pingers, acoustic Doppler current profilers (ADCPs), 

and acoustic releases. Seismic sources would include high-energy source arrays of 18-36 airguns (up to a 

discharge volume of 6,600 cubic inches [in3]) and low-energy source arrays of 1-4 airguns (up to a 

discharge volume of 425 in3). Sources used in NSF-funded or USGS marine seismic research include 

those on the R/V Langseth, the primary vessel used to support high-energy source seismic research, as 

well as airguns and other low-energy seismic acoustic sources (e.g., chirp systems, sparkers, water guns, 

etc.) on University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) vessels operated directly by 

the U.S. Government, such as USGS, and others as needed via contract or charter. All NSF-funded or 

USGS marine seismic cruises would be conducted according to applicable U.S. federal and state laws and 

regulations, and as applicable, foreign laws and regulations recognized by the U.S. Government. 

Numerous species of marine mammals and sea turtles are expected to be encountered during marine 

seismic research activities. The following subsections describe mitigation measures that are an integral 

part of NSF-funded and USGS marine seismic research activities under Alternatives A and B.

Alternatives A and B differ in how the proposed safety radii or mitigation zones (MZs) are determined. 

For operations with no request for MMPA incidental take authorization, the MZs are the same in 

Alternative A and Alternative B. Where take is expected and authorization is requested, Alternative A 

would require a specific calculation of MZs and FMZs for every proposed cruise, whereas Alternative B 

introduces a generic set of MZ conditions that would be applied to low-energy seismic operations 

proposed in water depths >328 ft (100 m). 

The use of small numbers of generator-injector (GI) guns and other acoustic sources (e.g., towed chirp 

systems, sparkers, boomers) for low-energy seismic survey work in waters >328 ft (100 m) in depth, most 

often conducted on UNOLS and USGS vessels or in support of ocean-drilling operations, have modeled 

MZs of <328 ft (100 m). Therefore, in Alternative B, NSF and USGS would conservatively apply the use 

of a 328-ft (100-m) MZ for all low-energy acoustic sources in water depths >328 ft (100 m).

For the purposes of this PEIS, a low-energy source is defined as an acoustic source whose received level 

is <180 decibels reference 1 microPascal (dB re 1Pa) at 328 ft (100 m). Based on this definition and 

previous modeling results of various acoustic sources previously assumed to be low-energy sources, the 

following categories of acoustic sources are defined as low-energy seismic sources:
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

ES-8

 GI Guns:

- Any single or any two GI guns.

- Three or four GI guns, within the allowable range of tow depths and element separations 

explained in detail in Appendix F.

 Generic single-chamber airguns:

- A tuned array of four airguns (volumes between 25 and 160 in3each) within the allowable 

range of tow depths and element separations explained in detail in Appendix F.

- A single pair of clustered airguns with individual volumes of 250 in3or less.

- Two small 2-clusters (four airguns) with maximum volumes of 45 in3.

- Any single airgun 425 in3or smaller, at any tow depth.

 Any towed sparker, boomer, water gun, or chirp system with a source level <205 dB re 1Pa-m.

Table ES-2 provides a summary of the MZs proposed under Alternative A and Alternative B.

Table ES-2. Comparison of Alternatives A and B

Stipulation Alternative A

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative)

200-m FMZ for expected no-take situations X X

100-m MZ for defined low-energy sources X

Cruise-specific calculations of MZs for all sources defined as 

low energy X

Cruise-specific calculations of FMZs for all sources defined as 

low or high energy

X X

ES6.1 Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures would apply in general to all proposed NSF-funded and USGS marine 

seismic research cruises under Alternatives A or B. However, for those cruises that may be conducted 

within the EEZ and territorial waters of another nation, additional or different mitigation measures may be 

required by that nation. In addition, the following proposed mitigation measures are identified for NEPA 

purposes. While similar mitigation and monitoring may be required for incidental take authorizations 

under the MMPA, such mitigation would be developed in coordination with NMFS or the USFWS on a 

case-by-case basis for specific cruises during the processing of the incidental take authorization.

Under Alternative B, for any seismic survey cruise that proposes a low-energy source as defined above, 

there would be a standard MZ of 328 ft (100 m) for all marine mammals and turtles. For acoustic sources 

not defined as low-energy sources, cruise-specific MZs would need to be modeled to determine the 

effective MZs for marine mammals and turtles.

Mitigation during Planning Phases

Research proposals submitted to NSF undergo a competitive, merit review process which typically 

includes external expert review by an ad hoc panel and/or mail review. After scientific, technical, and 

programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to 

the Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. After Division 

approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding are forwarded to the Division of 

Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications and the processing and 

issuance of a grant or other agreement. NSF strives to make funding decisions within 6 months of 

proposal receipt. Awardees that require time on research vessels are typically scheduled a minimum of 1 

year in advance of the desired cruise date.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

ES-9

Considerable planning is required to schedule a marine seismic research cruise. In scheduling a seismic 

survey, NSF and the entities that propose to conduct the cruise would consider potential environmental 

impacts including seasonal, biological, and weather factors; ship schedules; and equipment availability. 

This preliminary assessment of potential environmental impacts would be part of the NSF proposal 

review and cruise scheduling processes, with a full assessment completed prior to cruise departure.

A preliminary assessment would include identifying within a proposed seismic survey area the 

occurrence, level and type of use (e.g., breeding, feeding, migrating, etc.), and seasons of use by marine 

mammals, sea turtles, and other ESA-listed species; potential occurrence of commercial, local, and 

subsistence fishing activities; and other site-specific concerns. This preliminary information would be 

used to assess the feasibility of conducting an NSF-funded marine seismic study at a specific location; 

specific times or locations within an area where potential impacts would be avoided or minimized; and to 

identify any additional mitigation and/or monitoring measures that would be implemented to avoid or 

minimize potential impacts. 

For each proposed research cruise, NSF and the project applicants would consider whether the research 

objectives could be met with a smaller source and a survey design that minimizes seismic operations. If 

there is concern about exposure of sensitive biota, NSF and the project proponents would also consider 

whether a different survey time would reduce those effects. Through pre-cruise planning, areas and 

seasons where there are expected concentrations of marine mammals and sea turtles would be identified 

and avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Special consideration would be given to marine biota

engaged in sensitive activities such as breeding, rearing of young, and feeding. If appropriate, NSF and 

the project proponents would also implement mitigation measures to address potential impacts to fishing 

activities.

USGS marine seismic research projects are conducted to support approved programs of the USGS for 

which the agency has direct or reimbursable funding. The potential environmental impact of such marine 

seismic projects is considered throughout the planning process. Like NSF, the USGS also considers 

whether research objectives can be attained using smaller seismic sources or alternative survey design 

and, to the extent possible, surveys are planned to reduce the potential impact of seismic sources on 

sensitive marine biota and human activities (e.g., fishing).

Visual Monitoring for Marine Mammals and Turtles

Under Alternative A, Protected Species Visual Observers (PSVOs) would be based aboard the seismic 

source vessel, and would watch for marine mammals and turtles near the vessel during daytime airgun 

operations and start-ups of airguns at night. PSVOs would also watch for marine mammals and turtles 

near the seismic vessel for at least 30 minutes (min) prior to the start of airgun operations after an 

extended shutdown. When feasible, PSVOs would also make observations during daytime periods when 

the seismic systems are not operating for comparison of animal abundance and behavior during seismic 

and non-seismic periods. Based on PSVO observations, airguns would be powered down (see below) or, 

if necessary, shut down completely, when marine mammals are observed within or about to enter a 

designated MZ (see below). The MZ is a region in which a possibility exists of effects on animal hearing 

or other physical effects (Level A harassment). PSVOs also monitor for species to the full mitigation zone 

(FMZ) which includes the area identified for potential behavioral harassment (Level B harassment).

PSVOs would be appointed by the academic institution conducting the research cruise in the case of NSFfunded research and by USGS in the case of USGS marine seismic research, with NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources concurrence after review of their qualifications. At least one PSVO would monitor 

the MZ during daytime airgun operations and any nighttime startups. PSVOs would normally work in 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

ES-10

shifts of 4-hr duration or less and work no more than three shifts in a 24-hr period. The vessel crew would 

also be instructed to assist in detecting marine mammals and turtles. A report summarizing PSVO 

observations would be submitted to NMFS and/or USFWS after the cruise in compliance with terms of 

authorizations for marine mammal harassment or endangered species takes. The report would describe the 

seismic operations and include a complete description of the data collected about marine mammals, 

turtles, and any other threatened or endangered species observed.

All vessels conducting NSF-funded or USGS marine seismic research would be required to have suitable 

platforms for marine mammal and turtle observation. On the observation platform, the eye level of the 

PSVO would be sufficiently above sea level, and the observer would have a clear view around most of the 

vessel. During daytime operations, the PSVO would scan the area around the vessel systematically with 

reticule binoculars, ―Big-eye‖ 25x power binoculars (on the R/V Langseth only), and with the naked eye. 

Night vision devices (NVDs) would be available for their use. Laser rangefinding binoculars would be 

available to assist in distance estimation.

Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM)

PAM involves towing hydrophones that detect frequencies produced by vocalizing marine mammals. 

Ideally, two or more hydrophones are used to allow some localization of the bearing (direction) of the 

animal from the vessel. A key component of PAM which allows more effective use is the computer signal 

processing to detect and localize marine mammal vocalizations. Several prototype systems are under 

development.

During some cruises, PAM would be used during seismic operations in conjunction with visual 

monitoring. PAM would normally be used for high-energy source surveys unless in the rare and unlikely 

circumstances that, (1) it is damaged and rendered unoperable during a survey and back-up systems fail; 

(2) it is deemed to be ineffective in detecting animals under the circumstances of the cruise; or (3) safety 

of operations prevent its use. When implemented, PAM would typically be used during both daytime and 

nighttime seismic operations as well as when the vessel is underway in the survey area with the airguns 

silent. During a seismic survey, PAM can be effective at detecting some animals before they are detected 

visually. Its value can be limited, however, by bottom configuration (water depth) and other 

environmental factors, and in some cases towing the PAM equipment is not practicable. Because of 

present limitations to determine range of acoustic contacts, the value of PAM is to detect acoustic cues 

that alert visual observers of the presence and general direction of marine mammals.

Inclusion of PAM does not reduce the need for visual observations, and it is expected that PAM operation 

would require additional personnel beyond those aboard as PSVOs, including at least one with previous 

PAM experience. NMFS would need to provide concurrence on the use of PAM personnel after review of 

their qualifications. When PAM is used, PAM procedures and results would be included in post-cruise 

reports submitted to NMFS and/or USFWS in accordance with MMPA and ESA regulatory requirements.

Proposed Safety Radii or MZ: Operations for Which Incidental Take of Marine Mammals is Anticipated

For operations under an IHA or LOA under Alternative A, detection of marine mammals within a 

specified distance around the airguns (the MZ) would be followed by an immediate power down or 

shutdown of the airguns. The mitigation radii under Alternative A would normally be the distances at 

which the effective received sound level would diminish below 190 or 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms). Radii were 

calculated for both M-weighted as well as flat (unweighted) levels. These radii are determined by 

acoustical modeling that considers site-specific acoustic characteristics (water depth, in particular), the 

airgun configurations to be used, and the hearing characteristics of expected marine mammals in the study 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

ES-11

area. Modeling would incorporate the most current data on airgun output and species hearing 

characteristics as it becomes available. However, for certain cetaceans of special concern, more 

precautionary criteria would apply (see ―Special Mitigation Measures‖ below). 

Proposed Safety Radii or MZ: Operations for Which Incidental Take of Marine Mammals is not 

Anticipated or Authorized

Shutdowns or power downs would be required whenever marine mammals or turtles are detected within 

an FMZ, defined as an extended MZ encompassing the full region in which NMFS estimates behavioral 

disturbance (≥160 dB re 1 μPa [rms]), also called  ̳Level B harassment‘, might occur. The FMZ must be 

clearly visible and PSVOs available to monitor it throughout any period of seismic source use. These 

operations would use low-energy seismic sound sources in which 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) is not exceeded 

or within close proximity to the source and the extent of 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) sound levels are within 

200 m of the source. 

While technically the FMZ may be an overestimation of the area potentially ensonified to 160 dB re 1 

μPa (rms), it must be within a range that can be effectively monitored. Proposed use of sources would be 

on the order of hours or short-duration shooting over several days (not extensive track-lines). Examples of 

proposed actions would be the use of 1 to 2 GI-guns for bore-hole testing (e.g., VSP). The small number 

of airguns in these situations limits application of ramp-ups and power-downs. Immediate shut-down for a 

marine mammal or turtle approaching the FMZ would be the primary mitigation response.

With mitigation, no takes would be expected. When proposed research cannot avoid an area of particular 

sensitivity, the action would require additional considerations and potentially an incidental take 

authorization. In general, surveying with small sources as well as VSP carried out in the vicinity of drill 

sites (stationary vessel sources) that have habitat sensitivity or other issues that might require a specific 

incidental take authorization (e.g., IHA or LOA) would be determined in consultation with NMFS OPR.

Mitigation during Operations

Operational measures to mitigate the impact of sound on marine mammals and turtles include:

1. Vessel speed or course alteration;

2. Airgun array power down;

3. Airgun array shutdown;

4. Airgun array ramp-up; and

5. Special mitigation measures for circumstances of particular concern.

Speed or course alteration. If a marine mammal or turtle is detected outside the MZ but is likely to enter 

it based on relative movement of the vessel and the animal, then if safety and scientific objectives allow, 

the vessel speed and/or course would be adjusted to minimize the likelihood of the animal entering the 

MZ. It should be noted that major course and speed adjustments are often impractical when towing long 

seismic streamers and large source arrays; thus for surveys involving large sources, alternative mitigation 

measures would often be required.

Power down procedures. A power down involves reducing the number of airguns operating to a single 

airgun in order to minimize the size of the MZ. The continued operation of one airgun is intended to alert 

marine mammals and turtles to the presence of the seismic vessel nearby. 

If a marine mammal or turtle is detected within, or is likely to enter the MZ of the array in use, and if 

vessel course/speed changes are impractical or would not be effective to prevent the animal from entering 

the MZ, then the array would be powered down to ensure the animal remains outside the smaller MZ of 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

ES-12

the single airgun. If the size of the MZ for the single airgun would not prevent the animal from entering it, 

then a shutdown would be required, as described below.

Following a power down, airgun activity would not resume until the marine mammal or turtle is outside 

the MZ for the full array. The animal would be considered to have cleared the MZ if it:

 is visually observed to have left the MZ;

 has not been seen within the MZ for 15 min in the case of small odontocetes, pinnipeds, and sea 

otters;

 has not been seen within the MZ for 30 min in the case of mysticetes and large odontocetes, 

including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, and beaked whales; or

 the vessel has moved outside the applicable MZ in which the animal in question was last seen.

Following a power down and subsequent animal departure as noted above, the airgun array would resume 

operations following ramp-up procedures described below.

Shutdown procedures. If a marine mammal or turtle is within or about to enter the MZ for a single airgun, 

or for a single airgun following a power down, all operational airguns would be shut down immediately. 

Airgun activity would not resume until the animal had cleared the MZ for the full array of airguns to be 

used, as described above.

Ramp-up procedures. A ramp-up procedure would be followed when an airgun array begins operating 

after a specified period without operations. The period would vary depending on the speed of the source 

vessel and the size of the airgun array being used. The specified period is defined as the time taken for the 

source vessel to travel the radius of the MZ specified for the array to be used. 

Ramp-up would begin with the smallest airgun in the array. Airguns would be added in a sequence such 

that the source level of the array would increase in steps not exceeding 6 dB per 5-min period. A 36-

airgun array would take approximately 30 min to achieve full operation via ramp-up. During ramp-up, the 

PSVOs would monitor the MZ, and if marine mammals or turtles are sighted, decisions about 

course/speed changes, power down, and shutdown would be implemented as though the full array were 

operational.

Initiation of ramp-up procedures from shutdown requires that the full MZ must be visible by the PSVOs 

for 30 min, whether conducted in daytime or nighttime. This requirement would often preclude startups 

under nighttime or poor-visibility conditions except for small sources with restricted MZs. Ramp-up is 

allowed from a power down under reduced visibility conditions, but only if at least one airgun has 

operated continuously with a source level of at least 180 dB re 1 μPa-m (rms) throughout the survey 

interruption. It is assumed that the single airgun would alert marine mammals and turtles to the 

approaching seismic vessel, allowing them to move away if they choose. Ramp-up procedures would not 

be initiated if a marine mammal or turtle is observed within the MZ of the airgun array to be operated.

Special mitigation measures. Airgun arrays would be shut down (not just powered down) if any of the 

following four species is sighted from the vessel, even if outside the MZ, due to their rarity and sensitive 

status: N Pacific right whale, N Atlantic right whale, Northeast Atlantic bowhead whale, and W Pacific 

gray whale. In case of confirmed sightings of any of these species, airgun operations would not resume 

until 30 min after the last documented whale visual sighting and the PSVO is confident that the whale is 

no longer in the vicinity of the vessel. Other species can be designated for special measures when 

appropriate.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

ES-13

Special measures would also apply over continental slopes, especially regions with submarine canyons, 

where beaked whales are believed to concentrate. Extra mitigation would be implemented there to 

minimize potential impacts on these species. Where possible, NSF-funded and USGS seismic surveys 

would minimize operations near submarine canyons. Extra vigilance, including use of extra PSVOs, 

would be maintained where such approaches are unavoidable. These special monitoring and mitigation 

requirements would be established in advance in consultation with NMFS for each cruise that would 

conduct seismic survey operations over slopes and canyon regions.

In addition to the mitigation efforts described above, NSF-funded and USGS marine seismic research 

operations would take special precautions to avoid impacting migrating, breeding, and nursing 

congregations of marine mammals; waters proximal to nesting sites and feeding areas of sea turtles; and

waters important to juvenile or adult listed salmon and other protected species.

ES.7 POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Potential impacts on the following resources were assessed and the following sections summarize the 

findings:

 Marine Invertebrates

 Marine Fish

 Sea Turtles

 Seabirds

 Marine Mammals – Cetaceans: Mysticetes (Baleen Whales)

 Marine Mammals – Cetaceans: Odontocetes (Toothed Whales and Dolphins)

 Marine Mammals – Pinnipeds (Seals and Sea Lions)

 Other Marine Mammals (Sea Otter, West Indian Manatee) 

 Socioeconomics

 Cultural Resources

Alternatives A and B would have similar impacts on these resources. The No Action Alternative would 

have no impacts on these resources, because the proposed marine seismic surveys funded by NSF or 

conducted by USGS would not occur.

ES.7.1 Marine Invertebrates

The existing body of published and unpublished scientific literature on the impacts of seismic survey 

sound on marine invertebrates is limited, and there are no known systematic studies of the effects of sonar 

sound on invertebrates. Furthermore, it has not been specifically documented that invertebrates are 

capable of detecting the acoustic sources proposed for use in NSF-funded and USGS marine seismic 

research.

Generally, adverse effects on a particular invertebrate species can be considered significant if they result 

in a reduction in the overall health and viability of a population or significantly impact fisheries targeting 

that population. 

Under Alternatives A and B, some decapod crustaceans and cephalopods might detect the sound from the 

airguns and airgun arrays (Table ES-3). The MBESs, SBPs, and pingers might be similarly detectable by 

fewer invertebrate species. For those invertebrate species capable of detecting such sounds, there would 

theoretically be potential for adverse pathological and physiological effects at extremely close range, and 

for behavioral effects extending to somewhat greater ranges. These effects could temporarily change the 

catchability of some crustacean and mollusk fisheries in localized areas. The likelihood of each of these 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

ES-14

effects depends on the sound level received by the individual. The received sound level is generally 

related to proximity to the source but is influenced by other factors as well (e.g., water depth, sound 

velocity profile of the water, bottom conditions, airgun array size, etc.). The potential for pathological 

effects is expected to be limited to those individual invertebrates within several meters of an active source 

operating at high levels and producing sounds within the frequency range to which the animals are 

sensitive. On a population level, the potential effects are considered insignificant. 

Table ES-3. Summary of Potential Impacts to Crustaceans, Mollusks (Cephalopods), and Related 

Fisheries with Implementation of Alternative A and B (Preferred Alternative)

Analysis Area Alternatives A and B*

DAA

NW Atlantic

W Gulf of Alaska

Caribbean Sea

S California

Galapagos Ridge

 Potential short-term behavioral or possibly physiological effects on individuals.

 Potential adverse but not significant impacts to individuals < several m from the active 

sound source.

 No significant impacts at the population level.

QAA

BC Coast

Marianas

Sub-Antarctic

N Atlantic/Iceland

SW Atlantic

W India

W Australia

Mid-Atlantic Ridge

 Potential short-term behavioral or possibly physiological effects on individuals.

 Potential adverse but not significant impacts to individuals < several m from the active 

sound source.

 No significant impacts at the population level.

Note: *Impacts under Alternatives A and B assume that provisions would be made to plan the seismic surveys to avoid EFH and 

commercially important fisheries to the maximum extent practicable. 

In summary, based on the limited available information about the effects of airgun and sonar sounds on 

invertebrates, there would be no significant impacts to marine invertebrate populations, fisheries, and 

associated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) with implementation of Alternative A or B. 

ES.7.2 Marine Fish

Short-term behavioral effects potentially resulting in short-term, localized displacement or disturbance of 

individual fish are the most likely effects expected under Alternative A or B as a result of exposure to 

airgun and airgun array sounds. The small number of individual fish that could potentially experience 

injurious or mortal impacts when within a few meters of a high-energy acoustic source is considered 

insignificant on a population scale. 

The potential for impacts upon exposure of fish to the MBES and SBP is considerably less for two 

reasons. First, few fish species are capable of detecting or hearing the high-frequency sounds produced by 

these two acoustic sources. Secondly, the narrower along-track beam of these two acoustic sources would 

affect a considerably smaller area than the broader areas affected by the airguns and arrays; as a result, a 

given fish location near the transiting source would be ensonified for only one brief ping at most. The 

potential for impacts upon exposure of fish to the pingers is not likely given the much higher frequency of 

this instrument relative to fish hearing capabilities.

For any ESA-listed species of fish whose hearing is within the frequency range of the airguns, there may 

be short-term impacts to a small number of individuals that are very close to an airgun (a few meters), but 

these effects are not likely to adversely affect these populations. Furthermore, impacts to ESA-listed fish 

species or EFH are not anticipated to occur as implementation of Alternatives A or B include provisions 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

ES-15

to plan the seismic surveys to avoid, to the maximum extent practicable, federally designated critical 

habitat for threatened or endangered fish populations. With these mitigation measures in place, no 

significant impacts on threatened or endangered fish populations or to EFH are anticipated in any of the 

exemplary DAAs or QAAs due to any of the proposed sound sources (Table ES-4). 

Table ES-4. Summary of Potential Impacts to Fish Species of Special Concern, EFH, and Related 

Fisheries with Implementation of Alternative A or B (Preferred Alternative)

Analysis Area Species, EFH, or Fisheries Alternative A or B*

DAA

NW Atlantic

 ESA-listed species: shortnose 

sturgeon, Atlantic salmon

 EFH for numerous species

 Important fisheries  May affect but would not adversely affect ESAlisted species. 

 Primarily short-term behavioral or possibly 

physiological impacts to small numbers of 

individuals of most higher groups.

 No significant impacts to fisheries.

 No adverse effects on EFH.

 No significant impacts at the population level.

W Gulf of Alaska

 Important fisheries

 EFH for numerous species including 

salmon and groundfish

Caribbean Sea

Galapagos Ridge  Important fisheries

S California

 ESA-listed species: green sturgeon, 

Chinook & coho salmon, steelhead, 

bull trout

 EFH for numerous species

 Important fisheries

QAA

BC Coast

 ESA-listed species: green sturgeon; 

bull trout; steelhead; sockeye salmon; 

Chinook, chum, and coho salmon

 Important fisheries

 May affect but would not adversely affect ESAlisted species. 

 Primarily short-term behavioral or possibly 

physiological impacts to small numbers of 

individuals of most higher groups.

 No significant impacts to fisheries.

 No adverse effects to EFH.

 No significant impacts at the population level.

Mid-Atlantic Ridge

Marianas

Sub-Antarctic

N Atlantic/Iceland

 Important fisheries

SW Atlantic  EFH for numerous species

 Important fisheries

W India

W Australia  Important fisheries

Note: *Potential impacts under both alternatives assume that provisions would be made to plan the seismic surveys to avoid, to 

the maximum extent practicable, critical habitat for federally listed species 

ES.7.3 Sea Turtles

Little is known about the acoustic capabilities of sea turtles, either in terms of hearing ability or sound 

production. With such limited data, it is currently not possible to determine how far away a particular airgun 

array may be audible to a sea turtle. Thus, it is not possible to identify specific sound criteria for sea turtles 

above which temporary threshold shift (TTS), permanent threshold shift (PTS), or injury could occur based on 

empirical data. However, as a conservative measure, NMFS has identified two levels of sound exposure

criteria for sea turtles during seismic research surveys in areas where sea turtles were anticipated to be 

numerous. The most recent (through 2009) of these two criteria correspond to a conservative safety radius of 

180 dB re 1 μPa above which TTS or PTS is considered possible and should thus be avoided. The second 

is a conservative radius of 166 dB re 1 μPa above which behavioral ―harassment‖ changes may occur. These 

criteria were identified to precautionarily limit the potential risk of physical injury and to address 

behavioral disturbance, respectively, since the associated limits were unknown. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

ES-16

Under Alternatives A and B, with the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures in place, no 

significant impacts are likely to sea turtle populations due to airgun operations in any of the analysis areas 

where they may occur (Table ES-5). The number of individual sea turtles expected to be closely 

approached during the exemplary surveys would be small in relation to regional population sizes. With 

the proposed monitoring, ramp-up, power- and shut-down provisions, effects on those individuals are 

likely to be limited to short-term behavioral disturbance and short-term localized avoidance of an area of 

unknown size near the active airguns. Operation of the MBES, SBP, or pingers is not expected to affect 

sea turtles, because the associated frequency ranges are above the known hearing range of sea turtles. 

Furthermore, the intermittent and/or narrow downward-directed nature of these sounds and the fact that 

they are emitted from a transiting seismic vessel would result in no more than one or two brief pulse 

exposures to relatively slow-moving sea turtles. In summary, implementation of Alternative A or 

Alternative B may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, ESA-listed sea turtle species occurring in 

analysis areas. No significant impacts are expected to occur at the population level for any sea turtle 

species.

Table ES-5. Summary of Potential Impacts to Sea Turtles with Implementation of Alternative A or B

(Preferred Alternative)

Analysis Area Species* Alternative A or B**

DAA

NW Atlantic,

Caribbean

Green, hawksbill,

Kemp‘s ridley,

leatherback, loggerhead

 Short-term disturbance and localized displacement of small numbers of 

feeding/migrating leatherbacks and possibly loggerheads likely by small array 

in shallow to deep waters, other species highly unlikely. Affected number 

smaller than large-array areas with similar water depths.

 Potential for TTS unknown, considered possible close to airguns but unlikely to 

occur as turtles expected to avoid such exposure and vessel would quickly pass.

 Potential for PTS, injury, lethal effects from airguns unknown but considered 

unlikely as turtles expected to avoid such exposure and vessel would quickly 

pass.

 No significant impacts expected at the population level.

 May affect, likely to adversely affect leatherbacks and loggerheads.

 May affect, not likely to adversely affect green, hawksbill, and Kemp‘s ridley.

S California,

Galapagos

Green, hawksbill,

leatherback, loggerhead,

olive ridley

 Short-term disturbance and localized displacement of small numbers of 

breeding or feeding green and hawksbill likely and smaller numbers of 

breeding, feeding or migrating loggerhead, olive ridley, Kemp‘s ridley, and 

leatherback possible by large array in shallow to deep waters.

 TTS and PTS unlikely, no significant impacts to populations (see NW Atlantic).

 May affect, likely to adversely affect all six ESA-listed sea turtles.

W Gulf of Alaska Green, leatherback,

loggerhead, olive ridley

 Effects highly unlikely as all species considered rare in the project area.

 No significant impacts to populations (see NW Atlantic).

 May affect, not likely to adversely affect green, loggerhead, olive ridley and 

leatherback.

QAA

BC Coast Green, leatherback, 

loggerhead, olive ridley

 Short-term disturbance and localized displacement of small numbers of 

migrating green and leatherback possible by large array in shallow and 

intermediate-depth waters, other species highly unlikely/rare.

 TTS and PTS highly unlikely, no significant impacts to populations (see NW 

Atlantic).

 May affect, likely to adversely affect green and leatherback.

 May affect, not likely to adversely affect loggerhead and olive ridley

Mid-Atlantic Ridge

Green, hawksbill, Kemp‘s

ridley, leatherback,

loggerhead, olive ridley

 Effects highly unlikely as all species considered rare within the project area.

 No significant impacts to populations (see NW Atlantic).

 May affect, not likely to adversely affect all six ESA-listed species
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

ES-17

Table ES-5. Summary of Potential Impacts to Sea Turtles with Implementation of Alternative A or B

(Preferred Alternative)

Analysis Area Species* Alternative A or B**

Marianas

Green, hawksbill,

leatherback, loggerhead,

olive ridley

 Short-term disturbance and localized displacement of small numbers of 

migrating or feeding individuals possible by large array in shallow to deep 

waters (all five species likely uncommon)

 TTS and PTS highly unlikely, no significant impacts to populations (see NW 

Atlantic)

 May affect, not likely to adversely affect green, hawksbill, loggerhead, olive 

ridley and leatherback.

Sub-Antarctic

Green, hawksbill,

loggerhead, olive ridley, 

leatherback

 Short-term disturbance and localized displacement of very small numbers of 

migrating green, hawksbill and olive ridley likely and smaller numbers of 

migrating or feeding loggerhead and leatherback possible by small array in only 

deep waters. Affected number expected to be smaller than most other analysis 

areas with larger arrays and/or in shallow or intermediate-depth waters.

 TTS and PTS unlikely, no significant impacts to populations (see NW Atlantic).

 May affect, not likely to adversely affect green, hawksbill, loggerhead, olive 

ridley and leatherback.

SW Atlantic

Green, hawksbill,

loggerhead, olive ridley, 

leatherback

 Short-term disturbance and localized displacement of small number of breeding 

or feeding green likely and smaller numbers of hawksbill, loggerhead, olive 

ridley and leatherback possible by large array in shallow to deep waters. 

 TTS and PTS unlikely, no significant impacts to populations (see NW Atlantic).

 May affect, not likely to adversely affect green, hawksbill, loggerhead, olive 

ridley, and leatherback.

W India

Green, hawksbill,

loggerhead, olive ridley, 

leatherback

 Short-term disturbance and localized displacement of small number of breeding 

or migrating green and olive ridley likely and smaller numbers of hawksbill, 

loggerhead, and leatherback possible by large array in intermediate to deep 

waters. Affected number expected to be smaller than large array operating in 

shallow water.

 TTS and PTS unlikely, no significant impacts to populations (see NW Atlantic).

 May affect, not likely to adversely affect green, hawksbill, loggerhead, olive 

ridley and leatherback.

N Atlantic/

Iceland Leatherback, loggerhead

 Effects highly unlikely as both species considered rare

 No significant impacts to populations (see NW Atlantic)

 May affect, not likely to adversely affect loggerhead and leatherback

W Australia

Green, hawksbill,

leatherback, loggerhead,

olive ridley, flatback

 Short-term disturbance and localized displacement of small numbers of 

breeding, feeding or migrating green, hawksbill and olive ridley likely and 

smaller numbers of feeding or migrating loggerhead and leatherback, and 

breeding or feeding non-listed flatback possible by small array in shallow to 

deep waters. Affected number expected to be smaller than areas with larger 

array at same water depths.

 TTS and PTS unlikely, no significant impacts to populations (see NW Atlantic).

 May affect, not likely to adversely affect all six ESA-listed species.

Notes: *All sea turtle species listed except for the flatback have ESA status. ** No acoustic impacts to sea turtles from MBES, SBP, or pingers (above 

turtle hearing capability) in all the analysis areas. Low risk of potential entanglement in towed/deployed seismic gear (e.g., lines, buoys, etc.); 

proposed mitigation and monitoring reduces this risk.

ES.7.4 Seabirds

It is not possible to use quantitative sound-energy criteria to assess impacts of airguns or sonar on 

seabirds as there are no measured or predicted underwater audiograms for any seabird species, published 

or otherwise, or quantitative noise criteria used to characterize effects of airgun noise on seabirds, such as 

auditory thresholds corresponding to TTS or PTS levels caused by underwater noise. Considering the 

potential for other forms of acoustic injury, it is assumed that animals very close to the acoustic source 

(e.g., within a few meters) would theoretically be at risk. However, available data suggest that seabirds 

are not expected to occur this close to the acoustic source at depth. Other potential impacts from 

disturbance, collisions, and entanglement were evaluated according to documented ecological aspects of 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

ES-18

seabirds, description of the proposed action and alternatives, and documented interactions with analogous 

components of the proposed action (e.g., lighted vessel at night).

Implementation of Alternative A or B would have no significant impact on seabirds and no effect on 

ESA-listed species or populations (Table ES-6). However, site-specific mitigation and monitoring 

measures should be considered if nesting or breeding colonies of ESA-listed seabirds or other sensitive 

aggregations or habitat-use areas for seabirds are found to be located near actual proposed seismic survey 

lines.

Table ES-6. Summary of Potential Impacts to Seabirds with Implementation of Alternative A or B

(Preferred Alternative)

Analysis

Area

ESA-listed Species*

or Family Alternative A or B

DAA

NW

Atlantic

Loons, grebes, petrels/shearwaters, pelicans, 

gannets/boobies, cormorants, gulls, terns/noddies 

(roseate tern), alcids, seaducks

 Low numbers of birds potentially displaced by physical 

presence of vessel.

 Potential for TTS, PTS, injury, lethal effects < several m 

from airguns unknown but not expected.**

 Petrels/shearwaters and alcids possibly attracted to 

vessel lights at risk for collision.

 For alcids that dive to escape disturbance, potential 

collision with vessel or gear.

 No effect to ESA-listed species.

 No significant impacts expected at the population level 

for all seabird species.

Caribbean

Grebes, petrels/shearwaters, tropicbirds, pelicans, 

gannets/boobies, gulls, terns/noddies (roseate tern), 

seaducks

 Same as above.

 No significant impacts expected at the population level.

S California

Loons, grebes, albatrosses, petrels/shearwaters, 

tropicbirds, pelicans (brown pelican), gannets/

boobies, cormorants, gulls, terns/noddies, alcids

(marbled murrelet), seaducks

 Same as above.

 No significant impacts expected at the population level.

W Gulf

of Alaska

Loons, grebes, albatrosses (short-tailed albatross), 

petrels/shearwaters, cormorants, gulls, terns/noddies, 

alcids (marbled murrelet), seaducks (Steller eider)

 Same as above.

 No significant impacts expected at the population level.

Galapagos Albatrosses, petrels/shearwaters, gannets/boobies, 

terns/noddies

 Same as above.

 No significant impacts expected at the population level

QAA

BC Coast

Loons, grebes, albatrosses (short-tailed albatross), 

petrels/shearwaters, cormorants, gulls, terns/noddies, 

alcids (marbled murrelet), seaducks

 Same as above.

 No significant impacts expected at the population level

Mid-Atlantic

Ridge

Loons, petrels/shearwaters, cormorants, gulls, 

terns/noddies, alcids

 Same as above.

 No significant impacts expected at the population level

Marianas

Albatrosses (short-tailed albatross), 

petrels/shearwaters, tropicbirds, gannets/boobies, 

gulls, terns/noddies, alcids, seaducks

 Same as above.

 No significant impacts expected at the population level.

Sub-Antarctic Petrels/shearwaters, diving-petrels, gannets/boobies,

gulls, terns/noddies

 Same as above.

 No significant impacts expected at the population level.

N Atlantic/

Iceland

Loons, grebes, petrels/shearwaters, pelicans, 

gannets/boobies, cormorants, gulls, terns/noddies, 

alcids, seaducks

 Same as above.

 No significant impacts expected at the population level.

SW Atlantic Petrels/shearwaters, pelicans, gannets/boobies, gulls, 

terns/noddies, alcids, seaducks

 Same as above.

 No significant impacts expected at the population level.

W India Petrels/shearwaters, cormorants, gulls, terns/noddies, 

seaducks

 Same as above.

 No significant impacts expected at the population level.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

ES-19

Table ES-6. Summary of Potential Impacts to Seabirds with Implementation of Alternative A or B

(Preferred Alternative)

Analysis

Area

ESA-listed Species*

or Family Alternative A or B

W Australia Tropicbirds, gannets/boobies, Terns/noddies (roseate 

tern)

 Same as above.

 No significant impacts expected at the population level.

Notes: *ESA-listed species in bold font.

**As determined from the lack of any published data of such effects, together with observational data by PSVOs with LGL Ltd. during 

numerous seismic surveys throughout the world, suggesting that seabirds do not remain in the water near the airgun array where they would 

be at risk of injury. 

ES.7.5 Marine Mammals: Cetaceans: Mysticetes

The potential impacts on mysticetes with implementation of Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred 

Alternative) are summarized in Table ES-7. With implementation of the proposed monitoring and 

mitigation measures, unavoidable impacts to mysticetes under Alternative A or B are expected to be 

limited to short-term behavioral disturbance and short-term localized avoidance of the area near the active 

airguns. This is expected to have no significant short- and long-term impacts on individual mysticetes, 

their habitats, and regional populations within the exemplary analysis areas. 

Based on empirical studies, mysticetes are expected to avoid exposure to seismic sounds levels >180 dB 

re 1 μPa (rms) and these avoidance behaviors typically begin at lower received sound levels. Furthermore, 

modeling indicates that no Level A exposures of mysticetes would occur under Alternative A or B based 

on the more realistic cumulative energy exposure criterion. However, because the modeled potential 

Level A (rms) exposures would be of concern and involve ESA-listed species, further site-specific 

consultation with NMFS would occur. If and when a specific NSF-funded survey or a survey to be 

conducted by USGS is proposed for a specific area in the future, in accordance with ESA and MMPA, 

site-specific consultations with NMFS and USFWS would occur if necessary, as well as the preparation 

of any other appropriate tiered supporting environmental documentation (e.g., EA). Overall, the primary 

anticipated impacts to mysticetes with implementation of Alternative A or B are:

 Small numbers of mysticetes are modeled or would be expected to experience Level B behavioral 

disturbance in all of the DAAs and potentially all eight of the QAAs. However, this is not expected 

to result in any long term or significant consequences to disturbed individuals or their populations. 

The S California DAA is the only site where mysticetes are not likely to be disturbed by the 

proposed seismic survey activities. This is due primarily to the near-zero estimated mysticete 

densities at the season (late spring/early summer) of the exemplary survey, the proposed small 

airgun array, and the acoustic characteristics of the S California DAA.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

ES-20

Table ES-7. Summary of Potential Impacts to Mysticetes with Implementation of Alternative A or B (Preferred Alternative) in the DAAs

DAA Whale Species(a) Alternative A or B(a)

NW

Atlantic

N Atlantic right, Humpback,

Minke, Sei, Fin

Limited to insignificant number of short-term Level B behavioral effects in shallow water. Likely to adversely affect ESA-listed 

species or their populations and consultation with NMFS required.

Caribbean

Humpback, Fin Limited to insignificant number of short-term Level B behavioral effects in shallow water. Likely to adversely affect ESA-listed 

humpback and fin whales and consultation with NMFS required.

Minke, Sei, Blue Effects highly unlikely given expected 0 density(b). Not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species.

Bryde‘s Limited to small number of short-term Level B behavioral exposures. 

S

California

N Pacific right, Bryde‘s, Sei,

Fin, Blue, E Pacific gray,

Humpback

Effects highly unlikely given expected 0 densities.(b)

Minke Limited to insignificant number of short-term Level B behavioral exposures.

W Gulf

of Alaska

N Pacific right Limited to small number of short-term Level B behavioral exposures and likely to adversely affect right whales; consultation with 

NMFS required. 

E Pacific gray, Minke Small number of Level B behavioral changes likely; Level A effects possible but highly unlikely--whales expected to avoid such 

exposure. No modeled Level A (SEL) cumulative energy exposure. 

Humpback, Fin

Limited to short-term Level B behavioral exposures. Likely to adversely affect ESA-listed humpback and fin whales and consultation 

with NMFS required. Level A effects possible but highly unlikely--whales expected to avoid such exposure. No Level A (SEL) 

cumulative energy exposure predicted. No effects expected at population level. However, given species‘ ESA status, common 

occurrence, and modeled small number of Level A (rms) exposures, further site-specific consultation with NMFS and tiered EA/OEA 

to be prepared when a seismic survey is definitively proposed in the future.

Sei, Blue Effects highly unlikely given expected 0 density(b)

.

Galapagos

Ridge

Humpback, Minke Effects highly unlikely given expected 0 density(b).

Bryde‘s Small number of Level B behavioral changes likely primarily in deep water; insignificant number(b) of Level A (rms) exposures. No 

modeled Level A (SEL) cumulative energy exposure. Level A exposures highly unlikely as whales expected to avoid such exposure. 

Sei, Fin Effects highly unlikely given expected 0 density(b)

.

Blue Limited to small number of short-term Level B behavioral exposures and likely to adversely affect blue whales; consultation with 

NMFS required. 

(a)No effects expected at population level for any species. Insignificant number = >0.0 / <1.0 individual exposed representing <1% of estimated regional population size. Small number =>0.0 / <3.1% of 

estimated regional population size exposed. bold = ESA-listed species.

(b)See Appendix B, Annex 4 Tables A4-1 – A4-6 for estimated densities in the DAAs based on best available data.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

ES-21

 Modeling predicts that, under Alternative A and Alternative B (Preferred Alternative), a small 

number of Level A exposures could occur in the W Gulf of Alaska DAA based on the current 180 

dB re 1 μPa (rms) NMFS criterion, despite proposed mitigation and monitoring. However, no or 

insignificant (<0.019 whales) Level A exposures are expected to occur based on the more realistic 

cumulative energy exposure criterion. Cumulative energy (SEL) is now considered a more 

appropriate metric for assessing potential exposure of mysticetes to pulsed underwater sounds. 

Furthermore, Level A effects are highly unlikely to occur during a seismic survey, as mysticetes are 

expected to avoid exposure to seismic sound levels that could actually result in Level A exposures.

Operation of MBESs, SBPs, and pingers is not likely to impact mysticetes. The intermittent and narrow 

downward-directed nature of the MBES and SBP acoustic sources would result in no more than one or 

two brief ping exposures of any individual mysticete given the movement and speed of the vessel; such 

brief exposure to this sound is not expected to cause injury or PTS based on results of limited studies of 

some odontocete species. The streamer and core-mounted pingers are also highly unlikely to affect 

mysticetes given their intermittent nature, short-term and transitory use from a moving vessel, relatively 

low source levels, brief signal durations, and in the case of ancillary core sampling their relatively 

infrequent use. 

ES.7.6 Marine Mammals – Cetaceans: Odontocetes

The potential impacts on odontocetes with implementation of Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred 

Alternative) are summarized in Tables ES-8 and ES-9. Overall, the primary anticipated impacts to 

odontocetes with implementation of Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) are:

 Small numbers of odontocetes are modeled or would be expected to experience Level B 

exposures at all five DAAs and potentially all eight QAAs. These numbers represent <1.0% of 

regional populations of most species. The exception is Stenella spp. in the NW Atlantic and 

Caribbean DAAs where up to approximately 2.7% of the regional population could experience 

Level B behavioral disturbance.

 In general, modeling results indicate that large airgun arrays operating in shallow water where 

odontocetes are common to abundant would cause the highest numbers of short-term Level B

exposures. 

 No short- or long-term significant impacts are expected on odontocete populations or their 

habitats, including ESA-listed sperm whales, as a result of implementation of Alternative A or B.

 Modeling suggests that no cumulative energy exposures of odontocetes to >198 dB re 1 μPa2·sec

(SEL), the Level A criterion used in this analysis, would occur in any of the analysis areas. 

 Small numbers of individuals representing approximately <0.1% of regional populations of some 

odontocetes are predicted to be exposed to the NMFS Level A criterion of >180 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms). Predicted Level A exposures would be similar for the two alternatives except for a few 

individuals of common to abundant delphinid species at the NW Atlantic and W Gulf of Alaska 

DAAs. 

 No TTS and no potential injury (e.g., PTS) are expected to occur during the exemplary seismic 

surveys. Many odontocetes are expected to avoid exposure to seismic sound levels that could 

potentially cause these effects. The model used for analyses does not account for this expected 

behavioral avoidance and thus is precautionary. These avoidance behaviors typically begin at 

lower received sound levels. Moreover, modeling indicates that no Level A exposures of 

odontocetes would occur under Alternative A and Alternative B based on the more realistic 

cumulative energy (SEL) exposure criterion (Tables ES-7 and ES-8).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

ES-22

Table ES-8. Summary of Potential Impacts to Odontocetes with Implementation of Alternative A or B (Preferred Alternative) in the 

DAAs

DAA Species Alternative A or B

NW Atlantic

Sperm whale 

Small number (a) of short-term Level B exposures. Negligible(b) NMFS Level A (rms) exposures primarily in 

shallow water. No modeled Level A (SEL) cumulative energy exposures. No Level A exposures expected in 

actual seismic survey due to proposed mitigation and monitoring measures and behavioral avoidance, but 

analysis model does not account for avoidance. Further site-specific consultation with NMFS would be required 

for actual seismic survey due to ESA status.

Beaked whales Small number(a) short-term Level B exposures in shallow water. 

Common, bottlenose, and 

Stenellid dolphins

Small number(a) short-term Level B exposures primarily in shallow water. Small number(a) Level A (rms) 

exposures of common & bottlenose dolphins in shallow water. No modeled Level A (SEL) cumulative energy 

exposures. No Level A exposures expected in actual seismic survey due to proposed mitigation measures and

behavioral avoidance but analysis model does not account for avoidance.

Other mid-frequency(MF)

odontocetes

Small number(a) short-term Level B exposures. No modeled Level A exposures.

High-frequency (HF)

porpoises

Effects highly unlikely given expected zero densities. No modeled Level A or B exposures.

Caribbean

Sperm whale Small number(a) short-term Level B exposures. No modeled Level A exposures.

Beaked whales Effects highly unlikely given expected zero densities. No modeled Level A or B exposures.

Common , bottlenose, and 

Stenellid dolphins

Small number(a) short-term Level B exposures primarily in shallow water. Small number Level A (rms) 

exposures of primarily Atlantic spotted dolphins in shallow water. No modeled Level A (SEL) cumulative energy 

exposures. No Level A exposures expected in actual seismic survey due to proposed mitigation measures and 

behavioral avoidance, but analysis model does not account for avoidance. 

Other MF odontocetes Small number(a) short-term Level B exposures of mostly pilot whales primarily in shallow water. No Level A 

exposure modeled or expected due to proposed mitigation measures and behavioral avoidance.

S California

Beaked whales See above.

Common dolphins Small number(a) short-term Level B exposures in shallow water. No Level A exposures modeled or expected due 

to proposed mitigation measures and behavioral avoidance. 

Other MF odontocetes

Small number(a) short-term Level B exposures and modeled Level A (rms) exposures of only Pacific white-sided 

dolphins in shallow water. No modeled Level A (SEL) cumulative energy exposures. No Level A exposures 

expected in actual seismic survey due to proposed mitigation measures and behavioral avoidance, but analysis 

model does not account avoidance. 

HF porpoises Small number(a) short-term Level B exposures of only Dall‘s porpoises in shallow water. No Level A exposures 

modeled or expected due to proposed mitigation measures and behavioral avoidance. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

ES-23

Table ES-8. Summary of Potential Impacts to Odontocetes with Implementation of Alternative A or B (Preferred Alternative) in the 

DAAs

DAA Species Alternative A or B

W Gulf of

Alaska

Sperm whale Small number(a) short-term Level B exposures. No Level A exposures modeled or expected due to proposed 

mitigation measures and behavioral avoidance. 

Beaked whales See sperm whale above.

Other MF odontocetes Small number(a) Level B behavioral effects of killer whales and Pacific white-sided dolphins primarily in shallow 

water. No Level A exposures modeled or expected due to planned mitigation measures and behavioral avoidance. 

HF porpoises

Small number(a) short-term Level B exposures and small number modeled Level A (rms) exposures of primarily 

Dall‘s porpoises in shallow water. No modeled Level A (SEL) cumulative energy exposures. No Level A 

exposures expected in actual seismic survey due to proposed mitigation measures and behavioral avoidance, but 

analysis model does not account for avoidance.

Galapagos

Sperm whale See sperm whale above.

Beaked whales See sperm whale above

Common, bottlenose, and 

Stenellid dolphins

Small number(a) short-term Level B exposures. Small number modeled Level A (rms) exposures of only Stenellid 

dolphins in shallow water. No modeled Level A (SEL) cumulative energy exposures. No Level A exposures expected 

in actual seismic survey due to proposed mitigation measures and behavioral avoidance, but analysis model does not 

account for avoidance.

Other MF odontocetes See sperm whale above.

Notes:

 (a) Small number = <2.1% of estimated regional population size exposed.

(b) Negligible number: for non-listed species = 0.5- <1.0 individual exposed representing <1.0% of estimated regional population size; for ESA-listed species = 0.05-<0.5 

individual exposed representing <0.01% of estimated regional population size. 

Table ES-9. Summary of Potential Impacts to Odontocetes with Implementation of Alternative A or B (Preferred Alternative) in the 

QAAs

QAA Species Alternative A or B

BC Coast Sperm whale, beaked whales, other MF odontocetes, HF porpoises

Small number(b) short-term Level B exposures likely. No 

Level A exposures expected in actual seismic survey due to 

planned mitigation measures and behavioral avoidance

Mid-Atlantic Ridge Sperm whale, beaked whales, other MF odontocetes See above.

Marianas Sperm whale, beaked whales, other MF odontocetes See above.

Sub-Antarctic Sperm whale, beaked whales, other MF odontocetes, HF porpoises See above.

N Atlantic/Iceland Sperm whale, beaked whales, other MF odontocetes, HF porpoises See above.

SW Atlantic Sperm whale, beaked whales, other MF odontocetes, HF porpoises See above.

W India Sperm whale, beaked whales, other MF odontocetes See above.

W Australia Sperm whale, beaked whales, other MF odontocetes See above.

Notes: bold = ESA-listed species

(a) For the purpose of analysis, for non-listed species, only predicted exposures >0.5 animal as presented in Appendix Tables B-14 – B-25 are considered an actual 

exposure. For ESA-listed species, only predicted exposures >0.05 animal as presented in Appendix Tables B-14 – B-25 are considered an actual exposure. 

(b) Small number = <2-3% of estimated regional population size.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

ES-24

Operation of MBESs, SBPs, and pingers is not likely to impact odontocetes. The intermittent and narrow 

downward-directed nature of the MBES and SBP acoustic sources would result in no more than one or 

two brief ping exposures of any individual odontocete given the movement and speed of the vessel; such 

brief exposure to this sound is not expected to cause injury or PTS based on results of limited studies of 

some odontocete species. The streamer and core-mounted pingers are also highly unlikely to affect 

odontocetes given their intermittent nature, their short-term and transitory use from a moving vessel, their 

relatively low source levels, their brief ping durations, and in the case of ancillary core sampling their 

relatively infrequent use. 

In summary, implementation of Alternative A or B, with the proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, is likely to result in minor short-term and localized behavioral disturbance of small numbers of 

individual odontocetes. These temporary effects are not anticipated to result in any significant long-term 

or population-level impacts on odontocete populations. The numbers of individual odontocetes modeled 

or estimated to be exposed to the current NMFS Level B criterion of >160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) during the 

exemplary surveys would be small in relation to regional population sizes. No PTS or other potential 

injury of odontocetes is anticipated during an actual seismic survey under Alternative A or B with

proposed mitigation and monitoring measures. If and when a specific NSF-funded survey or a survey to 

be conducted by USGS is proposed for a specific area in the future, in accordance with ESA and MMPA, 

site-specific consultations with NMFS and USFWS would occur if necessary, as well as the preparation 

of any other appropriate tiered supporting environmental documentation (e.g., EA).

ES.7.7 Marine Mammals – Pinnipeds

The potential impacts on pinnipeds with implementation of Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred 

Alternative) are summarized in Table ES-10. Pinnipeds are absent or rare in the areas where some seismic 

surveys would occur. Overall, the primary anticipated impacts to pinnipeds with implementation of 

Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) are:

 Small numbers of individual pinnipeds are predicted to be exposed to ≥160 dB re 1 μPa rms at 

three of the five DAAs; these numbers represent <1.0% of regional populations. However, many 

of these exposed pinnipeds would not show any overt disturbance. These exposures are not 

expected to result in any long-term or significant consequences to the affected individuals or their 

populations.

 In general, modeling results indicate that large airgun arrays operating in shallow water where 

pinnipeds are common to abundant would cause the highest numbers of short-term Level B 

exposures. 

 Small numbers of individuals representing <0.01% of regional populations of some pinnipeds are 

predicted to be exposed to the NMFS Level A criterion of >190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) or SEL >186 

dB re 1 μPa2· s in certain exemplary project areas under the simplifying assumptions of the 

modeling.

 PTS and other injurious effects are not expected to occur during the actual seismic surveys. Most 

pinnipeds are expected to avoid exposure to seismic sound levels that could potentially cause 

these effects. The model used for analysis overestimates Level A exposures, because it does not 

account for this expected behavioral avoidance and also does not allow for the higher TTS and 

PTS thresholds of some pinnipeds.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

ES-25

Table ES-10. Summary of Potential Impacts to Pinnipeds with Implementation of Alternative A or B 

(Preferred Alternative)

Analysis Area Species or Group(1) Alternative A or B(1)

DAA

NW Atlantic Non-ESA listed 

pinnipeds Effects highly unlikely given expected zero densities.(2)

Caribbean No pinniped species -

S California

Steller sea lion,

Guadalupe fur seal

Effects highly unlikely given expected zero densities.(2) No effect on ESAlisted species or their populations.

Non-ESA listed 

pinnipeds

No significant impacts; limited to small number(3) of short-term Level B 

behavioral exposures. No modeled Level A exposures. 

W Gulf

of Alaska

Steller sea lion

May affect, likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species; consultation with 

NMFS required. Limited to small number(3) of short-term Level B 

behavioral exposures; <1 modeled Level A exposure but highly unlikely to 

occur in actual seismic survey as pinnipeds expected to avoid such 

exposure (see text).

Non-ESA listed

pinnipeds

Limited to small number(3) of short-term Level B behavioral exposures; 

small number of modeled Level A exposures are highly unlikely to occur in 

actual seismic survey as pinnipeds expected to avoid such exposure (see 

text). 

Galapagos Ridge No pinniped species -

QAA

BC Coast

Steller sea lion See W Gulf of Alaska DAA.

Non-ESA listed 

pinnipeds

See above

Mid-Atlantic

Ridge No pinniped species -

Marianas No pinniped species -

Sub-Antarctic Non-ESA listed 

pinnipeds

Level B behavioral effects possible but unlikely; Level A effects highly 

unlikely as species are rare and expected to avoid such exposure.

N Atlantic/Iceland Non-ESA listed 

pinnipeds See BC Coast QAA.

SW Atlantic No pinniped species -

W India No pinniped species -

W Australia Australian sea lion See Sub-Antarctic QAA.

(1)No significant effects expected at population level for any species. Bold = ESA-listed species.

(2)See Appendix B, Annex 4 for estimated marine mammal densities in the DAAs.

(3) Small number (<1%) of estimated regional population size exposed. 

Although the MBESs, SBPs, and pingers can presumably be heard by pinnipeds, their operation is not 

likely to affect pinnipeds. The intermittent and narrow downward-directed nature of the MBESs and SPBs 

would result in no more than one or two brief ping exposures of any individual pinniped given the 

movement and speed of the vessel and animal; such brief exposure to this sound is not expected to cause 

injury or PTS based on results of limited studies of some pinniped species (reviewed in Appendix E). The 

streamer-mounted pingers and pingers used during coring are also highly unlikely to affect pinnipeds 

given their intermittent nature, their short-term and transitory use from a moving vessel, their relatively 

low source levels, their brief ping durations, and (in the case of ancillary core sampling) their relatively 

infrequent use. 

In summary, implementation of Alternative A or B is likely to result in minor short-term and localized 

behavioral disturbance of small numbers of individual pinnipeds. These temporary effects are not 

anticipated to result in any long-term or population-level effects on pinniped populations. The numbers of 

individual pinnipeds estimated to be exposed to the current NMFS Level B criterion of >160 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms) during the exemplary surveys would be small in relation to regional population sizes. No PTS or 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

ES-26

other potential injury of pinnipeds is anticipated during an actual seismic survey under Alternative A or B

with proposed mitigation and monitoring measures. No significant short- or long-term impacts are 

expected on pinniped populations or their habitats, including ESA-listed species, as a result of 

implementation of Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred Alternative). If and when a specific NSFfunded survey or a survey to be conducted by USGS is proposed for a specific area in the future, in 

accordance with ESA and MMPA, site-specific consultations with NMFS and USFWS would occur if 

necessary, as well as the preparation of any other appropriate tiered supporting environmental

documentation (e.g., EA).

ES.7.8 Other Marine Mammals (Sea Otter and W Indian Manatee)

Implementation of Alternatives A or B may result in minor short-term and localized behavioral 

disturbance of individual sea otters and W Indian manatees (Table ES-11). The number of individuals of 

these species estimated to be closely approached during the proposed seismic surveys is expected to be 

very small to none and limited to the three DAAs and one QAA where they occur. No PTS or other 

potential injury of these species is anticipated during an actual seismic survey under Alternative A with 

proposed mitigation and monitoring measures. No significant short- or long-term impacts are expected on 

ESA-listed species populations or their habitats as a result of implementation of Alternative A or B. 

Table ES-11. Summary of Potential Impacts to Sea Otter and W Indian Manatee with 

Implementation of Alternative A or B (Preferred Alternative)

Analysis Area Species Alternative A or B

DAA

Caribbean West Indian

manatee

Potential short-term disturbance and localized displacement of individuals 

possible, but species unlikely to occur in areas where seismic surveys would 

occur. Potential for TTS unknown, considered possible close to airguns but 

highly unlikely to occur. No significant impacts or adverse effects expected 

on individuals or regional populations.

S California Sea otter

Potential short-term disturbance and localized displacement of individuals 

possible, but species unlikely to occur in areas where seismic surveys would 

occur. Potential for TTS unknown, considered possible close to airguns but 

highly unlikely to occur. No significant impacts or adverse effects expected 

on individuals or regional populations.

W Gulf of Alaska Sea otter

Potential short-term disturbance and localized displacement of individuals 

possible, but species unlikely to occur in areas where seismic surveys would 

occur. Potential for TTS unknown, considered possible close to airguns but 

highly unlikely to occur. No significant impacts or adverse effects expected 

on individuals or regional populations.

QAA

BC Coast Sea otter

Potential short-term disturbance and localized displacement of individuals 

possible, but species unlikely to occur in areas where seismic surveys would 

occur. Potential for TTS unknown, considered possible close to airguns but 

highly unlikely to occur. No significant impacts or adverse effects expected 

on individuals or regional populations.

Sounds from some of the MBESs and SBPs are within the frequency ranges detectable to W Indian 

manatees and presumed detectable to sea otters. Short-term behavioral disturbance of these species may 

occur during proposed seismic activities. However, no Level A exposures are expected. W Indian 

manatees typically inhabit quite shallow coastal areas characterized by seabeds where seismic surveys are 

not proposed to occur. Furthermore, the intermittent and downward-directed nature of the echosounder 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

ES-27

signals emitted from the transiting seismic vessel would result in no more than one or two brief ping 

exposures to an animal that happened to occur under the vessel. 

ES.7.9 Socioeconomics

Based on available information, there would be no significant impacts to socioeconomics with 

implementation of Alternative A or B (Preferred Alternative) within the exemplary analysis areas (Table 

ES-12). The analysis is limited to the DAAs and QAAs found within the U.S. EEZ.

Table ES-12. Summary of Potential Impacts to Socioeconomics with Implementation of 

Alternative A or B (Preferred Alternative)

Analysis Area Alternative A or B

NW Atlantic

 Temporary, localized reduced fish catch to some species – not significant to commercial 

fisheries.

 No significant impacts to commercial shipping, research and exploration activities, 

subsistence hunting and fishing, and recreational fishing and boating.

S California

 Temporary, localized reduced fish catch to some species – not significant to commercial 

fisheries.

 No significant impacts to commercial shipping, research and exploration activities, 

subsistence hunting and fishing, and recreational fishing and boating.

W Gulf of

Alaska

 Temporary, localized reduced fish catch to some species – not significant to commercial 

fisheries.

 No significant impacts to commercial shipping, research and exploration activities, 

subsistence hunting and fishing, and recreational fishing and boating.

ES.7.10 Cultural Resources

Based on available information, there would be no significant impacts to cultural resources with 

implementation of Alternative A or B within the exemplary analysis areas (Table ES-13). The analysis is 

limited to the DAAs and QAAs found within the U.S. EEZ.

Table ES-13. Summary of Potential Impacts to Cultural Resources with Implementation of 

Alternative A or B (Preferred Alternative)

DAA Alternative A or B

NW Atlantic  No significant impacts to archaeological resources.

 No traditional cultural resources present.

S California  No significant impacts to archaeological resources.

 No traditional cultural resources present.

W Gulf of Alaska  No significant impacts to archaeological and traditional cultural resources.

ES.7.11 Cumulative Impacts

The results of this cumulative impacts analysis indicate that there would not be any significant cumulative 

effects to marine resources from the proposed NSF-funded or USGS marine seismic research. All seismic 

cruises would be permitted according to the rules and regulations of the applicable agencies of U.S. 

federal, state, and foreign governments. 

While there are uncertainties about the location and timing of future human activities in combination with 

the proposed seismic surveys at the programmatic level, cruise-specific EAs would be prepared when a 

particular seismic research activity is proposed. A more detailed, cruise-specific cumulative effects 

analysis would be conducted at the time of the preparation of the cruise-specific EAs, allowing for the 

identification of other potential activities in the area of the proposed seismic survey that may result in 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

ES-28

cumulative impacts to environmental resources. These cruise-specific EAs would also take into 

consideration the seasonal distribution of marine resources and acoustic properties of a proposed site to 

develop site-specific mitigation measures. These additional mitigation measures would be followed to 

ensure that potential cumulative impacts do not become significant. For example, if noise modeling 

results indicate that Level A (injury) harassment impacts to marine mammals or threatened and 

endangered marine mammal species may occur, then additional mitigation measures would be added to 

the cruise parameters to reduce and eliminate the potential for Level A harassment impacts to marine 

mammals that may occur in the project area. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 20110

i

FINAL

PROGRAMMATIC EIS/OEIS

MARINE SEISMIC RESEARCH FUNDED BY NSF OR CONDUCTED BY USGS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acronyms and Abbreviations................................................................................................................ x

Glossary ............................................................................................................................................... xii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................. ES-1

ES.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ ES-1

ES.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................ ES-1

ES.3 PROGRAMMATIC APPROACH ............................................................................................ ES-2

ES.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................... ES-3

ES.5 ACOUSTIC MODELING...................................................................................................... ES-6

ES.6 ACTION ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................... ES-7

ES.7 POTENTIAL IMPACTS...................................................................................................... ES-13

CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED...............................................................................................1-1

1.1 COOPERATING AGENCIES...................................................................................................1-1

1.2 MISSION OF NSF................................................................................................................1-2

1.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION..........................................................1-2

1.4 PROGRAMMATIC APPROACH TO THE PEIS .........................................................................1-4

1.5 BACKGROUND OF NSF-FUNDED MARINE SEISMIC RESEARCH............................................1-5

1.6 BACKGROUND OF USGS MARINE SEISMIC RESEARCH .......................................................1-6

1.7 PEIS ANALYSIS AREAS......................................................................................................1-6

1.8 REGULATORY SETTING ......................................................................................................1-7

1.8.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)..........................................................1-7

1.8.2 EO 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions .....................1-8

1.8.3 Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) .............................................................1-8

1.8.4 Endangered Species Act (ESA) .............................................................................1-9

1.8.5 Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA)............................................................................ 1-11

1.8.6 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) ............................................................. 1-11

1.8.7 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) ............................ 1-11

1.9 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS ................................................................................ 1-12

1.9.1 Notice of Intent (NOI)......................................................................................... 1-12

1.9.2 Scoping Process.................................................................................................. 1-12

1.9.3 Draft PEIS .......................................................................................................... 1-13

1.9.4 Final PEIS........................................................................................................... 1-14

1.9.5 Record of Decision (ROD).................................................................................. 1-15

CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .............2-1

2.1 MARINE SEISMIC RESEARCH METHODS .............................................................................2-1

2.1.1 Seismic Acoustic Sources Used in Marine Seismic Research .................................2-3

2.1.2 Non-Seismic Acoustic Sources Used in Marine Seismic Research .........................2-7

2.1.3 Acoustic Receivers Used in Marine Seismic Research ...........................................2-8

2.1.4 Types of Marine Seismic Surveys..........................................................................2-8

2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ......................................................................... 2-16

2.2.1 Overview of Marine Seismic Research Funded by NSF or Conducted by USGS.. 2-16
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 20110

ii

2.2.2 Research Vessels Used in Marine Seismic Research Funded by NSF or 

Conducted by USGS ........................................................................................... 2-19

2.2.3 Proposed Acoustic Sources and Receivers for NSF-funded and USGS Marine 

Seismic Research ................................................................................................ 2-22

2.3 APPROACH TO ANALYSIS FOR THE PEIS........................................................................... 2-38

2.3.1 Exemplary (Representative) Analysis Areas Analyzed under the PEIS................. 2-38

2.3.2 Acoustic Impact Criteria...................................................................................... 2-47

2.3.3 Acoustic Modeling.............................................................................................. 2-54

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD FOR ANALYSIS......................................................... 2-63

2.4.1 Alternative A: Conduct Marine Seismic Research Using Cruise-specific 

Mitigation Measures............................................................................................ 2-63

2.4.2 Alternative B: Conduct Marine Seismic Research using Cruise-specific 

Mitigation Measures with Generic Mitigation Measures for Low-energy 

Acoustic Sources (Preferred Alternative)............................................................. 2-72

2.4.3 Comparison of Alternative A and Alternative B................................................... 2-74

2.4.4 Alternative C: No-Action Alternative ................................................................. 2-75

2.5 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT................................................................................................ 2-75

2.6 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS...................... 2-76

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.....3-1

3.1 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT..................................................................................................3-2

3.1.1 Ambient Noise ......................................................................................................3-2

3.1.2 Factors Affecting Sound Propagation in the Marine Environment ..........................3-3

3.2 MARINE INVERTEBRATES ..................................................................................................3-6

3.2.1 Overview of Decapod Crustaceans and Cephalopod Mollusks ...............................3-7

3.2.2 Affected Environment: Detailed Analysis Areas (DAAs)......................................3-9

3.2.3 Affected Environment: Qualitative Analysis Areas (QAAs)................................ 3-12

3.2.4 Environmental Consequences – General.............................................................. 3-15

3.2.5 Environmental Consequences – Alternative A and Alternative B (Preferred 

Alternative)......................................................................................................... 3-21

3.2.6 Environmental Consequences – Alternative C (No-Action Alternative) ............... 3-22

3.2.7 Summary of Environmental Consequences – Invertebrates.................................. 3-22

3.3 MARINE FISH................................................................................................................... 3-23

3.3.1 Overview of Fish Groups .................................................................................... 3-23

3.3.2 Affected Environment: Detailed Analysis Areas (DAAs).................................... 3-31

3.3.3 Affected Environment: Qualitative Analysis Areas (QAAs)................................ 3-36

3.3.4 Environmental Consequences – General.............................................................. 3-39

3.3.5 Environmental Consequences – Alternative A and Alternative B (Preferred 

Alternative)......................................................................................................... 3-47

3.3.6 Environmental Consequences – Alternative C (No-Action Alternative) ............... 3-49

3.3.7 Summary of Environmental Consequences – Fish ............................................... 3-49

3.4 SEA TURTLES................................................................................................................... 3-50

3.4.1 Overview of Sea Turtle Species........................................................................... 3-50

3.4.2 Affected Environment: Detailed Analysis Areas (DAAs).................................... 3-54

3.4.3 Affected Environment: Qualitative Analysis Areas (QAAs)................................ 3-62

3.4.4 Environmental Consequences – General.............................................................. 3-68
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 20110

iii

3.4.5 Environmental Consequences – Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred 

Alternative)......................................................................................................... 3-80

3.4.6 Environmental Consequences – Alternative C (No-Action Alternative) ............... 3-86

3.4.7 Summary of Environmental Consequences – Sea Turtles..................................... 3-86

3.5 SEABIRDS ........................................................................................................................ 3-88

3.5.1 Overview of Seabird Groups ............................................................................... 3-88

3.5.2 Affected Environment: Detailed Analysis Areas (DAAs).................................... 3-92

3.5.3 Affected Environment: Qualitative Analysis Areas (QAAs)................................ 3-93

3.5.4 Environmental Consequences – General.............................................................. 3-93

3.5.5 Environmental Consequences – Alternative A and Alternative B (Preferred 

Alternative)......................................................................................................... 3-98

3.5.6 Environmental Consequences – Alternative C (No-Action Alternative) ............... 3-99

3.5.7 Summary of Environmental Consequences – Seabirds....................................... 3-100

3.6 MARINE MAMMALS – CETACEANS: MYSTICETES .......................................................... 3-102

3.6.1 Overview of Mysticete Groups.......................................................................... 3-102

3.6.2 Affected Environment: Detailed Analysis Areas (DAAs).................................. 3-108

3.6.3 Affected Environment: Qualitative Analysis Areas (QAAs).............................. 3-113

3.6.4 Environmental Consequences – General............................................................ 3-123

3.6.5 Environmental Consequences – Alternative A and Alternative B (Preferred 

Alternative)....................................................................................................... 3-139

3.6.6 Environmental Consequences – Alternative C (No-Action Alternative) ............. 3-151

3.6.7 Summary of Environmental Consequences – Mysticetes ................................... 3-151

3.7 MARINE MAMMALS – CETACEANS: ODONTOCETES....................................................... 3-156

3.7.1 Overview of Odontocete Groups ....................................................................... 3-156

3.7.2 Affected Environment: Detailed Analysis Areas (DAAs).................................. 3-165

3.7.3 Affected Environment: Qualitative Analysis Areas (QAAs).............................. 3-171

3.7.4 Environmental Consequences – General............................................................ 3-178

3.7.5 Environmental Consequences – Alternative A and Alternative B (Preferred 

Alternative)....................................................................................................... 3-191

3.7.6 Environmental Consequences – Alternative C (No-Action Alternative) ............. 3-199

3.7.7 Summary of Environmental Consequences – Odontocetes................................. 3-199

3.8 MARINE MAMMALS – PINNIPEDS ................................................................................... 3-203

3.8.1 Overview of Pinniped Groups ........................................................................... 3-203

3.8.2 Affected Environment: Detailed Analysis Areas (DAAs).................................. 3-209

3.8.3 Affected Environment: Qualitative Analysis Areas (QAAs).............................. 3-211

3.8.4 Environmental Consequences – General............................................................ 3-214

3.8.5 Environmental Consequences – Alternative A and Alternative B (Preferred 

Alternative)....................................................................................................... 3-220

3.8.6 Environmental Consequences – Alternative C (No-Action Alternative) ............. 3-226

3.8.7 Summary of Environmental Consequences – Pinnipeds..................................... 3-226

3.9 OTHER MARINE MAMMALS (SEA OTTER AND W INDIAN MANATEE).............................. 3-229

3.9.1 Overview of Sea Otter and W Indian Manatee ................................................... 3-229

3.9.2 Affected Environment: Detailed Analysis Areas (DAAs).................................. 3-233

3.9.3 Affected Environment: Qualitative Analysis Areas (QAAs).............................. 3-235

3.9.4 Environmental Consequences – General............................................................ 3-236
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 20110

iv

3.9.5 Environmental Consequences – Alternative A and Alternative B (Preferred 

Alternative)....................................................................................................... 3-241

3.9.6 Environmental Consequences – Alternative C (No-Action Alternative) ............. 3-244

3.9.7 Summary of Environmental Consequences – Sea Otter and W Indian Manatee .. 3-244

3.10 SOCIOECONOMICS.......................................................................................................... 3-246

3.10.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-246

3.10.2 Environmental Consequences............................................................................ 3-252

3.10.3 Summary of Environmental Consequences........................................................ 3-257

3.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................. 3-258

3.11.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-259

3.11.2 Environmental Consequences............................................................................ 3-261

3.11.3 Summary of Environmental Consequences........................................................ 3-264

CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND IRREVERSIBLE/IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES...........................................................................4-1

4.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ......................................................................................................4-1

4.1.1 Potential Cumulative Effects Issues.......................................................................4-1

4.1.2 Assessment of Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................4-2

4.1.3 Summary of Cumulative Impacts ..........................................................................4-6

4.2 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES ...................................4-7

4.3 POSSIBLE CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THE OBJECTIVES OF 

FEDERAL LAND USE POLICIES, PLANS, AND CONTROLS .....................................................4-7

4.3.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)..........................................................4-7

4.3.2 Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) .............................................................4-8

4.3.3 Endangered Species Act (ESA) .............................................................................4-8

4.3.4 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).................4-8

4.3.5 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) ...............................................................4-8

4.3.6 Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act .................................................4-8

4.3.7 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) ......................................................................4-8

4.3.8 Clean Water Act (CWA) .......................................................................................4-9

4.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ................4-9

4.5 COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER EOS.........................................................................................4-9

4.5.1 EO 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions .....................4-9

4.6 GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION .............................................................4-9

CHAPTER 5 LITERATURE CITED ...............................................................................................5-1

CHAPTER 6 LIST OF PREPARERS...............................................................................................6-1

CHAPTER 7 DISTRIBUTION LIST................................................................................................7-1
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 20110

v

Appendices

Appendix A – Agency and Public Correspondence

Appendix B – Acoustic Modeling Report

Appendix C – Common and Scientific Names of Faunal Species Discussed in the Text

Appendix D – Summary of Potential Effects of Airguns on Marine Invertebrates and Fish

Appendix E – Summary of Potential Effects of Sonar and Seismic Surveys on Marine Mammals

Appendix F – Low-Energy Acoustic Sources

Appendix G – Summary of NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Surveys (2003-2009)

Appendix H – Acoustic Calibration and Modeling of Seismic Acoustic Sources on the R/V Langseth

Appendix I – Distribution of and Public Hearings on the Draft Programmatic EIS/OEIS

Appendix J – Response to Public Comments on the October 2010 Draft Programmatic EIS/OEIS

List of Figures

Figure Page

ES-1 Longhurst Biomes and Proposed Detailed and Qualitative Analysis Areas............................. ES-5

1-1 EIS/OEIS Process..................................................................................................................1-13

2-1 General Concept of Marine Seismic Reflection and Refraction Surveys ...................................2-2

2-2 Representative Airgun..............................................................................................................2-3

2-3 Operating Principles of a Generic Airgun .................................................................................2-5

2-4 Examples of OBS/Hs...............................................................................................................2-9

2-5 3-D View of a Representative 2-String Array .........................................................................2-12

2-6 Overall View of a Representative 4-String Airgun Array........................................................2-14

2-7 Representative Research Vessels Potentially Used in Marine Seismic Research......................2-20

2-8 R/V Langseth during Modification and Outfitting ..................................................................2-21

2-9 R/V Langseth in Gulf of Mexico during Fall 2007 Calibration Cruise.....................................2-21

2-10 Typical Airgun String Proposed for Use on the R/V Langseth ................................................2-24

2-11 R/V Langseth 4-String Airgun Array for 2-D Reflection (total active volume 6,600 in3).........2-25

2-12 R/V Langseth 4-String Airgun Array for 2-D Refraction (total active volume 6,600 in3).........2-26

2-13 R/V Langseth 2-String Airgun Array for Unsedimented Ocean Crust 2-D Reflection (total 

active volume 3,300 in3).........................................................................................................2-27

2-14 R/V Langseth 2-String GI Gun Array for 2-D High-Resolution Reflection Surveys................2-28

2-15 R/V Langseth 4-String Airgun Array for ―Standard‖ 3-D Reflection (total active volume 

3,300 in3)...............................................................................................................................2-30

2-16 R/V Langseth 4-String Airgun Array for ―Wide‖ 3-D Reflection (total active volume 

3,300 in3)...............................................................................................................................2-31

2-17 R/V Langseth 2-String GI Gun Array for 3-D Dual-Source High-Resolution Surveys.............2-32

2-18 Longhurst Biomes and Proposed Detailed and Qualitative Analysis Areas..............................2-40

2-19 Regional Location of the W Gulf of Alaska Detailed Analysis Area (D1)...............................2-41
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 20110

vi

2-20 Regional Location of the S California Detailed Analysis Area (D2)........................................2-42

2-21 Regional Location of the Galapagos Ridge Detailed Analysis Area (D3)................................2-43

2-22 Regional Location of the Caribbean Detailed Analysis Area (D4)...........................................2-44

2-23 Regional Location of the NW Atlantic Detailed Analysis Area (D5).......................................2-45

2-24 Predicted Unweighted/Flat Frequency SELs for W Gulf of Alaska Modeling Sites 1 and 3.....2-58

2-25 Predicted Unweighted/Flat Frequency SELs for W Gulf of Alaska Modeling Site 2................2-59

2-26 Predicted Unweighted/Flat Frequency SELs for W Gulf of Alaska Modeling Sites (zoomed-in 

from Figures 2-24 and 2-25)...................................................................................................2-60

2-27 Relationship of Marine Operations Noise Model (MONM) and Acoustic Integration Model 

(AIM)....................................................................................................................................2-62

3.10-1 ECORD Drilling on the New Jersey Shallow Shelf...............................................................3-248

List of Tables

Table Page

ES-1 Detailed and Qualitative Analysis Areas................................................................................ ES-3

ES-2 Comparison of Alternatives A and B..................................................................................... ES-8

ES-3 Summary of Potential Impacts to Crustaceans, Mollusks (Cephalopods), and Related 

Fisheries with Implementation of Alternative A and B (Preferred Alternative)..................... ES-14

ES-4 Summary of Potential Impacts to Fish Species of Special Concern, EFH, and Related 

Fisheries with Implementation of Alternative A or B (Preferred Alternative)....................... ES-15

ES-5 Summary of Potential Impacts to Sea Turtles with Implementation of Alternative A or B 

(Preferred Alternative) ........................................................................................................ ES-16

ES-6 Summary of Potential Impacts to Seabirds with Implementation of Alternative A or B 

(Preferred Alternative) ........................................................................................................ ES-18

ES-7 Summary of Potential Impacts to Mysticetes with Implementation of Alternative A or B 

(Preferred Alternative) in the DAAs.................................................................................... ES-20

ES-8 Summary of Potential Impacts to Odontocetes with Implementation of Alternative A or B 

(Preferred Alternative) in the DAAs.................................................................................... ES-22

ES-9 Summary of Potential Impacts to Odontocetes with Implementation of Alternative A or B 

(Preferred Alternative) in the QAAs.................................................................................... ES-23

ES-10 Summary of Potential Impacts to Pinnipeds with Implementation of Alternative A or B 

(Preferred Alternative) ........................................................................................................ ES-25

ES-11 Summary of Potential Impacts to Sea Otter and W Indian Manatee with Implementation of 

Alternative A or B (Preferred Alternative)........................................................................... ES-26

ES-12 Summary of Potential Impacts to Socioeconomics with Implementation of Alternative A 

or B (Preferred Alternative)................................................................................................. ES-27
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 20110

vii

ES-13 Summary of Potential Impacts to Cultural Resources with Implementation of Alternative 

A or B (Preferred Alternative)............................................................................................. ES-27

1-1 Detailed and Qualitative Analysis Areas...................................................................................1-7

1-2 Summary of Public Hearing Attendance and Written Comments on the Draft EIS/OEIS ........1-14

2-1 NSF-funded and USGS Marine Seismic Surveys (2003-2009)*..............................................2-16

2-2 Research Vessels Used or Potentially Used in NSF-funded or USGS Marine Seismic 

Research ................................................................................................................................2-19

2-3 Proposed Seismic Source Configurations Used by the R/V Langseth for NSF-funded Marine 

Seismic Research ...................................................................................................................2-23

2-4 Past Configurations of Seismic Sources for Marine Seismic Research Funded by NSF or 

Conducted by the USGS (2003-2009) ....................................................................................2-35

2-5 Acoustic Parameters of MBESs, SBPs, ADCPs, Pingers, and Acoustic Releases Used by NSFFunded or USGS Research Vessels Conducting Marine Seismic Research .............................2-37

2-6 Location and Source Characteristics for Assumed Seismic Surveys within the DAAs and QAAs 2-

39

2-7 Comparison of QAAs to DAAs Relative to Acoustic Characteristics, Array Configurations, 

and Other Factors...................................................................................................................2-48

2-8 Existing and Proposed Injury and Behavior Exposure Criteria for Cetaceans and Pinnipeds 

Exposed to Pulsed Sounds......................................................................................................2-51

2-9 Lower and Upper Boundary Frequencies Used in M-Weighting of Model Results for Marine 

Mammal Hearing Groups.......................................................................................................2-53

2-10 Summary of Predicted 180- and 190-dB Radii (Unweighted and M-weighted) for the W Gulf 

of Alaska Sites.......................................................................................................................2-57

2-11 Summary of Level A Flat- and M-weighted Mitigation Radii under Alternative A for DAAs .2-68

2-12 Summary of Modeled Level A Mitigation Radii for Low-Energy Sources used in Previous 

Seismic Survey Cruises or Proposed in this EIS/OEIS............................................................2-73

2-13 Defined Low-Energy Towed Sources under Alternative B......................................................2-74

2-14 Comparison of Alternatives A and B......................................................................................2-74

3.2-1 Summary of the Status, Economic Importance, General Ecology, and General Distribution and 

Movement of Decapod Crustaceans and Cephalopod Mollusks Potentially Occurring within the 

Analysis Areas.........................................................................................................................3-6

3.2-2 Summary of Underwater Acoustic Capabilities of Decapod Crustaceans and Cephalopod 

Mollusks..................................................................................................................................3-8

3.2-3 Potential Occurrence of Decapod Crustaceans and Cephalopod Mollusks within the DAAs 

during the Period of Exemplary Seismic Surveys ...................................................................3-10

3.2-4 Potential Occurrence of Decapod Crustaceans and Cephalopod Mollusks within the 

Qualitative Analysis Areas during the Period of Exemplary Seismic Surveys .........................3-14
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 20110

viii

3.2-5 Summary of Known or Suggested Effects of Seismic Survey Sound on Marine Invertebrates 

(Crustaceans and Cephalopods) and Associated Fisheries*.....................................................3-19

3.2-6 Summary of Potential Impacts to Crustaceans, Mollusks (Cephalopods), and Related Fisheries 

with Implementation of Alternatives A and B.........................................................................3-21

3.3-1 Summary of the Status, General Ecology, and General Distribution and Movement of Higher 

Fish Groups Potentially Occurring within the Analysis Areas.................................................3-23

3.3-2 Potential Occurrence of Special-Status Fish Species within the Analysis Areas ......................3-26

3.3-3 Summary of Underwater Hearing and Sound Production Characteristics of Fish.....................3-29

3.3-4 Potential Occurrence of Higher Fish Groups and EFH within the DAAs during the Season of 

the Exemplary Seismic Surveys .............................................................................................3-32

3.3-5 Potential Occurrence of Higher Fish Groups within the QAAs during the Season of the 

Exemplary Seismic Surveys...................................................................................................3-36

3.3-7 Summary of Potential Impacts to Fish Species of Special Concern, EFH, and Related Fisheries 

with Implementation of Alternatives A or B...........................................................................3-48

3.4-1 Summary of the Status, Global Population Size, General Ecology, and General Distribution 

and Movement of Sea Turtles Potentially Occurring within the Analysis Areas ......................3-51

3.4-2 Summary of Underwater Sound Production and Hearing Characteristics of Sea Turtles..........3-54

3.4-3 Potential Occurrence of ESA-listed Sea Turtles within the DAAs during the Period of 

Exemplary Seismic Surveys...................................................................................................3-55

3.4-4 Potential Occurrence of Sea Turtles within the QAAs during the Period of Exemplary Seismic 

Surveys..................................................................................................................................3-63

3.4-5 Summary of Known and Anticipated General Effects of Seismic Noise and Other ProjectRelated Noise on Sea Turtles*................................................................................................3-69

3.4-6 Summary of Potential Impacts to Sea Turtles with Implementation of Alternative A or B.......3-82

3.5-1 Summary of the Status, General Ecology, and General Distribution & Movement of Seabirds 

Potentially Occurring within the Analysis Areas.....................................................................3-89

3.5-2 Potential Occurrence of Seabirds within the DAAs during the Period of Exemplary Seismic 

Surveys..................................................................................................................................3-92

3.5-3 Potential Occurrence of Seabirds within the QAAs during the Period of Exemplary Seismic 

Surveys..................................................................................................................................3-94

3.5-4 Summary of Known and Anticipated General Effects of Seismic Survey Sound and Other 

Project-Related Sound on Seabirds.........................................................................................3-94

3.5-5 Summary of Potential Impacts to Seabirds with Implementation of Alternative A or 

Alternative B .......................................................................................................................3-100

3.6-1 Summary of the Status, Global Population Size, General Ecology, and General Distribution 

and Movement of Mysticetes Potentially Occurring within the Analysis Areas.....................3-103

3.6-2 Summary of Characteristics of Underwater Sounds Produced by Mysticetes Potentially 

Occurring within the Analysis Areas....................................................................................3-107
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 20110

ix

3.6-3 Potential Occurrence of Mysticetes within the DAAs during the Period of Proposed 

Exemplary Seismic Surveys.................................................................................................3-108

3.6-4 Potential Occurrence of Mysticetes within the QAAs during the Period of Proposed 

Exemplary Seismic Surveys.................................................................................................3-114

3.6-5 Summary of Known and Anticipated Effects of Seismic Surveys on Mysticetes* .................3-127

3.6-6 Estimated Number of Level A and B Exposures (Individuals) of Mysticetes to Seismic Survey 

Sound with Implementation of Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) in the 

DAAs Based on Modeling Results .......................................................................................3-142

3.6-7 Summary of Potential Impacts to Mysticetes with Implementation of Alternative A or 

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) in the DAAs ...............................................................3-153

3.6-8 Summary of Potential Impacts to Mysticetes with Implementation of Alternative A or 

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) in the QAAs ..............................................................3-154

3.7-1 Summary of the Status, Global Population Size, General Habitat, and General Distribution and 

Movement of Odontocetes Potentially Occurring within the Analysis Areas* .......................3-157

3.7-2 Summary of Underwater Hearing and Sound Production Characteristics of Odontocetes 

Potentially Occurring within the Analysis Areas...................................................................3-164

3.7-3 Potential Occurrence of Odontocetes within the DAAs during the Period of Proposed 

Exemplary Seismic Surveys.................................................................................................3-166

3.7-4 Potential Occurrence of Odontocetes within the QAAs during the Period of Proposed 

Exemplary Seismic Surveys.................................................................................................3-172

3.7-5 Summary of Known and Anticipated General Effects of Seismic Survey Sounds on 

Odontocetes* .......................................................................................................................3-182

3.7-6 Estimated Number of Level A and Level B Exposures (Individuals) of Odontocetes to Seismic 

Survey Sound with Implementation of Alternative A and Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

in the DAAs Based on Modeling Results..............................................................................3-194

3.7-7 Summary of Potential Impacts to Odontocetes with Implementation of Alternative A or B 

in the DAAs.........................................................................................................................3-201

3.7-8 Summary of Potential Impacts to Odontocetes with Implementation of Alternative A or B 

in the QAAs.........................................................................................................................3-202

3.8-1 Summary of the Status, Population Trends, Global Population Size, General Ecology, and 

General Distribution & Movement of Pinnipeds Potentially Occurring within the Analysis 

Areas...................................................................................................................................3-204

3.8-2 Summary of Underwater Hearing and Sound Production Characteristics of Pinnipeds 

Potentially Occurring within the Analysis Areas...................................................................3-208

3.8-3 Potential Occurrence of Pinnipeds within the DAAs during the Period of Proposed Exemplary 

Seismic Surveys...................................................................................................................3-209

3.8-4 Potential Occurrence of Pinnipeds within the QAAs during the Period of Proposed Exemplary 

Seismic Surveys...................................................................................................................3-212
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 20110

x

3.8-5 Summary of Known and Anticipated General Effects of Airgun Sounds on Pinnipeds* ........3-216

3.8-6 Estimated Number of Level A and Level B Exposures (Individuals) of Pinnipeds to Seismic 

Survey Sound with Implementation of Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

in the DAAs, Based on Modeling Results.............................................................................3-222

3.8-7 Summary of Potential Impacts to Pinnipeds with Implementation of Alternative A or 

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)....................................................................................3-228

3.9-1 Summary of the Status, Global Population Size, General Ecology, and General Distribution 

and Movement of Sea Otter and W Indian Manatee..............................................................3-229

3.9-2 Summary of Underwater or In-Air Hearing and Sound Production Characteristics of Sea Otter 

and W Indian Manatee .........................................................................................................3-233

3.9-3 Potential Occurrence of Sea Otter and W Indian Manatee within the DAAs during the Period 

of Proposed Exemplary Seismic Surveys..............................................................................3-233

3.9-4 Potential Occurrence of Sea Otter and W Indian Manatee within the QAAs during the Period 

of Proposed Exemplary Seismic Surveys..............................................................................3-235

3.9-5 Summary of Known and Anticipated General Effects of Seismic Survey Sounds on Sea Otters 

and W Indian Manatees........................................................................................................3-238

3.9-6 Summary of Potential Impacts to Sea Otter and W Indian Manatee with Implementation of 

Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)..........................................................3-245

3.10-1 Pounds and Value of Landings for New Jersey Commercial Fisheries (2001-2004) ..............3-246

3.10-2 Pounds and Value of Landings for New York Commercial Fisheries (2001-2004)...............3-247

3.10-3 Pounds and Value of Landings for Santa Barbara Area Ports (2001-2004)............................3-249

3.10-4 Major Commercially Fished Species in S California DAA ...................................................3-249

3.10-5 Pounds and Value of Landings for W Gulf of Alaska Ports (2001-2004)...............................3-251

3.10-6 Summary of Socioeconomic Activities within the DAAs......................................................3-252

3.10-7 Summary of Potential Impacts to Socioeconomics with Implementation of Alternative A or 

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)....................................................................................3-257

3.11-1 Summary of Occurrence of Cultural Resources within the DAAs .........................................3-261

3.11-2 Summary of Potential Impacts to Cultural Resources with Implementation of Alternative A or 

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)....................................................................................3-264
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

xi

Acronyms and Abbreviations

2-D two-dimensional

3-D three-dimensional

4-D four-dimensional

ADCP acoustic Doppler current profiler

ADEH Australian Department of Environment

and Heritage

ADFG Alaska Department of Fish and Game

AEWC Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission

AIM Acoustic Integration Model

AWOIS Automated Wreck and Obstruction

Information System

BA Biological Assessment

BC British Columbia

BLI BirdLife International

BO Biological Opinion

oC degrees Celsius

CCC Caribbean Conservation Corporation

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CETAP Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CITES Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species

cm centimeter(s)

COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered

Wildlife in Canada

CPA closest point of approach

CSLC California State Lands Commission

DAA detailed analysis area

dB decibel(s)

dB re 1 Pa-m dB referenced 1 microPascal at 1 meter

dB re 1 Pa2∙ s decibels referenced 1 microPascal

squared second

DFOC Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada

DPS Distinct Population Segment

DSDP Deep Sea Drilling Project

E East/Eastern

EA Environmental Assessment

ECORD European Consortium for Ocean Research

Drilling

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

ESA United States Endangered Species Act

ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit

ETP Eastern Tropical Pacific

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FM frequency modulated

FMZ full mitigation zone

ft foot/feet

GEO Directorate for Geosciences

GI generator-injector

HF high-frequency

hr hour(s)

Hz hertz

IAGC International Association of Geophysical

Contractors

IHA Incidental Harassment Authorization

in3cubic inches

IODP Integrated Ocean Drilling Program

ITS Incidental Take Statement

IUCN International Union for the Conservation of

Nature

IWC International Whaling Commission

kg kilogram(s)

kHz kilohertz

km kilometer(s)

kt knot or nautical mile per hour

lbs pounds

L-DEO Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

LF low-frequency

LME Large Marine Ecosystem

LOA Letter of Authorization

m meter(s)

MBES multibeam echosounder

MCS Multichannel Seismic

MF mid-frequency

Mhf M-weighted, high frequency

mi mile(s)

min minute(s)

Mlf M-weighted, low frequency

MMC Marine Mammal Commission

Mmf M-weighted, mid-frequency

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act

MMS Minerals Management Service

MONM Marine Operations Noise Model

Mpw M-weighted, pinnipeds in water

ms millisecond(s)

MSA Magnuson-Stevens Act

MZ mitigation zone

N North/Northern

NAMMCO North Atlantic Marine Mammal

Commission

NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection

nm nautical mile(s)

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOA Notice of Availability

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

NRC National Research Council

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NSF National Science Foundation

NVD night vision device
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

xii

NW Northwestern

OBC ocean bottom cable

OBS/H ocean bottom seismometer/hydrophone

OCS Outer Continental Shelf

ODP Ocean Drilling Program

OEIS Overseas Environmental Impact Statement

OGP International Association of Oil & Gas Producers

OPP Office of Polar Programs

OPR Office of Protected Resources

PAM passive acoustic monitoring

PFMC Pacific Fishery Management Council

psi pounds per square inch

PSVO Protected Species Visual Observer

PTS permanent threshold shift

QAA qualitative analysis area

rms root mean square

ROD Record of Decision

R/V Research Vessel

S South/Southern

SAUP Sea Around Us Project

SBP sub-bottom profiler

sec second(s)

SE southeastern

SEL sound exposure level

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SIO Scripps Institution of Oceanography

SODV Scientific Ocean Drilling Vessel

SPL sound pressure level

spp. species

SSP sound speed profile

SW Southwestern

TTS temporary threshold shift

UAF University of Alaska-Fairbanks

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNOLS University-National Oceanographic

Laboratory System

U.S. United States

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USC United States Code

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

USIO U.S. Implementing Organization

UTA University of Texas-Austin

VSP vertical seismic profile

W West/Western

WHOI Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

xiii

GLOSSARY

Term Definition

2-dimensional (2-D)

and

3-D seismic surveys

Airguns are the acoustic source for most 2-D and 3-D marine seismic surveys. Their individual 

size can range from tens to several hundred in3. A combination of airguns is called an airgun 

array, and investigators configure an array to optimize the resolution of the geophysical data 

collected in support of the particular research objectives. 3-D seismic surveys generally require 

more equipment than 2-D surveys. By using a greater number of channels and flexible 

configuration, 3-D seismic data provide more extensive and detailed information regarding the 

subsurface geology than do 2-D data.

 A 3-D source array typically consists of 2-3 subarrays of 6-9 airguns each. A vessel usually 

tows 1-2 source arrays, depending on the scientific objectives of the survey. The arrays 

usually are aligned parallel with one another and towed 50-200 m behind the vessel. In a 3-D 

survey, the firing of the source arrays alternates. Following behind the source arrays by 

another 100-200 m are multiple (4-12) hydrophone streamers, and each streamer can be up 

to 3-8 km long. Collectively, the streamers may be spread out over a width of 400-900 m. 

The 3-D survey data are acquired on a line-by-line basis, whereby the vessel continues down 

a trackline to provide adequate subsurface coverage for the survey area. Adjacent ship 

tracklines for a 3-D survey are typically spaced a few hundred meters apart and are parallel 

to each other across the survey area. Survey lines are normally traversed in a racetrack or 

―mowing the lawn‖ pattern.

 Marine 2-D surveys use similar geophysical-survey techniques as 3-D surveys, but the mode 

of operation is very different. The 2-D surveys are designed to provide a less-detailed, 

coarser sampled subsurface image compared to 3-D surveys, and they are conducted over 

wide areas or on a regional basis. The airguns are usually arranged in a single airgun array 

(often with 2-4 subarrays), but all airguns are fired simultaneously. Following behind the 

source array is a single hydrophone streamer up to 8-12 km long, depending on the 

geophysical objectives of the survey. The 2-D surveys acquire data along single track lines 

that are spread at wide intervals compared to 3-D surveys, which acquire data in a closely 

packed rectangular area. Therefore, considerably less acoustic energy is used in a given area 

during a 2-D as compared to a 3-D survey.

Acoustics The scientific study of sound, especially of its generation, transmission, and reception.

Acoustic Integration

Model (AIM)

An animal movement and acoustics model that integrates information on the estimated 

propagation of sound from an underwater acoustic source and on the assumed movement patterns 

of simulated animals (animats) to predict the anticipated frequency distribution of received sound 

levels. Predicted sound levels at specific locations are derived from another acoustical model, 

such as MONM (see below). This calculates the expected levels of sound received, as a function 

of time, by a population of ―animats‖. Animats are modeled representations of marine mammals 

(or other receivers). A large sample of animats is programmed to move in a way that takes 

account of species- or group-specific information such as density, seasonal occurrence, habitat 

preferences, group size, and swimming and dive behavior. There is provision to calculate 

received sound levels with allowance for the hearing abilities of the animals in question, via 

application of appropriate frequency weighting curves (e.g., M-weighting, see below). The 

resulting distribution of predicted received sound levels can be used, in conjunction with impact 

or ―take‖ criteria, to predict the number of animals that might be exposed to specified sound 

levels. 

Airgun A pneumatic device used as an acoustic source to acquire marine seismic data. It is submerged 

below the water surface and towed behind a ship, usually as part of an array consisting of a 

number of airguns. An airgun array is a series of two or more airguns that are most often towed 

in single or multiple lines behind a surface vessel that can be ―tuned‖ by their geometry and 

interference so that the seismic signal is primarily directed downward. Upon being triggered, an 

airgun releases a specified volume of pneumatically compressed air into the water. The 

expansion and collapse of the resulting bubble serves to generate a pulse of acoustic energy that 

travels spherically outward from the airgun. When airguns are positioned optimally within an 

array, most of the energy can be directed downward into the seafloor. The return signals that are 

reflected off the seafloor and from discontinuities in the subsea geological structures are received 

by a towed array of hydrophones located in streamers.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

xiv

GLOSSARY

Term Definition

Alternative In the context of a NEPA document (i.e., an EA or EIS), a different method for accomplishing 

the Proposed Action. As examples, an alternative can consist of the same action in a different 

location, or the use of different mitigation measures.

Ambient noise The typical or persistent environmental background noise present in the ocean, with contributions 

from natural sources (wind, waves, rain, animal sounds, earthquakes, etc.) and, often, from 

distant and indistinguishable anthropogenic sources such as shipping. Sound from specific nearby 

anthropogenic activities is usually not considered to be part of the ambient noise. 

Anadromous Species of fish that are born in fresh water, migrate as juveniles to the ocean and grow into 

adults, and then return to fresh water to spawn.

Anthropogenic noise Noise related to, or produced by, human activities.

Baleen whale Whales with parallel rows of fibrous plates that hang from the upper jaw and are used for filter 

feeding. Also known as mysticetes (see Mysticete below).

Bathymetry The water depth at various places in a body of water; the information derived from measurements 

to determine water depth.

Behavioral effect Defined in this PEIS as a change in an animal‘s behavior or behavior patterns that results from 

exposure to some stimulus (e.g., an anthropogenic acoustic exposure) and exceeds some defined 

criterion (e.g., extends beyond the range of normal daily variation in behavior).

Benthic Referring to the bottom-dwelling community of organisms that live on or in either the sea bottom 

or such structures as ships, buoys, and wharf pilings (e.g., crabs, clams, worms).

Boomer A low-energy towed device used as an acoustic source to acquire marine seismic data. The 

acoustic pulse is generated when an electrical signal discharges a capacitor bank causing two 

spring-loaded, electrically charged plates in the boomer transducer to repel, creating a precisely 

repeatable pressure pulse primarily directed downward to the seafloor.

Cetacea or

cetacean

An order of aquatic mammals including baleen whales (Mysticetes, see below) and toothed 

whales, dolphins, and porpoises (Odontocetes, see below). Also see Figure G-1 below.

Chirp system Chirp refers to a variety of pulsed sonar systems capable of conducting high-resolution reflection 

profiling of the sub-bottom using low energy acoustic sources with a nominal frequency range of 

a few kilohertz up to several tens or hundreds of kilohertz. Often chirp data are collected by 

sweeping through a range of frequencies in a single pulse, but some systems referred to as chirp 

may be associated with only a single frequency.

Council on 

Environmental 

Quality

(CEQ)

A federal council that coordinates federal environmental efforts and works closely with federal 

agencies and other White House offices to develop environmental policies and initiatives. 

Established by the U.S. NEPA (see below), the CEQ consists of three members appointed by the 

President. CEQ regulations (Title 40 CFR 1500-1508) describe the process for implementing 

NEPA, including preparation of EAs and EISs, and the timing and extent of public participation. 

Critical Habitat Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the U.S. ESA as (1) the specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the ESA, on 

which are found those physical or biological features (i) essential to the conservation of the 

species and (ii) that may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) 

specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.

Cumulative impact The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency 

(federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result 

from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

Decibel (dB) A relative unit used to describe sound intensities. It is used to express the relative difference, 

usually between acoustic or electrical signals, equal to 10 or 20 times the common logarithm of 

the ratio of the two quantities. Since the dB scale is logarithmic and not linear, a 20-dB sound is 

10 times louder than a 10-dB sound and a 30-dB sound is 100 times louder than a 10-dB sound.

Demersal Living at or near the bottom of a waterbody, but having the capacity for active swimming. Term 

used particularly when describing various fish species.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

xv

GLOSSARY

Term Definition

Detailed Analysis

Area (DAA)

In this PEIS, a geographic area where effects on marine mammals have been analyzed through 

consideration of a detailed site-specific sound propagation model and use of the AIM (see above) 

to allow for the occurrence, distribution, and movements of marine mammals. Via this process, 

the potential acoustic exposures of marine mammals expected during an exemplary, or 

representative, marine seismic survey were estimated. Effects on other key biota occurring in the 

same geographic area are evaluated in a more qualitative manner.

Distinct population

segment (DPS)

A vertebrate population or group of populations that is discrete from other populations of the 

species and significant in relation to the entire species. The U.S. ESA provides for listing species, 

subspecies, or DPSs of vertebrate species.

Endangered species Under the U.S. ESA, any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range (ESA §3[6]).

Endangered Species

Act (ESA)

A U.S. federal law whose purpose is to protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. It is administered by the USFWS and the NMFS. The USFWS has 

primary responsibility for terrestrial and freshwater organisms, but including manatees, polar 

bears, walruses, sea otters, and nesting sea turtles, while the responsibilities of NMFS are mainly 

marine wildlife including all cetaceans and sea turtles (in the marine stage), most pinnipeds, and 

anadromous fish such as salmon. Under the ESA, species may be listed as either endangered or 

threatened. The ESA also requires the designation of critical habitat for listed species (see 

above).

Energy flux density

level (EFDL)

The energy traversing in a time interval over a small area perpendicular to the direction of the 

energy flow, divided by that time interval and by that area. EFDL is stated in dB re 1 μPa2-s for 

underwater sound.

Epifauna Organisms living on the surface of the sediment/sea bed.

Essential Fish

Habitat (EFH)

As identified in the U.S. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act, those 

waters and substrate that are defined within Fishery Management Plans for federally managed 

fish species as necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.

Evolutionary

Significant Unit

(ESU)

A species or stock that is substantially reproductively isolated from other stocks of the same 

species and which represents an important part of the evolutionary legacy of the species. An ESU 

is treated as a species for purposes of listing under the U.S. ESA. NMFS uses this designation. 

Exclusive Economic

Zone (EEZ)

A maritime zone adjacent to the territorial sea that may not extend beyond 200 nm from the 

baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.

Federal Register The official daily publication for actions taken by the U.S. federal government, such as Rules, 

Proposed Rules, and Notices of federal agencies and organizations, as well as Executive Orders 

and other Presidential documents.

Frequency In acoustics, a description of the rate of vibration, measured in cycles per second. One cycle per 

second is usually referred to as 1 hertz (Hz). Frequency is perceived by humans as pitch.

Full mitigation

zone (FMZ)

An extended MZ encompassing the full region in which NMFS estimates that behavioral 

disturbance, also called Level B harassment (see below), might occur. It also includes the smaller 

MZ where Level A harassment might occur (see MZ and Level A harassment below). NMFS 

usually assumes that behavioral disturbance may occur upon exposure to airgun sounds with a 

received level ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms).

Generator-injector

(GI) gun

A GI gun is a specialized kind of airgun that utilizes two, independently fired air chambers (the 

 ̳generator‘ and the  ̳injector‘, respectively) to tune the air bubble oscillation and minimize the 

amplitude of the bubble pulse. The primary chamber (generator) produces a primary pulse, while 

the secondary chamber (injector) injects a second pulse near the maximum expansion of the 

primary pulse, which allows for near-total suppression of the bubble oscillation by preventing 

bubble collapse. Using one or more GI guns, the geophysicist can achieve very high peak-tobubble amplitude ratios without using an array of GI guns. GI guns are often used for shallow, 

high-resolution seismic profiling.

Habituation

(behavioral)

Gradual waning of behavioral responsiveness over time as animals learn that a repeated or 

ongoing stimulus lacks significant consequences for the animal.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

xvi

GLOSSARY

Term Definition

Harassment Two definitions of harassment are used in this PEIS, depending on context. Under the U.S. ESA, 

harassment is an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to 

wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns 

which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. 

Under the 1994 Amendments to the U.S. MMPA, harassment is any act of pursuit, torment, or 

annoyance which (a) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild (Level A harassment); or (b) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited 

to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering but which does not have the 

potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level B harassment).

High frequency In this PEIS, frequencies greater than 10 kHz.

High-frequency

(HF) cetaceans

Species of cetaceans and pinnipeds have been assigned to 1 of 5 functional hearing groups based 

on behavioral psychophysics, evoked potential audiometry, auditory morphology, and (for 

pinnipeds) the medium in which they listen. Cetaceans account for 3 of the 5 groups, subdivided 

according to differences in their measured or estimated hearing characteristics. HF cetaceans are 

the minority of the odontocete (toothed whale) species whose hearing is optimal at exceptionally 

high frequencies. The HF cetaceans include all true porpoises, river dolphins, and members of 

the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus, plus the franciscana dolphin. ―Functional‖ hearing in 

this group has been estimated to occur between 200 Hz and 180 kHz. Refer to Southall et al. 

(2007) for more information.

Hydrophone Essentially an underwater microphone, a hydrophone is an underwater receiver used to detect the 

pressure change caused by sound waves propagating through the water. That pressure is 

converted to electrical energy which can be recorded or measured.

Incidental

harassment

An accidental taking. This does not mean that the taking is unexpected, but rather it includes 

those takings that are infrequent, unavoidable, or accidental.

Incidental

Harassment

Authorization

(IHA)

In 1994, the U.S. MMPA was amended to establish an expedited process by which citizens of the 

U.S. can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by 

"harassment", referred to as IHAs (16 USC 1371 et seq.). IHAs will be granted if the harassment 

will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock and will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of such species or stock for taking for subsistence uses. It must 

also lay out the permissible methods of taking and requirements for the monitoring and reporting 

of such taking, including requirements for the independent peer review of proposed monitoring 

plans where the proposed activity may affect the availability of a species or stock for taking for 

subsistence uses. It established specific time limits for public notice and comment on any 

requests for authorization which would be granted under this provision. IHAs can be valid for a 

period not to exceed 1 year.

Infauna Animals living within the sediment.

Letter of

Authorization

(LOA)

The U.S. MMPA provides for ―incidental take authorizations‖ for maritime activities, provided 

NMFS finds that the takings would be of small numbers, would have no more than a negligible 

impact on the affected marine mammal species or stock, and would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of such species or stock for taking for subsistence uses. These 

"incidental take" authorizations, or LOAs, require that regulations be promulgated and published 

in the Federal Register outlining: (a) permissible methods and the specified geographical region 

of taking; (b) the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock 

and its habitat and on the availability of the species or stock for "subsistence" uses; and, (c) 

requirements for monitoring and reporting. The regulations can be valid for a period not to 

exceed 5 consecutive years.

Level A harassment Under the U.S. MMPA, Level A harassment includes any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance 

which has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild.

Level A harassment

zone

Extends from the source out to the distance and exposure at which the slightest amount of injury 

is predicted to occur. The acoustic exposure that produces the slightest degree of injury is 

therefore the threshold value defining the outermost limit of the Level A harassment zone.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

xvii

GLOSSARY

Term Definition

Level B harassment Level B harassment is any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to disturb 

a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural 

behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering. Unlike Level A harassment, which is solely associated with physiological 

effects, both physiological and behavioral effects have the potential to cause Level B harassment.

Level B harassment

zone

Begins just beyond the point of slightest injury and extends outward from that point to include all 

areas where animals may potentially experience Level B harassment. The animals predicted to be 

in this zone experience Level B harassment by virtue of temporary impairment of sensory 

function (altered physiological function) that can disrupt behavior or through behavioral effects 

not directly associated with any physiological change.

Low frequency In this PEIS, frequencies less than 1 kHz.

Low-frequency

(LF) cetaceans

Species of cetaceans and pinnipeds were assigned to 1 of 5 functional hearing groups based on 

behavioral psychophysics, evoked potential audiometry, auditory morphology, and (for 

pinnipeds) the medium in which they listen. Cetaceans account for 3 of the 5 groups, subdivided 

according to differences in their measured or estimated hearing characteristics. LF cetaceans 

consist of all species and subspecies of mysticete (baleen) whales (i.e., cetaceans in the genera 

Balaena, Eubalaena, Balaenoptera, Caperea, Eschrichtius, and Megaptera). In these species, 

hearing sensitivity has been estimated from behavioral responses (or lack thereof) to sounds at 

various frequencies, vocalization frequencies they use most, body size, ambient noise levels at 

the frequencies they use most, and inner ear anatomy. Currently, the estimated lower and upper 

frequencies for functional hearing in mysticetes are 7 Hz and 22 kHz, respectively. Refer to 

Southall et al. (2007) for more information.

Marine Mammal

Protection Act

(MMPA)

Enacted in October 1972, the U.S. MMPA provides protection for all marine mammals. The 

MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the "take" of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by 

U.S. citizens on the high seas, and the importation of marine mammals and marine mammal 

products into the U.S.

Marine Operations

Noise Model

(MONM)

An acoustic model used to predict the received levels of airgun or other underwater sounds as a 

function of source characteristics, site properties, and the receiver‘s bearing, distance, and depth 

in the water column. MONM takes account of the frequency-specific source levels for the 

particular source configuration (in this case, the specific airgun configuration to be used in each 

DAA). It also takes account of the best available site-specific information about environmental 

factors that would affect the propagation and attenuation of that sound as it travels outward from 

the airgun array. These include bathymetry, sub-bottom conditions, and the sound velocity 

profile of the water column. 

Masking The obscuring of sounds of interest by interfering sounds, generally at the same or similar 

frequencies.

Mid-frequency In this PEIS, frequencies between 1 and 10 kHz.

Mid-frequency

(MF) cetaceans

Species of cetaceans and pinnipeds were assigned to 1 of 5 functional hearing groups based on 

behavioral psychophysics, evoked potential audiometry, auditory morphology, and (for 

pinnipeds) the medium in which they listen. Cetaceans are further subdivided according to 

differences in their measured or estimated hearing characteristics. MF cetaceans are most of the 

odontocetes (toothed whales) [see HF cetaceans, above, for exceptions]. MF cetaceans include 

various species and subspecies of ―dolphins,‖ larger toothed whales, and beaked and bottlenose 

whales. Based on the combined available data, MF cetaceans are estimated to have lower and 

upper frequency ―limits‖ of nominal hearing at approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz, respectively. 

Refer to Southall et al. (2007) for more information.

Mitigation measure Measures that will likely minimize, avoid, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for 

significant environmental effects.

Mitigation zone

(MZ)

A region in which a possibility exists of injurious effects on animal hearing or other physical 

effects (Level A harassment).

Multi-channel

seismic (MCS)

Using multiple hydrophone streamers, sonobuoys, OBS/H, OBCs, or borehole seismometer to 

record the reflected and refracted sounds from an airgun array.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

xviii

GLOSSARY

Term Definition

M-weighting In general, animals do not hear equally well at all frequencies within their functional hearing 

range. Frequency weighting is a method of quantitatively compensating for the differential 

frequency response of sensory systems. Generalized frequency-weighting functions, referred to 

as M-weighting functions, have been derived by Southall et al. (2007) for each functional hearing 

group of marine mammals. The M-weighting functions were derived using principles from 

human frequency-weighting paradigms, with adjustments for the different functional hearing 

bandwidths of the various marine mammal groups. A precautionary procedure was used in 

deriving the frequency-specific, marine mammal weighting functions. Each was based on an 

algorithm that requires only the estimated (based on ~80 dB above best hearing sensitivity) lower 

and upper frequencies of functional hearing (75 Hz to 75 kHz for pinnipeds in water; for 

cetaceans, refer to entries for LF, HF, and MF cetaceans). The resulting functions are designed to 

reasonably represent the bandwidth where acoustic exposures can have auditory effects and be 

most accurate for describing the potential adverse effects of high-amplitude noise where loudness 

functions are expected to flatten significantly. The weighting functions (designated ―M‖ for 

marine mammal) are analogous to the C-weighting function for humans, which is commonly 

used in measuring high-amplitude sounds. Refer to Southall et al. (2007) for more information.

Mysticete Any whale of the suborder Mysticeti having plates of whalebone (baleen plates) instead of teeth. 

Mysticetes are filter-feeding whales, also referred to as baleen whales, such as blue, fin, gray, and 

humpback whales. Also see Figure G-1 below.

National 

Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA)

U.S. federal law passed by Congress in 1969 (42 USC 4321 et seq.). The Act established a 

national policy to provide a process for the consideration of environmental issues in federal 

agency planning and decision-making. The potential environmental impacts of proposed federal 

actions on the human and natural environment were to be considered prior to decision making. 

NEPA procedures require that environmental information be made available to the public and the

decision makers before decisions are made. Information contained in the NEPA documents must 

focus on the relevant issues in order to facilitate the decision-making process. 

Notice of intent

(NOI)

A written notice published in the Federal Register that announces the intent to prepare an EIS

under the U.S. NEPA. Also provides information about a proposed federal action, alternatives, 

the scoping process, and points of contact within the lead federal agency regarding the EIS.

Ocean bottom 

seismometers/

hydrophones 

(OBS/Hs)

An OBS/H is a portable, self-contained passive receiver system designed to sit on the seafloor 

and record seismic signals generated primarily by airguns and earthquakes. Broadband OBS/Hs

detect sound waves generated by earthquakes. Short-period OBS/Hs detect sound waves 

generated by sources such as airguns or GI guns. The characteristics of the recorded seismic 

energy, combined with precise timing and location information for the sound sources and the 

receiver (the OBS/H), can provide details about the velocity and the geometry of Earth structure.

Odontocete Any toothed whale (i.e., cetacean without baleen plates) of the suborder Odontoceti, such as 

sperm whales, killer whales, beaked whales, dolphins, and porpoises. Also see Figure G-1 below.

Onset permanent

threshold shift

(onset PTS)

PTS (defined below) is non-recoverable and, by definition, must result from the destruction of 

tissues within the auditory system. PTS therefore qualifies as an injury and is classified as Level 

A harassment under the wording of the MMPA. In this PEIS, the smallest amount of PTS (onset 

PTS) is taken to be the indicator for the smallest degree of injury that can be measured. The 

acoustic exposure associated with onset PTS is used to define the outer limit of the Level A 

harassment zone.

Onset temporary

threshold shift

(onset TTS)

A threshold shift represents an increase in the auditory threshold (i.e., a reduced ability to hear at 

a particular frequency). TTS (defined below) is recoverable and is considered to result from the 

temporary, non-injurious distortion of hearing-related tissues. In this PEIS, the smallest 

measurable amount of TTS (onset TTS) is taken as the best indicator for slight temporary sensory 

impairment. Because it is considered non-injurious, the acoustic exposure associated with onset 

TTS is used to define the outer limit of the portion of the Level B harassment zone attributable to 

physiological effects. This follows from the concept that hearing loss potentially affects an 

animal‘s ability to react normally to the sounds around it. Therefore, the potential for TTS 

qualifies as a Level B harassment that results from physiological effects upon the auditory 

system.

Passive acoustic

monitoring (PAM)

A listening system that, in the marine environment, utilizes hydrophones, signal processing 

software, and (usually) some degree of human listening to detect and often to localize the 

vocalizations of marine mammals.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

xix

GLOSSARY

Term Definition

Pelagic Pelagic is a broad term applied to species that inhabit the open, upper portion of marine waters 

rather than waters adjacent to land or near the sea floor. 

Permanent

threshold shift

(PTS)

Exposure to high-intensity sound may result in auditory effects such as noise-induced threshold 

shift, or simply a threshold shift. If the threshold shift becomes a permanent condition, generally 

as a result of physical injury to the inner ear and hearing loss, it is known as PTS.

Physiological effect Defined in this PEIS as a variation in an animal‘s physiology that results from an anthropogenic 

acoustic exposure and exceeds the normal daily variation in physiological function.

Ping A transient sound created by a sonar.

Pinger A pulse generator using underwater sound to transmit data, such as subject location.

Pinniped Any member of a suborder (Pinnipedia) of aquatic carnivorous mammals (i.e., seals and sea 

lions) with all four limbs modified into flippers. Also see Figure G-2 below.

Protected species

visual observer

(PSVO)

A trained, dedicated, and experienced individual responsible for conducting visual watches for 

protected species, such as marine mammals and sea turtles, during marine seismic surveys. 

Previously called Marine Mammal Observer or MMO.

Qualitative Analysis

Area (QAA)

In this PEIS, a geographic area that has been addressed in a qualitative manner vs. the 

quantitative acoustic modeling done for the DAAs (see above). The sound fields to which marine 

mammals could be exposed during a seismic program were modeled for representative sites in 

each DAA but they were not modeled for each QAA. In order to qualitatively evaluate sound 

levels that might be received by marine mammals in each of the eight QAAs, the source 

configurations and factors affecting sound propagation for each QAA were compared to those for 

each of the DAAs. This allows an initial qualitative assessment of the QAAs, which in turn may 

be used as an initial point from which to prepare potential tiered environmental documents.

Ramp Up

(or Soft Start)

Turning on the airguns or other acoustic source at low power and gradually and systematically 

increasing the output until full power is achieved (usually over a period of minutes). The 

appropriate ramp up or soft-start method depends on factors such as the type of seismic survey 

equipment being used and vessel speed.

Received level The level of sound that arrives at the receiver (e.g., marine mammal), or listening device 

(hydrophone). The received level is the source level minus the transmission losses from the 

sound traveling through the water.

Record of Decision

(ROD)

A concise summary of the decision made by the project proponent (e.g., NSF) from the 

alternatives presented in a Final EIS. The ROD is published in the Federal Register.

Resonance A phenomenon that exists when an object is vibrated at a frequency near its natural frequency of 

vibration – the particular frequency at which the object vibrates most readily.

Scoping An early and open process with federal and state agencies and interested parties to identify 

possible alternatives and the significant issues to be addressed in an EIS.

Seismic reflection

study

A marine experiment in which acoustic sources and receivers are used to image the seafloor and 

subseafloor geology using signals that are travelling primarily vertically into and out of the 

seafloor and subseafloor. Seismic reflection is a principle which is utilized in geology to gather 

information about what is going on underneath the surface of the Earth. Geologists can use the 

movement of sound waves underground to generate data about subsurface geological formations. 

As the sound waves from an acoustic source (e.g., airgun array) move underground, some are 

reflected back up to the sea surface where they are picked up by hydrophones towed behind the 

survey vessel. Using hydrophone data, researchers can create a plot which reveals the outline of 

formations and objects in the ground. Reflection methods generally utilize information from the 

reflected acoustic waves that travel in vertical or near-vertical to wide-angle reflected ray paths, 

resulting in travel time images that, after processing and geometric corrections, resemble cross 

sections of the Earth showing the seafloor and sub-seafloor features. Reflection surveys provide 

very detailed information on the presence and shape of reflectors or discontinuities, though the 

velocity structure between reflectors is often less well constrained by this method. These data are 

typically collected using towed hydrophones, configured as single-channel or multichannel 

arrays.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

xx

GLOSSARY

Term Definition

Seismic refraction

study

A marine experiment in which acoustic sources and receivers are used to image the seafloor and 

subseafloor geology using signals that are travelling primarily horizontally through the seafloor 

and subseafloor. Closely related to seismic reflection, seismic refraction involves the study of the 

ways in which sound waves bend as they encounter obstacles underground. Refraction of sound 

waves occurs when the wave moves from one medium to another and there is a change in speed 

of the sound waves as they move through the different mediums. Refraction methods collect 

information from near-vertical reflected to near-horizontal refracted raypaths and are interpreted 

using a combination of modeling and inversion to yield results. Refraction surveys are typically 

designed to locate the basement layer for a marine sedimentary section, to define different layers 

of the crust, or to study the velocity characteristics of layered subfloor features. OBS/Hs are often 

used in refraction surveys. Generally speaking, this method can provide information on the 

location and shape of reflectors, though the resolution is less than that obtained by reflection 

data.

Sound exposure

level (SEL)

SEL (also called EFDL, see above) is the total noise energy produced from a single noise event 

and is the integration of all the acoustic energy contained within the event. SEL takes into 

account both the intensity and the duration of a noise event. SEL is stated in dB re 1 μPa2∙s for 

underwater sound. For a seismic survey, the SEL can represent either all energy received at a 

particular location in the water column from either (1) a given seismic pulse, or (2) a sequence of 

pulses as the seismic vessel passes. The units are the same, but the numerical value will be higher 

for (1), often referred to as the cumulative SEL or C-SEL. 

Sound navigation

and

ranging (sonar)

Any anthropogenic (man-made) or animal (e.g., bats, dolphins) system that uses transmitted 

and/or received acoustic signals for navigation, communication, and determining position and 

bearing of a target. There are two broad types of anthropogenic sonar: active and passive. Active 

sonar involves the production of a signal that propagates through the environment and bounces 

off objects (such as a prey item). That reflected sound, or echo, travels back to the receiver, 

which interprets the echo. Therefore, active sonar involves two-way sound transmission. Passive 

sonar involves one-way sound transmission from an acoustic source (such as conspecific) to a 

receiver or listener.

Sound pressure

level (SPL)

A measure of the root-mean square, or ―effective,‖ sound pressure, converted to dB. SPL is 

expressed in dB re 1 μPa for underwater sound and dB re to 20 μPa for airborne sound.

Source level For an ideal point source, the sound pressure level as measured 1 m from the source. For arrays 

and other dimensionally large sources, the sound pressure level that would (in theory) be 

measured 1 m away from an ideal point source radiating the same amount of sound as the actual 

distributed source. With a distributed source, the highest sound level measureable anywhere in 

the water is lower than the theoretical source level.

Sparker A low-energy acoustic source that generates a precisely timed electrical arc that momentarily 

vaporizes water between positive and negative leads. The collapsing bubbles produce a broad 

band omnidirectional pulse which can penetrate several hundred meters into the ocean bottom. 

Hydrophone arrays towed nearby receive the return signals.

Take Under the U.S. MMPA: to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or 

kill any marine mammal. 

Under the U.S. ESA: to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, 

or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.

Temporary

threshold shift

(TTS)

Exposure to high-intensity sound may result in auditory effects such as noise-induced threshold 

shift, or simply a threshold shift. If the threshold shift recovers completely after a few minutes, 

hours, or days, it is known as TTS. A threshold shift represents an increase in the auditory 

threshold (i.e., a reduced ability to hear) at a particular frequency. TTS is by definition 

recoverable and results from the temporary, non-injurious distortion of hearing-related tissues. In 

this PEIS, the smallest measurable amount of TTS (onset TTS) is taken as the best indicator for 

slight temporary sensory impairment. Because it is non-injurious, the acoustic exposure 

associated with onset TTS is used to define the outer limit of the portion of the Level B 

harassment zone attributable to physiological effects. 

Threatened species Under the U.S. ESA, any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA §3[20]).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

xxi

GLOSSARY

Term Definition

Transmission loss Pressure or energy losses that occur as the sound travels through the water. Losses occur because 

the wavefront spreads over an increasingly large volume as the sound propagates, and because of 

additional processes including scattering and the absorption of some of the energy by water.

U.S. Territorial 

Waters

Sea areas within 12 nm of the U.S. coastline, normally measured from the official baselines of 

the country (typically the mean of the lower low tide locations for the U.S.), for which coastal 

nations exercise sovereignty. 

Water gun An alternative to an airgun, a device that uses compressed water rather than compressed air (as 

with an airgun) to create an acoustic source for marine seismic data. The pulse of compressed 

water leaving the gun creates a void such that the collapse of water into the void creates a pulse 

of acoustic energy that radiates outward from the gun.
xx

ii

MysticetesWhales of the Suborder Mysticeti having plates of whalebone (baleen plates) instead of teeth. Mysticetes are filter-feeding whales, also referred to as baleen whales, such as fin, humpback, and sei whales, depicted below.

OdontocetesWhales of the Suborder Odontoceti having baleen plates), such as sperm whales, killer wdolphins, and porpoises. Below are exampledolphin, killer whale, and harbor porpoise.

CETACEANS

(Marine mammals in the Order Cetacea: Whales, dolphins, and porpoises)

Humpback whale feeding

((Photo: Alaska Adventures) 

Killer whale

(Photo: NOAA-AF

Sei whale

(Photo: Peter Duley, NOAA-NEFSC)

Bottlenose dolp

(Photo: NOAA-NM

Fin whale

(Photo: NOAA-NMFS) 

Harbor porpo

(Photo: NOAA-SW

Figure G-1.
xxii

i

OtariidsSea lions and fur seals in the Family Otariidae are also called ‘eared seals’ because they have external ear flaps or pinnae. Eared seals can rotate their foreflippers under their bodies and use both their fore- and hindflippers to walk on land. Below are two examples of eared seals: California sea lion and northern fur seal.

PhocidsCalled true or ‘earless seals’ because they eared seals (or otariids), phocids cannot rotabodies to walk. On land they use their forefwhile their hindflippers trail passively behinearless seals: harbor seal and elephant seal.

PINNIPEDS

(Marine mammals in the Order Carnivora and in the Suborder Pinnipedia: sea lions and 

California sea lion

(Photo: Indianapolis Zoo)

Northern fur seal

(Photo: Verena A. Gill, Alaska Sea Grant) 

Harbor seal

(Photo: T. Mangelson, Alas

Elephant seals

(Photo: D. Endi

Figure G-2.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

xxiv

[This page intentionally left blank.]
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

1-1

CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED

This Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement 

(OEIS) (hereafter called PEIS) has been prepared by the National Science Foundation (NSF) in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code [USC] 

§4321 et seq.); the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the 

Procedural Provisions of NEPA (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §§1500-1508); NSF 

procedures for implementing NEPA and CEQ regulations (45 CFR 640); and Executive Order (EO) 

12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions. The NEPA process ensures that 

environmental impacts of proposed major federal actions are considered in the decision-making process. 

EO 12114 requires environmental consideration (i.e., preparation of an OEIS) for actions that may 

significantly affect the environment outside United States (U.S.) Territorial Waters. This PEIS satisfies 

the requirements of both NEPA and EO 12114. The Draft PEIS is published, distributed to federal, state, 

local, and private agencies, organizations, and individuals for review and comment, and then filed with 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A Notice of Availability (NOA) is then announced in 

the Federal Register. Public hearings are held on the Draft PEIS. A Final PEIS is then prepared that 

provides responses to the comments received from all parties on the Draft PEIS. A Record of Decision 

(ROD) follows the publication of the Final PEIS and concludes the NEPA process.

1.1 COOPERATING AGENCIES

NSF is the proponent for the NSF-funded marine seismic research and is the lead agency for the 

preparation of this PEIS. As defined in 40 CFR 1508.6, a cooperating agency may be any federal agency 

other than the lead agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to the 

environmental impacts expected to result from a proposal. An agency has ―jurisdiction by law‖ if it has 

the authority to approve, veto, or finance all or part of the proposal (40 CFR 1508.15). An agency has 

―special expertise‖ if it has statutory responsibility, agency mission, or related program experience with 

regard to a proposal (40 CFR 1508.26). A lead agency must request the participation of cooperating 

agencies as early as possible in the NEPA process, use the environmental analyses and proposals prepared 

by cooperating agencies as much as possible, and meet with cooperating agencies at their request (40 

CFR 1501.6[a]). A cooperating agency‘s responsibility includes participation in the NEPA process as 

early as possible, participation in the scoping process, and, on the lead agency‘s request, development of 

information to be included in the PEIS and providing staff support in its preparation (40 CFR 1501.6[b]).

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has agreed to be a cooperating agency 

for the preparation of the Draft and Final PEIS on NSF‘s Proposed Action. The nature and scope of the 

Proposed Action involving NSF‘s funding of seismic research, the use of associated acoustic sources, and 

potential impacts to marine resources under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS), particularly marine mammals and sensitive marine species, including those listed or proposed 

for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), led to NOAA‘s 

agreement on its participation as a cooperating agency. Through its role as a cooperating agency, NMFS 

is not proposing or authorizing any action through its participation in this programmatic NEPA analysis. 

NMFS has jurisdiction by law, as well as special expertise over living marine resources, including marine 

mammals and sea turtles. NMFS served as a technical expert to ensure that the PEIS contained acceptable 

analysis of impacts of underwater sound on marine mammals and a proper characterization of the general 

process for authorizing the incidental take of marine mammals under Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

1-2

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). NMFS carried out its responsibilities as a cooperating agency 

in accordance with the procedures set forth by CEQ at 40 CFR 1501.6. Therefore, in addition to the 

regulations and requirements discussed elsewhere in this document, this PEIS has been reviewed in 

accordance with NOAA Administrative Order Series 216-6, Environmental Review Procedures for 

Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (May 20, 1999).

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has also agreed to be a cooperating agency for the Proposed Action. 

The nature and scope of the Proposed Action involving seismic research, associated acoustic sources, and 

potential impact on marine resources make it appropriate for the USGS, which conducts similar seismic 

research, to be a cooperating agency. 

1.2 MISSION OF NSF

Established by Congress with the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (Public Law 810507, as 

amended), NSF is the federal government‘s only agency dedicated to the support of fundamental research 

and education in all scientific and engineering disciplines. In accordance with the Act, NSF‘s mission is 

to ―promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the 

national defense; and for other purposes.‖ The primary roles of NSF are to support and fund the Nation‘s 

academic-based research in science and engineering, enhance the quality of education, and ensure that the 

U.S. maintains leadership in scientific discovery and the development of new technologies. The Act 

authorizes and directs NSF to initiate, support, and fund:

 basic scientific research and research fundamental to the engineering process,

 programs to strengthen scientific and engineering research potential,

 science and engineering education programs at all levels and in all fields of science and engineering, 

 an information base on science and engineering appropriate for development of national and 

international policy,

 the interchange of scientific and engineering information nationally and internationally, and

 the development of computer and other methodologies (NSF 2006a, 2008a).

In particular, the research and education activities of NSF promote the discovery, integration, 

dissemination, and application of new knowledge in service to society and to prepare future generations 

of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. In addition, the constantly changing global economic, 

scientific, and technical environment challenges long-standing assumptions about domestic and 

international policy, requiring NSF to play a more proactive role in sustaining the competitive advantage 

of the U.S. through superior research capabilities (NSF 2006a, 2008a).

1.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

This PEIS examines the potential impacts that may result from geophysical exploration and scientific 

research using seismic surveys that are funded by NSF or conducted by the USGS. The Proposed Action 

is for academic and U.S. government scientists in the U.S., and possible international collaborators, to 

conduct marine seismic research from research vessels operated by U.S. academic institutions and 

government agencies. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to fund the investigation of the geology and 

geophysics of the seafloor by collecting seismic reflection and refraction data that reveal the structure and 

stratigraphy of the crust and/or overlying sediment below the world‘s oceans. NSF has a continuing need 

to fund seismic surveys that enable scientists to collect data essential to understanding the complex Earth 

processes beneath the ocean floor. Data collected from marine seismic surveys:

 were important in hypothesizing, and subsequently demonstrating, the validity of the theory of 

plate tectonics;
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

1-3

 are vital to making ocean drilling scientifically useful and environmentally safe;

 provide imaging of ocean faults, which is key to studies of earthquake and landslide hazards;

 are essential to evaluate the potential for tsunami generation, which, in most cases, result from 

submarine slumping associated with earthquakes;

 are used to define potential failure regions, slip planes, oversteepened slopes, creep, zones of 

potential overpressures, and concentrations of gas hydrates or shallow free gas that may play a 

role in destabilization of sedimentary slopes;

 are used to map sedimentary horizons, allowing correlation of sediment type and age across long 

distances, and providing information on spatial and temporal distributions of processes (such as 

climatic or oceanographic events) at geologic time scales;

 can be used to directly image magma chambers in volcanoes or mid-ocean ridges, and repeat 

surveys can be used to image changes in magma reservoirs related to eruptions; and

 can be used to interpret processes of compaction, folding, dewatering, and other processes in 

subduction zones that lead to uplift, earthquakes, slumping, and other processes that will impact 

land and people.

The funding and conducting of marine seismic research would continue to meet NSF‘s critical need to

foster a better understanding of Earth‘s history, natural hazards, and climate history. A few representative, 

recent examples of NSF-funded or USGS marine seismic research include:

 locating stratigraphic records of environmental change that assist in understanding anthropogenic 

warming and the melting of glaciers;

 understanding source mechanisms, fault locations, and hazard potentials for large earthquakes

and tsunamis along faults and segments of tectonic plate boundaries, allowing prioritization of 

tsunami and earthquake warning systems;

 imaging sedimentary packages that indicate how erosion and sedimentation have impacted and 

changed the size and shapes of the continental shelves over time;

 examining the formation and evolution of volcanic islands, mid-ocean ridges, and igneous 

provinces; 

 understanding the evolution and movement of tectonic plates;

 providing essential geological information needed for initiation of scientific ocean drilling and 

bore hole observatory monitoring of the ocean crust;

 studying structures produced by asteroid impacts;

 mapping the seafloor and its topographic relief and understanding the causes of submarine 

geologic structures;

 mapping hydrothermal vent systems and determining the pattern of circulation of sub-seafloor 

fluids; 

 evaluating the distribution and volume of methane gas in free and hydrated form within a region, 

and the potential impact on the ocean and atmosphere of a release of large volumes of methane 

gas; and

 understanding the distribution and amount of sediment-hosted natural gas beneath the world‘s 

oceans.

In addition to specific marine seismic research, geoscience exploration through ocean drilling has been an 

ongoing effort by NSF with international partners since the early 1970s. Seismic reflection surveying is a 

critical, required element for every site that gets drilled under the auspices of the Integrated Ocean 

Drilling Program (IODP), as well as under the program‘s predecessors: Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

1-4

and Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP). Seismic reflection profiling is an essential technology required for 

characterization of scientific drilling objectives, as well as for characterization and mitigation of hazards 

due to environmental factors, and managing the potential safety and pollution risks (e.g., avoiding 

submarine hazards or the environmental dangers that result from drilling into gas zones or other potential 

pollution sources). For these reasons, the documentation provided with every proposed scientific drilling 

site must include seismic reflection imagery of the subsurface in the immediate vicinity. The value of this 

planning process is borne out in both the scientific success of the DSDP, ODP, and IODP, and in their 

records of compliance with environmental regulations and policies. The extraordinary safety and 

environmental record of the NSF-sponsored DSDP, ODP, and IODP results largely from its reliance on 

seismic reflection data to plan safe operations. This PEIS will also address the acoustic sources proposed 

for use by the IODP‘s Scientific Ocean Drilling Vessel (SODV). Further detail is provided in Chapter 2.

1.4 PROGRAMMATIC APPROACH TO THE PEIS

Under the Proposed Action, a variety of acoustic sources used for research activities funded by NSF or 

conducted by the USGS would be operated from various research vessels operated by U.S. academic 

institutions or government agencies. The seismic acoustic sources would include various airgun 

configurations (particularly strings or arrays with as little as 2 to as many as 36 seismic airguns), as well 

as towed low-energy sources including swept frequency modulated (FM) chirp systems, sparker, and 

boomer type sub-bottom profilers (SBPs). Non-seismic acoustic sources would include multibeam 

echosounders (MBESs), SBPs, acoustic Doppler current profilers (ADCPs), fathometers, pingers, and 

acoustic releases. A variety of other geoscience research activities, such as, but not limited to, mapping, 

dredging, drilling, and coring, might also be conducted on any seismic research cruise funded by NSF or 

conducted by the USGS.

Currently, individual Environmental Assessments (EAs) are prepared for individual or small numbers of 

related cruises to assess the impact of the generated seismic survey noise on the marine environment. In 

the 7 years from 2003 through 2009, NSF prepared 31 EAs assessing the impact of sound from seismic 

surveys on marine resources and species listed under the MMPA and ESA during research projects 

investigating the geology and geophysics of the seafloor. These EAs were prepared for various 

worldwide, academic research cruises that required the use of various marine seismic sources involving 

different airgun configurations deployed from the primary U.S. academic seismic survey ship, or smaller 

airgun sources deployed from other research vessels, often with concurrent operations of MBES, SBPs, 

and depth-sounders. 

For past seismic research cruise actions with the potential to adversely affect species of marine mammals 

listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, an EA has been used to provide the necessary 

information to initiate and conduct informal or formal consultation with the NOAA Office of Protected 

Resources (OPR) and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. For 

research cruises with the potential for adverse impacts to listed species, NOAA OPR and/or USFWS have 

issued a Biological Opinion (BO) and related Incidental Take Statements (ITSs), which included terms 

and conditions to minimize impacts on threatened and endangered species. In parallel with this effort, 

when applicable, a separate application for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) under Section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA was submitted for each cruise to another division within NOAA OPR, which 

subsequently issued the IHA. The MMPA procedures for issuance of an IHA involve publication of a 

proposed IHA notice in the Federal Register, solicitation of comments on that notice, and publication of a 

notice of issuance in the Federal Register, in addition to compliance with NEPA, and, if applicable, the 

ESA. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

1-5

To reduce this apparent duplication of effort in environmental documentation and to address the potential 

for cumulative effects of marine seismic research acoustic sources upon marine resources, NSF and the 

USGS have decided that a Programmatic EIS/OEIS should be prepared. Preparing a Programmatic 

EIS/OEIS for NSF and USGS marine seismic research serves several purposes. First, it provides a format 

for a comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis by taking a view of the planned marine seismic research 

activities as a whole. This is accomplished by assembling and analyzing the broadest range of direct, 

indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with all marine seismic research activities in addition to other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the region of influence. Furthermore, the collective 

analysis of representative project locations will provide a strong technical basis for a more global 

assessment of the potential cumulative impacts of NSF-funded and USGS marine seismic activities in the 

future. 

A Programmatic EIS/OEIS also sets up a framework for streamlining the preparation of subsequent 

environmental documents where needed for individual cruises. It is expected that time- and locationspecific aspects, or similarly detailed technical information if necessary to evaluate unique impacts of 

specific cruises and projects, will be addressed in EIS supplements, tiered EAs, or other appropriate 

environmental documentation that would follow the publication of this PEIS (per CEQ regulations at 40 

CFR 1502.20). Thus, while NSF-funded and USGS marine seismic research is reviewed under this PEIS, 

the analysis of site-specific impacts from future cruises may be reserved for future analysis. Tiering of 

environmental documents in this manner makes subsequent documents of greater use and meaning to the 

public as NSF‘s and USGS‘s marine seismic research develops, without duplicating previous paperwork 

and environmental analyses. Finally, a PEIS enables the identification of an appropriate and prudent set of 

standard mitigation measures to be integrated into future NSF-funded and USGS cruises, which is a key 

goal of NSF and USGS and this PEIS. 

1.5 BACKGROUND OF NSF-FUNDED MARINE SEISMIC RESEARCH

The purpose of this PEIS is to address the same basic environmental concerns for any NSF-funded marine 

seismic research, but the focus of the PEIS is for actions in the Divisions of Ocean Sciences and Earth 

Sciences within the Directorate for Geosciences (GEO). GEO is one of the primary research arms within 

NSF that provides funding for marine seismic research. 

GEO supports research in the atmospheric, Earth, and ocean sciences and is the principal source of federal 

funding for university-based fundamental research in the geosciences. GEO addresses the nation‘s need to 

know more about how our planet is structured, how it works as a system, and through its research support,

improves our ability to understand, predict, and respond to environmental events and changes. GEOsupported research also advances our ability to locate new resources and understand and predict natural 

phenomena of economic and human significance, such as climate change, weather, earthquakes, tsunamis, 

and solar-atmosphere interactions.

NSF has funded marine seismic research for over 50 years. Typically, four to seven NSF-funded marine 

seismic research cruises are conducted each year. These cruises are conducted across the world‘s oceans 

including the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, Mid-Atlantic Ridge, North Atlantic, Norwegian Sea, Arctic 

Ocean, Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, Northeast Pacific, Eastern Tropical Pacific, and Southwest Pacific. 

More than one seismic research cruise at one time is rare. The final determination of specific cruise tracks 

includes multiple factors beginning with the research objectives of proposals recommended for award 

during panel reviews, the NSF research budget for a given fiscal year, vessel availability, and 

environmental considerations presented in this PEIS.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

1-6

1.6 BACKGROUND OF USGS MARINE SEISMIC RESEARCH

The USGS conducts marine seismic research in support of its missions: 1) to characterize the seafloor 

and subseafloor of the nation or other areas of interest; 2) to support analyses of seismic, tsunami, 

submarine slide, or other marine hazards; 3) to assess the distribution of mineral or unconventional 

natural gas resources in the offshore environment; 4) to document the impact of climate or environmental 

change or events; 5) to document the processes related to the formation of and ongoing changes to 

continental shelves and margins; 6) to understand a variety of geological, geophysical, and biological 

processes that affect the marine environment; and 7) to collaborate with other government agencies in 

support of mutual scientific objectives and governmental or public benefits.

In general, USGS marine seismic research is focused on federal offshore and trust territory land, but does 

occasionally include worldwide locations under special circumstances or collaborations. For much of the 

past decade, USGS research has been directed progressively more to nearshore and inner shelf coastal 

research, where low-energy acoustic sources are generally adequate. Mapping the outer limits of the 

extended continental shelf of the U.S. is an exception to this general trend, where seismic data may be 

required to map sediment thickness beyond the 200-nautical mile (nm) (370-kilometer [km]) limit of the 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

USGS marine seismic research projects are conducted to support approved programs of the USGS for 

which the agency has direct or reimbursable funding. The potential environmental impact of such marine 

seismic projects is considered throughout the planning process. In the planning process, the USGS 

considers the minimum source size and configuration required to meet the scientific objectives; the 

impact of the planned activity on sensitive marine species, particularly during critical parts of their life 

cycle; possible mitigation strategies; and various alternatives to conducting seismic activities. In addition, 

the final determination of specific cruises includes multiple factors beginning with the research objectives 

of proposals recommended for award, the USGS research budget for a given fiscal year, vessel 

availability, and environmental considerations presented in this PEIS.

1.7 PEIS ANALYSIS AREAS

Due to the potential for NSF-funded marine seismic cruises to occur across the world‘s oceans, it was 

necessary to narrow the focus of the analysis presented in this PEIS to a number of representative or 

exemplary analysis areas. The proposed number and location of analysis areas were determined based on 

past and potential future NSF-funded seismic research objectives and priorities. In other words, locations 

of exemplary analysis areas were selected in areas where it was considered likely that a future marine 

seismic research cruise would be proposed for NSF funding by a scientific investigator, while at the same 

time including analysis areas within a wide range of Longhurst Biomes (see below). 

Based on the concept of the Longhurst Biome, the pelagic biogeography by Longhurst (2006) was utilized 

as a guide to identify areas with similar ecological dynamics. This concept describes how individual 

species are distributed in the ocean, and explains how these species aggregate to form characteristic 

ecosystems under regional conditions of temperature, nutrients, and sunlight exposure. Although the 

Longhurst Biome concept was designed for plankton, it is the most appropriate scientific application 

available for designating specified geographic regions since no similar biogeographic concept has been 

designed for marine mammals and other marine vertebrates at the higher trophic levels. In general, the 

distribution of marine organisms at higher trophic levels resembles the general geographic patterns of 

primary productivity, with the largest aggregations concentrated in coastal areas and zones of upwelling 

(Longhurst 2006). Although Longhurst Biomes are extremely large, the biome concept provided a largescale selection criterion.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

1-7

Based on this rationale, 13 exemplary analysis areas were proposed for analysis within this PEIS. In some 

instances, a biome may not be represented (e.g., Antarctic Polar Biome) and other biomes may be 

represented more than once (e.g., Pacific Coastal Biome). However, it was considered more important to 

represent where potential NSF-funded marine seismic research activities would most likely occur,

including parts of the U.S. margins relevant to future USGS studies, than to include an analysis area 

within each biome.

The 13 exemplary analysis areas were broken down further into 5 areas of detailed study (Detailed 

Analysis Areas or DAAs) and 8 areas of qualitative study (Qualitative Analysis Areas or QAAs) (Table 

1-1). Impact analysis for the DAAs includes acoustic modeling that assesses impacts on marine species by 

integrating the predicted seismic survey sound field with the expected distributions and densities of 

marine animals. The collective analysis of the 13 representative locations provides a technical basis for a 

general global assessment of the potential environmental impacts of NSF-funded and USGS-conducted 

seismic survey activities in the future, a key goal of the PEIS. More detailed discussion of the 13 analysis 

areas is provided in Chapter 2.

Table 1-1. Detailed and Qualitative Analysis Areas

Qualitative Analysis Area (QAA) Detailed Analysis Area (DAA)

British Columbia Coast (BC Coast) Western Gulf of Alaska (W Gulf of Alaska)

Mid-Atlantic Ridge Southern California (S California)

Mariana Islands (Marianas) Galapagos Ridge

Sub-Antarctic Caribbean Sea (Caribbean)

Northern Atlantic/Iceland (N Atlantic/Iceland) Northwestern Atlantic (NW Atlantic)

Southwestern Atlantic (SW Atlantic)

Western India (W India)

Western Australia (W Australia)

1.8 REGULATORY SETTING

1.8.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

In 1969, Congress enacted NEPA to provide for the consideration of environmental issues in federal 

agency planning and decision-making. Regulations for federal agency implementation of NEPA were 

established by the CEQ in Regulations for Implementing Procedural Provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR Parts 1500 to 1508). NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an 

EIS for major federal actions that may significantly affect the quality of the human and natural 

environment. The EIS must disclose significant direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts 

and inform decision-makers and the public of reasonable alternatives that would avoid or minimize 

adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment.

Under customary international law, U.S. Territory generally extends out into the ocean for a distance of 3 

nm (5.6 km) from the coastline. By Presidential Proclamation 5928, issued 27 December 1988, the U.S. 

extended its exercise of sovereignty and jurisdiction under international law to 12 nm (22 km) (i.e., 

territorial sea). However, the Proclamation expressly provides that it does not extend or otherwise alter 

existing federal law or any associated jurisdiction, rights, legal interests, or obligations. The Proclamation 

thus did not alter existing legal obligations under NEPA. 

In 1983, Presidential Proclamation 5030 established the 200-nm (370-km) zone off all U.S. coasts as the 

EEZ, declaring, ―...to the extent permitted by international law...sovereign rights for the purpose of 

exploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing natural resources, both living and non-living, of the 

seabed and subsoil and the superadjacent waters.‖ The assertion of jurisdiction over the EEZ of the U.S. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

1-8

altered the legal basis for economic exploration and exploitation, scientific research, and protection of the 

environment by the U.S. For this PEIS, potential impacts to areas within the 200-nm (370-km) boundary 

of the EEZ are subject to analysis under NEPA, and those beyond the U.S. EEZ are subject to analysis 

under EO 12114 (as described in Section 1.8.2).

1.8.2 EO 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions

In addition to NEPA, this PEIS was prepared in accordance with EO 12114. Potential impacts in areas 

that are outside the U.S. EEZ or the EEZ of any nation (i.e., >200 nm [370 km]), referred to as the global 

commons, are analyzed using the procedures set out in EO 12114 and associated implementing 

regulations. If an activity is funded by a U.S. federal entity within the EEZ and/or territorial waters of a 

foreign nation and that nation is taking part in the proposed activity (e.g., funding or participating), then 

the U.S. entity does not need to prepare environmental documentation in accordance with EO 12114. It is 

the responsibility of the ―host‖ nation to prepare its own environmental documentation and review. 

However, if a U.S. entity is proposing an activity within the waters of a foreign nation and that foreign 

nation is not participating in any way, then the U.S. entity must prepare the appropriate environmental 

documents in accordance with EO 12114. A majority of the potential impacts associated with NSFfunded marine seismic research addressed in this PEIS fall outside the U.S. EEZ and are, therefore,

addressed in accordance with EO 12114. 

1.8.3 Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)

The MMPA of 1972 protects marine mammals by strictly limiting their ―taking‖ in waters or on lands 

under U.S. jurisdiction, and on the high seas by vessels or persons under U.S. jurisdiction. The term 

―take,‖ as defined in Section 3 (16 USC 1362) of the MMPA and its implementing regulations, means ―to 

harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.‖ The term 

―harassment‖ was further defined in the 1994 amendments to the MMPA as any act of pursuit, torment, or 

annoyance, at two distinct levels:

 Level A Harassment – potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild.

 Level B Harassment – potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 

by causing disruption of natural behavior patterns including, but not limited to, migration, 

breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

The incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine mammals is allowed if certain findings are made and 

regulations are issued. In particular, application can be made for authorization to incidentally take marine 

mammals for specific activities such as seismic surveys. Permission for incidental taking of various 

marine mammals can be granted by NMFS or the USFWS through the issuance of regulations, which can 

cover a period of up to 5 consecutive years, and a Letter of Authorization (LOA) under those regulations. 

NMFS can issue regulations and LOAs concerning cetaceans, seals, and sea lions. USFWS can issue 

regulations and LOAs concerning walruses, polar bears, sea otters, and sirenians. LOAs for the incidental 

take of small numbers of marine mammals within a specified geographic area can only be issued if it is 

determined that the taking would have no more than a negligible impact on the species or stock, and will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stock for taking for 

subsistence uses (where relevant). Prior to issuing an LOA for a specific activity, NMFS or the USFWS 

develops and publishes regulations in the Federal Register, and holds public comment periods. The 

regulations must outline: 

 the permissible methods and the specified geographical region of taking;
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

1-9

 the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on species or stock and its habitat, and 

on the availability of the species or stock for subsistence uses (where relevant); and

 the requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.

Once the regulations are finalized, NMFS or the USFWS can move forward with authorizing the activity 

through issuance of an LOA.

In 1994, the MMPA was amended to establish an expedited process by which citizens of the U.S. can 

apply for an authorization to take small numbers of marine mammals incidental to specified activities 

(other than commercial fishing) within a specific geographic region by ―harassment‖, referred to as 

Incidental Harassment Authorizations or IHAs. It established specific time limits for public notice and 

comment on any requests for authorization that would be granted under the provision. IHAs are limited in 

duration to no longer than 1 year and may only be issued if the Secretary of Commerce makes the 

determinations and establishes conditions described above for regulations and LOAs. Because the IHA 

process has eliminated the need for promulgating specific regulations on the incidental taking, IHAs are 

generally used by individuals with relatively short-term activities that may incidentally harass marine 

mammals. The IHA process cannot be used where incidental take would likely result in serious injury or 

mortality to marine mammals. 

In the past, NSF and the USGS have applied for and received incidental take authorizations for marine 

mammals through the IHA process on a cruise-by-cruise basis. Although NSF and USGS are not 

requesting authorizations under section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA at this time, this PEIS may contain 

information relevant and applicable to support future NSF and USGS consultations in support of potential 

requests for future incidental take authorizations for site-specific marine seismic cruises for actions 

described and analyzed in this PEIS. Should marine seismic surveys funded by NSF or conducted by 

USGS be determined to have the potential to incidentally take marine mammals, NSF or the USGS would 

submit an MMPA IHA application to NMFS or USFWS. The application would be evaluated and 

considered based on the determinations and criteria required by Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA on a 

case-by-case basis.

In order to issue the MMPA authorization required for certain activities, it might be necessary for NMFS 

to require additional mitigation or monitoring measures beyond those addressed in this PEIS. These could 

include measures considered, but eliminated in the PEIS, or as yet undetermined measures. The public 

will have an opportunity to provide information to NMFS through the MMPA process during the 30-day 

comment period following NMFS‘ publication of a Notice of Proposed IHA in the Federal Register. 

Measures not considered in the mitigation and monitoring measures in this PEIS, but required through the 

MMPA process, might require evaluation in accordance with NEPA. In doing so, NMFS may consider 

―tiering,‖ that is, incorporating this PEIS during the MMPA process.

1.8.4 Endangered Species Act (ESA)

The ESA of 1973 and subsequent amendments provide for the protection and conservation of threatened 

and endangered species of animals (including some marine mammals) and plants, and the ecosystems on

which they depend. The ESA prohibits federal agencies from funding, authorizing or carrying out actions 

likely to jeopardize endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification 

of critical habitat designated for them. Section 7 of the ESA requires consultation with NMFS and the 

USFWS when any endangered or threatened species under their jurisdiction may be affected by a 

proposed action. Generally, the USFWS manages land and freshwater species while NMFS manages 

marine species, including anadromous salmon. However, as noted previously, the USFWS has 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

1-10

responsibility for some marine animals such as nesting sea turtles, walruses, polar bears, sea otters, and 

manatees.

For actions that may result in prohibited ―take‖ of a listed species, federal agencies must obtain 

authorization for incidental take through the section 7 formal consultation process. Under ESA ―take‖ 

means to ―harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt any such 

conduct to species listed as threatened or endangered in 50 CFR 402.12(b).‖ NMFS has further defined 

harm as follows: ―harm‖ is ―...an act which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife. Such an act may 

include significant habitat modification or degradation which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by 

significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including, breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, 

feeding or sheltering (50 CFR 222.102).‖ ―Harass‖ as defined by the USFWS means an ―intentional or 

negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an 

extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns, which include, but are not limited to, 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3).‖ NMFS has not defined the term ―harass‖ by regulation.

Under section 7 of the ESA, federal agencies consult with the USFWS and/or NMFS and submit a 

consultation package for proposed actions that may affect listed species or critical habitat. If a listed 

species or critical habitat is likely to be affected by a proposed federal action, the federal agency must 

provide the USFWS and NMFS with an evaluation whether or not the effect on the listed species or 

critical habitat is likely to be adverse. Often this information is referred to as a ―consultation package‖ or 

Biological Assessment (BA). The USFWS and/or NMFS uses this documentation along with any other 

available information to determine if a formal consultation or a conference is necessary for actions likely 

to result in adverse effects to a listed species or its designated critical habitat. After USFWS and NMFS 

review the BA, these agencies provide their determinations regarding the nature of any effects on each 

listed species or critical habitat. For each species that is likely to be adversely affected (i.e., subject to take 

or adverse effect on critical habitat), formal consultation with the agency is required, culminating in the 

agency‘s issuance of a BO, which contains the necessary and sufficient terms and conditions under which 

the action can proceed. For each species not likely to be adversely affected, informal consultation is 

required, the conclusion of which is the agency‘s written concurrence with the findings, including any 

additional measures mutually agreed upon as necessary and sufficient to minimize adverse impacts to 

listed species and/or designated critical habitat.

Although an authorization is not required by the MMPA if marine mammals are not being taken, the 

NMFS and USFWS believe an incidental take authorization under the MMPA is warranted in an area 

where marine mammal species are likely to occur because seismic-survey sounds have the potential to 

harass marine mammals. In addition, NMFS cannot issue an exemption to the take prohibitions for 

harassment through an ITS unless appropriate MMPA incidental take is authorized. Because a BO, 

including an ITS, is issued under the ESA once the requirements of Section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA have 

been met, seismic surveys that could affect ESA-listed marine mammals shall not commence until such 

time that USFWS and NMFS issue the appropriate MMPA incidental take authorizations and coordinate 

its requirements with those in the ITS. Although NSF and USGS are not requesting section 7 ESA 

consultation at this time, this PEIS may contain information relevant and applicable to support future NSF 

and USGS consultations on ESA-listed species and critical habitat for site-specific marine seismic cruises 

as required under the ESA. NMFS and USFWS, at the request of NSF or USGS, will review any future 

seismic cruise activity that has the potential to affect a marine species listed as threatened or endangered 

under the ESA on a case-by-case basis to determine its effect and make necessary determinations and 

findings in accordance with section 7 of the ESA and its implementing regulations.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

1-11

1.8.5 Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA)

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Public Law 94-265) (MagnusonStevens Act or MSA) established U.S. jurisdiction from the seaward boundary of the coastal states out to 

200 nm (370 km) (i.e., U.S. EEZ) for the purpose of managing fisheries resources. The MSA is the 

principal federal statute that provides for the management of marine fisheries in the U.S. The purposes of 

the MSA include: (1) conservation and management of the fishery resources of the U.S.; (2) support and 

encouragement of international fishery agreements; (3) promotion of domestic commercial and 

recreational fishing; (4) preparation and implementation of Fishery Management Plans; (5) establishment 

of Regional Fishery Management Councils; (6) development of fisheries which are underutilized or not 

utilized; and (7) protection of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). 

Under provisions of the MSA, eight Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils) were established 

for the New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific, Western Pacific, 

and North Pacific regions. Each Council is responsible for developing Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) 

for domestic fisheries within its geographic jurisdiction. The Secretary of Commerce is responsible for 

developing an FMP for Atlantic highly migratory species, including tunas, sharks, and swordfish. Each 

FMP identifies and describes EFH for managed fisheries. EFH is defined as those waters and substrate 

necessary to fish or invertebrates for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. Areas 

designated as EFH contain habitat essential to the long-term survival and health of U.S. fisheries.

Federal agencies that authorize, fund, or undertake actions that may adversely affect EFH must consult 

with the Secretary of Commerce, through NMFS, regarding potential effects to EFH, and NMFS must 

provide conservation recommendations. To carry out this mandate efficiently, NMFS combines EFH 

consultations with existing environmental reviews required by other laws, so almost all of the 

consultations are completed within the time frames of those other reviews. The MSA reiterates that the 

Councils may, or in the case of anadromous fisheries must, comment on federal or state actions that affect 

fishery habitat, including EFH. Federal agencies are required to respond in writing within 30 days of 

receiving EFH conservation recommendations from NMFS or the Councils. Although NSF and USGS are 

not requesting MSA consultation at this time, this PEIS may contain information relevant and applicable

to support future NSF and USGS consultations on EFH on site-specific marine seismic cruises as required 

under the MSA.

1.8.6 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)

In general, the jurisdictional purview of each state or territory within the U.S. extends 3 nm (5.6 km) 

offshore of the coast and coastal islands. While these areas fall within U.S. Territorial Waters and 

activities within these areas are evaluated under NEPA, they are also subject to additional state 

regulations when federal sovereign immunity has been waived by Congress. The CZMA requires that 

―any federal activity within or outside of the coastal zone that affects any land or water use or natural 

resource of the coastal zone‖ shall be ―consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable 

policies‖ of a state‘s coastal zone management plan. Federal agencies, in carrying out their functions and 

responsibilities, shall consult with, cooperate with, and, to the maximum extent practicable, coordinate 

their activities with other interested federal agencies. 

1.8.7 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

Promulgated in 1982, UNCLOS gives coastal nations sovereign rights to the seafloor and sub-seafloor 

beyond 200 nm (370 km) if the criteria of Article 76 are satisfied. Although the U.S. has not ratified 

UNCLOS, it has an inherent interest in knowing where the outer limits of the extended continental shelf 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

1-12

beyond 200 nm (370 km) are located. Because one of the formulae in Article 76 requires sediment 

thickness, seismic surveys are therefore also sometimes required beyond 200 nm (370 km) for the U.S. to 

understand the full extent of its sovereign rights. The USGS is the lead agency for seismic studies within 

the U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Interagency Task Force for identifying these outer limits.

1.9 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

A description of the PEIS process and timeline follows and is summarized in Figure 1-1. Input from the 

public obtained during the scoping process (Section 1.9.2) was used to refine further the key issues that 

have been analyzed in this PEIS.

1.9.1 Notice of Intent (NOI)

Official notification of NSF‘s Proposed Action began with the publication of the NOI in the Federal 

Register on September 22, 2005 (NSF 2005). The NOI briefly summarized the Proposed Action; the 

scoping process; and the dates, times, and locations of the public scoping meetings.

1.9.2 Scoping Process

Scoping meetings were held in the following six communities that were expected to have public, agency, 

research institution, or industry interest in the Proposed Action: Silver Spring, Maryland; Woods Hole, 

Massachusetts; College Station, Texas; Anchorage, Alaska; San Diego, California; and Honolulu, Hawaii. 

An advertisement describing the Proposed Action was placed a week before the scoping meetings in local 

newspapers. A copy of this advertisement is found in Appendix A. The advertisements provided the 

times, dates, and locations of the scoping meetings. Public comment was solicited in the advertisements 

and during the scoping meetings. 

The scoping meetings were designed in an ―open house‖ format to facilitate dialogue with NSF and 

agency personnel and the public. Displays were presented to enhance public understanding of the NEPA 

process, the need for the Proposed Action, and the public‘s role in shaping the proposal.

NSF provided the public with several avenues for providing comments during the scoping process and at 

the meetings. Scoping meeting attendees could submit written comments prepared prior to the meeting, 

complete a comment form provided by the NSF, or dictate their comments to an NSF representative for 

computer entry. An e-mail address was also provided at the meetings and in the advertisements for 

submitting comments. A total of 78 people attended the six scoping meetings. Four written comments 

were received during the official comment period between September 22 and October 28, 2005 (refer to 

Appendix A). Only one written comment sheet (praising the posters as very informative and personnel 

quite knowledgeable) was received from the six meetings; three more letters (via email) were received 

during the scoping comment period. One from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs expressing their regrets at 

not attending the meeting but look forward to receiving the PEIS; one from the USGS indicating they 

have no comments at this time; and one from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 

Comments received during the scoping period helped refine the NSF proposal and are reflected in 

Chapter 2, Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

1-13

Notice of Intent Published

(September 22, 2005)

Scoping Period (30 Days)

and Public Scoping Meetings

(September 22 – October 28, 2005)

Preparation of Draft PEIS

Public Comment Period (45 Days)

and Public Hearings

(October 8 – November 22, 2010)

Preparation of Final PEIS

Notice of Availability of Final PEIS

(June 2011)

Public Comment Period

(30 Days)

Record of Decision

(Fall 2011)

Figure 1-1. EIS/OEIS Process

The scoping meetings were designed in an ―open house‖ format to facilitate dialogue with NSF and 

agency personnel and the public. Displays were presented to enhance public understanding of the NEPA 

process, the need for the Proposed Action, and the public‘s role in shaping the proposal.

1.9.3 Draft PEIS

The Draft PEIS was made available for public review beginning in October 2010, with the 45-day public 

comment period occurring from October 8, 2010 through November 22, 2010. An NOA for the Draft

PEIS was announced in the Federal Register, local newspapers, and in letters and e-mails to federal and

state agencies; and other interested parties (see Appendix I). It was also made available on NSF‘s Ocean 

Sciences environmental compliance website (http://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/envcomp/). This notice 

indicated the duration of the public review and comment period, the address where comments could be 

sent, and the time and location of the public hearings. Once the public comment period commenced, NSF 

also:
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

1-14

 Mailed hard copies and electronic copies on CDs of the Draft PEIS to federal and state agencies, 

and other interested parties, including those who had requested a copy of the Draft PEIS through 

the scoping process (see Appendix I for the complete distribution list).

 Conducted 2 public hearings each with an ―open house‖ poster session staffed by NSF, USGS, 

and NMFS subject matter experts, a formal briefing by NSF, and the opportunity to provide oral 

and/or written comments. The presentation slides used by NSF at both public hearings can be 

found in Appendix I. 

 Distributed a comment sheet to help facilitate public input and feedback.

 Provided a CD to any individual requesting a copy of the Draft PEIS at the public hearings.

The public hearings were held at the following dates, times, and locations:

 October 25, 2010; Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University California-San Diego, Vaughn 

Hall, Room 100, Discovery Way, La Jolla, CA. 

 October 27, 2010; Marine Acoustics, Inc. (MAI), 4100 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA.

The Arlington, Virginia public hearing location was originally planned to be held at the NSF building at 

4201 Wilson Blvd. Unfortunately, due to a fire in the NSF building on the afternoon of October 27, 2010, 

the public hearing location was moved to the offices of MAI located at 4100 Fairfax Drive (a building 

two blocks from NSF). Signs were posted on the outside doors of the NSF building announcing the new 

hearing location, and a security guard stationed at the main NSF entrance outside the meeting room 

directed hearing attendees who were unaware of the NSF emergency to the new hearing venue.

1.9.4 Final PEIS

Following the close of the comment period, written and oral comments on the Draft PEIS were reviewed 

and responses to those comments prepared. The Final PEIS was prepared, incorporating responses to 

comments and any additional evaluation that may be warranted. Copies of all comments received on the 

Draft PEIS and the corresponding responses are included in Appendix J of this Final PEIS. The Final 

PEIS was distributed and made publically available in the same manner as the Draft PEIS, but to an 

expanded list of recipients based on requests received during the Draft PEIS comment period.

A total of 31 individuals attended the 2 public hearings, and 2 individuals provided oral comments on the 

Draft PEIS that expressed support for the Proposed Action (Table 1-2); no written comments were 

submitted at the public hearings. 

Table 1-2. Summary of Public Hearing Attendance and Written Comments on the Draft PEIS

Location (Date) Attendees Written Comments Oral Comments

PUBLIC HEARINGS (see Appendix I for transcripts)

Scripps Instit. of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA (October 25, 2010) 21 0 1

MAI, Arlington, VA (October 27, 2010) 10 0 1

Total 31 0 2

WRITTEN COMMENT LETTERS (see Appendix J)

Federal Agencies 1

State Agencies 1

Interested Parties 5

Total 7

In addition to the 2 oral comments received at the public hearings in support of the Proposed Action, 7 

written comment letters expressing support of or concerns with the Proposed Action were submitted via 

the NSF comment e-mail address (nepacomments@nsf.gov) or via postal mail. Complete transcripts of 

the public hearings are provided in Appendix I, and all submitted public comments, as well as responses 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

1-15

to those comments, are provided in Appendix J. The following is a summary of the topics of concern 

identified by public commenters through comments received via email and postal mail.

 Support for the Proposed Action and implementation of the Preferred Alternative;

 Sufficient peer review of proprietary acoustic models used in the analysis, compliance with 

Information Quality Act (IQA) and Council for Regulatory Monitoring (CREM) guidelines, and 

overall usefulness and applicability of those models in the impact analysis;

 Appropriate range of action alternatives;

 Pre-cruise planning guidelines;

 Mitigation and monitoring measures, including use of Protected Species Visual Observers 

(PSVOs);

 Robustness of cumulative impacts analysis;

 Use of  ̳precautionary approach‘ in impact analysis;

 Definition of  ̳generic‘ mitigation zones; and

 Use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM).

To obtain further clarification on some of the public comments received from the Marine Mammal 

Commission (MMC) (See Appendix J), NSF, USGS and NMFS representatives contacted MMC 

representatives via telephone on January 25, 2011. The discussion helped inform the federal agencies in 

developing their response to the MMC‘s comments and making appropriate changes to the Final PEIS, 

where appropriate.

1.9.5 Record of Decision (ROD)

Following issuance of this Final PEIS, and the subsequent 30-day ―cooling off period,‖ a ROD will be 

issued by NSF and USGS. The NSF/USGS ROD will be published in the Federal Register and distributed 

to interested agencies and parties.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

1-16

[This page intentionally left blank.]
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-1

CHAPTER 2

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

A variety of methods and equipment are employed by marine seismic researchers when conducting 

seismic surveys, and Section 2.1 presents an overview of these methods. Section 2.2 describes the 

Proposed Action including a discussion of the research vessels and acoustic sources proposed for use 

during NSF-funded or USGS marine seismic research. Section 2.3 describes the approach to analysis for 

this PEIS, in particular the approach to acoustic modeling. Section 2.4 discusses the alternatives carried 

forward for analysis and associated mitigation measures; Section 2.5 discusses adjustments to mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting based on adaptive management; and Section 2.6 discusses alternatives 

considered but not carried forward for detailed analysis.

2.1 MARINE SEISMIC RESEARCH METHODS

Research for understanding the nature of the Earth‘s crust and dynamic processes often begins with 

seismic exploration. The opportunities for research using seafloor seismic data to understand the natural 

forces that shape and change our planet have never been greater than they are today. Major advances in 

data storage and microprocessor technology have allowed the development of a new generation of 

instruments for conducting marine seismic research. These advances make it possible to probe deep 

beneath the oceans and observe Earth‘s interior and to carry out a whole new class of seismic research in 

the oceans, including discovering records of sea-level rise that are key to understanding global climate

change, and mapping the deep structure and active geological processes along fault zones, which may 

give clues about fault behavior that lead to tsunami-generating earthquakes (Multichannel Seismic [MCS] 

Advisory Board 2006). 

Seismic surveys use the principle of an active sound source (controlled sound source) and receiver 

system. The  ̳source‘ for marine seismic operations is most often a group (array) of airguns that are towed 

behind a research vessel moving approximately 4 nautical miles per hour (knots [kt]) (7 km per hour 

[km/hr]). Airguns produce low-frequency (10–50 hertz [Hz]) sound by releasing bubbles of compressed 

air every 5-60 seconds (sec). This sound propagates through the ocean floor, sometimes up to 19 miles 

(mi) (30 km) below it, and is reflected or refracted back by geological discontinuities or velocity gradients 

(Figure 2-1). For seismic reflection studies, the  ̳receiver‘ is usually a long (0.6-3.7 mi [1-6 km]) string of 

hydrophones (streamer) towed behind the research vessel to record the reflected sound (echoes). 

Sophisticated computer algorithms process the multiple channels of seismic data (i.e., MCS) and 

construct a sub-surface map of the Earth‘s internal structure. Depth to the structures is calculated by 

measuring the amount of time it takes for the sound to make its round trip from the near sea surface 

(airguns) to the structures and back to the hydrophones. This total time can be converted to depth below 

the seafloor. For seismic refraction studies, ocean bottom seismometers/hydrophones (OBS/Hs) are often 

used to record the seismic signals. These bottom instruments remain stationary on the seafloor and 

generally provide better signal-to-noise ratios for seismic signals compared to older sonobuoy technology 

of hydrophones suspended from a buoy floating (and drifting) at the sea surface. In the 1960s, airguns 

rapidly replaced the initial use of explosives as the sound source for marine seismic work and remain the 

most effective sound source presently available. As will be presented, variations in the typical airgun 

array and towed hydrophone streamer configuration exist and are used in circumstances that favor other 

methods.
Acoustic Source

(e.g., airgun)

Hydrophone Streamer (receiver)

sound 

propagation sound propagation 

Seismic Reflection SurveySeismic Refraction Survey

LEGEND

2-2

Figure 2-1

General Concept of Marine Seismic Reflection and Refraction Surveys Not to Scale

Note: Other acoustic receivers that may be used in seismic  sonobuoys, Ocean Bottom Cables (OBCs) in water d seismometers for certain types of experiments.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-3

In addition to conventional airguns and similar systems (e.g., water guns and generator-injector [GI] 

guns), marine seismic researchers can utilize a variety of other seismic sources within a wide range of 

frequencies in order to carry out operations in a variety of environments. High frequency seismic systems

provide the highest resolution, but are limited in amount of penetration below the sea floor. Low 

frequencies yield more penetration, but less resolution.

When selecting a system or systems to use in a prospective study, the research objectives and survey 

environment, or geologic setting, will dictate system choice. For example, a seismic survey might be 

designed to determine sediment lithologies, delineate stratigraphic boundaries, map submarine slide 

deposits, or find specific features (e.g., migrating gas, carbonate deposits). Often an investigator will 

operate multiple seismic-reflection systems simultaneously. One consideration in designing survey 

systems is the trade-off between range, or penetration, and resolution. In the marine, lacustrine, or 

estuarine environments, the best source is determined primarily by the water depth and the type of 

sediments/rocks in the substrate. Additionally, logistical parameters (e.g., cost, boat size, noise, time 

available, number of crew available, weather, environmental factors (ambient noise, ship traffic, etc.) 

enter into the decision as to which system(s) will be utilized for a given marine seismic survey.

The timing of surveys is dictated by seasonal sea conditions, particularly sea state and seasonal weather 

patterns (i.e., avoiding hurricanes, typhoons, etc.). These timing factors are further constrained by the 

transit times for a research vessel to travel between often widely spaced study locations, given a global 

demand for seismic research sites and limited number of vessels capable of conducting seismic research.

In addition to airguns or other active seismic acoustic sources, other  ̳non-seismic‘ acoustic sources are 

used during proposed NSF-funded and USGS marine seismic research activities including MBESs, SBPs, 

ADCPs, fathometers, and pingers. The following sections describe the various seismic acoustic sources 

(e.g., airguns, GI guns, water guns, sparkers, boomers, and chirp systems) and non-seismic acoustic 

sources (e.g., MBESs, SBPs, etc.) that may be used by NSF-funded or USGS researchers when 

conducting marine seismic research.

2.1.1 Seismic Acoustic Sources Used in Marine Seismic Research

2.1.1.1 Airguns and Airgun Arrays

The most common acoustic source for marine 

seismic research is airguns, the first of which was 

introduced in the 1960s. An airgun is essentially a 

stainless steel cylinder charged with high-pressure 

air (Figure 2-2). The seismic signal is generated 

when that air is released nearly instantaneously into 

the surrounding water column. The compressed air is 

supplied by compressors on board the source vessel. 

Seismic pulses are typically emitted at intervals of 5-

60 sec, and occasionally at shorter or longer 

intervals. 

Figure 2-2. Representative Airgun
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-4

Airgun Operating Principles

An airgun is a pneumatic sound source that creates predominantly low-frequency acoustic impulses by 

generating bubbles of highly compressed air in water (Figure 2-3). Compressed air is fed into the main 

chamber while the solenoid is closed (Charge, Figure 2-3). Once the solenoid valve opens (i.e., the airgun 

is ―fired‖), the shuttle moves releasing the air into the surrounding water column (Discharge, Figure 2-3). 

This rapid release of highly compressed air, typically at pressures of 2,000 pounds per square inch (psi), 

from the airgun chamber generates an oscillating air bubble in the water. The effect is similar to popping 

a balloon – when the high-pressure air inside the balloon is quickly expelled into the surrounding medium 

(air), a pressure pulse is created, and this is perceived by a listener as a loud sound. In the case of airguns, 

expansion and oscillation of the air bubble(s) in the water column generates a strongly peaked, highamplitude acoustic impulse that is useful for seismic profiling. 

The main features of the pressure signal generated by an airgun are the strong primary peak and the 

subsequent bubble pulses or  ̳bubble train‘. For each airgun, the amplitude of the seismic signal is a 

function of the volume and pressure of the air inside the airgun and the airgun‘s depth under the water 

surface. For the marine seismic researcher, the train of bubble pulses is an undesirable feature of the 

airgun signal because it interferes with the detection of distinct sub-bottom reflections. Therefore, in order 

to both increase the pulse amplitude (to see deeper into the Earth) and dampen the bubble train quickly, 

marine seismic researchers generally combine multiple airguns together into arrays. Airgun arrays 

provide several advantages over single airguns for deep geophysical surveying:

 Airgun arrays, when designed appropriately, project maximum peak levels toward the seabed 

(i.e., in the vertical direction) and notably lower levels in some or all near-horizontal directions.

 By utilizing airguns of many different volumes that are spaced optimally, airgun arrays may be 

―tuned‖ to increase the amplitude of the primary peak and simultaneously decrease the relative 

amplitude of the subsequent bubble pulses.

Types of Airguns

Geophysicists use several different kinds of airguns for seismic surveying, depending on the application. 

Most commonly used is an airgun that utilizes the motion of an internal shuttle to release pressurized air 

from the gun chamber through several venting holes (ports) on the gun casing. Conventional airguns are 

available with a wide range of chamber volumes, from under 5 cubic inches (in3) to over 2,000 in3, and 

are used for many different applications from shallow-hazard surveys (requiring small airguns) to deep 

crustal studies (requiring large airguns). Due to the high pressures involved in their operation, traditional 

airguns are subject to wear from significant recoil forces (due to the motion of the shuttle), which 

hampers their reliability. Thus modern airguns, such as ―recoilless‖ G-guns and sleeve-guns, have been 

developed with improved firing mechanisms to overcome some of the reliability issues associated with 

conventional airguns. However, the principle of operation remains the same and the acoustic overpressure 

waveforms produced by these modern airguns are very similar to those of traditional airguns.

Unlike conventional airguns, a GI gun is a specialized kind of airgun that produces a different 

overpressure signature than conventional airguns. GI guns utilize two, independently fired air chambers 

(the ―generator‖ and the ―injector‖, respectively) to tune the air bubble oscillation and minimize the 

amplitude of the bubble pulse. Using one or more GI guns, the geophysicist can achieve very high peakto-bubble amplitude ratios without an array. GI guns are often used for shallow, high-resolution seismic 

profiling.
CHARGE DISCHARGE

Solenoid

(closed)

High-Pressure

Air

Solenoid

(open)

Source: International Association of Geophysical Contractors 2002.

2-5

0 6

0 12

Inches

Centimeters

APPROXIMATE SCALE

Figure 2-3

Operating Principles of a Generic Airgun
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-6

For the purposes of this PEIS, the various types of airguns (e.g., traditional airgun, G-guns, and GI-guns) 

will all be referred to simply as  ̳airguns‘ unless it is important within the discussion to specifically state 

what type of seismic device is being addressed.

2.1.1.2 Water Guns

Water guns are another category of pneumatic sound source that is occasionally used for marine 

geophysical surveys as an alternative to airguns. Water guns generate frequencies on the order of 20-

1,500 Hz depending on the size of the air chamber. The water gun is similar to the airgun, but unlike 

airguns, water guns are implosive rather than explosive and are more effective at collapsing the bubble 

pulse, thus generating a cleaner signal. The 15 in3 water gun is an excellent source for shallow-water, 

high-resolution studies. The water gun is divided into two chambers: the upper firing chamber, which 

contains compressed air, and the lower chamber, which is filled with water. When the gun is fired, the 

compressed air forces the shuttle downward and this expels the water from the lower chamber. Because 

no air is released, there is no bubble pulse. The shot of water leaving the gun creates a void behind it and 

the collapse of water into this void creates an acoustic wave. High air pressure and small chamber size 

yield a higher frequency signal (high resolution and shallow penetration), whereas, low air pressure and 

large chamber size yield a low-frequency signal (low resolution and deep penetration). Water guns, like 

airguns, can be used individually or in arrays. The return signals are received by a towed hydrophone 

array.

2.1.1.3 Sparkers

Sparkers are electrical seismic sources that generate acoustic pulses by vaporizing seawater using highvoltage electrical currents. Sparkers employ large banks of capacitors to generate high voltages, which are 

then discharged across pairs of underwater electrodes separated by seawater. The spark generated by the 

electrodes creates steam bubbles in the water. The formation, oscillation, and collapse of these bubbles 

generate a strongly spiked acoustic pulse in the water that can penetrate several hundred meters into the 

seafloor, and is useful for high-resolution seismic profiling. The sparker is one of the oldest marine 

seismic sources, and many different kinds of sparkers are currently in use. 

2.1.1.4 Boomers

Boomers are electromechanical sound sources that generate short (≤ 1 millisecond [ms]), broadband 

acoustic pulses in the 300-3,000 Hz range useful for high-resolution, shallow-penetration sediment 

profiling. The acoustic impulse from a boomer is generated when two spring-loaded plates are electrically 

charged causing the plates to repel, thus generating an acoustic pulse. Spatial resolution of the boomer 

system ranges from 1.6 to 3.2 feet (ft) (0.5 to 1 meter [m]) and penetration of the seafloor ranges from 82 

to 164 ft (25 to 50 m). This system is commonly mounted on a sled and towed off the stern or alongside 

the ship. The reflected signal is received by a towed hydrophone streamer.

2.1.1.5 Chirp Systems

Chirp systems are a type of SBP that achieves deep bottom penetration while maintaining high resolution. 

They emit a  ̳swept‘-frequency signal, meaning that the transmitted signal is emitted over a period of time 

and over a set range of frequencies. This repeatable (transmitted) waveform can be varied in terms of 

pulse length, frequency bandwidth, and phase/amplitude. A matched filter, or correlation process, 

collapses the swept FM received signal into a pulse of short duration, maximizing the signal-to-noiseratio. The reflected signal is received by the same tuned transducer array that generates the outgoing 

acoustic energy. Chirp systems enable high-resolution mapping of relatively shallow deposits, and in 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-7

general, have less penetration than the impulse-type systems (air or water guns, sparkers, and boomers).

Newer chirp systems are able to penetrate to comparable levels as the boomer, yet yield extraordinary 

detail or resolution of the substrate.

2.1.2 Non-Seismic Acoustic Sources Used in Marine Seismic Research

Non-seismic acoustic sources are those acoustic sources that are used in support of seismic acoustic 

sources (i.e., airguns, waterguns, etc. that are used to map the subsea floor) and primarily consist of 

bottom mapping echosounders, acoustic pingers used to detect or position equipment, current profilers, 

and acoustic releases. 

2.1.2.1 Multibeam Echosounder (MBES) and Sub-bottom Profiler (SBP)

During marine seismic research activities, the ocean floor is usually mapped with an MBES and an SBP. 

Both systems are commonly operated simultaneously with the airguns. The MBES emits brief pings of

medium- or high-frequency sound in a fan-shaped beam extending downward and to the sides of the ship, 

but not forward or aft. For operations in deep water (>3,281 ft [1,000 m]), the MBES usually operates at a 

frequency of 12-15 kilohertz (kHz), but for projects limited to shallow water (<328 ft [100 m]), a higher 

frequency MBES is often used. 

The SBP is normally operated to provide information about the sedimentary features and the bottom 

topography that is simultaneously being mapped by the MBES. The energy from the SBP is directed 

downward by a 2.5-7 kHz transducer in the hull of the research vessel. The output varies with water depth 

from 50 watts in shallow water to 800 watts in deep water. 

2.1.2.2 Pingers

Omnidirectional pingers would also be used during proposed marine seismic surveys to position or 

directionally locate the airgun arrays, hydrophone streamers, coring equipment, bottom cameras, or other 

supporting equipment. In addition, a 12-kHz pinger would normally be used only during those seismic 

survey cruises that have ancillary coring operations. The pinger is used to monitor the depth of the corer 

relative to the sea floor. It is a battery-powered acoustic beacon that is attached to the coring mechanism. 

2.1.2.3 Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP)

An ADCP can calculate speed of the water current, direction of the current, and the depth in the water 

column of the current. This instrument can be placed on the seafloor, attached to a buoy, or mounted on a 

ship. The ADCP measures water currents with sound, using a principle of sound waves called the Doppler 

effect and works by transmitting high frequency pings (normally 35-1,200 kHz) of sound at a constant 

frequency into the water. 

2.1.2.4 Acoustic Releases

OBS/Hs are self-contained data acquisition devices deployed from a survey ship and anchored to the sea 

floor (see below for more information on OBS/Hs). Once the OBS/H is ready to be retrieved, an acoustic 

release transponder interrogates the OBS/H with an omnidirectional 12-kHz signal with a source output of 

approximately 187 decibels referenced 1 microPascal at 1 m (dB re 1 μPa-m) and a ping duration of 8 ms. 

The burn wire release assembly is then activated, and the instrument is released from the anchor to float 

to the surface. Interrogation of an acoustic release is generally done while the ship is stationary or moving 

at very slow speeds.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-8

2.1.3 Acoustic Receivers Used in Marine Seismic Research

In marine seismic research, two primary instruments are used to receive the signal generated from the 

acoustic source (airgun array) and reflected from features in the seafloor: hydrophone streamer cables 

and OBS/Hs. 

2.1.3.1 Hydrophone Streamer Cables

One or more hydrophone streamers 0.06–7.5 mi (0.1–12 km) long and approximately 4 inches (10 

centimeters [cm]) in diameter act as receiving devices for acoustic sources (i.e., airgun array). The 

streamer(s) are towed behind the source vessel at a depth of 7 to >33 ft (2 to >10 m). Because they are 

towed, streamer cables always remain a fixed distance from the source. The streamer is constructed of a 

number of transducers or hydrophones that are electrically wired together to act as one receiving system

(single channel) or multiple receiving systems (multichannel). This string of elements is placed in a 

flexible sleeve or tube that is either a liquid-filled or solid-state system. Most hydrophone arrays are 

digital, incorporating analog-to-digital conversion modules directly into the streamer rather than utilizing 

older technology in which the signal traveled back to the ship before being digitized.

2.1.3.2 Ocean Bottom Seismometers/Hydrophones (OBS/Hs)

An OBS/H is a self-contained data-acquisition system deployed from a ship that records seismic data 

generated by airguns and earthquakes. Typically the OBS/H is deployed from the ship and sits on ocean 

floor because of a weighted anchor attached to it, where it remains stationary during the seismic survey. 

OBS/Hs, because they are stationary on the seafloor, are at variable distances from the moving source. 

The OBS/H contains a seismometer and/or hydrophone. Often, the three-component seismometer device 

is designed to drop onto the seafloor a short distance away from the recording device housed in a 

watertight container. After the OBS/H has been on the bottom for a period of time (ranging from days to 

months), it releases from the anchor via an acoustic release and floats to the surface for recovery by a 

ship. Tens to hundreds of OBS/Hs may be used on a marine seismic research cruise depending on the 

scientific requirements and objectives of the research cruise. The deployment spacing of OBS/Hs also 

varies depending on the survey-specific requirements. The nominal spacing is 9 mi (15 km), but this can

vary from as little as 3 mi (5 km) to as much as 15 mi (25 km). The OBS/Hs could be deployed and 

recovered several (2 to 4) times during a survey. Although almost always retrieved at the end of each 

survey cruise, on occasion, the OBS/Hs are left on the seafloor to record earthquake signals, in which case 

they might remain on the seafloor for up to a year (the approximate battery life). OBS/Hs are designed so 

that they can be deployed and recovered from almost any research vessel. Figure 2-4 depicts some 

examples of OBS/Hs currently used in marine seismic research.

2.1.4 Types of Marine Seismic Surveys

Marine seismic airgun surveys are capable of high-resolution imaging of the seafloor, down to tens of

kilometers in depth, and are an essential tool for geophysicists studying the Earth‘s structure. Similar to 

medical ultrasound images, marine seismic surveys use a tuned sound source designed to penetrate the 

target (ocean seafloor) coupled with receivers (hydrophones or seismometers) that will detect complex 

 ̳echoes‘ as the initial pulse bounces back off different densities of ocean floor sediments and rock or is 

refracted back by velocity gradients.
ACOUSTIC RELEASE

DATA LOGGER

TOP VIEW (Floats Removed)

SIDE VIEW END VIEW

L22

Mount Hydrophone Mount

Dual Burnwire Release

Float (4 x 13'D

glass balls)

Acoustic

Release

Data Logger

Bar Grate

Anchor (3'x3')

35 13/16"

36"

36"

35 11/16"

25 1/2"

Top of Lifting Ring

D2 SEISMIC RECEIVER

4 cm

Geophone Package

Battery

Sphere

Hydrophone and

Recall Transducer

Polyethylene

Housing

Anchor Release

Electronics

Sphere

Flashers

Inside

VHF Radio

Antenna

Source: U.S. National Ocean Bottom Seismograph Instrument Pool 2006.

2-9

Figure 2-4

Examples of OBS/Hs

Scripps Institution of Oceanography L-CHEAPO Active-Source/Rapid Response OBS/H

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Active-Source/Rapid Response OBS/H
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-10

Seismic airgun surveys may be divided into two primary types, two dimensional (2-D) and three 

dimensional (3-D), according to a goal to obtain a simple cross-sectional view or 3-D views of geological 

structures. In addition to the survey design, resolution of collected data (depth of penetration/detail) 

become a function of airgun output, hydrophone streamer length/receivers used, and use of reflection and 

refraction signals. The fundamental data acquired in a marine seismic survey are the elapsed time between 

the initial pulse of the active acoustic source (airgun) and reception of multiple return signals. The travel 

times are dependent on the elastic properties of the medium, and, with analyses, may provide information 

about seismic velocities, depths of interfaces, lithology, presence of free gas, and geological structures. 

Reflection methods generally utilize information in the seismic waves that travel in vertical or nearvertical to wide-angle reflected ray paths, resulting in travel time images that, after processing and 

geometric corrections, resemble cross sections of the Earth showing the seafloor and sub-seafloor features 

with marked changes in elastic parameters. Reflection surveys provide very detailed information on the 

presence and shape of reflectors or discontinuities, though the velocity structure between reflectors is 

often less well constrained by this method. These data are typically collected using towed hydrophones, 

configured as single-channel or multichannel arrays. Refraction methods collect information from nearvertical reflected to near-horizontal refracted raypaths and are interpreted using a combination of 

modeling and inversion to yield results. Refraction surveys are typically designed to locate the basement 

layer for a marine sedimentary section, to define different layers of the crust, or to study the velocity 

characteristics of layered subfloor features. OBS/Hs are often used in refraction surveys. Seismic 

refraction surveys provide constraints on the velocity structure and can be used to image 1- , 2- and 3-D 

variations in seismic velocity. Generally speaking, this method can provide information on the location 

and shape of reflectors, though the resolution is less than that obtained by reflection data. Thus the two 

methods are complementary, with one being more sensitive to the shape, strength, and lateral continuity 

of reflectors and the other being more sensitive to both vertical and horizontal velocity gradients.

Similar techniques are used in 2-D and 3-D seismic reflection surveys, the basic difference being density 

of survey transects. In general, 2-D reflection surveys provide detailed images along widely spaced 

transects but lack information between the transects. Generally, 2-D surveys are designed over large areas 

to understand regional geologic framework. On the other hand, 3-D reflection surveys employ very dense 

line spacing, of the order of 82-328 ft (25-100 m), and provide detailed, high-resolution 3-D volumetric 

images of individual earth structures or layers of particular interest. Considerably less source effort (less 

acoustic energy) ensonifies a given area of the seafloor at any one time in a 2-D survey as compared to a 

3-D survey because of the wide spacing of lines in the former compared to the latter. Marine seismic 2-D 

and 3-D reflection surveys require a suitable at-sea operational environment, particularly when the long 

hydrophone streamers are deployed. Options to use OBS/Hs and discharge over them may replace use of 

hydrophone arrays although both types of receivers may be used in some cases.

Similar techniques are also used in 2-D and 3-D seismic refraction surveys, the basic difference being the 

distribution of receivers on the seafloor and the distribution of airgun profiles. For 2-D refraction 

profiling, the OBS/Hs and airgun profiles are located along lines and the resulting data provides a crosssectional view of velocity structure. For 3-D seismic refraction surveys, the ocean bottom instruments and 

the airgun profiles are distributed over an area in order to ensonify a volume of the Earth. The resulting 

tomographic data are then used to construct 3-D maps of seismic velocity structure.

Airguns are the most common acoustic source for 2-D and 3-D seismic surveys, and have completely 

replaced the past use of explosive charges. The volume of the chamber of an individual airgun can range 

in size from 10s of cubic inches to several hundred cubic inches. A combination of airguns is called an 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-11

airgun array; subsets of airguns within the overall array are called strings. Operators vary the size and 

geometry of the source-array among (and sometimes within) marine seismic surveys to optimize the 

resolution of the desired geophysical data. Under NSF-funded and USGS marine seismic research, airgun 

sources for 2-D and 3-D seismic surveys are expected to range from 45 to 6,600 in3, with 1 to as many as 

36 airguns discharging simultaneously. These sources emit pulsed rather than continuous sounds. While 

the energy from a large array of airguns with multiple strings is directed downward and the short duration 

of each pulse limits the total energy, a portion of the sound propagates horizontally and can be detectable 

tens and sometimes hundreds of kilometers away (Greene and Richardson 1988; Bowles et al. 1994), and 

occasionally thousands of kilometers away (Nieukirk et al. 2004). The same situation exists for natural 

seismic events.

2.1.4.1 2-D Marine Seismic Surveys

Research vessels conducting 2-D surveys are generally 230-295 ft (70-90 m) long and tow a source array 

at a depth of 16 to 39 ft (5 to 12 m) and 328-656 ft (100-200 m) behind the ship. Each source array is 

about 66 ft (20 m) long and 79 ft (24 m) wide consisting of several strings of either identical or variable 

configurations of airguns. Approximately 328-656 ft (100-200 m) behind the source array is a single or 

multichannel hydrophone streamer from a few hundred meters long for high resolution surveys to as 

much as 5-7.5 mi (8-12 km) long on specially outfitted vessels, including the Research Vessel (R/V)

Marcus G. Langseth (Langseth). Radar reflectors are routinely placed on tail buoys of the streamer for 

detection by other vessels. Typical vessel speeds for marine 2-D surveys are approximately 4-5 kt (7-9 

km/hr) and most seismic surveys use only a single vessel. 

An airgun array is typically discharged about every 16 sec for a seismic reflection survey; the discharge 

interval for refraction studies can vary from approximately 15 to 200 sec. The time between airgun 

discharges is dependent upon the science mission and speed of the ship. Surveys are broken into straight 

lines or ―tracks‖. To complete a survey, the ship will sail down a track from a few hours (typically) to a 

few days (rarely), depending upon the size of the survey area and research objectives. It can take a ship 2 

to 3 hours (hr) to turn around and initiate another survey track. The spacing between tracks can range 

from 1.2 mi (2 km) to several miles; actual track spacing depends on the scientific objectives. Survey 

operations may be conducted 24 hr per day and may take days to weeks to complete, depending upon 

research objectives.

2.1.4.2 3-D Marine Seismic Surveys

3-D seismic surveys vary greatly depending on researcher requirements, subsurface geology, water depth, 

and geological target. More equipment is towed in 3-D reflection surveys and more data recording 

capability is required onboard the vessel thus requiring a vessel larger and better equipped than one 

capable of conducting 2-D surveys. The R/V Langseth is the only U.S. academic vessel capable of 

conducting 3-D surveys. A 3-D source array typically consists of two to four strings of airguns towed 

behind the source vessel, with each string including two to nine operating airguns (Figure 2-5). The 

overall array is typically 39-59 ft (12-18 m) long and 52-354 ft (16-108 m) wide, depending on number 

and spacing of strings and airguns. The array configuration (i.e., number of strings, number of airguns per 

string, size of airguns, depth of airguns, and spacing between airguns or strings) depends on the acoustic 

energy needed to meet the research objectives. The strings of airguns comprising the airgun array are 

normally aligned parallel with one another and parallel to the direction of travel. The airgun array is 

typically towed 98-164 ft (30-50 m) behind the vessel at a depth of 6-39 ft (2-12 m). 
0

5

10 15 DISTANCE (m)

TO VESSEL

TO VESSEL

0246

DIRECTION OF VESSEL

AirgunSpare Airgun

LEGEND

Figure 2-5

3-D View of a Representative 2-String Array
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-13

To record the acoustic signals originating from the airguns and reflected/refracted from structures in the 

seafloor, one or more hydrophone streamer cables are towed with the front end 328-656 ft (100-200 m) 

behind the source vessel at a depth of 7-20 ft (2-6 m) (Figure 2-6). When more than 1 streamer is towed, 

the streamers are typically spread out laterally over a width of 492-1,968 ft (150-600 m). Each 

hydrophone streamer can be 0.6-3.7 mi (1-6 km) long; NSF‘s primary seismic vessel (R/V Langseth) will 

normally deploy 1 to 4 streamers during a 3-D survey, each 3.7 mi (6 km) long. These hydrophone 

streamers are passive listening devices consisting of multiple hydrophone elements that receive the airgun 

acoustic signals that have been reflected from the seafloor. In addition to hydrophone streamers, OBS/Hs 

can also be deployed from the source vessel or a support vessel; the number deployed depends on the 

research experiment and space limitations of the research vessel(s). Depending on survey objectives, the 

hydrophone streamers may or may not be deployed when OBS/Hs are being used as receivers.

The location of where the airguns are fired, the position of the streamer cables, and the depth of the

streamer cables is controlled by an integrated navigation system. Streamer depth is regulated by

automated depth controllers called  ̳birds‘. The streamer cable lateral position is calculated from a

network of active acoustic devices. The end of the cable is tracked using global positioning system (GPS)

satellites. Radar reflectors are routinely placed on tail buoys for detection by other vessels.

Typical vessel speeds for marine 3-D surveys are approximately 4-5 kt (7-9 km/hr) and most seismic 

surveys use only a single vessel. A source array is discharged approximately every 10-15 sec or up to 

every 4 minutes (min), depending on research requirements and type of survey (e.g., reflection vs. 

refraction). The discharge interval is typically longer in a refraction survey, and OBS/Hs are commonly 

used for refraction surveys.

The 3-D survey data are acquired on a line-by-line basis in which the vessel continues down a trackline 

long enough to provide adequate subsurface coverage along the length of the survey area. Acquiring a 

single trackline may take several hours, depending on the size of the survey area. The vessel then turns 

180o onto another trackline and starts acquiring data while traveling in the opposite direction along that 

trackline. Depending on whether streamers are being towed and on the length of the streamers, vessel 

turns can be quick or slow (as much as 2-3 hr). Seismic vessels may operate day and night, and a survey 

may continue for days or weeks, depending on the research objectives, size of the survey, data acquisition 

capabilities of the research vessel, and weather conditions. It should be noted, however, that during a 

survey, airgun discharges and data collection may not occur continuously, as streamer and source 

deployment, at-sea equipment maintenance, turns, and other operations are also included in the survey 

time. 

Adjacent transit lines for a 3-D seismic survey are generally spaced within several hundred meters of one 

another, and are parallel to one another across the survey area. Since the hydrophone streamer cables can 

be 0.6-3.7 mi (1-6 km) long and spread out over a width up to 492-1,968 ft (150-600 m), this limits both 

the turning speed and the area a vessel covers. Therefore, it is common practice to acquire data using an 

offset racetrack pattern, whereby the next acquisition line is several kilometers away from and traversed 

in the opposite direction of the trackline just completed.
Streamers (Hydrophones)

measure 3–12 km long;start 300–400 m behind vessel

Airgun Array (see inset)

Vessel

nches

360360

40

180180

90

360360

40

180180

90

360360

40

180180

90

360360

40

180180

90

5m

un Array

To Vessel

Figure 2-6

Overall View of a 4-String Array
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-15

2.1.4.1 Other Types of Marine Seismic Surveys

Vertical Seismic Profile (VSP) Surveys

VSP surveys are surveys where seismic data are recorded from sensors placed in a borehole (i.e., a hole 

vertical to the ocean surface or seafloor) and the active source is on a drilling vessel or on another vessel 

(offset or walkaway VSPs). No streamer is used and the source is typically a single gun. VSP surveys are 

conducted by research ocean drilling vessels to monitor drilling objectives. Although a separate 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS (NSF 2008b) was prepared to address the operation of the SODV (e.g., the 

mechanical operation of the vessel, riserless ocean drilling, core sampling, and related onboard research 

activities), this PEIS will address the use of acoustic sources associated with the operation of the SODV

by the United States Implementing Organization (USIO), which is a member of the IODP. Acoustic 

sources would include the use of airguns, MBES, SBP, and ADCP (NSF 2008b). 

High-Resolution or Shallow-Water Hazard Seismic Surveys

High-resolution site surveys are conducted to investigate the shallow subsurface for geohazards and soil 

conditions. A typical high-resolution seismic survey consists of a vessel towing a 0.6- to 1.2-mi (1- to 2-

km) long hydrophone streamer cable and one or a few airguns about 82-98 ft (25-30 m) behind the ship at 

a depth of approximately 10-20 ft (3-6 m). A 2-D high-resolution survey usually has two strings with a 

single airgun on each, while a 3-D high-resolution survey usually has two or more airguns per string. The 

vessel travels at 3-4 kt (6-7 km/hr), and the airguns are discharged approximately every 7-10 sec. 3-D 

high-resolution site surveys using ships towing multiple streamer cables can also be conducted. Up to six

streamers 328-656 ft (100 to 200 m) long are used with a tri-cluster of 8- to 10-in3 GI airguns. 

Use of OBS/Hs as Primary Acoustic Receivers

OBS/Hs (see Section 2.1.3.2) may be used exclusively as the receivers in some experiments with the 

vessel towing only an airgun array and no streamers. OBS/Hs are nearly always used as an  ̳array‘ with 

multiple units deployed in a pattern on the ocean floor. Collecting data during active source use is the 

action under analysis in this document, but these instruments would also monitor for natural seismic 

events in passive mode.

Time Lapse or Four-Dimensional (4-D) Marine Seismic Surveys

The purpose of 4-D surveys is to monitor the change over time of the subsurface geology below the 

ocean. 4-D surveys can use either seismic streamer cables or, occasionally, ocean bottom cables to house 

the seismic detectors. Whether the time-lapse surveys use streamer cables or seafloor cables to record the 

seismic signals, the procedure is similar to that described for the 3-D seismic surveys or ocean bottom

cables (described below). Typically, this procedure is used in oil and gas offshore production areas and 

not funded by NSF or conducted by the USGS. Academic 4-D surveys would be limited to returning to a 

research site of interest over a scale of years to collect a new 2-D or 3-D data set to compare with the 

original data.

Ocean Bottom Cable (OBC) Surveys

The use of OBCs is useful for obtaining multi-component (i.e., seismic pressure, vertical, and the two

horizontal motions of the water column, or seafloor) information. This multi-component information

allows more information to be extracted from the seismic data and hence greater information about the

characteristics in the subsurface. In addition, these surveys have the advantage of lower noise levels in the 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-16

data because the cables are stationary rather than moving through the water, as is the case with streamer 

cables.

OBC surveys require the use of multiple ships (i.e., usually two ships for cable deployment/retrieval, one 

ship for recording, one ship for towing the airgun array, and two utility boats). These ships are generally 

smaller than those used in streamer operations, and the utility boats can be very small. The cables are 

deployed off the back of the layout boat. The length of the cable depends upon the survey objectives but 

is typically 2.5 mi (4.2 km) and up to 7.5 mi (12 km). Groups of seismic detectors, usually hydrophones 

and vertical motion geophones, are attached to the cable in intervals of 82 to 164 ft (25 to 50 m). Multiple

cables are laid parallel to each other using this layout method with a 164-ft (50-m) interval between 

cables. Cables remain connected to a surface ship where recording occurs. Dual airgun arrays can be used

from two shooting vessels. When the cable is in place, a ship towing an airgun array (which is the same

airgun array used for streamer work discussed above) passes between the cables, discharging at a 

predetermined rate. After a source line is completed, the source ship takes about 10 to 15 min to turn 

around and pass down between the next two cables. When a cable is no longer needed to record seismic 

data, it is retrieved and is moved to the next position. A cable can lay on the bottom anywhere from 2 hr 

to several days, depending upon research requirements.

This approach is used by industry in high interest areas associated with oil and gas exploration and 

production. Although academic researchers have utilized OBC surveys for specialized studies, there are 

no OBCs owned within the academic community, so their use depends on access to industry equipment 

and infrastructure. To date, OBC studies are rarely used for academic research and then on a very limited 

scale and are currently not used in marine seismic research funded by NSF or conducted by USGS. 

Instead, OBS/Hs are a less equipment intensive and less costly alternative used for NSF-funded and 

USGS-conducted marine seismic research.

2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

2.2.1 Overview of Marine Seismic Research Funded by NSF or Conducted by USGS

It is expected that under the Proposed Action, NSF-funded or USGS marine seismic research activities 

would be similar in duration and extent to those conducted previously and are summarized briefly below 

and in Table 2-1. A more detailed summary of past NSF-funded marine seismic cruises can be found in 

Appendix G.

Table 2-1. NSF-funded and USGS Marine Seismic Surveys (2003-2009)*

Year/Location

Cruise

Length

Trackline

Length 

(km)

Seismic

Operations

(hr)

Water

Depth

(m)

2009

SE Asia, TAIGER(23) 90 days 15,143 2,767 20–>6,800

NE Pacific – Oregon(24) 5 days 21 32 110–3,050

NE Pacific – Endeavour Ridge(25) 15 days 3,002 210 >1,000

SW Pacific(28) 29 days 4,784 592 >1,000

NW Atlantic(26) 15 days 1,444 197 25–200

Puerto Rico (USGS)(22) 9 days 821 125 >100

Arctic Ocean (USGS)(36)42 days 4,062 555 >2,000

2008

Costa Rica/Nicaragua – Caribbean(31) 14 days 2,204 264 <100–>2,500

Costa Rica/Nicaragua – Pacific(31) 27 days 4,257 540 <100–>2,500

E Tropical Pacific Ocean (southern)(32) 4 days 146 20 >2,000

E Tropical Pacific Ocean (northern)(32) 32 days 3,045 379 >2,000
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-17

Table 2-1. NSF-funded and USGS Marine Seismic Surveys (2003-2009)*

Year/Location

Cruise

Length

Trackline

Length 

(km)

Seismic

Operations

(hr)

Water

Depth

(m)

Gulf of Alaska(33) 11 days 1,633 203 40-4,000

Santa Barbara Channel(35) 12 days 1,100 53 <50-580

NE Pacific Ocean(34) 15 days 974 189 650–1,650

Arctic Ocean (USGS)(37)42 days 2,817 454 >2,000

2007

N Gulf of Mexico, Langseth calibration cruise(1) 14 days 865 104 <100->1,000

NE Indian Ocean(18) 55 days 2,700 245 1,600–5,100

NE Pacific(27) 2 days 21 53 110-3,050

2006

SW Pacific Ocean, Louisville Ridge(2, 17) 21 days 1,840 168 800–2,300

S Pacific(17, 19) 5 weeks 1,930 120 3,200–5,700

Arctic Ocean, Beaufort & Chukchi Seas(3) 21 days 339 77 35–3,899

E Tropical Pacific Ocean(30) 4 weeks 8,900 466 3,900–5,200

NE Caribbean (USGS)

(22) 17 days 2,550 448 >8,000

2005

SW Pacific Ocean(4, 17) 41 days 11,000 549 4,000–5,000

Gulf of Mexico, N Yucatan(9) 23 days 1,892 205 <100

Aleutian Islands(16) 4 days 537 44 100–3,500

Alaska to Svalbard, Arctic Ocean(14) 33 days 2,273 294 223–4,873

NE Caribbean (USGS)(22) 21 days 252 63 >5,500

NE Caribbean (USGS)(38)21 days 557 116 >1,000

2004

SE Caribbean Sea, N of Venezuela(8) 40 days 6,605 755 15–6,000

NE Pacific Ocean, Blanco Fracture Zone(10) 7 days 988 119 1,600–5,000

E Tropical Pacific, Central America(11) 29 days 3,184 394 <100–>5,000

SE Gulf of Alaska(12) 17 days 1,111 131 30–>3,000

NW Atlantic Ocean, Newfoundland Margin(15) 23 days 3,757 419 2,400–5,400

2003

N Gulf of Mexico, Ewing calibration cruise(29) 4 days 322 17 <100–1,000

E Tropical Pacific Ocean, Hess Deep(5) 12 days 1,580 192 2,000–3,400

E Tropical Pacific Ocean(39)

MARGINS – Central America

Galapagos Triple Junction area

12 days

6 days

3,321

1,387

175

69

Unk

Unk

Norwegian Sea, Norway Margin(6) 27 days 2,566 266 <100–5,000

Atlantic Ocean, Mid-Atlantic Ridge(7) 6 days 302 37 1,500–4,500

N Gulf of Mexico (USGS)(20) 2 weeks 1,033 139 1,000–1,600

Notes: *USGS also conducts tens of cruises each year utilizing low-energy seismic sources that are not summarized here.

Sources: (1)Holst and Beland 2008; (2)SIO and NSF 2005; (3)Haley 2006, University of Texas-Austin and NSF 2006; (4)SIO and NSF 2004, SIO 

2005c; (5)L-DEO and NSF 2003a, Smultea and Holst 2003; (6)L-DEO and NSF 2003b, MacLean and Haley 2004; (7)L-DEO and NSF 

2003c, Holst 2004; (8)L-DEO and NSF 2003e, Smultea et al. 2004; (9)L-DEO and NSF 2003f, Holst et al. 2005a; (10)L-DEO and NSF 

2004a, Smultea et al. 2005; (11)L-DEO and NSF 2004b, Holst et al. 2005b; (12)L-DEO and NSF 2004c, MacLean and Koski 2005; (13)LDEO and NSF 2004d; (14)University of Alaska-Fairbanks (UAF) and NSF 2005, Haley and Ireland 2006; (15)Haley and Koski 2004; 

(16)L-DEO and NSF 2004d, Ireland et al. 2005, L-DEO and NSF 2005; (17)NSF 2006b; (18)SIO and NSF 2006b; (19)SIO 2006, SIO and 

NSF 2006a;

(20)Hutchinson and Hart 2004; (21)Hart et al. 2006; (22)USGS 2010a; (23)Holst 2009a; (24)SIO and NSF 2009; (25)L-DEO and 

NSF 2009, Holst and Beland 2010; (26)Rice University and NSF 2009, Holst and Robertson 2009; (27)SIO 2007, SIO and NSF 2007; 

(28)L-DEO and NSF 2008b, Holst 2009b; (29)L-DEO and NSF 2003g, LGL 2003; (30)SIO 2005b, 2006; (31)L-DEO and NSF 2007b, 

Holst and Smultea 2008; (32)L-DEO and NSF 2007a, Hauser et al. 2008; (33)L-DEO and NSF 2008c, Hauser and Holst 2009; 

(34)Smultea and Holst 2008; (35)SIO and NSF 2008, SIO 2009;(36)Mosher et al. 2009; (37)Jackson & DesRoches 2008; (38)Davila et al. 

2005; (39)SIO 2004.

2.2.1.1 NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research

Under the Proposed Action, marine seismic surveys funded by NSF may take place across the world‘s

oceans, including the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, Arctic, and Southern Oceans, and in the Mediterranean 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-18

Sea, and may be located in the EEZ or territorial waters of the U.S. or foreign countries. About 4-7

cruises are conducted each year with cruises lasting about 1-7 weeks, are generally more than 3 nm (5.6 

km) off the coast, and primarily utilize high-energy source systems such as strings or arrays of 6-36 

airguns. The amount of time in which seismic operations are conducted during any specific research 

cruise may range from 20 to >800 hr and depends upon the objectives of the research and the 

requirements of the geophysical study. Seismic operations generally occur in deeper, open ocean waters 

but can range from <328 ft (100 m) to >26,247 ft (8,000 m). The research vessels have the capability of 

towing different airgun configurations, depending on the need of the research and the scientific 

objectives, and are described in more detail in Section 2.2.2. A variety of other research can also be 

conducted on NSF-funded marine seismic research cruises, including, but not limited to, mapping, water 

sampling, and scientific dredging, drilling, and coring. All NSF-funded seismic cruises would be 

permitted according to the regulations of the applicable agencies of U.S. federal and state governments, 

and (where appropriate) foreign governments.

2.2.1.2 USGS Marine Seismic Research

USGS seismic research for the past 3-5 years has been primarily coastal, utilizing high-resolution, lowenergy source systems in primarily coastal waters. Among the USGS Coastal Centers in California 

(Menlo Park/Santa Cruz), Massachusetts (Woods Hole), and Florida (St. Petersburg), about 8-12 cruises 

are run each year, utilizing a mix of daylight and 24-hour operations. The cruises last about 1-3 weeks, 

are generally only within 3-5 nm (5.6-9.3 km) of the coast, and primarily utilize low-energy source 

systems such as chirp and sparker systems. Water depths vary by area of operations, for example, on the 

Pacific coast, water depths are generally <328 ft (100 m), and generally not >3,281 ft (1,000 m). On the 

Atlantic east coast, water depths are generally <66 ft (20 m), and generally not >328 ft (100 m). All 

USGS seismic cruises would be permitted according to the regulations of the applicable agencies of U.S. 

federal and state governments, and (where appropriate) foreign governments.

The research vessels used by USGS have the capability of towing different seismic sources and airgun 

configurations, depending on the need of the research and the scientific objectives, and are described in 

more detail in Section 2.2.2. USGS cruises have variable scientific objectives ranging from fault 

identification (Pacific coast) to geological habitat mapping (all coasts) to assessing methane vents in 

thawing permafrost regions (North Slope of Alaska). Recent mapping on the west coast has focused on 

multiyear systematic mapping of California state waters with multiple acoustic systems (e.g., swath 

mapping, side-scan sonar, and high-resolution chirp sub-bottom imaging). Similarly, the Woods Hole 

office is engaged in a multiyear systematic mapping of Massachusetts state waters using similar systems 

for overall coastal management. USGS has conducted similar studies off North Carolina, South Carolina, 

and New York to evaluate the geologic basis for coastal erosion. Similar systematic mapping studies are 

expected to continue off Oregon and Washington in future years. 

Although USGS operated many large-source multichannel seismic reflection and refraction cruises in the 

1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, these kinds of cruises have been more the exception than the rule for USGS 

during the past decade. The only large-source cruises that USGS anticipates in the coming decade are 

associated with an interagency effort to identify the outer limits of the Extended Continental Shelf. The 

Extended Continental Shelf is that portion of a nation‘s continental margin beyond 200 nm (370 km)

where a nation can exert sovereign rights over the seafloor and sub-seafloor as long as the nation can 

show it meets the criteria set forth in Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 

New 2-D seismic data are required in the Arctic, Atlantic, Bering Sea, and the Gulf of Alaska. Additional 

2-D seismic data may be required in the Marianas and Line Islands. While not strictly mapping for 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-19

scientific purposes, these cruises offer opportunities to collect sediment thickness, velocity measurements, 

and basement information in frontier continental margin regions where no data have been collected (e.g., 

Arctic Ocean) or in areas where legacy data and navigation are of sometimes poor quality (e.g., Atlantic 

margin). 

2.2.2 Research Vessels Used in Marine Seismic Research Funded by NSF or Conducted by USGS

Under the Proposed Action, a number of research vessels would be used (Table 2-2). The ships are owned 

by NSF, the U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), NOAA, universities, or non-profit research 

organizations and are operated by academic or research institutions such as Lamont-Doherty Earth 

Observatory (L-DEO), Columbia University; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI); University 

of Hawaii; University of Washington; or Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO), University of 

California – San Diego. Vessels could also be leased or contracted from private sources or could involve 

foreign ships working in collaboration with U.S. scientists. Each vessel acts as the source vessel during 

seismic research activities and tows the airguns and hydrophone streamers; provides electronic data 

collection systems; and provides other necessary logistical support of associated research personnel; and 

deploys and retrieves OBS/Hs, if needed. Each vessel also serves as the platform from which vessel-based 

marine mammal and sea turtle observers (PSVOs, previously called Marine Mammal Observers or 

MMOs) would watch for animals before and during airgun operations. Occasionally a second vessel is 

used for logistical support (e.g., deployment and retrieval of OBS/Hs), and in that case may serve as a 

supplemental platform for PSVOs (e.g., Smultea et al. 2004). Seismic surveys may be conducted on only 

certain portions or  ̳legs‘ of a proposed cruise.

Most of the research vessels are scheduled and coordinated by the University-National Oceanographic 

Laboratory System (UNOLS), an organization of 61 academic institutions and national laboratories 

involved in oceanographic research. One of the primary functions of UNOLS is to ensure the efficient 

scheduling of scientific cruises aboard the research vessels in the UNOLS organization (UNOLS 2010). 

During 2003-2009, a variety of vessels were used to conduct USGS or NSF-funded marine seismic 

surveys (Table 2-2 and Figure 2-7). The R/V Maurice Ewing (Ewing) was NSF‘s primary marine seismic 

survey vessel but was retired in 2005 and was replaced by the R/V Langseth in 2008. Under the Proposed 

Action, the R/V Langseth is the primary seismic research vessel (see following discussion) for NSFfunded seismic research, and the other vessels that have been used for seismic surveys would continue to 

be the secondary research vessels. In addition, any of the other vessels listed in Table 2-2 have the 

potential to be used for NSF-funded and USGS marine seismic research under the Proposed Action, as 

well as research vessels operated by U.S. oceanographic institutions as part of the UNOLS research fleet, 

vessels operated directly by the U.S. Government, and others as needed via contract or charter.

Table 2-2. Research Vessels Used or Potentially Used in NSF-funded or USGS Marine Seismic Research

Research Vessel

Operating

Institution Owner

Crew/

Scientists

Length

(ft [m])

Marine Seismic Survey

Cruises (2003-09)

Large/Global

Melville SIO U.S. Navy 23/38 279 (85) 2 (NSF)

Knorr WHOI U.S. Navy 24/32 279 (85) 1 (NSF)

Thompson UW U.S. Navy 24/36 274 (84) 2 (NSF)

Revelle SIO U.S. Navy 22/37 274 (84) 4 (NSF)

Atlantis WHOI U.S. Navy 23/24 274 (84)

Langseth L-DEO NSF 20/35 235 (72) 8 (NSF)

Ewing Retired 9 (NSF)

Hesperides Ministry for Science & Technology, Armada Espanola 55/30 266 (81) 2 (USGS)
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-20

Table 2-2. Research Vessels Used or Potentially Used in NSF-funded or USGS Marine Seismic Research

Research Vessel

Operating

Institution Owner

Crew/

Scientists

Length

(ft [m])

Marine Seismic Survey

Cruises (2003-09)

Intermediate/Ocean

Kilo Moana UH U.S. Navy 20/38 186 (57)

Wecoma OSU NSF 13/18 185 (56) 2 (NSF)

Endeavor URI NSF na/na 185 (56) 1 (NSF)

Oceanus WHOI NSF 12/18 177 (54)

New Horizon SIO SIO 12/19 170 (52)

Regional/Coastal

Atlantic Explorer BBSR BBSR na/22 168 (51)

Sharp UD UD 7/16 146 (45)

Point Sur MLML NSF 9/11 135 (41)

Cape Hatteras DU/UNC NSF 10/13 135 (41)

Sproul SIO SIO 5/12 125 (38)

Pelican LUMC LUMC 5/16 116 (35) 1 (USGS)

Smith UM UM 96 (29)

Gyre No longer in UNOLS service 1 (USGS)

Global Class

Brown NOAA NOAA 16/32 274 (84)

Healy USCG USCG 101/35 420 (128) 2 (NSF)

Polar Star USCG USCG 141/20 399 (122)

Polar Sea USCG USCG 180/35 399 (122)

Louis S. St. Laurent Canadian Coast Guard 46/20 394 (120) 2 (USGS)

Private/Commercial

Tiki XIV Tiki Adventures 3/12 80 (24) 1 (USGS)

Lakota Dixon Marine Services 54 (16) 1 (USGS)

Sea Explorer Ocean Institute 65 (20) 1 (USGS)

Notes: BBSR = Bermuda Biological Station for Research; DU/UNC = Duke Univ./Univ. of N. Carolina; HBOI = Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution; 

LUMC = Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium; MLML = Moss Landing Marine Labs; na = not available; OSU = Oregon State Univ.; TAMU 

= Texas A&M University; UD = Univ. of Delaware; UH = Univ. of Hawaii; UM = University of Miami; URI = Univ. of Rhode Island; USCGC = 

USCG Cutter; UW = Univ. of Washington. USGS also conducts 10s of cruises each year utilizing a number of smaller research and privately 

contracted vessels that are not listed here.

Sources: Hart et al. 2006; NSF 2006b, 2008b; UNOLS 2010. 

R/V Endeavor R/V Roger Revelle

Figure 2-7. Representative Research Vessels Potentially Used in Marine Seismic Research
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-21

2.2.2.1 R/V Langseth

Under the Proposed Action, the primary research vessel with the greatest survey capabilities for NSFfunded marine seismic research would be the R/V Langseth (Figures 2-8 and 2-9). The R/V Langseth is

owned by NSF and operated by L-DEO of Columbia University, and is discussed in detail below. 

Figure 2-8. R/V Langseth during Modification and Outfitting

Figure 2-9. R/V Langseth in Gulf of Mexico during Fall 2007 Calibration Cruise

The R/V Langseth has a length of 235 ft (72 m), a beam of 56 ft (17 m), and displaces 2,842 tons (2,578 

metric tons). It will accommodate up to 55 personnel, 35 of whom are scientists/researchers. The ship is 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-22

powered by two diesel Bergen BRG-6 engines each producing 3550 horsepower; the vessel also has an 

800 horsepower bowthruster. It has two ducted, variable pitch, four-bladed Ulstein propellers. Originally 

designed as a commercial seismic vessel, the propulsion system was designed to be as quiet as possible to 

avoid interference with the acoustic signals associated with the seismic research surveys. Cruising speed 

(while not towing seismic survey equipment and in transit between survey sites) is 11 kt (20.3 km/hr) 

with a maximum speed of 13 kt (24 km/hr); the operating speed during seismic survey activities is 

typically 4–5 kt (7–9 km/hr). Its range is approximately 13,500 nm (25,000 km). The R/V Langseth will

tow airgun arrays and, at times, up to four 3.7-mi (6-km) streamers containing hydrophones along 

predetermined lines. It would also deploy and retrieve OBS/Hs if necessary. The R/V Langseth would

also serve as the platform from which vessel-based PSVOs would watch for marine mammals and sea 

turtles before and during airgun operations (L-DEO 2010). 

2.2.3 Proposed Acoustic Sources and Receivers for NSF-funded and USGS Marine Seismic 

Research

2.2.3.1 R/V Langseth

Seismic Acoustic Sources – Airgun Arrays

Under the Proposed Action, the NSF-funded R/V Langseth would be capable of conducting a wide suite 

of 2-D and 3-D marine seismic surveys with airgun sources ranging from one or two GI guns towed side 

by side with a discharge volume of 210 in3(or less) to 36 airguns on four strings with a discharge volume 

of 6,600 in3(Table 2-3). Flexibility is provided by the ability to use one, two, three, or four strings at any 

one time, or to use two pairs of two strings in a flip-flop fashion, depending on survey requirements.

For 2-D surveys, one to four strings would be towed as a single array, depending on seafloor penetration 

requirements (Figure 2-10). For 2-D reflection profiling, one, two, or four strings may be deployed as 

required by the study objectives. Each string would comprise a mixture of Bolt 1500LL airguns and 

smaller Bolt 1900LLX airguns. The survey tow depth would range from approximately 16 to 39 ft (5 to 

12 m), and the arrays would be towed 98 ft (30 m) behind the source vessel. Specific details for the 

proposed 2-D surveys include:

 For reflection and refraction surveys, R/V Langseth would deploy four strings with 10 airguns 

each can be deployed, with a total active discharge volume of 6,600 in3and occupying a 79 x 52 

ft (24 x 16 m) rectangular area behind the R/V Langseth (Figures 2-11 and 2-12). Although each 

string would have 10 airguns, only 9 airguns would be discharged simultaneously; the tenth 

would be kept in reserve as a spare, to be used in case of failure of another airgun. 

 For a two-string 2-D reflection survey, R/V Langseth would deploy two strings with 10 airguns 

per string (Figure 2-13). As with the four-string array, only nine airguns would be discharged

simultaneously and the tenth would be a spare for a total active discharge volume of 3,300 in3. 

 For 2-D high-resolution reflection surveys, two strings with one GI gun per string would be 

deployed. The maximum total active discharge volume would be 210 in3, depending on how the 

GI guns are configured (Figure 2-14). The survey tow depth would be 10 ft (3 m) and the arrays 

would be towed 98 ft (30 m) behind the source vessel.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-23

Table 2-3. Proposed Seismic Source Configurations Used by the R/V Langseth for NSF-funded Marine Seismic Research

Airgun /GI Gun

Configuration Energy Source

Nominal Source Output

(downward)*

Towing

Depth of

Source

(m)

Air

Discharge

Volume

(in3)

Dominant

Frequency

Components

(Hz) Objective

2 GI guns towed

side-by-side

(Figure 2-14)

2 GI guns @ 45, 75, or 105 in3**

(Gun volumes configured depending on

investigator needs)

0-pk = 234 dB re 1 μPa-m

pk-pk = 240 dB re 1 μPa-m

3 210** 2-188 2-D high-resolution

reflection

4-gun arrays

(2 strings,

2 guns/string)

(Figure 2-17)

4 GI guns @ 45, 75, or 105 in3**

(Gun volumes configured depending on

investigator needs)

0-pk = 240 dB re 1 μPa-m

pk-pk = 246 dB re 1 μPa-m

3 420** 2-188 3-D dual source

high resolution

18-gun array

(2 strings,

9 airguns/string

& 1 spare/string)

(Figures 2-13, 

2-15, and 2-16)

10 Bolt 1500LL airguns @ 180-360 in3

8 Bolt 1900LLX airguns @ 40-120 in3

0-pk = 252 dB re 1 μPa-m

pk-pk = 259 dB re 1 μPa-m

6 3,300 2-188 2-D and 3-D reflection

36-gun array

(4 strings,

9 airguns/string

& 1 spare/string)

(Figure 2-11)

20 Bolt 1500LL airguns @ 180-360 in3

16 Bolt 1900LLX airguns @ 40-120 in3

0-pk = 259 dB re 1 μPa-m

pk-pk = 265 dB re 1 μPa-m

6 6,600 2-188 4-string, 2-D reflection

36-gun array

(4 strings,

9 airguns/string

& 1 spare/string)

(Figure 2-12)

20 Bolt 1500LL airguns @ 180-360 in3

16 Bolt 1900LLX airguns @ 40-120 in3

0-pk = 258 dB re 1 μPa-m

pk-pk = 264 dB re 1 μPa-m

12 6,600 2-188 4-string, 2-D refraction

Notes: *All source level estimates are for a filtered bandwidth of approximately 0-250 Hz. dB = decibels; pk = peak.

Especially for the larger sources, the maximum level measurable at any location in the water would be lower because the sources are all distributed sources. Also, especially for 

the larger sources, effective source levels for near-horizontal propagation would be substantially lower than the quoted nominal source levels for downward propagation. In 

addition, for the 36-airgun arrays, only two strings of 9 airguns would be discharged at any one time. The paired 9-airgun strings would be discharged in a flip-flop fashion.

**Indicates generator volume. 

Source: L-DEO 2005.
Cable/Hose

Harness

Chain

using Towing Plate

Tubular

Float

Support

Cables

Figure 2-10

Typical Airgun String Proposed for Use on the R/V Langseth

16 m

~6 m
To Vessel (30 m)4 m 8 m

24 m

360

360

360

360

360

360

360

360

40

40

40

40

180

180

180

180

180

180

180

180

90

90

90

90

120

120

120

120

60

60

60

60

220

220

220

220

220

220

220

220

(6.48)

(5.52)

(6.48)

(5.52)

(6.48)

(5.52)

(6.48)

(5.52)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.4)

(5.6)

(6.4)

(5.6)

(6.4)

(5.6)

(6.4)

(5.6)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.47)

(5.53)

(6.47)

(5.53)

(6.47)

(5.53)

(6.47)

(5.53)

LEGEND

Bolt 1500LL Airgun 

Bolt 1900LLX Airgun In-Water Spare 

Figure 2-11

RV Langseth

4-String Airgun Array for 2-D Reflection (total active volume 6,600 in3)
To Vessel (30 m)4 m 8 m

24 m

360

360

360

360

360

360

360

360

40

40

40

40

180

180

180

180

180

180

180

180

90

90

90

90

120

120

120

120

60

60

60

60

220

220

220

220

220

220

220

220

(12.48)

(11.52)

(12.48)

(11.52)

(12.48)

(11.52)

(12.48)

(11.52)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(12.4)

(11.6)

(12.4)

(11.6)

(12.4)

(11.6)

(12.4)

(11.6)

(12.0)

(12.0)

(12.0)

(12.0)

(12.0)

(12.0)

(12.0)

(12.0)

(12.0)

(12.0)

(12.0)

(12.0)

(12.47)

(11.53)

(12.47)

(11.53)

(12.47)

(11.53)

(12.47)

(11.53)

LEGEND

Bolt 1500LL Airgun 

Bolt 1900LLX Airgun In-Water Spare 

Figure 2-12

RV Langseth

4-String Airgun Array for 2-D Refraction (total active volume 6,600 in3)
To Vessel (30 m)

16 m

8 m

360360360360

4040

180180180180

9090

120120

6060

220220220220

(6.48)(5.52)(6.48)(5.52)

(6.0)(6.0)

(6.4)(5.6)(6.4)(5.6)

(6.0)(6.0)

(6.0)(6.0)

(6.0)(6.0)

(6.47)(5.53)(6.47)(5.53)

3.23 m 2.36 m 2.64 m 2.46 m 2.31 m 3.0 m

LEGEND

Bolt 1500LL Airgun Volume in Cubic Inches

Tow Depth in Meters Bolt 1900LLX Airgun In-Water Spare in3

(m)

2-27

Figure 2-13

RV Langseth

2-String Airgun Array for Unsedimented Ocean Crust 2-D Reflection (total active volume 3,300 in3)
To Vessel (30 m)

25 m

13 m

45/105*45/105*

(2.5)(2.5)

LEGEND

GI Gun

*May be configured as 45/105, 75/105, or 105/105.

Volume in Cubic Inches

Tow Depth in Meters

in3

(m)

2-28

Figure 2-14

RV Langseth

2-String GI Gun Array for 2-D High-Resolution Reflection Surveys
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-29

For 3-D surveys, two or four strings would be towed as a single array or a pair of two-string arrays 

(Figures 2-15 and 2-16). Currently, it is expected that NSF would potentially fund only one 3-D survey 

per year. Specific details for the proposed 3-D surveys include:

 The four-string 3-D dual-source reflection surveys, like the four-string 2-D surveys, would

employ 36 airguns, 10 airguns per string (9 active + 1 inactive spare), with only 18 airguns 

discharging at any one time. The four strings would be configured as two pairs of two-string 

arrays that discharge alternately (flip-flop configuration). Each string would comprise a mixture 

of Bolt 1500LL airguns and smaller Bolt 1900LLX airguns. The total active discharge volume 

would be 3,300 in3, the survey tow depth would be approximately 20 ft (6 m), and the arrays 

would be towed 98-164 ft (30-50 m) behind the source vessel.

 For 3-D dual-source high-resolution surveys, two strings with two GI gun per string would be 

deployed with a maximum total active discharge volume of 420 in3, depending on how the GI 

guns are configured (Figure 2-17). The survey tow depth would be 10 ft (3 m), and the arrays 

would be towed 98 ft (30 m) behind the source vessel.

The airgun arrays would discharge in 2 modes: up to every 20-60 sec along the survey lines or tracks to 

produce reflection data, and up to every 4 min for refraction data. During discharge, a brief 

(approximately 0.1 sec) pulse of sound is emitted. The 20-sec discharge spacing during reflection lines 

corresponds to an interval of about 164 ft (50 m) at normal shooting speed. Refraction lines would use a 

4-min repetition rate to ensure complete filling of the larger 36-gun array, and to minimize the impact of 

water column reverberation on detection of refracted signals. Airguns would be silent during the 

intervening periods. 

Because the actual source would be a distributed sound source (typically 2, 4, 18, or 36 airguns) rather 

than a single point source, the highest sound levels listed in Table 2-3 apply only to downward 

propagating signals. Because of the directional nature of the sound from large airgun arrays, the effective 

source level for sound propagating in near-horizontal directions would be substantially lower than that for 

downward propagation.

It is difficult to measure the actual SPL close to a full source array that is being activated due to the 

physical environment surrounding an active seismic array. Therefore assumptions are made that enable 

the response of a given source array to be modeled. The  ̳far field‘ assumption suggests that at some 

distance away from a source array, which is much greater than the dimensions of the source array, the 

peak energy pulses from the various individual source elements ( ̳near field‘ signature) arrive at the same 

time and add together constructively to form the  ̳far field‘ response of the source. This response is 

corrected or back-projected to 1 meter from the source array to produce the  ̳far field‘ signature of the 

source at 1 meter, which is a standard modeled measure of a source array output. It is well known that the

peak energy pulses from individual source elements no longer align at locations close to the seismic 

source array (in the  ̳near field‘) as a seismic source array is a  ̳distributed‘, rather than a  ̳point‘ source. 

Therefore, the emitted SPL close to the source array is lower than that calculated using the  ̳far field‘ 

calculation.
To Vessel (30 m)

25 m

4 m 4 m

58 m

360

360

360

360

360

360

360

360

40

40

40

40

180

180

180

180

180

180

180

180

90

90

90

90

120

120

120

120

60

60

60

60

220

220

220

220

220

220

220

220

(5.52)

(6.48)

(5.52)

(6.48)

(5.52)

(6.48)

(5.52)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(5.6)

(6.4)

(5.6)

(6.4)

(5.6)

(6.4)

(5.6)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(5.53)

(6.47)

(5.53)

(6.47)

(5.53)

(6.47)

(5.53)

LEGEND

Bolt 1500LL Airgun 

Bolt 1900LLX Airgun In-Water Spare 

Figure 2-15

RV Langseth

4-String Airgun Array for “Standard” 3-D Reflection (total active volume 3,300 in3)
To Vessel (50 m)

50 m

4 m 4 m

108 m

360

360

360

360

360

360

360

40

40

40

180

180

180

180

180

180

180

90

90

90

120

120

120

60

60

60

220

220

220

220

220

220

220

(6.48)

(5.52)

(6.48)

(5.52)

(6.48)

(5.52)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.4)

(5.6)

(6.4)

(5.6)

(6.4)

(5.6)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(6.47)

(5.53)

(6.47)

(5.53)

(6.47)

(5.53)

LEGEND

Bolt 1500LL Airgun 

Bolt 1900LLX Airgun In-Water Spare 

Figure 2-16

RV Langseth

4-String Airgun Array for “Wide” 3-D Reflection (total active volume 3,300 in3)
To Vessel (30 m)

18 m

15 m

25 m

45/105* 45/105*45/105* 45/105*

(2.5) (2.5)(2.5) (2.5)

LEGEND

GI Gun

*May be configured as 45/105, 75/105, or 105/105.

Volume in Cubic Inches

Tow Depth in Meters

in3

(m)

2-32

Figure 2-17

RV Langseth

2-String GI Gun Array for 3-D Dual-Source High-Resolution Surveys
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-33

Non-Seismic Acoustic Sources – MBESs, SBPs, Pingers, ADCPs, and Acoustic Releases

Five additional non-seismic active acoustic sources would be operated from the R/V Langseth during 

most or all of a marine seismic research cruise: MBESs, SBPs, pingers, ADCPs, and acoustic releases. 

These sound sources may be operated from the R/V Langseth simultaneous with the airgun array.

Multibeam Echosounder (MBES). The ocean floor would be mapped with the Kongsberg EM122. The 

Kongsberg EM122 MBES operates at 10.5–13 (usually 12) kHz and is hull-mounted on the Langseth. 

The transmitting beamwidth is 1 or 2° fore–aft and 150° athwartship. The maximum source level is 242 

dB re 1 μPa ·mrms. Each  ̳ping‘ consists of eight (in water >3,281 ft [1,000 m] deep) or four (<3,281 ft 

[1,000 m]) successive fan-shaped transmissions, each ensonifying a sector that extends 1° fore–aft. 

Continuous-wave signals increase from 2 to 15 ms long in water depths up to 8,530 ft (2,600 m), and FM 

chirp signals up to 100 ms long are used in water >8,530 ft (2,600 m). The successive transmissions span 

an overall cross-track angular extent of about 150°, with 2-ms gaps between the pings for successive 

sectors.

Sub-bottom Profiler (SBP). The ocean floor would also be mapped with the Knudsen 3260 SBP. The 

Knudsen 3260 SBP is normally operated to provide information about the near seafloor sedimentary

features and the bottom topography that is mapped simultaneously by the MBES. The beam is transmitted 

as a 27o cone, which is directed downward by a 3.5-kHz transducer in the hull of the Langseth. The 

nominal power output is 10 kilowatts (kW), but the actual maximum radiated power is 3 kW or 222 dB re 

1 μPa · m. The ping duration is up to 64 ms, and the ping interval is 1 s. A common mode of operation is 

to broadcast five pulses at 1-s intervals followed by a 5-s pause. The SBP is capable of reaching depths of 

10,000 m.

Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP). An ADCP can be placed on the seafloor, attached to a buoy, 

or mounted on a ship to measure the speed of the water currents. The ADCPs would operate at a 

frequency of 35-1,200 kHz and a maximum acoustic source level of 224 dB re 1μPa-1 m over a conicallyshaped 30° beam.

Pingers. Locational and tracking pingers would be used on the airgun arrays, hydrophone streamers, 

coring equipment, and other instruments such as cameras. A total of 32 omnidirectional pingers would be 

used for multi-streamer 3-D surveys: 7 on each streamer and 1 on each source array string. The peak 

output for the pingers used by the Langseth along the streamer would be 183 dB re 1 μPa-m at 55-110 

kHz, with a maximum rate of 3 pings per 10 sec per pinger; the transducers would be powered by NiCad 

batteries. In addition, a 12-kHz pinger would normally be used during those seismic survey cruises that 

have ancillary coring operations. With the ship stationary during coring operations, a pinger, a batterypowered acoustic beacon, would be attached to a coring mechanism to monitor the depth of the corer 

relative to the sea floor. The pinger produces an omnidirectional 12-kHz signal with a source output of 

approximately 192 dB re 1 μPa-m with one ping of 0.5, 2, or 10 ms duration per second. 

Acoustic Releases. Once an OBS/H is ready to be retrieved, an acoustic release transponder interrogates 

the OBS/H at a frequency of 9–11 kHz, and a response is received at a frequency of 9–13 kHz. The 

acoustic release than activates the separation of the OBS/H from the sea floor anchor and the OBS/H 

floats to the surface to be recovered by the survey ship.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-34

Acoustic Receivers

Depending on the requirements of the survey, acoustic data would be retrieved by the deployment of any 

combination of hydrophone cables or streamers, OBS/Hs on the ocean floor, or sonobuoys on the ocean‘s 

surface. The OBS/Hs and sonobuoys would usually be deployed by the source vessel.

The R/V Langseth would be able to deploy and tow up to four hydrophone streamers, each 3.7 mi (6 km) 

long and approximately 4 in (10 cm) in diameter, at the same time. Each streamer is a Thales solid-state 

(not oil-filled) cable in 492-ft (150-m) sections. Each section has 12 hydrophone groups, each 41 ft (12.5 

m) long. 

The lateral separation between adjacent streamers would vary between 164 and 656 ft (50 and 200 m). 

Since maximum streamer spacing is 656 ft (200 m), the maximum distance between 3-D tracklines would

be 1,312 ft (400 m). For a standard streamer spacing of 328 ft (100 m), trackline spacing would be 656 ft 

(200 m), and for high-resolution work with a streamer spacing of 164 ft (50 m), the tracklines would need 

to be at least 328 ft (100 m) apart.

2.2.3.2 Other Research Vessels

Seismic Acoustic Sources – Airgun Arrays

In addition to the R/V Langseth, all of the other research vessels associated with marine seismic research 

funded by NSF or conducted by the USGS have the capability of towing various airgun configurations 

(generally relatively small), depending on the capabilities of the research vessel, need of the researcher, 

and the scientific objectives. In addition to the proposed acoustic source configurations of the R/V 

Langseth (Table 2-3), it is expected that under the Proposed Action, marine seismic research activities 

conducted on NSF-funded or USGS cruises would continue to occur using other research vessels. These 

projects are expected to be similar in duration and extent to those previously conducted by NSF-funded or 

USGS research vessels and would use source configurations similar to those used aboard research vessels 

in the past (Table 2-4). 

In addition to the seismic surveys conducted by the R/V Langseth and other research vessels, the SODV 

would conduct VSPs to support riserless drilling operations as part of the IODP. Typically, the SODV 

may either perform checkshot VSP which is used to calibrate surface seismic surveys or a zero offset VSP 

which would be used to derive formation velocities and identify certain features such as faults and 

overpressure zones. From 2004 through 2006, the USIO performed a total of nine zero offset VSP 

surveys that were generally less than 7 hours each in duration. The VSP surveys utilized a single 210 in3

GI airgun configured to operate with generator and injector volumes of 45 in3and 105 in3, respectively, 

and an acoustical source output up to 191 dB re 1 μPa. 

Depending upon site-specific conditions and research objectives, either a parallel cluster of two 250-in3

generator airguns (output up to 226 dB re 1 μPa rms at the source) or a single 250 in3generator airgun 

(output up to 220 dB re 1 μPa rms at the source) would be used for future VSP experiments, with a 

duration up to 12 hours. Occasionally the SODV may perform a limited scope single-channel seismic 

survey to confirm existing site characterization geophysical data and drill site conditions. Generally, these 

surveys would involve the use of a single 210-in3 GI airgun typically configured to have a displacement 

volume of 45 in3, a duration of less than 12 hours, and output at the source of up to 229 dB re 1 μPa rms

(NSF 2008b). 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-35

Table 2-4. Past Configurations of Seismic Sources for Marine Seismic Research Funded by NSF or Conducted by the USGS (2003-2009)

Seismic Source Energy Source

Nominal Source Output

(downward)*

Source

Tow

Depth

(m)

Air

Discharge

Volume

(in3)

Dominant

Frequency

(Hz) Vessel/Cruise & Year

Sparker SIG 2mille sparker 205 dB re 1 μPa-m @ 1,500 joules 0 na 800-850 Lakota/San Francisco, Calif. 06(18)

Sea Explorer/Dana Pt. Calif. 06(18)

Sparker SIG ELC1200 sparker 205 dB re 1 μPa-m @ 1,500 joules 0 na 50-4,000 Endeavor/NW Atlantic 09(32)

Sparker SQUID 2000 minisparker 209 dB re 1 μPa-m @ 2,000 joules 0 na 150-1,700 Melville/SB Channel 08(28)

Water gun Water gun @ 15 in3 204 dB re 1 μPa-m 1 na 20-1,500 Gyre/Gulf of Mexico 03(19)

Boomer Huntec boomer 205 dB re 1 μPa-m 1 na

Chirp Edgetech 512i chirp 198 dB re 1 μPa-m 0 na 500-12,000 Gyre/Gulf of Mexico 03(19)

Melville/SB Channel 08(28)

Boomer Electromechanical boomer 219 dB re 1 μPa-m 0 na 100-2,500 Melville/SB Channel 08(28)

1 GI gun

GI gun @ 13 in3**

GI gun @ 24 in3**

GI gun @ 35 in3**

204 dB re 1 μPa-m

208 dB re 1 μPa-m

208 dB re 1 μPa-m

1

13**

24**

35**

Gyre/Gulf of Mexico 03(19)

1 GI gun GI gun @ 25 in3** 0-pk = 218 dB re 1 μPa-m 2 25** <500 Melville/SB Channel 08(28)

1 GI gun GI gun @ 45 in3** 0-pk = 225.3 dB re 1 μPa-m

pk-pk = 230.7 dB re 1 μPa-m

4

2

45** 2-188 Wecoma/NE Pacific 07(21)& 09(16)

Endeavor/NW Atlantic 09(32)

1 GI gun

GI gun @ 105 in3** 0-pk = 231 dB re 1 μPa-m

pk-pk = 237 dB re 1 μPa-m

3 105** 0-188 Thompson/Aleutians 05(12)

GI gun @ 75 in3** 0-pk = 230 dB re 1 μPa-m

pk-pk = 236 dB re 1 μPa-m

2 75** 0-188 Knorr/NW Atlantic 04(14)

2 GI guns GI airguns @ 45 in3** pk-pk = 235.8 dB re 1 μPa-m 6 90** 0-188 Revelle/ETP 03 & 04

(35)

2 GI guns GI airguns @ 45 in3** 0-pk = 230.6 dB re 1 μPa-m

pk-pk = 235.8 dB re 1 μPa-m

2 90** 0-188

Revelle/SW Pacific 06(1); ETP 03(4) & 

06(15); Indian Ocean 07(22)

Endeavor/NW Atlantic 09(32)

2 GI guns GI airguns @ 75 in3** 0-pk = 237 dB re 1 μPa-m

pk-pk = 243 dB re 1 μPa-m

2 150** 2-188 Thompson/ NE Pacific 08(25)

2 GI guns GI guns @ 105 in3** 0-pk = 237 dB re 1 μPa-m

pk-pk = 243 dB re 1 μPa-m

3 210** 0-188 Ewing/Norwegian Sea 03(5), MidAtlantic 03(5), GoA 04(11)

2 210** 0-188 Melville/SW Pacific 05(3)

2 GI guns GI guns @ 105 in3** 0-pk = 229 dB re 1 μPa-m

pk-pk = 236 dB re 1 μPa-m

6 210** 0-188 Ewing/GoM 03(20)

2 G guns G guns @ 250 in3 0-pk = 236 dB re 1 μPa-m

pk-pk = 241 dB re 1 μPa-m

9 500 0-150 Healy/Arctic 05(13)

3 G guns G guns @ 2 x 500 in3

+ 1 x 150 

in3=1,150 in3

0-peak =235 dB re 1 μPa

pk-pk = 225 dB re 1 μPa rms >11 1,150 10-70 Louis St. Laurent/Arctic 09(33), 08(34)

3 GI guns GI guns @ 105 in3** 0-pk = 240.7 dB re 1 μPa-m

pk-pk = 246.4 dB re 1 μPa-m

2.5 315** 30-140 Ewing/E. Pacific 04(10)

1 airgun Bolt airgun @ 1,200 in3 0-pk = 234 dB re 1 μPa-m

pk-pk = 241 dB re 1 μPa-m

10 1,200 8-40 Healy/Arctic 05 (13)
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-36

Table 2-4. Past Configurations of Seismic Sources for Marine Seismic Research Funded by NSF or Conducted by the USGS (2003-2009)

Seismic Source Energy Source

Nominal Source Output

(downward)*

Source

Tow

Depth

(m)

Air

Discharge

Volume

(in3)

Dominant

Frequency

(Hz) Vessel/Cruise & Year

6-airgun array Bolt airguns @ 80-500 in3 0-pk = 243 dB re 1 μPa-m

pk-pk = 250 dB re 1 μPa-m

6

7.5 1,350 0-188 Ewing/Norwegian Sea 03(5)GoM 03(20)

6-airgun array Two Bolt airguns and four G guns Not available: assumed less than 8-

airguns

9 1,840 0-150

Healy/Arctic 06 7-airgun array Three Bolt airguns and four G guns 9 2,340 0-150 (2)

8-airgun array

Four G guns @ 210 in3

Four Bolt airguns @ 500 in3

0-pk = 246 dB re 1 μPa-m

pk-pk = 253 dB re 1 μPa-m

9 2,840 0-150

9-airgun array Bolt airguns @ 40-360 in3 0-pk = 246 dB re 1 μPa-m

pk-pk = 253 dB re 1 μPa-m

7 1,650 2-188 Langseth/GoM 07-08(23)

10-airgun array Bolt airguns @ 80-850 in3 0-pk = 248 dB re 1 μPa-m

pk-pk = 255 dB re 1 μPa-m

7 3,050 0-188 Ewing/NE Pacific 04(9)

7.5 3,050

3,005 0-188 Ewing/E Tropical Pacific 03(4)GoM 03(20)

12-airgun array Bolt airguns @ 80-850 in3 0-pk = 250 dB re 1 μPa-m

pk-pk = 257 dB re 1 μPa-m

7 3,705 0-188 Ewing/NE Pacific 04(9)

7.5 3,721

3,755 0-188 Ewing/E Tropical Pacific 03(4)

,

GoM 03(20)

18-airgun array Bolt airguns @ 40-360 in3 0-pk = 252 dB re 1 μPa-m

pk-pk = 259 dB re 1 μPa-m

7

7.5 3,300 2-188 Langseth/GoM 07-08(23)ETP 08 (27)

20-airgun array Bolt airguns @ 80-875 in3 0-pk = 255 dB re 1 μPa-m

pk-pk = 262 dB re 1 μPa-m

7.5

7.5

7

7.5

8,600

8,575

6,970

6,947

0-188

Ewing/ GoM 03(20),

Mid-Atlantic 03(6),

GoM 05(8),

SE Caribbean 04(17)

27-airgun array Bolt airguns @ 40-360 in3 0-pk = 256 dB re 1 μPa-m

pk-pk = 262 dB re 1 μPa-m

7 6,600 2-188 Langseth/ETP 08 (27)

36-airgun array Bolt airguns @ 40-360 in3 0-pk = 259 dB re 1 μPa-m

pk-pk = 265 dB re 1 μPa-m

7-9 6,600 2-188

Langseth/GoM 07-08(23), C Amer 08(24), 

ETP 08 (27), SE Asia 09(29), 

GoA 08(26), SW Pacific 

09(30), NE Pacific 09(31),

Notes: *All source level estimates are for a filter bandwidth of 0-250 Hz. **Indicates generator volume. C Amer = Central America, ETP = Eastern Tropical Pacific, GoA = Gulf of Alaska, GoM = 

Gulf of Mexico, SB = Santa Barbara.

Sources: 

(1)SIO & NSF 2005; (2)University of Texas-Austin & NSF 2006; (3)SIO & NSF 2004; (4)L-DEO & NSF 2003a; (5)L-DEO & NSF 2003b; (6)L-DEO & NSF 2003c; (7)L-DEO & NSF 2003e; 

(8)Holst et al. 2005a; (9)L-DEO & NSF 2004a; (10)L-DEO & NSF 2004b; (11)L-DEO & NSF 2004c; (12)L-DEO and NSF 2004d; (13)UAF & NSF 2005; (14)LGL 2004; (15)SIO 2005b; (16) SIO 

and NSF 2009; 

(17)Smultea et al. 2004; (18)USGS 2006; (19)Hutchinson & Hart 2004; (20)L-DEO & NSF 2003g; (21)SIO 2007, SIO & NSF 2007; (22)SIO & NSF 2006b; (23)Holst & Beland 

2008; (24)Holst & Smultea 2008; (25)Smultea & Holst 2008; (26)Hauser & Holst 2009; (27)Hauser et al. 2008; (28)SIO & NSF 2008; (29)Holst 2009a; (30)Holst 2009b; (31)Holst & Beland 2010; 

(32)Holst & Robertson 2009; (33)Roth and Schmidt 2010; (34)Mosher et al. 2009; (35)SIO 2004.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-37

Other Towed Seismic Acoustic Sources – Boomers, Sparkers, Water Guns, and Chirp Systems

The USGS primarily, and NSF occasionally, uses a number of towed low-energy sub-bottom profiling 

seismic acoustic sources for marine seismic research. These are briefly summarized below.

Boomer Systems. Although different models of boomer plates may be utilized, they generally operate at a 

frequency of 300-3,000 Hz, 200-300 joules per shot, with source levels of 212-215 dB re 1 μPa-m, and 

pulse lengths of 120-400 microsec.

Sparker Systems. The typical sparker system would normally operate at a frequency of 890-1,020 Hz, 

with power ranging from 300 to 1,500 joules and corresponding source levels of 200 to 208 dB re 1 

μPa-m, with a pulse duration of less than 1 ms. 

Water Guns. Although water guns are rarely used, when used they operate at a frequency of 20-1,500 Hz

and a source level of 204 dB re 1 μPa-m.

Chirp Systems. Chirp systems are a type of SBP that are used frequently by USGS. As previously 

discussed for the SBP, the energy from the chirp SBP is directed downward by a 0.5-3.5-kHz transducer 

towed from the research vessel. Depending on frequency and power, source levels generally range from 

204 to 214 dB re 1 μPa-m. The pulse repetition rate is usually 4 pulses/sec with a pulse length of 32 ms. 

Beam widths vary by frequency and are usually 55oat 3.5 kHz and 20oat 5 kHz.

Non-Seismic Acoustic Sources – MBESs, SBPs, and Pingers

As with the R/V Langseth and previous NSF-funded seismic surveys, under the Proposed Action NSFfunded and USGS marine seismic surveys may use a variety of non-seismic acoustic sources such as

MBESs, SBPs, fathometers, acoustic releases, and/or pingers concurrently with seismic sources, 

depending on the research objectives (Table 2-5). The MBES available for use on research vessels range 

in frequency from 12 to 300 kHz and in source level from 225 to 242 dB re 1 μPa-m and include 

Kongsberg, Seabeam, Simrad, Knudsen, EdgeTech, and Krupp-Atlas models. The mid-frequency units 

can be used in any water depth and a high-frequency unit (e.g., at 300 kHz) may be used in shallow water

(<328 ft [100 m]). The SBPs and pingers used on other vessels would be similar to those used on the R/V 

Langseth and described previously.

Table 2-5. Acoustic Parameters of MBESs, SBPs, ADCPs, Pingers, and Acoustic Releases Used by 

NSF-Funded or USGS Research Vessels Conducting Marine Seismic Research

Acoustic Source

Frequency

(kHz)

Source Level

(dB re 1 μPa-m)

Pulse Length

(ms)

Beam Width*

Fore-aft Athwart.

MBESs

Seabeam 2000 12 234 7-20

Seabeam 2100/12 12 237 <1 - 12 2

○

x 2○

Kongsberg EM122 12 242 2-15 1

○

x 2○150°

Simrad EM 120/122 12 242 2, 5,15 1

○

x1○, 1○x2○150○

Simrad EM 300 30 237 (1○), 231 (2○) 0.7, 2,15 1

○

x1○, 1○x2○

Simrad EM 1002 95 225 (3○) 0.2, 0.7, 2 2

○

x 2○

Krupp-Atlas HydroSweep DS 15.5 237 2.3○

SBPs 3.5 222 64 27○

ADCPs 38-1,200 224 30○

Pingers 55-110 183

Pingers 12 192 0.5, 2, 10

Acoustic Releases 9-15 187 8

Notes: *The beams of all acoustic sources would be directed downward from the research vessel. Athwart. = athwartship.

Sources: USCG 2001; L-DEO and NSF 2003e; SIO and NSF 2003; University of Washington 2003; SIO and NSF 2004; SIO 

2005a, b; UAF and NSF 2005; University of Hawaii 2005; WHOI 2005.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-38

2.3 APPROACH TO ANALYSIS FOR THE PEIS

2.3.1 Exemplary (Representative) Analysis Areas Analyzed under the PEIS

As discussed in Section 1.5, due to the potential for NSF-funded marine seismic cruises to occur across 

all oceans worldwide, it was necessary to narrow the focus of the analysis presented in this PEIS to 13

exemplary or representative analysis areas: 5 DAAs and 8 QAAs (Table 2-6 and Figure 2-18). The 

following sections provide a brief overview of each analysis area. Due to the nature of USGS seismic 

survey operations (e.g., use of lower energy acoustic seismic sources and conducted predominantly in the 

nearshore coastal environment), the analysis areas used for the purposes of impact analysis in this PEIS

do not include representative USGS cruise areas. However, three of the exemplary analysis areas cover 

parts of the U.S. margins where USGS is also likely to conduct future seismic work to map the outer 

limits of the U.S. extended continental shelf beyond 200 nm. 

Based on representative survey tracks for a potential seismic survey within each detailed analysis area, a 

number of specific locations were selected as assumed source locations for sound propagation modeling. 

These locations were chosen to represent the range of bathymetry, acoustic environments, and marine 

mammal habitats that occur within each DAA. 

2.3.1.1 Detailed Analysis Areas (DAAs)

Western Gulf of Alaska (W Gulf of Alaska)

The proposed tracks in this region are located between Kodiak Island and the Shumagin Islands. The 

tracks are positioned perpendicular to the shore and cover the shelf, continental slope, Aleutian Terrace, 

and Aleutian Trench (Table 2-6 and Figure 2-19). The water depths vary from <328 ft (100 m) to >19,685 

ft (6,000 m). The three locations used for modeling purposes are on the shelf, slope, and in deep water.

Southern California (S California)

The proposed track lines cover the Santa Barbara Basin. The depths inside the survey area vary from 328 

ft (100 m) to 1,640 ft (500 m) (Figure 2-20 and Table 2-6). Based on the bathymetry, two modeling sites 

were assumed within the Santa Barbara Channel at water depths of 1,903 ft (580 m) and 590 ft (180 m).

Galapagos Ridge

The proposed seismic survey is located in deep water (>6,600 ft [2,000 m]) approximately 870 mi (1,400 

km) west of the Galapagos Islands (Figure 2-21 and Table 2-6). It overlies a portion of the mid-oceanic 

ridge between the Pacific and Nazca plates.

Caribbean

The proposed tracks cover a vast variety of environments in terms of bathymetry as well as geoacoustic 

properties of the sea floor. The four modeling locations ranged in depth from <656 ft (200 m) to >6,562 ft 

(2,000 m) (Figure 2-22 and Table 2-6).

Northwestern Atlantic (NW Atlantic)

The proposed NW Atlantic survey is offshore from New Jersey over the Hudson canyon covering an area 

with depths varying from <328 ft (100 m) to >4,920 ft (1,500 m). The majority of the survey area lies 

over the shelf with water depths <656 ft (200 m). The southeastern (SE) section of the survey extends 

over the continental slope to the abyssal plain. Four representative sites were selected for acoustic 

modeling, allowing for variation in bathymetry (shelf, slope, deep water, and Hudson canyon) (Figure 

2-23 and Table 2-6). 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-39

Table 2-6. Location and Source Characteristics for Assumed Seismic Surveys within the DAAs and QAAs

Source Water Depth (m)

Site

Name Latitude Longitude

Longhurst

Biome

Survey

Season Sm Med Lg

Source

Details <100

100–

1,000 >1,000

DAA

W Gulf of

Alaska 53o–55°N 151–159°W Pacific WesterlyWinds Sum x

3-D reflection, 2 strings of 9 

airguns (18 airguns), 3,300 

in3

x x x

S California 35° N 120° W Pacific Coastal Late Spr/

Early Sum x

High resolution 3-D, 1 pair 

45/105 in3 GI guns x x

Galapagos

Ridge 4°S 103.6°W Pacific Trade Wind Austral Sum x

3-D reflection, 2 strings of 9 

airguns (18 airguns), 3,300 

in3

x

Caribbean 12° N 65° W Atlantic Coastal Spr/Sum x

2-D full refraction, 36 

airguns, 6,600 in3 x x x

NW Atlantic 39.5° N 73.5° W Atlantic Coastal Sum x

High resolution 3-D, 1 pair 

45/105 in3 GI guns x x x

QAA

BC Coast 52° N 129° W Pacific Coastal Fall x

2-D reflection, 4 strings of 9 

airguns, 36 airguns x x

Mid-Atlantic

Ridge 26° N 40° W Atlantic WesterlyWinds

Spr, Sum,

or Fall x

2-D reflection, 4 strings of 9 

airguns, 36 airguns x

Marianas 17° N 145° E Pacific Trade Wind Spr x

2-D multichannel, 18 

airguns x x x

SubAntarctic 42° S 145° W Antarctic Westerly

Winds Austral Sum x

2-D high resolution, 

reflection; 2 low-energy GI 

guns (45 in3each)

x

N Atlantic/

Iceland 59° N–65° N 33° W–25° W Atlantic Polar Sum x

2-D reflection, 4 strings of 9 

airguns, 36 airguns x x x

SW Atlantic 5° N 45° W Atlantic Trade Winds Anytime x

2-D multichannel, 18 

airguns x x x

W India 20° N 65° E Indian Ocean Coastal Late Spr or

Early Fall x Large multichannel source x x

W Australia 18° S 120° E Indian Ocean Coastal Austral Spr

or Fall x

2-D high resolution, 1 pair 

45/105 in3 GI guns x x x
ANTARCTIC OCEAN

ARCTIC OCEAN

INDIAN

OCEAN

PACIFIC

OCEAN

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

ANTARCTIC CIRCLE

ARCTIC CIRCLE

EQUATOR

0° 20° 40° 60° 80° 100° 120° 140° 160° 180° 160° 140° 120° 100° 80° 60° 40° 20°

80°

0°

80°

70°60°50°40°30°20°10°

0°

10°20°30°40°50°60°70°80°

70°60°50°40°30°20°

0°

10°10°20°30°40°50°60°70°80°

0° 20° 40° 60° 80° 100° 120° 140° 160° 180° 160° 140° 120° 100° 80° 60° 40° 20° 0°

Figure 2-18

Longhurst Biomes and Proposed Detailed and Qualitative Analysis Areas

Q7

Q8

Q3

Q1

Q4

Q6

Q2

Q5

D1

D2

D5

D4

D3
162°W

161°W

161°W

160°W

160°W

159°W

159°W 158°W

158°W

157°W

157°W

156°W

156°W

155°W

155°W

154°W

154°W

153°W

52°N

52°N

53°N

53°N

54°N

54°N

55°N

55°N

56°N

56°N

57°N

57°N

Kodiak

Ilsand

Alaska Peninsula

1

3

2

2-41

0 60

0 100

Nautical Miles

Kilometers Figure 2-19

Regional Location of

W Gulf of Alaska Detailed Analysis Area (D1)

LEGEND

Water depth (m)

50

100200300400500750

10001500200025003000400045005000

5300

Acoustic Modeling Location (Depth)

1 (0-200 m)

2 (200-1,000 m)

3 (>1,000 m)

Ship Track

Modeling Boundary PACIFIC

OCEAN

ARCTIC OCEAN

NORTH

AMERICA

RUSSIA

D1
122°W

121°W

121°W

120°W

120°W

119°W

119°W

118°W

35°N

34°N

33°N

36°N

35°N

34°N

33°N

36°N

1 2

CALIFORNIA

Los

Angeles

2-42

0 38

0 60

Nautical Miles

Kilometers Figure 2-20

Regional Location of

S California Detailed Analysis Area (D2)

LEGEND

Water depth (m)

50

100200300400500750

10001500200025003000400045005000

5300

Acoustic Modeling Location (Depth)

1 (0-300 m)

2 (>300 m)

Ship Track

Modeling Boundary

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

PACIFIC

OCEAN

NORTH

AMERICA

SOUTH

AMERICA

EQUATOR

D2
105°30'W

105°30'W 105°0'W

105°0'W

104°30'W

104°30'W

104°0'W

104°0'W

103°30'W

103°30'W

103°0'W

103°0'W

102°30'W

102°30'W

102°0'W

102°0'W

101°30'W

101°30'W

101°0'W

6°0'S

5°30'S

5°0'S

4°30'S

4°0'S

3°30'S

3°0'S

2°30'S

2°0'S

6°0'S

5°30'S

5°0'S

4°30'S

4°0'S

3°30'S

3°0'S

2°30'S

2°0'S

SEE DETAIL ABOVE RIGHT

4°0'S

103°30'W 1" = 15 NM

2-43

0 42

0 70

Nautical Miles

Kilometers Figure 2-21

Regional Location of

Galapagos Ridge Detailed Analysis Area (D3)

LEGEND

Water depth (m)

50

100200300400500750

10001500

2000

25003000

400045005000

5300

Acoustic Modeling Location (Depth)

1 (>2,000 m)

Ship Track

Modeling Boundary

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

PACIFIC

OCEAN

NORTH

AMERICA

SOUTH

AMERICA

EQUATOR

D3
W

W

69°W69°W

68°W68°W

67°W67°W

66°W66°W

65°W65°W

64°W64°W

63°W63°W

62°W62°W

8°N9°N

10°N11°N12°N13°N

3

2

4

NEZUELA

Caracas

LEGEND

Water depth (m)

50100200300400500750100015002000250030004000450050005300

Acoustic Modeling Location (Depth)1 (0-200 m)2 (200-2,000 m)3 (0-200 m)4 (>2,000 m)Ship TrackModeling Boundary

Figure 2-22

Regional Location of Caribbean Detailed Analysis Area (D4)

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

PACIFIC

OCEAN

NORTH

AMERICA

SOUTH

AMERICA

EQUATOR

D4
74°W

74°W

73°W

73°W

72°W

72°W

71°W

71°W

40°N

39°N

38N

41°N

40°N

39°N

38°N

41°N

1 2

3

4

NY

NJ

CT

RI

Long Island

2-45

0 40

0 70

Nautical Miles

Kilometers Figure 2-23

Regional Location of

NW Atlantic Detailed Analysis Area (D5)

LEGEND

Water depth (m)

50

100200300400500750

10001500200025003000400045005000

5300

Acoustic Modeling Location (Depth)

1 (1-160 m)

2 (160-500 m)

3 (>500 m)

4 (>1,500 m)

Ship Track

Modeling Boundary

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

PACIFIC

OCEAN

NORTH

AMERICA

SOUTH

AMERICA

EQUATOR

D5
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-46

2.3.1.2 Qualitative Analysis Areas (QAAs)

British Columbia Coast (BC Coast)

The BC Coast site is located in the southern portion of the Queen Charlotte Basin, in approximately 656 ft 

(200 m) of water (Q1, Figure 2-18).

Mid-Atlantic Ridge

The Mid-Atlantic ridge is a deep-water site with water depths >9,842 ft (3,000 m) (Q2, Figure 2-18). The 

site is located in the vicinity of the spreading center of the ridge where the new oceanic crust is being 

formed. 

Marianas

The site is located in the Philippine Sea near a volcanic island arc, formed above a subduction zone (Q3, 

Figure 2-18). The proposed survey area is located in the back-arc basin. General water depths are in the 

range from 6,562-13,123 ft (2,000-4,000 m) with multiple volcanic rises, some of which reach the sea 

surface.

Sub-Antarctic

The survey area is located in the southern part of the Pacific Ocean approximately 1,620 nm (3,000 km) 

east of New Zealand and 1,890 nm (3,500 km) from Antarctica (Q4, Figure 2-18). It is a typical abyssal 

plain with nearly flat bathymetry and water depths around 16,400 ft (5,000 m).

Southwestern Atlantic (SW Atlantic)

The site is about 325 nm (600 km) northeast of Brazil, in the abyssal part of the Atlantic Ocean, near a 

passive continental margin (Q6, Figure 2-18). The water depths are about 13,123 ft (4,000 m) at the site.

Western India (W India)

The proposed survey area is located approximately 270 nm (500 km) west of India in the abyssal part of 

the Indian Ocean, near a passive continental margin (Q7, Figure 2-18). The water depths are about 9,842

ft (3,000 m) at the site with nearly flat bathymetry.

Northern Atlantic/Iceland (N Atlantic/Iceland)

The Reykjanes Ridge is the part of the Mid-Atlantic ridge structure in the northern part of the Atlantic 

Ocean (Q5, Figure 2-18). A portion of the assumed survey covers the shelf part of the island. The water 

depths on the shelf are about 98-1,640 ft (30-500 m).

Western Australia (W Australia)

The assumed location for this seismic survey is offshore of NW Australia in the shelf environment within 

the outer ramp portion of the Canning Basin (Q8, Figure 2-18). 

2.3.1.3 Comparison of QAAs vs. DAAs

The sound fields to which marine mammals could be exposed during a seismic program were modeled for 

representative sites in each DAA, but they were not modeled for each QAA. In order to qualitatively 

evaluate sound levels that might be received by marine mammals in each of the eight QAAs, the source 

configurations and factors affecting sound propagation for each QAA were compared to those for each of 

the DAAs described in Section 2.3.1.1 and Table 2-6. Table 2-7 shows which sound fields in a DAA were 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-47

expected to be most similar to sound fields in each QAA and summarizes the data used to make that 

evaluation. 

2.3.2 Acoustic Impact Criteria

When evaluating potential impacts of impulsive or transient sounds, it is necessary to consider how those 

sounds should be measured, and what amounts of sound exposure will result in biological effects that are 

of concern.

2.3.2.1 Measures of Transient Sound

The ―amount‖ of sound in an airgun pulse can be measured in a variety of ways. The units used to express 

these measurements, and the resulting numerical values, vary depending on the type of measurement. It is 

important to recognize that different measures exist, and to choose the one(s) that are most useful as 

predictors of biological effects. Commonly used measures of airgun pulses include:

 Peak sound pressure. This is the maximum instantaneous sound pressure measureable in the 

water at a specified distance from the airgun(s). The units of pressure are typically bars (English) 

or, in metric units, either Pascals (Pa) or micropascals (μPa). The metric values are commonly 

expressed in logarithmic form as decibels reference to 1 μPa (dB re 1 μPa).

 Peak-to-peak sound pressure. This is the algebraic difference between the peak positive and peak 

negative sound pressures. Units are the same as for peak pressure. When expressed in dB, peakto-peak pressure is typically about 6 dB higher than peak pressure. 

 Root mean square (rms) sound pressure. In simple terms, this is an average sound pressure over a

specified time interval. For airgun pulses, the averaging time is commonly taken to be the 

approximate duration of one pulse, which in turn is commonly assumed to be the time interval 

within which 90% of the pulse energy arrives. The rms sound pressure level (in dB) is typically 

approximately 10 dB less than the peak level, and approximately 16 dB less than the peak-to-peak 

level.

 Sound exposure level (SEL or energy flux density). This measure represents the total energy 

contained within a pulse, and is in the units dB re 1 μPa2∙sec. For a single airgun pulse, the 

numerical value of the SEL measurement, in these units, is usually 5–15 dB lower than the rms 

sound pressure in dB re 1 μPa (Greene 1997; McCauley et al. 1998; Blackwell et al. 2007; 

MacGillivray and Hannay 2007; Southall et al. 2007).

Over the past decade, NMFS guidelines regarding levels of impulsive sound that might cause disturbance 

or injury have been based on the ―rms sound pressure‖ metric. However, there is now scientific evidence

that suggests that auditory effects of transient sounds on marine mammals are better correlated with the 

amount of received energy than with the level of the strongest pulse (see next subsection). Therefore, the 

present PEIS places considerable emphasis on the SEL metric, particularly when discussing potential 

injurious effects on marine mammals. However, the rms pressure metric is also considered in various 

situations as currently the SEL metric has not been incorporated into NMFS guidelines.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-48

Table 2-7. Comparison of QAAs to DAAs Relative to Acoustic Characteristics, Array Configurations, and Other Factors

QAA

Source

Details

Water Depth (m)

Sound

Channel

Bottom

Characteristics

DAA with

Similar

Source

DAA with Similar

Acoustic

Environment

DAA Most

Similar to 

<100 QAA Comments

100-

1,000 >1,000

N. Atlantic/

Iceland

4 strings of 9 

airguns = 36 

airguns @ 12 m 

depth.

X X X

Weak sound 

channel 

approximately 

100 m deep may 

trap portion of 

acoustic energy, 

downward 

refracting near 

surface.

Reykjanes 

Ridge: 50-100 m 

of sediment over 

basalt, 

increasing to 

several hundred 

meters at 300 km 

distance from 

the ridge. 

Iceland shelf: 

greater sandy 

component, 

surface velocity 

of approximately 

1,500 m/s.

Caribbean, 

(W GoA, 

Galapagos + 

6 dB)

W GoA (strong sound 

channel at 70 m depth; 

500 m of silty sediments 

on the shelf, 

approximately 600 m of 

clayey sediments in 

deeper water). However, 

the sound speed 

minimum at the GoA 

site is more pronounced, 

and the bottom is softer 

(thicker and/or less 

dense sediments).

W GoA (note 

the difference in 

source size).

Sound channel much 

weaker than at W 

GoA and bottom is 

more reflective. 

BC

Coast

4 strings of 9 

airguns = 36 

airguns @ 7.5 m 

depth.

X X

Channeling of 

sound not 

expected either 

near the surface 

or mid-water.

Variable; on 

average, 

approximately 

20 m of silty 

sand overlying 

lithified 

sediments.

Caribbean (W 

GoA, 

Galapagos + 

6 dB).

For depths <1,000 m, S 

CA, Caribbean, and 

Galapagos SSPs are also 

downward refracting 

(this comparison is not 

appropriate for greater 

depths due to presence 

of sound speed minima). 

Sediment 

thickness/properties 

similar to Galapagos 

(much thicker sediment 

at the S. CA & 

Caribbean sites).

Caribbean SSP 

has some 

similarity (only 

for shallow 

sites), and a 

similar-sized 

source; S CA 

SSP also 

somewhat 

similar. BC 

Coast profile 

less strongly 

downward 

refracting; 

harder bottom. 

Species are also 

different at both 

these sites.

None of the DAAs 

is a very good match 

to this site.

SW

Atlantic

2D multichannel, 18 

airguns.

X X X

Mid-water sound 

speed minimum 

near 

approximately 

700 m depth & 

relatively high

near-surface 

sound speed; 

thus, ducted 

propagation not 

expected to 

Sedimentation 

influenced by 

riverine input. 

60-80% clay, 

sound speed 

approximately

1,500 m/s at the 

surface.

W GoA, 

Galapagos

Galapagos (sound 

channel at 

approximately 1 km 

depth, but ducted sound 

propagation not 

expected to be 

significant); Caribbean 

sound speed also 

somewhat similar for 

shallow sites and 

sediments are more 

Galapagos 

(deeper sites) / 

Caribbean 

(shallow site).

SSP similar to MidAtlantic Ridge 

QAA.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-49

Table 2-7. Comparison of QAAs to DAAs Relative to Acoustic Characteristics, Array Configurations, and Other Factors

QAA

Source

Details

Water Depth (m)

Sound

Channel

Bottom

Characteristics

DAA with

Similar

Source

DAA with Similar

Acoustic

Environment

DAA Most

Similar to 

<100 QAA Comments

100-

1,000 >1,000

occur. similar.

MidAtlantic

Ridge

4 strings of 9 

airguns = 36 

airguns @ 12 m 

depth.

X

Pronounced 

sound channel at 

approximately 

1,000 m depth.

Approx. 100 m 

of abyssal 

sediments over 

basalt.

Caribbean (W 

GoA)

Caribbean (has 

pronounced sound 

channel at 

approximately 800 m 

depth, sound speed 

gradient in thermocline 

strongly downrefracting; thus, acoustic 

energy would be 

trapped in sound 

channel at deep oceanbasin locations in 

project area). Sediments 

likely different, but this 

is not as important for a 

deep-water site.

Caribbean

W

Australia

High resolution 

source (2D), 1 

pair 45/105 in3 

GI guns.

X X X

Spring SSP 

decreases with 

depth from 

surface to 

shallow sea 

floor, favoring 

refraction of 

sound toward 

bottom; no 

significant sound 

channeling 

expected.

Shelf 

environment;

approximately 

1,200 m of 

gravel/ sand/silt 

over sedimentary 

bedrock. 

Surficial 

sediments wavesorted, favoring 

slightly coarser 

materials.

NW Atlantic, 

S CA

For shallow sites, S CA 

SSP is also downwardrefracting; sediments 

also reasonably similar. 

S CA

W

India

Large multichannel source.

X X

Sound speed 

minimum at 

approximately 

1,800 m depth; 

however, sound 

speeds below 

this minimum 

are not high 

enough to result 

in significant 

channeling of 

sound in this 

layer.

Approx. 2 km of 

detrital silty 

clays.

Caribbean (W 

GoA, 

Galapagos)

Galapagos has similar 

SSP (sound channel at 

approximately 1 km 

depth, but ducted sound 

propagation is not 

expected due to high 

near-surface sound 

speed); however, 

sediments much thicker 

at the W India site. For 

the 100-1000 m site, the 

Caribbean site SSP is 

also not dissimilar (once 

water depth is taken into 

account), and sediments 

are more similar.

Galapagos 

(particularly for 

the deeper site); 

possibly 

Caribbean for 

the shallower 

site.

If the mid-water W 

India site is closer to 

100 m depth, the 

Caribbean site may 

be more similar; if 

the water depth is 

closer to 1,000 m, 

the SSP is more 

significant, and the 

Galapagos site is 

likely a better 

analogue (except for 

difference in source 

size).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-50

Table 2-7. Comparison of QAAs to DAAs Relative to Acoustic Characteristics, Array Configurations, and Other Factors

QAA

Source

Details

Water Depth (m)

Sound

Channel

Bottom

Characteristics

DAA with

Similar

Source

DAA with Similar

Acoustic

Environment

DAA Most

Similar to 

<100 QAA Comments

100-

1,000 >1,000

Marianas

2D multichannel, 18 

airguns

X X X

Minimum SSP 

approximately 

1000 m depth; 

however, nearsurface sound 

speed 

sufficiently high 

that ducted 

sound 

propagation not 

expected to be 

significant.

Approximately 

100 m of 

sediment 

(approximately 

60% clay) over 

bedrock.

W GoA, 

Galapagos

Galapagos (sound 

channel at 

approximately 1 km 

depth, but ducted sound 

propagation is not 

expected due to high 

near-surface sound 

speed); however, 

sediments are thicker at 

Marianas site, and there 

is no shallow Galapagos 

Ridge site. Caribbean 

site SSP is also not 

dissimilar once water 

depth is taken into 

account, and sediments 

are reasonably similar; 

the source is larger at 

the Caribbean site, 

however.

Galapagos 

(deeper sites) / 

Caribbean 

(shallowest site)

SubAntarctic

2 low-energy GI 

airguns (45 in3

each) @ 3 m 

depth.

X

Broad sound 

speed minimum 

occurs between 

approximately 

200-1200 m 

during austral 

summer, likely 

resulting in 

channeling of 

sound in this 

layer.

Approximately 

100 m of abyssal 

sediments over 

bedrock.

S CA, 

NW Atlantic

S CA SSP is similar 

(sound speed minimum 

at approximately 700 m 

depth), but all sites are 

much shallower. 

Caribbean SSP also 

somewhat similar.

S CA; however, 

given the 

difference in 

water depths this 

is not a very 

good analogue.

None of the DAAs 

is a very good match 

to this site.

Notes: Lg = large, Med = medium, Sm = small, W GoA = W Gulf of Alaska, S CA = Southern California, SSP = sound speed profile. Note that sound speed profiles vary seasonally; survey 

seasons are listed in Table 2-6.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-51

2.3.2.2 Acoustic Criteria for Predicting Biological Effects

Since the mid-1990s, the NMFS has specified that marine mammals should not be exposed to pulsed 

sounds with received levels exceeding 180 or 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms). Since 2000, the ―do-not-exceed‖ 

levels (Level A harassment) have been specified as 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for cetaceans and 190 dB re 1 

μPa (rms) for pinnipeds (NMFS 2000). NMFS also considers that cetaceans and pinnipeds exposed to 

pulsed sound levels ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) may be disturbed (Level B harassment) (Table 2-8). 

Table 2-8. Existing and Proposed Injury and Behavior Exposure Criteria for 

Cetaceans and Pinnipeds Exposed to Pulsed Sounds

Level A (Injury) Level B (Behavior)

Group

Pressure(a)

(dB re 1 μPa rms)

Energy(b)

(dB re 1 μPa2∙ sec)

Pressure(a)

(dB re 1 μPa rms)

Cetaceans 180(c) 198 160

Pinnipeds 190(c) 186 160

Notes: (a)Existing NMFS criterion, on an rms basis averaged over duration of a pulse (NMFS 2000, 2005g).

(b)Proposed energy (SEL) criterion, cumulative across pulses (Southall et al. 2007). Energy criteria 

refer to cumulative energy from a series of impulsive sounds. 

(c)Southall et al. (2007) concluded that exposure to a single pulse with peak pressure ≥230 dB re 1 

μPa (for cetaceans) or ≥218 dB re 1μPa (for pinnipeds) might lead to PTS whether or not the 

proposed cumulative energy criterion is exceeded.

The 180- and 190-dB re 1 μPa (rms) criteria were determined before specific information was available 

about the received levels of underwater sound that would cause temporary or permanent hearing damage 

in marine mammals. Subsequently, data on received levels that cause the onset of temporary threshold 

shift (TTS) have been obtained for certain toothed whales and pinnipeds (Kastak et al. 1999; Finneran et 

al. 2002, 2005). A group of specialists in marine mammal acoustics, the ―Noise Criteria Group‖, has

recommended new criteria, based on current scientific knowledge (Gentry et al. 2004; Southall et al. 

2007). The following summarizes their conclusions that are most relevant to the marine mammal portions 

of this PEIS.

2.3.2.3 Noise Criteria Group Recommendations (Southall et al. 2007)

Recently acquired data indicate that TTS onset in marine mammals is more closely correlated with the 

received SEL than with rms levels (Southall et al. 2007). In odontocetes exposed to impulsive sounds, the 

TTS can be as low as approximately 183 dB re 1 μPa2∙s. The corresponding TTS value for pinnipeds is 

not as well defined. There are published data on levels of non-impulse sound (Kastak et al. 1999) but not 

of impulse sound eliciting TTS in pinnipeds. Based on the results for non-impulse sound, plus the known 

tendency in other mammals for lower TTS with impulse than with non-impulse sound, the TTS for 

pinnipeds exposed to impulse sound may be as low as 171 dB re 1 μPa2∙s in the more sensitive species 

such as the harbor seal.

There are no specific data concerning the levels of underwater sound necessary to cause permanent 

hearing damage (permanent threshold shift or PTS) in any species of marine mammal. However, data 

from terrestrial mammals provide a basis for estimating the difference between the (unmeasured) PTS 

thresholds and the measured TTS. A conservative (precautionary) estimate of this offset between TTS and 

PTS, when sound exposure is measured on an SEL basis (received energy level), is 15 dB. Thus, available 

data indicate the lowest received sound levels that might elicit slight auditory injury (PTS) are 198 dB re 

1 μPa2∙s in cetaceans (i.e., 183 + 15 dB), and 186 dB re 1 μPa2∙s in the more sensitive pinnipeds (i.e., 

171 + 15 dB) (Southall et al. 2007). 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-52

The primary measure of sound used in the proposed new criteria is the received sound energy, not just in 

the single strongest pulse, but accumulated over time. The most appropriate interval over which the 

received airgun pulse energy should be accumulated is not well defined. However, pending the 

availability of additional relevant information, the Noise Criteria Group has suggested considering noise 

exposure over 24-hr periods (Southall et al. 2007), and that is what has been done in the application of the 

Acoustic Integration Model (AIM©) to the five DAAs considered in this PEIS (see Section 2.3.3.2 

below). Those analyses were designed to estimate, among other things, the numbers of marine mammals 

that might be exposed to >198 dB SEL (cetaceans) or >186 dB SEL (pinnipeds) of airgun sound energy 

within a single 24-hr period during the exemplary seismic survey in each DAA. The Noise Criteria Group 

also recommends a ―do not exceed‖ peak pressure criterion, but under field conditions the SEL criterion 

is the one that would be exceeded first and thus would be the operative criterion (Southall et al. 2007).

These SEL values were calculated for both unweighted (flat) and M-weighted received levels. 

M-weighting was recommended by Southall et al. (2007) (see Section 2.3.2.4 below) but has not been 

adopted by NMFS. Therefore, both calculations were completed.

Southall et al. (2007) also concluded that, whether or not marine mammals have received sufficient 

cumulative acoustic energy to elicit TTS, exposure to even a single pulse with received peak level ≥224 

dB re 1 μPa (cetaceans) or ≥212 dB re 1 μPa (pinnipeds) could elicit TTS. Similarly, exposure to even a 

single pulse with received peak level ≥230 dB (cetaceans) or ≥218 dB (pinnipeds) might elicit PTS.

As noted above, the existing NMFS criterion for potential disturbance to marine mammals from seismic 

surveys is 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) (Level B harassment). The Noise Criteria Group concluded that 

available data are insufficient as a basis for recommending any specific alternative disturbance criteria 

applicable to multiple-pulse sounds like seismic survey sounds (Southall et al. 2007).

Acoustic impact criteria applicable to other types of biota are less well developed than are the criteria for 

cetaceans and pinnipeds. There is an ongoing effort to develop science-based criteria for fish and sea 

turtles. Procedures used to evaluate acoustic impacts on resources other than marine mammals are 

discussed in the sections of this PEIS dealing with each of those resources. 

2.3.2.4 Auditory Weighting Functions

A further recommendation from the Noise Criteria Group is that allowance should be given to the 

differential frequency responsiveness of various marine mammal groups (Southall et al. 2007). This is 

important when considering airgun sounds: the energy in airgun sounds is predominantly at low 

frequencies (<500 Hz), with diminishing amounts of energy at progressively higher frequencies (Greene 

and Richardson 1988; Goold and Fish 1998). Baleen whales (mysticetes) are most sensitive to lowfrequency (LF) sounds (<1 kHz), and not very sensitive to high frequency (HF) (>10 kHz) sounds. On the 

other hand, odontocetes or toothed whales (including dolphins and porpoises) are quite insensitive to LF 

but very sensitive to HF (Richardson et al. 1995a). Porpoises, river dolphins, and the S Hemisphere genus 

Cephalorhynchus are even less sensitive to LF than are other odontocetes. Pinnipeds have frequency 

responsiveness intermediate between baleen and toothed whales.

The Noise Criteria Group has proposed that, in calculating the effective SELs, frequency-weighting 

functions should be applied (Southall et al. 2007). Based on present knowledge, cetaceans and in-water 

pinnipeds are divided into four ―hearing groups‖, and there is a separate weighting curve for each of these 

groups. The weighting curves de-emphasize the HF energy when dealing with baleen whales (LF 

cetaceans), and de-emphasize the LF energy when dealing with odontocetes (mid-frequency [MF] 

cetaceans and HF cetaceans). For pinnipeds in water, there is some de-emphasis of both the LF and HF 

energy, but the LF components are weighted more heavily than for odontocetes, but less heavily than for 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-53

mysticetes. The shapes of the four M-weighting curves (i.e., Mlf for baleen whales, Mmf for most 

odontocetes, Mhf for the HF odontocetes, and Mpw for pinnipeds in water) are similar to those of Cweighting curves that are widely used when considering effects of strong pulsed sounds on human 

hearing; boundary frequencies are shown in Table 2-9. However, the M-weighting curves are shifted 

downward in frequency for baleen whales and upward in frequency for toothed whales (Southall et al. 

2007). 

Table 2-9. Lower and Upper Boundary Frequencies Used in M-Weighting 

of Model Results for Marine Mammal Hearing Groups

Species Group

Low Frequency

(flo)

Low Frequency

(fhi)

LF cetaceans 7 Hz 22 kHz

MF cetaceans 150 Hz 160 kHz

HF cetaceans 200 Hz 180 kHz

Pinnipeds (in water) 75 Hz 75 kHz

Source: Southall et al. 2007.

The M-weighting curves have been defined in a precautionary manner that allows for the fact that, at least 

in terrestrial mammals, TTS and PTS are less strongly related to frequency than is audibility. Thus, Mweighting curves (and the C-weighting curve for humans) are ―flatter‖ than the curves representing 

minimum detectable sound level vs. frequency (the audiogram). Use of M-weighting in some marine 

mammal analyses within this PEIS takes account of the fact that marine mammals vary widely in their 

sensitivity to the predominant LF components of airgun sounds, while also allowing for the fact that TTS 

and PTS are likely to be less frequency-dependent than is the audiogram.

In the marine mammal sections (Sections 3.6-3.9), both the flat (unweighted) and M-weighted energy 

levels were calculated. The later approach was done by applying the M-weights to the acoustic model‘s 

estimates of the received energy levels in each 1/3-octave frequency band before accumulating across 

bands to derive the overall received energy level. M-weighting was also applied when calculating the 

distances within which the received levels would diminish to 190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms). Thus, 

the effective 180 dB (rms) (and other) distances for the four categories of cetaceans and pinnipeds vary. 

For any given criterion (e.g., 180 dB rms), effective distances for LF cetaceans (baleen whales) are the 

largest, followed in order of decreasing distance by pinnipeds in water, MF cetaceans (most odontocetes), 

and HF cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and Cephalorhynchus). Given the predominance of LF 

energy in airgun pulses, the Mlf-weighted radii applicable to mysticetes are very similar to the 

―traditional‖ unweighted radii, whereas those for pinnipeds and the MF and HF odontocetes are 

progressively smaller.

The M-weighting curves (analogous to C-weighting curves for humans) were proposed by Southall et al. 

(2007) primarily in the context of estimating onset criteria for TTS and PTS in marine mammals exposed 

to strong (or high-level) sounds. The onset of behavioral disturbance often occurs at lower received levels 

than the onset of TTS, and the most appropriate frequency weighting for behavioral disturbance may be 

more closely related to the shape of the audiogram of the species in question―generally analogous to Aweighting in humans (Nedwell et al. 2007). However, there has been no specific validation of the 

appropriateness of using audiogram-based weighting when assessing the potential of underwater sounds 

to cause disturbance in marine mammals. M-weighting entails less down-weighting of low and high

frequencies than audiogram-based weighting would produce. Application of M-weighting in estimating 

behavioral disturbance criteria would therefore be a precautionary approach.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-54

2.3.3 Acoustic Modeling

Under the Proposed Action, a variety of airgun configurations ranging from small arrays of 1-4 airguns to 

large arrays of 18-36 airguns, as well as other lower energy non-seismic acoustic sources including 

MBESs, SBPs, and pingers, would be operated. Because of the complexities and variability of sound 

propagation from these sources in different ocean environments, acoustic modeling is a key component in 

an effective scientific analysis of the extent of the potential acoustic impacts. As described in Section 

2.3.1, five exemplary areas were identified for detailed acoustic analysis, and a representative seismic 

survey scenario using airguns as the seismic acoustic source was modeled for each area (Table 2-6 and 

Figures 2-18 – 2-23). 

For a quantitative assessment of the potential impact of an exemplary marine seismic survey, it is 

necessary to integrate the predicted (modeled) seismic survey sound field with the expected distribution 

of marine animals. This is a three-part process:

1. Estimate the 3-D sound field while the airguns are operating at representative locations within the 

analysis area using an airgun array source model and a sound propagation model.

2. Estimate the 3-D locations and movements of simulated animals in space and time.

3. Integrate these two sets of model outputs to estimate the maximum and cumulative airgun sound 

that would be received by each simulated animal, and then assess the potential impact of the 

seismic survey sound source on a specific species or group.

The computer models used to develop these estimates are described briefly below and in detail in 

Appendix B, Acoustic Modeling Report. A further step in the analysis process is to assess, in a qualitative 

manner, how the impacts in eight additional scenarios would be expected to compare with those in the 

five scenarios analyzed in detail. 

In this PEIS, the full process outlined above is applied for marine mammals. Marine mammals are a 

resource of particular concern with regard to seismic surveys. Also, marine mammals are the animals for 

which most progress has been made in identifying the specific sound exposure criteria that need to be 

defined in order to undertake a quantitative assessment of impact. Other resources are analyzed in a less 

detailed and more qualitative way, but taking into account specific impact criteria where available (see 

Chapter 3).

2.3.3.1 Estimated 3-D Sound Field

The sound field around an airgun array was predicted based on a two-stage modeling process. The first 

stage was to predict the sound field near the source (airgun array) taking into account the specific 

characteristics of that array. The second stage was to predict the sound field at longer distances using a 

sound propagation model. The second stage was based on the predictions from the source model plus 

available data on relevant characteristics of the environment through which the sound would propagate. 

Those environmental factors included water depth, properties of the seafloor, and temperature-salinity 

profiles of the water column during the season when each of the exemplary seismic cruises was assumed 

to occur. The following is a brief summary of the two stages; more details are provided in Appendix B. 

In the first stage, the sound fields near various airgun arrays proposed for use under the Proposed Action 

were modeled using an airgun array source-signature model, a proprietary application developed by 

JASCO Research Ltd. (JASCO). The airgun model is based on the physics of the oscillation and radiation 

of airgun bubbles, as described by Ziolkowski (1972). The model solves, in parallel, a set of coupled

differential equations that govern the airgun bubble oscillations. The model accounts for additional 

physical effects, including pressure interactions between airguns, port throttling, and bubble damping. To 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-55

maximize the fidelity of the model in predicting the sounds from actual airguns, a simulated annealing 

global optimization algorithm was used to fit the model parameters to a large library of measured airgun 

data (from Racca and Scrimger 1986). The output of the model is a set of notional source signatures, each 

corresponding to a single airgun. These were used to compute the farfield signature of the airgun array in 

each direction and by 1/3-octave frequency band. 

In the second stage, the modeled 1/3-octave source levels for an airgun array, as a function of direction, 

were used as input for the acoustic propagation software Marine Operations Noise Model (MONM), 

which computed the attenuation of the sound as it radiated from the source. MONM is an advanced 

modeling package with several unique features. Its algorithmic engine is based on a parabolic equation 

finite differences code enhanced to handle shear as well as compressional waves in the sea floor sediment, 

with the capability to account for changes in shear wave speed and attenuation over different sections of a 

propagation traverse. 

The received sound levels at any 3-D location within the region of interest are computed by attenuating 

the source level for each 1/3-octave band within the frequency range from 10 to 2,000 Hz (from stage 1) 

by the calculated transmission loss at its center frequency. This frequency range is sufficient to capture 

essentially all of the energy output by the array (see further discussion in Appendix B). In performing 

these calculations, a location within the region of interest is characterized by its range and bearing from 

the airguns and by its depth below the surface. The 1/3-octave received-level values are summed 

incoherently across all modeled frequencies to obtain a broadband unweighted received-level value for 

the location of interest. Alternatively, when summing across 1/3-octaves, frequency-weighting functions 

approximating the frequency response characteristics of animal auditory systems (e.g., Southall et al. 

2007) can also be applied. 

The estimated received levels, like the source levels from which they are computed, are in energy-based 

units normally represented as dB re 1 Pa2·s, and are equivalent to the SEL for a single source pulse. In 

cases where there is a need for the estimated received sound level averaged over the pulse duration, in dB 

re 1 Pa (rms), this is derived from the estimated SEL based on the typical difference between the two 

measures (SEL and sound pressure level [SPL]), which is about 10 dB (Appendix B). Note that 

estimation of the pulse duration, and hence the SPL, is currently computationally prohibitive for complex, 

range-dependent environments such as those input to MONM. The results from the acoustic modeling for 

each of the five DAAs are presented in Appendix B, Acoustic Modeling Report (Section 8.1 and Annexes 

5 and 6).

For this PEIS, a 3-dB precautionary factor has been added to the SEL values predicted by MONM for 

water <1,000 m deep. This adjustment has been made in recognition that comparisons of MONM output 

with direct field measurements have shown that MONM sometimes underestimates actual SEL in shallow 

water, particularly where the bottom type is not well known (e.g., Blackwell et al. 2007; MacGillivray 

and Hannay 2007). This +3 dB adjustment reduces the likelihood of underestimating received SEL values 

near an actual seismic operation.

As an example of the acoustic modeling results, the predicted sound field during the exemplary seismic 

survey in the W Gulf of Alaska DAA is described here. (Comparable information for the other four DAAs 

appears in Appendix B, Section 8.1 and Annexes 5 and 6.) The assumed seismic survey in the W Gulf of 

Alaska involves an 18-airgun array of total volume 3,300 in3operating during summer at a depth of 20 ft 

(6 m) in water ranging from 328 ft (100 m) to 19,685 ft (6,000 m) deep. The sound speed profile (SSP) in 

the area during summer shows a strong sound channel at 230 ft (70 m) depth. This channel is expected to 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-56

trap much of the acoustic energy from an airgun array, resulting in ducted propagation and relatively 

efficient sound propagation.

Sound field maps for airgun array operations at three representative sites (shallow [<656 ft {<200 m}], 

intermediate, and deep [>6,562 ft {>2,000 m}]) in the W Gulf of Alaska area are shown in Figures 2-24, 

2-25, and 2-26. In addition, Figure 2-27 shows an expanded view of the area close to each of the three 

representative sites. At each point, the color coding depicts the maximum unweighted SEL value 

predicted for any depth between the surface and the lesser of 6,562 ft (2,000 m) or the seafloor. Raw 

model output (i.e., without a 3-dB precautionary factor or frequency weighting) is shown in all maps.

Inspection of these sound field maps reveals several features of the sound fields that are evident not only 

for the W Gulf of Alaska, but often in other areas as well (cf. Appendix B). The predicted received sound 

levels:

 diminish more rapidly with increasing distance at the deep site than at the intermediate-depth or 

(especially) the shallow site;

 diminish more rapidly with increasing distance in some directions than in other directions from 

each of the sites, depending on aspect relative to the airgun array orientation and on 

environmental features such as water depth;

 at the shallow- and intermediate-depth sites, diminish much more rapidly with increasing distance 

shoreward (i.e., into shallow water) than seaward;

 are ≥120 dB SEL (and thus detectable above natural ambient levels most of the time) out to long 

distances―often >100 km (Figures 2-24 and 2-25);

 are ≥150 dB SEL and thus ≥ approximately 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms), to much shorter distances, on 

the order of 2–10 km (Figure 2-26);

 are ≥170 dB SEL and thus ≥ approximately 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms), to distances on the order of a 

few hundred meters, varying with site and aspect (Figure 2-26).

The acoustic levels plotted on the maps represent the SEL metric, which summarizes the energy content 

of a given pulse as it arrives at a given location. In order to determine the rms SPLs that have been used 

for regulatory purposes in recent years, a pulse duration of 0.1 s was assumed, resulting in a conversion 

factor of +10 dB. Thus, rms levels (in dB re 1Pa) are taken to be approximately 10 dB higher than SEL 

values in dB re 1 Pa2· s. The distances within which the rms received levels could exceed 190 dB, 180 

dB, or other rms levels of interest were determined in a precautionary way, allowing for aspect 

dependence (see Appendix B). Also, the aforementioned 3-dB safety factor was applied in areas <3,280 ft 

(1,000 m) deep. 

Based on these procedures, the predicted unweighted (flat-weighted) 190 and 180 dB (rms) distances for 

the exemplary W Gulf of Alaska cruise are shown in Table 2-10. Table 2-10 also shows alternative 

estimates of the effective 190 and 180 dB (rms) distances that apply when one takes account of the lower 

sensitivity of pinnipeds and (especially) odontocetes to LF sound, which is the predominant part of 

seismic pulses. The ―M-weighting‖ procedure used to derive these alternative estimates is described in 

Section 2.3.2.3. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-57

Table 2-10. Summary of Predicted 180- and 190-dB Radii 

(Unweighted and M-weighted) for the W Gulf of Alaska Sites

Water Depth Radius (m)*

Site (m) Weighting 180 dB (rms) 190 dB (rms)

Unweighted 1,012 206

LF cetaceans 1,012 209

1 <100 MF cetaceans 478 139

HF cetaceans 398 63

Pinnipeds 885 196

Unweighted 595 155

LF cetaceans 541 152

2 100-1,000 MF cetaceans 262 76

HF cetaceans 202 63

Pinnipeds 390 114

Unweighted 347 104

LF cetaceans 342 103

3 >1,000 MF cetaceans 177 54

HF cetaceans 139 45

Pinnipeds 264 76

Notes: *Radii shown are the more conservative (larger) of the values for each site 

from the tables of Appendix B, Annex 6. They represent the maximum over all 

modeled depths, up to the lesser of 2,000 m or seafloor depth, with a 3-dB 

precautionary factor added to the raw model output for sites with a water depth less 

than 1,000 m. Source is an 18-gun array (3,300 in3), at a tow depth of 6 m.

MF = mid-frequency, HF = high frequency.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-58

Figure 2-24. Predicted Unweighted/Flat Frequency SELs for W Gulf of Alaska Modeling Sites 1 

and 3

Notes: In order to avoid overlap, the sound field for site 2 is shown separately in Figure 2-25 below. Source is an 18-gun 

array (3,300 in3) at a tow depth of 6 m. Modeling boundary outside of field of view due to the scale of figure.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-59

Figure 2-25. Predicted Unweighted/Flat Frequency SELs for W Gulf of Alaska Modeling Site 2

Notes: In order to avoid overlap, the sound fields for sites 1 and 3 are shown separately in Figure 2-24 above. 

Source is an 18-gun array (3,300 in3) at a tow depth of 6 m. Modeling boundary outside of field of view due to the 

scale of figure.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-60

Figure 2-26. Predicted Unweighted/Flat Frequency SELs for W Gulf of Alaska Modeling Sites 

(zoomed-in from Figures 2-24 and 2-25).

Note: Source is an 18-gun array (3,300 in3) at a tow depth of 6 m.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-61

2.3.3.2 R/V Langseth Acoustic Calibration Study

During late 2007/early 2008, a calibration study of the R/V Langseth’s 36-airgun array took place in the 

Gulf of Mexico. The main purpose of the calibration study was to obtain acoustic measurements to better 

understand the sound fields around various configurations of the R/V Langseth‘s 36-airgun array during 

seismic operations in different water depths. One of the fundamental motivations for the calibration effort 

was the need to assess and verify the accuracy and applicability of L-DEO‘s model of received sound 

levels. The model has been used to predict the safety radii within which mitigation may be necessary in 

order to avoid exposing marine mammals to airgun sounds at received levels exceeding established limits 

(180 and 190 dB re 1 μParms for cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively, as set forth by NMFS) during 

L-DEO operations.

Propagation measurements of pulses from the 36-airgun array were obtained in two water depths (5,200 

and 164 ft [1,600 and 50 m]) during the calibration study. The results showed that radii around the 

airguns for various received levels were larger in shallow water (Tolstoy et al. 2009). Comparison of the

modeling and calibration results for deep water showed that the model represents the actual produced 

levels, particularly within the first few kilometers, where the predicted safety radii lie. At greater 

distances, local oceanographic variations begin to take effect, and the model tends to overpredict. The 

safety radii previously used for shallow water, as based on model results, are conservative (i.e., 

precautionary). A more detailed discussion of the R/V Langseth calibration results can be found in 

Appendix H.

2.3.3.3 Acoustic Integration Model (AIM©)

AIM is a four-dimensional, individual-based, Monte Carlo statistical model designed to predict the 

exposure of moving receivers to any stimulus (sound or acoustic energy) propagating through space and 

time (Frankel et al. 2002). AIM is centered upon the animat movement engine, described below, which 

moves the assumed stimulus source and assumed animal receivers through four dimensions (time and 

space) according to user inputs. AIM uses external range-dependent stimulus propagation models (e.g., 

Parabolic Equation and Bellhop) and additional propagation models such as MONM (see above) can be 

integrated to accommodate any class of propagation stimuli. In this application, MONM was used to 

predict received levels of airgun sound in relation to bearing and distance from the airgun source (Figure 

2-27).

Animat is the term used to refer to any object (i.e., source, receiver, or animal) in the model. Animats are 

moved through space and time according to animat-specific rules. These rules are very flexible and fall 

into two categories. The first are waypoint animats. As the name implies, these animats are moved in a 

deterministic fashion, based upon time and space waypoints. Sound sources are typically waypoint 

animats. AIM inputs include movement parameters for the sound source. Source parameters include its 

movement pattern and duty cycle.
Acoustic Source

(e.g., airgun)

sound propagation sound propagation 

2-62

Figure 2-27

Relationship of Marine Operations Noise Model (MONM)

and Acoustic Integration Model (AIM)

Not to Scale

Marine Operations Noise Model (MONM) (©JASCO)• Sound propagation model – predicts the amount of 

sound projected from the airgun in each direction.

• Computes the expected sound attenuation from the 

airgun.

• Predicts the received levels of sound at specific 

locations from the airgun as a function of bearing, distance, and depth.

• Includes site-specific environmental data such as 

propagation and attenuation based on bathymetry, bottom conditions (i.e., sand, mud, rock, etc.), sound velocity profile, water temperature, etc.

Acoustic Integration Model (AIM) (©Marine Acoust• Animal movement and acoustics model – integrates 

propagation of sound from the airgun and on the presimulated marine mammals (animats) to model the of sound levels that those animats receive. Animats in representations of marine mammals.

• Predicted sound levels at specific locations are derive• For each modeled area, levels of sound received by a 

calculated as a function of time. Animats are programtakes account of species- or group-specific informatiooccurrence, habitat preferences, group size, and swim

• The resulting distribution of predicted received sound 

tion with impact or “take” criteria, to predict the numexposed to specified sound levels (“take estimates”).

• Model includes mitigation shutdowns, but does not a

airgun noise.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-63

The second class of animats are the stochastic animats—here marine mammals. For each category of 

stochastic animats (e.g., each species or species group), appropriate ranges of values are specified for 

speed of movement, direction changes, depth ranges, and duration for each behavioral state. Marine 

mammal animats have at least two behavioral states, the surfacing and the dive. When more specific 

information is available, additional dive behavioral states can be added to the animat to increase the 

fidelity of its behavior. For example, spinner dolphin animats are typically programmed to have 50% 

shallow dives, 40% moderately deep foraging dives, and 10% very deep foraging dives, reflecting the 

distribution of their diving behavior over a 24-hr period. Furthermore, stochastic animats can have their 

behavior modified by environmental conditions. For example, animats can be programmed to  ̳reflect‘ off 

a depth contour, simulating the tendencies of many species to remain inshore or offshore of some depth 

contour. Once the animats are programmed, the model moves them through space and time at userspecified time intervals (e.g., 10 sec), and the received level of the stimulus is recorded for each animat at 

each time step.

AIM uses external range-dependent propagation models to produce the estimated received level of the 

stimulus at the location and depth of each animat. For the purposes of this PEIS, AIM used JASCO‘s 

MONM, which is specialized to correctly handle the propagation of signals from airgun arrays of specific 

design that are operating in environments with complex propagation conditions. 

AIM assumes that the environmental databases adequately represent the actual environment being 

modeled. The database of sound velocity profiles contains monthly averages, and may not accurately 

predict profiles in an area at all times, since unexpected environmental conditions (e.g., surface ducts) can 

occur. AIM also assumes that the behavioral input parameters are representative of the movement patterns 

of the animals. 

For the assessment of impacts of the representative seismic operations on marine mammals in five DAAs, 

the maximum received sound level (on an rms basis) and the integrated sound energy level was calculated 

for each simulated animal. The latter was calculated for the 24-hr period centered on the time when the 

simulated animal was exposed to the strongest sound. Either measure can be weighted by a user-specified 

weighting function, and we have applied the M-weighting functions of Southall et al. (2007) to allow for 

assumed frequency-dependence in the sensitivity of different marine mammal groups (see Section 

2.3.2.3). Calculations were made using the M-weighted received sound levels as well as the flat 

(unweighted) received levels. For each species or species-group, the ratio of estimated animal density in 

the analysis area to modeled animat density was used to convert the predicted number of animat 

exposures exceeding relevant regulatory standards to the actual number of animals that might be exposed 

to such levels during the assumed seismic operation. 

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD FOR ANALYSIS

2.4.1 Alternative A: Conduct Marine Seismic Research Using Cruise-specific Mitigation 

Measures

Under Alternative A, academic and U.S. government scientists supported with funds provided by NSF or 

USGS, respectively, would conduct marine seismic research from research vessels operated by, or on 

behalf of, U.S. academic institutions, research institutions, or government agencies. These seismic cruises 

would be conducted in various study areas throughout the world‘s oceans including the Atlantic, Pacific, 

Indian, and Southern Oceans, as well as peripheral seas such as the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, 

Bering Sea, and Mediterranean Sea. There might typically be seismic research cruises in four to seven

areas annually, but with considerable variation possible. Seismic research cruises use a variety of airgun 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-64

array configurations, and often use other non-seismic acoustic sources as well, including MBESs, SBPs, 

pingers, ADCPs, and acoustic releases. Seismic sources would include high-energy source arrays of 18-36 

airguns (up to a discharge volume of 6,600 in3) and low-energy source arrays of 1-4 airguns (up to a 

discharge volume of 425 in3). Sources used in NSF-funded or USGS marine seismic research include 

those on the R/V Langseth, the primary vessel used to support high-energy source seismic research, as 

well as airguns and other seismic acoustic sources (e.g., sparkers, water guns, etc.) on UNOLS vessels 

operated directly by the U.S. Government, such as USGS, and others as needed via contract or charter. 

All NSF-funded or USGS marine seismic cruises would be conducted according to applicable U.S. 

federal and state laws and regulations, and as applicable, foreign laws and regulations recognized by the 

U.S. Government. 

Numerous species of marine mammals and sea turtles are expected to be encountered during marine 

seismic research activities. Permission for incidental  ̳take‘ of marine mammals and ESA-listed species

will be sought under the MMPA and the ESA through NMFS and the USFWS, and, seismic survey

operations would be conducted in accordance with the resulting regulations and terms and conditions 

from NMFS and the USFWS. The following subsections describe mitigation measures that are an integral 

part of NSF-funded and USGS marine seismic research activities under Alternative A. The procedures 

described here are based on protocols used on previous seismic research cruises and on recommended 

best practices in Richardson et al. (1995a), Pierson et al. (1998), and Weir et al. (2006), as well as 

dialogue with NMFS and input from past public comment and local meetings for seismic cruises 

conducted to date.

2.4.1.1 Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures would apply in general to all proposed NSF-funded and USGS marine 

seismic research cruises. However, for those cruises that may be conducted within the EEZ and territorial 

waters of another nation, additional or different mitigation measures may be required by that nation. In 

addition, the following proposed mitigation measures are identified for NEPA purposes. While similar 

mitigation and monitoring may be required for incidental take authorizations under the MMPA, such 

mitigation would be developed in coordination with NMFS or the USFWS on a case-by-case basis for 

specific cruises during the processing of the incidental take authorization.

Mitigation during Planning Phases

Research proposals submitted to NSF undergo a competitive, merit review process which typically 

includes external expert review by an ad hoc panel and/or mail review. After scientific, technical, and 

programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to 

the Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. After Division 

approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding are forwarded to the Division of 

Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications and the processing and 

issuance of a grant or other agreement. NSF strives to make funding decisions within 6 months of 

proposal receipt. Awardees that require time on research vessels are typically scheduled a minimum of 1 

year in advance of the desired cruise date.

Considerable planning is required to schedule a marine seismic research cruise. In scheduling a seismic 

survey, NSF and the entities that propose to conduct the cruise would consider potential environmental 

impacts including seasonal, biological, and weather factors; ship schedules; and equipment availability. 

This preliminary assessment of potential environmental impacts would be part of the NSF proposal 

review and cruise scheduling processes, with a full assessment completed prior to cruise departure.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-65

A preliminary assessment would include identifying within a proposed seismic survey area the 

occurrence, level and type of use (e.g., breeding, feeding, migrating, etc.), and seasons of use by marine 

mammals, sea turtles, and other ESA-listed species; potential occurrence of commercial, local, and 

subsistence fishing activities; and other site-specific concerns. This preliminary information would be 

used to assess the feasibility of conducting an NSF-funded marine seismic study at a specific location; 

specific times or locations within an area where potential impacts would be avoided or minimized; and to 

identify any additional mitigation and/or monitoring measures that would be implemented to avoid or 

minimize potential impacts. 

For each proposed research cruise, NSF and the project applicants would consider whether the research 

objectives could be met with a smaller source and a survey design that minimizes seismic operations. If 

there is concern about exposure of sensitive biota, NSF and the project proponents would also consider 

whether a different survey time would reduce those effects. Through pre-cruise planning, areas and 

seasons where there are expected concentrations of marine mammals and sea turtles would be identified 

and avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Special consideration would be given to marine biota

engaged in sensitive activities such as breeding, rearing of young, and feeding. If appropriate, NSF and 

the project proponents would also implement mitigation measures to address potential impacts to fishing 

activities. NSF currently has a guidance document for scientists interested in marine seismic research and 

is available at: http://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/pubs/Seismic_Reflection_Permitting_Procedures.pdf. NSF 

and USGS accept MMC‘s offer to provide assistance with improving existing pre-cruise planning 

procedures (see Appendix J). NSF will work with MMC to update NSF‘s pre-cruise seismic survey 

guidelines.

USGS marine seismic research projects are conducted to support approved programs of the USGS for 

which the agency has direct or reimbursable funding. The potential environmental impact of such marine 

seismic projects is considered throughout the planning process. Like NSF, the USGS also considers 

whether research objectives can be attained using smaller seismic sources or alternative survey design 

and, to the extent possible, surveys are planned to reduce the potential impact of seismic sources on 

sensitive marine biota and human activities (e.g., fishing).

Visual Monitoring for Marine Mammals and Turtles

Under Alternative A, PSVOs would be based aboard the seismic source vessel, and would watch for 

marine mammals and turtles near the vessel during daytime airgun operations and start-ups of airguns at 

night. PSVOs would also watch for marine mammals and turtles near the seismic vessel for at least 30 

min prior to the start of airgun operations after an extended shutdown. When feasible, PSVOs would also 

make observations during daytime periods when the seismic systems are not operating for comparison of 

animal abundance and behavior during seismic and non-seismic periods. Based on PSVO observations, 

airguns would be powered down (see below) or, if necessary, shut down completely, when marine 

mammals are observed within or about to enter a designated mitigation zone (MZ) (see below). The MZ 

is a region in which a possibility exists of effects on animal hearing or other physical effects (Level A 

harassment). PSVOs also monitor for species to the full mitigation zone (FMZ) which includes the area 

identified for potential behavioral harassment (Level B harassment).

PSVOs would be appointed by the academic institution conducting the research cruise in the case of NSFfunded research and by USGS in the case of USGS marine seismic research, with NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources concurrence after review of their qualifications. At least one PSVO would monitor 

the MZ during daytime airgun operations and any nighttime startups. PSVOs would normally work in 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-66

shifts of 4-hr duration or less and work no more than three shifts in a 24-hr period. The vessel crew would 

also be instructed to assist in detecting marine mammals and turtles.

All vessels conducting NSF-funded or USGS marine seismic research would be required to have suitable 

platforms for marine mammal and turtle observation. On the observation platform, the eye level of the 

PSVO would be sufficiently above sea level, and the observer would have a clear view around most of the 

vessel. During daytime operations, the PSVO would scan the area around the vessel systematically with 

reticule binoculars, ―Big-eye‖ 25x power binoculars (on the R/V Langseth only), and with the naked eye. 

Night vision devices (NVDs) would be available for their use. Laser rangefinding binoculars would be 

available to assist in distance estimation.

Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM)

Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) involves towing hydrophones that detect frequencies produced by 

vocalizing marine mammals. Ideally, two or more hydrophones are used to allow some localization of the 

bearing (direction) of the animal from the vessel. A key component of PAM which allows more effective 

use is the computer signal processing to detect and localize marine mammal vocalizations. Several 

prototype systems are under development.

During some cruises, PAM would be used during seismic operations in conjunction with visual 

monitoring. PAM would normally be used for high-energy source surveys unless in the rare and unlikely 

circumstances that, (1) it is damaged and rendered unoperable during a survey and back-up systems fail; 

(2) it is deemed to be ineffective in detecting animals under the circumstances of the cruise; or (3) safety 

of operations prevent its use. When implemented, PAM would typically be used during both daytime and 

nighttime seismic operations as well as when the vessel is underway in the survey area with the airguns 

silent. During a seismic survey, PAM can be effective at detecting some animals before they are detected 

visually (Smultea and Holst 2003; Smultea et al. 2004). Its value can be limited, however, by bottom 

configuration (water depth) and other environmental factors, and in some cases towing the PAM 

equipment is not practicable. Because of present limitations to determine range of acoustic contacts, the 

value of PAM is to detect acoustic cues that alert PSVOs of the presence and general direction of marine 

mammals.

Inclusion of PAM does not reduce the need for visual observations, and it is expected that PAM operation 

would require additional personnel beyond those aboard as PSVOs, including at least one with previous 

PAM experience. NMFS would need to provide concurrence on the use of PAM personnel after review of 

their qualifications. When PAM is used, PAM procedures and results would be included in post-cruise 

reports submitted to NMFS and/or USFWS in accordance with MMPA and ESA regulatory requirements.

PSVO Data and Documentation

PSVOs would record data to estimate the numbers of marine mammals and turtles exposed to various 

received sound levels and to document the behavior of the animal upon sighting. These data would be 

included in the report submitted to NMFS and/or USFWS and would be used to help estimate numbers of 

marine mammals potentially  ̳taken‘ by harassment (as defined in the MMPA). PSVOs would also 

provide information needed to order a power down or shutdown of airguns when marine mammals or

turtles are within or near the MZ.

When a sighting is made, the following information would be recorded:

1. Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determined), behavior when first sighted and after 

initial sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-67

swimming behavior relative to the airguns or vessel (e.g., stationary, directed away, approaching, 

paralleling, etc.), and behavioral pace.

2. Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel, sea state, wind speed, water depth, 

visibility, and sun glare.

The data listed under (2) would also be recorded at the start and end of each observation watch and during 

a watch whenever there is a change in one or more of the variables.

All observations, as well as information regarding airgun power down and shutdown, would be recorded 

in a standardized format. Data accuracy would be verified by the PSVOs at sea, and preliminary reports 

would be prepared during the field program and summaries forwarded to the operating institution‘s shore 

facility and to the respective federal funding agency weekly or more frequently if necessary. PSVO

observations would provide the following information:

1. The basis for decisions about powering down or shutting down airgun arrays.

2. Information needed to help make estimates of marine mammals and turtles potentially  ̳taken by 

harassment.‘ These data would be reported to NMFS and/or USFWS per terms of MMPA 

authorizations and ESA ITSs.

3. Data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine mammals and turtles in the area 

where the seismic study is conducted.

4. Data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals seen at times with and without 

seismic survey activity.

A report would be submitted to NMFS and/or USFWS after the cruise in compliance with terms of 

authorizations for marine mammal or endangered species takes. The report would describe the seismic 

operations and include a complete description of the data collected about marine mammals, turtles, and 

any other threatened or endangered species observed.

NSF, NMFS, and USGS recognize situations where low-energy sources and/or limited duration of use in 

locations of deeper water and expected low-density of marine mammals/turtles, coupled with PSVO

efforts and shut-down measures represent a no-take situation. While NSF would not request, and NMFS 

would not issue, MMPA authorizations in these situations, NSF would still require information from the 

seismic survey operator before the cruise regarding airgun operation plans, including plans for PSVO

observations, and a report after the cruise discussing the actual usage of airguns and marine mammal 

observations. The USGS already follows and would continue to follow similar procedures for seismic 

research cruises it conducts. 

In response to a public comment on the Draft PEIS regarding the effectiveness of current monitoring 

methods during seismic surveys, NSF and USGS believe that the described visual monitoring program, 

which is consistent with current practices, will be sufficient to visually detect, with reasonable certainty, 

most marine mammals within or entering identified MZs. At present, NMFS views the combination of 

visual and passive acoustic monitoring as the most effective mitigation techniques available for detecting 

marine mammals within or entering the MZ. The action agencies are receptive to incorporating proven

technologies and techniques to enhance the monitoring and mitigation program. In this vein, NSF, in 

collaboration with other federal agencies have offered a funding opportunity through the National 

Oceanographic Partnership Program to improve the technologies and existing capabilities to detect, 

classify and locate marine mammals in survey areas during seismic operations. Results from this funding 

opportunity may push the boundaries of current technologies and methodologies for monitoring exclusion 

zones. Until proven technological advances or enhancements are made for visual observation practices, 

the action agencies will continue to provide the current visual observation services during surveys.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-68

Proposed Safety Radii or MZ: Operations for Which Incidental Take of Marine Mammals is Anticipated

For operations under an IHA or LOA under Alternative A, detection of marine mammals within a 

specified distance around the airguns (the MZ) would be followed by an immediate power down or 

shutdown of the airguns. The mitigation radii under Alternative A would normally be the distances at 

which the effective received sound level would diminish below 190 or 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms). Radii were 

calculated for both M-weighted as well as flat (unweighted) levels. These radii are determined by 

acoustical modeling that considers site-specific acoustic characteristics (water depth, in particular), the 

airgun configurations to be used, and the hearing characteristics of expected marine mammals in the study 

area. Modeling would incorporate the most current data on airgun output and species hearing 

characteristics as it becomes available. However, for certain cetaceans of special concern, more 

precautionary criteria would apply (see ―Special Mitigation Measures‖ below). 

Table 2-11 shows the estimated mitigation radii under Alternative A for the seismic surveys that are 

assumed to occur in the five DAAs (from Appendix B). In DAAs where airguns would operate in both 

deep (>3,281 ft [>1,000 m]) and shallower areas, mitigation radii are shown separately for the two depth 

strata. For cetaceans, the mitigation distances are the unweighted and Mlf-, Mmf- and Mhf-weighted 180 dB 

rms distances. For pinnipeds, they are the unweighted and Mpw-weighted 190 dB rms distances. The 

acoustic modeling methods by which these distances were calculated are described in Appendix B.

Table 2-11. Summary of Level A Flat- and M-weighted Mitigation Radii under Alternative A for DAAs

DAA Source

Shallow/Deep Mitigation Radii (m)*

Weighting LF Cetaceans MF Cetaceans HF Cetaceans Pinnipeds

Caribbean 2-D full refraction 36 airguns, 6,600 

in3, 4 strings, 12-m tow depth

Flat-wt

M-wt

1,379/806

1,338/741

1,379/806

533/234

1,379/806

447/182

380/252

262/102

NW

Atlantic

High resolution 3D, 1 pair of 

45/105 in3 GI guns, 2.5-m tow depth

Flat-wt

M-wt

64/36

64/36

64/36

28/14

64/36

28/14

14/14

14/<10

S

California

High resolution 3D, 1 pair 45/105 in3

GI guns, 2.5-m tow depth

Flat-wt

M-wt

64/NA

64/NA

64/NA

30/NA

64/NA

30/NA

20/NA

14/NA

Galapagos 3-D reflection, 2 strings of 9 airguns 

(18 guns), 3,300 in3, 6-m tow depth

Flat-wt

M-wt

NA/360

NA/345

NA/360

NA/180

NA/360

NA/140

NA/110

NA/81

W Gulf

of Alaska

3-D reflection, 2 strings of 9 airguns 

(18 guns), 3,300 in3, 6-m tow depth

Flat-wt

M-wt

1,012/347

1,012/342

1,012/347

478/177

1,012/347

398/139

206/104

196/76

Notes: *NA = not applicable. Cetacean radii are estimated at 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms). For cetaceans of particular concern, more precautionary procedures 

would be employed (see Special Mitigation Measures). Pinniped radii are estimated at 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms). 

Proposed Safety Radii or MZ: Operations for Which Incidental Take of Marine Mammals is not 

Anticipated or Authorized

Shutdowns or power downs would be required whenever marine mammals or turtles are detected within 

an FMZ, defined as an extended MZ encompassing the full region in which NMFS estimates behavioral 

disturbance (≥160 dB re 1 μPa [rms]), also called  ̳Level B harassment‘, might occur. The FMZ must be 

clearly visible and PSVOs available to monitor it throughout any period of seismic source use. These 

operations would use low-energy seismic sound sources in which 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) is not exceeded 

or within close proximity to the source, and the extent of 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) sound levels are within 

200 m of the source. 

While technically the FMZ may be an overestimation of the area potentially ensonified to 160 dB re 1 

μPa (rms), it must be within a range that can be effectively monitored. Proposed use of sources would be 

on the order of hours or short-duration shooting over several days (not extensive track-lines). Examples of 

proposed actions would be use of 1-2 GI-guns for bore-hole testing (e.g., VSP). The small number of 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-69

airguns in these situations limits application of ramp-ups and power-downs. Immediate shut-down for a 

marine mammal or turtle approaching the FMZ would be the primary mitigation response.

With mitigation, no takes would be expected. When proposed research cannot avoid an area of particular 

sensitivity, the action would require additional considerations and potentially an incidental take 

authorization. In general, surveying with small sources as well as VSP carried out in the vicinity of drill 

sites (stationary vessel sources) that have habitat sensitivity or other issues that might require a specific 

incidental take authorization (e.g., IHA or LOA) would be determined in consultation with NMFS OPR.

Mitigation during Operations

Operational measures to mitigate the impact of sound on marine mammals and turtles include:

1. Vessel speed or course alteration;

2. Airgun array power down;

3. Airgun array shutdown;

4. Airgun array ramp-up; and

5. Special mitigation measures for circumstances of particular concern.

Speed or course alteration. If a marine mammal or turtle is detected outside the MZ but is likely to enter 

it based on relative movement of the vessel and the animal, then if safety and scientific objectives allow, 

the vessel speed and/or course would be adjusted to minimize the likelihood of the animal entering the 

MZ. It should be noted that major course and speed adjustments are often impractical when towing long 

seismic streamers and large source arrays; thus for surveys involving large sources, alternative mitigation 

measures would often be required.

Power down procedures. A power down involves reducing the number of airguns operating to a single 

airgun in order to minimize the size of the MZ. The continued operation of one airgun is intended to alert 

marine mammals and turtles to the presence of the seismic vessel nearby. 

If a marine mammal or turtle is detected within, or is likely to enter the MZ of the array in use, and if 

vessel course/speed changes are impractical or would not be effective to prevent the animal from entering 

the MZ, then the array would be powered down to ensure the animal remains outside the smaller MZ of 

the single airgun. If the size of the MZ for the single airgun would not prevent the animal from entering it, 

then a shutdown would be required, as described below.

Following a power down, airgun activity would not resume until the marine mammal or turtle is outside 

the MZ for the full array. The animal would be considered to have cleared the MZ if it:

 is visually observed to have left the MZ;

 has not been seen within the MZ for 15 min in the case of small odontocetes, pinnipeds, and sea 

otters;

 has not been seen within the MZ for 30 min in the case of mysticetes and large odontocetes, 

including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, and beaked whales; or

 the vessel has moved outside the applicable MZ in which the animal in question was last seen.

Following a power down and subsequent animal departure as noted above, the airgun array would resume 

operations following ramp-up procedures described below.

Shutdown procedures. If a marine mammal or turtle is within or about to enter the MZ for a single airgun, 

or for a single airgun following a power down, all operational airguns would be shut down immediately. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-70

Airgun activity would not resume until the animal had cleared the MZ for the full array of airguns to be 

used, as described above.

Ramp-up procedures. A ramp-up procedure would be followed when an airgun array begins operating 

after a specified period without operations. The period would vary depending on the speed of the source 

vessel and the size of the airgun array being used (i.e., number and size of airguns). The specified period 

is defined as the time taken for the source vessel to travel the radius of the MZ specified for the array to 

be used. 

Ramp-up would begin with the smallest airgun in the array. Airguns would be added in a sequence such 

that the source level of the array would increase in steps not exceeding 6 dB per 5-min period. A 36-

airgun array would take approximately 30 min to achieve full operation via ramp-up. For smaller, lowenergy source arrays (e.g., 2 GI-guns), ramp up would begin with the turning on of the first GI-gun then 

the second. During ramp-up, the PSVOs would monitor the MZ, and if marine mammals or turtles are 

sighted, decisions about course/speed changes, power down, and shutdown would be implemented as 

though the full array were operational.

Initiation of ramp-up procedures from shutdown requires that the FMZ must be visible by the PSVOs for 

30 min, whether conducted in daytime or nighttime. This requirement would often preclude startups under 

nighttime or poor-visibility conditions except for small sources with restricted MZs. Ramp-up is allowed 

from a power down under reduced visibility conditions, but only if at least one airgun has operated 

continuously with a source level of at least 180 dB re 1 μPa-m (rms) throughout the survey interruption. It 

is assumed that the single airgun would alert marine mammals and turtles to the approaching seismic 

vessel, allowing them to move away if they choose. Ramp-up procedures would not be initiated if a 

marine mammal or turtle is observed within the MZ of the airgun array to be operated.

Special mitigation measures. Airgun arrays would be shut down (not just powered down) if any of the 

following four species is sighted from the vessel, even if outside the MZ, due to their rarity and sensitive 

status: N Pacific right whale, N Atlantic right whale, Northeast Atlantic bowhead whale, and W Pacific 

gray whale. In case of confirmed sightings of any of these species, airgun operations would not resume 

until 30 min after the last documented whale visual sighting and the PSVO is confident that the whale is 

no longer in the vicinity of the vessel. Other species can be designated for special measures when 

appropriate.

Special measures would also apply over continental slopes, especially regions with submarine canyons, 

where beaked whales are believed to concentrate. Extra mitigation would be implemented there to 

minimize potential impacts on these species. Where possible, NSF-funded and USGS seismic surveys 

would minimize operations near submarine canyons. Extra vigilance, including use of extra PSVOs, 

would be maintained where such approaches are unavoidable. These special monitoring and mitigation 

requirements would be established in advance in consultation with NMFS for each cruise that would 

conduct seismic survey operations over slopes and canyon regions.

In addition to the mitigation efforts described above, NSF-funded and USGS marine seismic research 

operations would take special precautions to avoid impacting migrating, breeding, and nursing 

congregations of marine mammals; waters proximal to nesting sites and feeding areas of sea turtles; and

waters important to juvenile or adult listed salmon and other protected species.

2.4.1.2 Effectiveness of Previous Mitigation and Monitoring Measures

As indicated in Table 2-1, from 2003 through 2009, NSF funded 30 academic marine seismic surveys in 

various oceans. A marine mammal monitoring and mitigation program was implemented during each of 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-71

these cruises, and as applicable, for sea turtles as well (e.g., Smultea and Holst 2003; Haley and Koski 

2004; Holst 2004; MacLean and Haley 2004; Holst et al. 2005a, b, 2006; Smultea et al. 2004, 2005; 

MacLean and Koski 2005). A summary of the effectiveness and limitations of the mitigation measures 

undertaken during L-DEO seismic surveys is summarized briefly below. 

The primary objective of the monitoring and mitigation program is to minimize exposure of marine 

mammals and sea turtles to strong sound pulses. Incidental disturbance in response to received levels 

below 180 and 190 dB re 1 μPa rms (for cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively) has been allowed under 

the IHA process, provided the numbers of animals involved are small and effects are considered 

negligible, as determined by NMFS. The procedures rely (in part) on avoidance responses by some 

mammals as one means of reducing risk of exposure to high sound levels. For example, there is evidence 

that baleen whales will often show avoidance of a small airgun source, suggesting that they will also show 

avoidance upon onset of a ramp-up when just one airgun is firing (Malme et al. 1985, 1986, 1988, 

Richardson et al. 1986, McCauley et al. 1998, 2000, 2003 in McCauley and Hughes 2006). 

In general, no one monitoring or mitigation measure is entirely effective for every species of marine 

mammal or sea turtle (e.g., Barlow and Gisiner 2006; LGL Ltd., unpublished data). Thus, a combination 

of measures is applied during NSF-funded seismic surveys. During NSF-funded surveys since 2003, 

monitoring and mitigation measures were implemented as described above for Alternative A. These 

included pre-cruise planning, power/shutdowns when animals were sighted within or approaching the 

MZ, ramp-ups, and special measures on occasion as required for site-specific concerns. Monitoring 

efforts included visual observations by trained and NMFS-approved PSVOs, as well as PAM during 

certain cruises. 

Pre-cruise planning, which evaluated and implemented seasonal restrictions and reduced acoustic source 

size, appears to have been effective during previous L-DEO surveys (LGL Ltd., unpublished data). Areas 

where concentrations of breeding and calving marine mammals occur were avoided as practicable, as 

were sea turtle nesting areas. Reducing source sizes, when possible, decreased the source level and also 

reduced the distances within which specified levels were exceeded. 

Even with the most restrictive provisions, some mammals and turtles were seen within the safety radius 

when first detected and thus were  ̳taken‘ according to the existing criteria as specified by NMFS at the 

time. Power/shutdowns were implemented during surveys when marine mammals or sea turtles were 

detected within the applicable safety radius (LGL Ltd., unpublished data), thus reducing the cumulative 

energy exposure; the total sound exposure is important when discussing effects on marine animals 

(Southall et al. 2007; see Appendix B and Section 2.3.3). 

Preliminary analyses of data from the large-source L-DEO surveys show that sighting rates of cetaceans 

were typically greater during non-seismic than during seismic periods, indicating that some marine 

mammals did avoid the vessel; results from small-source surveys are less conclusive (Holst et al. 2006). 

The effectiveness of ramp-up procedures remains uncertain. However, it is assumed that ramp-ups 

provide animals the chance to leave the ensonified area before the full airgun array is in operation. Marine 

mammals were seen during ramp-ups on occasion, causing a power/shutdown of the airgun array. 

Although injured or dead marine mammals or sea turtles were occasionally seen during NSF-funded 

seismic surveys, there was no evidence that deaths or injuries were associated with the seismic operations. 

Dead animals seen from the seismic vessel were often in an advanced state of decomposition and were 

determined to have died long before they were approached by the seismic vessel.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-72

Visual observations have been an effective monitoring tool as evidenced by the numbers of individual 

marine mammals and sea turtles observed during L-DEO‘s past seismic surveys (e.g., Smultea et al. 2004, 

2005; MacLean and Koski 2005; Hauser et al. 2008; Holst and Smultea 2008). However, there are 

limitations to the effectiveness of visual observations, especially at night, even when NVDs are used

(summarized in Smultea and Holst 2003; Smultea et al. 2004; Barlow and Gisiner 2006; LGL Ltd., 

unpublished data). PAM has also been an effective monitoring tool during some NSF-funded surveys, 

particularly during darkness (e.g., Smultea et al. 2004; LGL Ltd., unpublished data). During various

cruises, PAM has been used to detect vocalizing animals not seen by PSVOs (and vice versa), though 

again there are limitations. Non-vocalizing animals cannot be detected using PAM (e.g., Barlow and 

Gisiner 2006; LGL Ltd., unpublished data). Also, it is usually not possible (with available PAM 

techniques) to accurately determine the distance or location of a vocalizing marine mammal. 

The preliminary results from completed NSF-funded L-DEO academic seismic surveys indicate that 

monitoring and mitigation measures have been effective in reducing the potential exposure of marine 

mammals and sea turtles to high-level seismic sounds and, presumably, of biologically significant effects

(LGL Ltd., unpublished data). Various monitoring and mitigation methods and measures can be 

combined to complement one another. Additional information is needed on the effects of various levels of 

airgun and vessel sounds on marine mammals and sea turtles to better assess the effectiveness of 

monitoring and mitigation measures. NSF-funded mitigation and monitoring efforts to date have 

contributed to knowledge on the occurrence, density, and behavior of marine mammals and sea turtles 

during periods with and without seismic operations. This information can be used to provide animal 

density estimates to assess potential impacts of past and future seismic (and other) projects, including 

estimated numbers of animals exposed to various underwater sound levels. Such data are particularly 

useful in areas where there has been little previous systematic study of marine mammal (or sea turtle) 

occurrence. Data collected during these NSF-funded cruises have also contributed to assessments of the 

impacts of seismic survey activities on the distribution, density, and behavior of marine mammal and sea 

turtle species. 

2.4.2 Alternative B: Conduct Marine Seismic Research using Cruise-specific Mitigation 

Measures with Generic Mitigation Measures for Low-energy Acoustic Sources (Preferred 

Alternative)

Alternatives A and B differ in how the proposed safety radii or MZs are determined. For operations with 

no request for MMPA incidental take authorization, the MZs are the same in Alternative A and 

Alternative B. Where take is expected and authorization is requested, Alternative A would require a 

specific calculation of MZs and FMZs for every proposed cruise, whereas Alternative B introduces a 

generic set of MZ conditions that would be applied to low-energy seismic operations (as defined below in 

Section 2.4.2.1) proposed in water depths greater than 328 ft (100 m). 

As seen in Table 2-12, the use of small numbers of GI guns and other acoustic sources for low-energy 

seismic survey work in waters >328 ft (100 m) in depth, most often conducted on UNOLS and USGS 

vessels or in support of ocean-drilling operations, have modeled MZs of <328 ft (100 m). Therefore, in 

Alternative B, NSF and USGS would conservatively apply the use of a 328-ft (100-m) MZ for all lowenergy acoustic sources (as defined below in Section 2.4.2.1) in water depths >328 ft (100 m).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-73

Table 2-12. Summary of Modeled Level A Mitigation Radii for Low-Energy Sources used 

in Previous Seismic Survey Cruises or Proposed in this PEIS

Est. Max. Mitigation

Radii (m) at RL of 180 dB*

Depth (m)

DAA or Previous Cruise Source Tow Depth (m) 100-1,000 >1,000

DAA in this PEIS

NW Atlantic DAA(1) 1 pair 105-in3 GI guns 2.5 57 36

S California DAA(1) 1 pair 105-in3 GI guns 2.5 64

Previous Cruises

2004, NW Atlantic 1 80-in3 GI gun 3 36

2004, NW Atlantic

2005, SW Pacific

1 pair 105-in3 GI guns 3 54

2004, Gulf of Alaska 1 pair 105-in3 GI guns 3 81 54

2004, E Trop. Pacific 1 105-in3 GI gun 2.5 41 27

2005, Aleutians 1 105-in3 GI gun 3 41 27

2006, Louisville Ridge

2006-07, S Pacific

2007, NE Indian Ocean

1 pair 45-in3 G guns 2

60 40

40

40

2006, E Trop. Pacific 1 pair 105-in3 GI guns 2 54

2007, NE Pacific;

2008, NE Pacific;

2008, SB Channel

2009, NE Pacific

1 45-in3 GI gun 2.5

35

35

35

35

23

23

23

23

2009, NW Atlantic 1 pair 45-in3 G guns

1 45-in3 GI gun

3

2.5

60

35

Previous Cruise Source

Est. Max. Mitigation

Radii (m) at RL of 180 dB*

2008, Santa Barbara

Channel

BOOMER

SL = 203 dB re 1 μPa (rms) 2 (measured)

16 (modeled)

SL = 188.8 dB re 1 μPa (rms) 2.3 (measured)

2.7 (modeled)

SL = 209 dB re 1 μPa (rms) 28 (modeled)

Dana Point & Point

Reyes, California(2) (USGS) SIG 2 mille sparker @ 1,500 joules 25

Gulf of Mexico(3)

(USGS)

Huntec boomer 17

Edgetech 5121 chirp 8

15 in3 water gun 15

13 in3 GI gun 15

24 in3 GI gun 25

35 in3 GI gun 25

Notes: *Cetacean radii are estimated at 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms). For cetaceans of particular concern, more 

precautionary procedures would be employed (see Special Mitigation Measures). Pinniped radii are estimated 

at 190 dB (rms). 

Sources: (1) This PEIS; (2) Hart et al. 2006; (3) Hutchinson and Hart 2003.

For proposed seismic research utilizing higher numbers of guns and energy levels, NSF and USGS would 

continue to utilize cruise-specific MZs based on acoustic modeling detailed under Alternative A. The 

mitigation and monitoring measures (e.g., PSVOs, power downs, etc.) proposed for use under Alternative 

A would also be implemented under Alternative B for both low- and high-energy acoustic sources.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-74

2.4.2.1 Low-Energy Acoustic Sources for Seismic Research

For the purposes of this PEIS, a low-energy source is defined as a towed acoustic source whose received 

level is <180 dB at 328 ft (100 m) (Table 2-13). Based on this definition and previous modeling results of 

various acoustic sources previously assumed to be low-energy sources, the following categories of 

acoustic sources are defined as low-energy seismic sources:

 GI Guns:

- Any single or any two GI guns.

- Three or four GI guns, within the allowable range of tow depths and element separations 

listed in Table 2-13 and explained in detail in Appendix F.

 Generic single-chamber airguns:

- A tuned array of four airguns (volumes between 25 and 160 in3each) within the allowable 

range of tow depths and element separations listed in Table 2-13 and explained in detail in 

Appendix F.

- A single pair of clustered airguns with individual volumes of 250 in3or less.

- Two small 2-clusters (four airguns) with maximum volumes of 45 in3.

- Any single airgun 425 in3or smaller, at any tow depth.

 Any sparker, boomer, water gun, or chirp system towed from the research vessel at any depth and 

with a source level <205 dB re 1Pa-m.

Table 2-13. Defined Low-Energy Towed Sources under Alternative B

Acoustic Source Volume Tow Depth Spacing

GI GUNS

1-2 GI Guns Any Any Any

3-4 GI Guns See Appendix F See Appendix F See Appendix F

GENERIC SINGLE CHAMBER AIRGUNS

Tuned array of 4 25-160 in3each See Appendix F See Appendix F

1 clustered pair ≤250 in3 each Any Any

2 small clustered pairs ≤45 in3each Any Any

1 single ≤425 in3 Any Not applicable

Acoustic Source Source Level Tow Depth

BOOMER, SPARKER, WATER GUN, AND CHIRP <205 dB re 1Pa-m Any

Under Alternative B, for any seismic survey cruise that proposes a low-energy source as defined above, 

there would be a standard MZ of 328 ft (100 m) for all marine mammals and turtles. For acoustic sources 

not defined as low-energy sources, cruise-specific MZs would need to be modeled to determine the 

effective MZs for marine mammals and turtles.

2.4.3 Comparison of Alternative A and Alternative B

Table 2-14 provides a summary of the MZs proposed under Alternative A and Alternative B.

Table 2-14. Comparison of Alternatives A and B

Stipulation Alternative A

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative)

200-m FMZ for expected no-take situations X X

100-m MZ for defined low-energy sources X

Cruise-specific calculations of MZs for all sources defined as low 

energy

X

Cruise-specific calculations of FMZs for all sources defined as low 

or high energy

X X
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-75

2.4.4 Alternative C: No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, NSF would not fund and USGS would not conduct marine seismic 

research using airguns and other acoustic sources (e.g., MBES, SBP, pingers, etc.). The seismic data from 

the proposed surveys have important implications for scientific research and, in some cases, human safety 

and well-being. The No-Action Alternative, through the loss of geophysical seismic research funding, 

would result in a loss of important scientific data and knowledge relevant to a number of research fields

(e.g., detection of gas hydrate deposits and offshore freshwater aquifers; understanding of geohazards 

such as earthquake faults, the potential for submarine slide development and tsunami generation; and/or 

information about marine habitats and offshore cultural features). For geohazard or resource issues, this 

lack of further data acquisition could have a potentially harmful effect on marine or human populations.

While the No-Action Alternative is not considered a reasonable alternative because it does not meet the 

purpose and need for the Proposed Action, as required under CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.14[d]), the 

No-Action Alternative is carried forward for analysis. 

2.5 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

Adaptive management principles consider appropriate adjustments to mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting as the outcomes of the proposed actions and required mitigation are better understood. NMFS 

includes adaptive management principles in the incidental take authorizations for the implementation of 

the proposed action, and any adaptive adjustments of mitigation and monitoring would be led by NMFS 

via the MMPA process and developed in coordination with NSF, including for subsequent tiered or 

supplemental NEPA documents following this PEIS. Continued opportunity for public input would be 

included via the MMPA process, as appropriate. The intent of adaptive management here is to ensure the 

continued proper implementation of the required mitigation measures, to conduct appropriate monitoring 

and evaluation efforts, and to recommend possible adjustments to the mitigation/monitoring/reporting to 

accomplish the established goals of the mitigation and monitoring which include: 

1. Mitigation

a) Avoidance or minimization of behavioral disturbance, injury, serious injury, or death of 

marine mammals wherever possible (goals b, c, and d may contribute to this goal).

b) A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically 

important time or location) exposed to received levels of acoustic sources used in marine 

seismic research or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this 

goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing harassment takes only). 

c) A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or 

location) individuals would be exposed to received levels of acoustic sources used in marine 

seismic research or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this 

goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing harassment takes only). 

d) A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically 

important time or location) to received levels of acoustic sources used in marine seismic 

research or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may 

contribute to (a), above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only). 

e) A reduction in adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food 

base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent 

destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically 

important time (Note: implementation of the Proposed Action is not anticipated to result in 

adverse effects to habitat).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-76

f) For monitoring directly related to mitigation - an increase in the probability of detecting 

marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation 

(shutdown zone, etc.).

2. Monitoring

a) An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both within the FMZ (thus 

allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more 

data to contribute to the effects analyses.

b) An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are likely to be exposed to 

levels of acoustic sources used in marine seismic research that we associate with specific 

adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment, TTS, or PTS.

c) An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond (behaviorally or 

physiologically) to acoustic sources used in marine seismic research (at specific received 

levels) or other stimuli expected to result in take and how anticipated adverse effects on 

individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may impact the population, species, or 

stock (specifically through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival).

d) An increased knowledge of the affected species.

e) An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain mitigation and monitoring 

measures.

f) A better understanding and record of the manner in which the authorized entity complies with 

an incidental take authorization.

Generally speaking, adaptive management supports the integration of NEPA‘s principles into the ongoing 

implementation and management of the Proposed Action, including a process for improving, where 

needed, the effectiveness of the identified mitigations. Note that any adjustment of mitigation and 

monitoring would be evaluated to determine whether it would be within the scope of the environmental 

analyses and considerations presented in this PEIS. 

2.6 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS

No other action alternatives have been identified that would meet the purpose of and need for the 

Proposed Action. Although there are ―standard‖ mitigation measures and radii in place for other agencies 

and jurisdictions (e.g., Australian Department of Environment and Heritage [ADEH] 2001; Joint Nature 

Conservation Committee 2004; Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada [DFOC] 2005b; New 

Zealand Department of Conservation 2006; Minerals Management Service [MMS] 2007), these measures 

are not based on site- or source-specific acoustic modeling and also do not take into account the known or 

expected hearing abilities of the different groups of marine mammals. For example, DFOC (2005b) and 

MMS (2007) require a standard 1,640-ft (500-m) mitigation radius around all seismic survey operations 

using airguns irrespective of the number or size of airguns being used, water depth, or marine mammal 

species. Both action alternatives would utilize the most current, scientifically accurate predictive 

mitigation radii based on acoustical modeling that considers site-specific acoustic characteristics, the 

cruise-specific airgun arrays and their acoustic and operational parameters. Alternatives A and B were

modeled in two ways, using both the unweighted (flat) and M-weighted received levels, which reflect the 

expected hearing capabilities of specific marine mammal groups. 

Due to the potential impacts on marine mammals and other marine resources from the predominantly LF

sound generated from airguns, alternatives to the use of airguns as the primary acoustic source in marine 

seismic surveys have been proposed, including, but not limited to:
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-77

 As an alternative to airguns, a quieter marine vibrator has been developed with significantly less 

energy above 100 Hz (Deffenbaugh 2002; Weilgart 2010). However, with the constant movement 

of the vibrator in the marine environment, spatial resolution of the received acoustic signal is 

significantly degraded. Therefore, at this time, this technology is not capable of addressing the 

needs of NSF-funded or USGS-conducted marine geophysical science.

 In terms of measuring the physical properties of the deep earth, the use of a controlled 

electromagnetic source has been proposed (Weilgart 2010). The resolution and capabilities of this 

technique are greatly limited at this time, and its use is dependent on the electrical properties of 

the sedimentary materials, which are very different than the seismic properties. For example, it 

cannot map sedimentary layering or fault surfaces, and cannot accurately delineate the boundary 

between the crust and the mantle (or the moho). The mapping of these subsurface characteristics 

is an important purpose of marine seismic surveys. The use of an electromagnetic source would 

be considered a supplement to current marine seismic techniques using airguns.

 Additional controlled sources that have been proposed include a low-frequency acoustic projector 

(e.g., Low-Impact Seismic Array or LISA), a solid-state piezo-ceramic Helmbolz resonator (e.g., 

Deep-Towed Acoustic/Geophysics System or DTAGS), and other non-impulsive, oscillating 

sound sources (Weilgart 2010).

 Other alternatives that have been proposed include a mobile sea floor source with trawled surface 

receivers and a highly sensitive optical fiber hydrophone (Dolman et al. 2006; Weilgart 2010). 

There have also been discussions regarding the development of ―suppressor‖ or ―silencer‖ 

devices to reduce an airgun‘s higher frequency output (Dolman et al. 2006; Weilgart 2010).

None of these alternative technologies are currently at a state of development in terms of resolution, 

efficiency, and overall capability to meet the purpose and need of current marine seismic research 

objectives. As these and other technologies become more advanced and capable of meeting the needs of 

researchers, they would be considered for use in future NSF-funded and USGS-conducted marine seismic 

research after further environmental review.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

2-78

[This page intentionally left blank.]
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-1

CHAPTER 3

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This chapter describes the existing environmental conditions in and around the five DAAs and eight 

QAAs for resources potentially affected by implementation of Alternative A or B as described in Chapter 

2. Information presented in this chapter represents baseline conditions against which the alternatives are 

evaluated to identify potential impacts. 

In compliance with NEPA, CEQ regulations, and EO 12114, the description of the affected environment 

focuses only on those resources potentially subject to impacts. Accordingly, the discussion of the affected 

environment (and associated environmental analyses) focuses on marine biological resources, cultural 

resources, and socioeconomics within the DAAs and QAAs. Several additional resources that are 

generally evaluated in the preparation of an PEIS were not evaluated in this PEIS because it was 

determined that implementation of Alternative A or B would be unlikely to have any effect on these 

resources: transportation and circulation, air quality, land use, safety, hazardous materials and 

management, geological resources, water resources, terrestrial biological resources, environmental justice, 

and visual resources. A brief explanation of the reasons why each resource has been excluded from 

analysis in this PEIS is provided below.

Transportation. Generally, only a single research vessel is used during a marine seismic survey cruise

within a given area. Therefore, projected increases in vessel traffic due to implementation of Alternative

A or B would constitute a negligible portion of the total existing vessel traffic in the analysis areas. 

Air Quality. The emissions from research vessels conducting marine seismic surveys across the world‘s 

oceans is expected to have a negligible impact on the air quality within any analysis area.

Land Use. Since all proposed marine seismic research activities would occur within the marine 

environment, there would be no impacts to land use or associated land use policies.

Safety and Hazardous Materials Use and Management. All safety and hazardous materials concerns 

would be restricted to activities occurring on the research vessel and would only have potential impacts 

on the crew and personnel of the research vessel. Each research vessel has standard safety and hazardous 

material management guidelines and procedures that must be followed by all crew members, personnel,

and visiting scientists while aboard the vessel. 

Geological Resources. Implementation of Alternative A or B would not adversely affect geological 

resources as only minor impacts would occur (e.g., use of OBS/Hs on the ocean bottom).

Water Resources. Activities conducted during proposed marine seismic surveys would not introduce any 

materials or substances into the marine environment that would adversely affect marine water quality. 

Therefore, there would be no impacts to water resources with implementation of Alternative A or B.

Terrestrial Biological Resources. All proposed marine seismic research activities would occur within the 

marine environment and would not impact terrestrial biological resources.

Environmental Justice. Implementation of Alternative A or B would comply with EO 12898, Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-income Populations and EO 13045, 

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. Alternative A or B would 

occur within the offshore marine environment and no impacts to schools, children, or minority 

populations would occur.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-2

Visual Resources. Generally, only a single research vessel is used during a marine seismic survey cruise

within a given area. Therefore, implementation of Alternative A or B would have a negligible effect on 

visual resources within the analysis areas. The proposed marine seismic surveys would not adversely 

impact any scenic and visual qualities or coastal viewsheds in the analysis areas. 

3.1 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT

3.1.1 Ambient Noise

Unwanted sound – sound that clutters and masks other sounds of interest – is known as ambient noise or 

environmental background noise (Richardson et al. 1995a). Ambient noise comes from natural, both 

physical and biological, and anthropogenic sources.

3.1.1.1 Wind and Waves

The dominant physical mechanisms of naturally occurring sound in the ocean occur at or near the ocean 

surface. Wind and waves are common and interrelated sources of ambient noise in the ocean. Other 

factors being equal, ambient noise levels tend to increase with increasing wind speed and wave height. 

Surf noise is a form of wave noise localized near the land-sea interface and can raise underwater sound 

levels by more than 20 dB a few hundred meters outside the surf zone within a frequency of 10 Hz to 10 

kHz. At a distance of 5.3 mi (8.5 km), the received sound level in the 100-700 Hz band was 

approximately 10 dB higher from directions toward the beach. Surf noise may be prominent near shore 

even in calm wind conditions (Urick 1984; Richardson et al. 1995a; National Research Council [NRC] 

2003a).

3.1.1.2 Precipitation

Precipitation on the ocean surface also contributes sound to the ocean. In general, noise from rain or hail 

is an important component of total noise at frequencies >500 Hz during periods of precipitation. Rain can 

increase natural ambient noise levels by up to 35 dB across a broad band of frequencies from several 

hundred Hz to more than 20 kHz (Richardson et al. 1995a; NRC 2003a). Heavy precipitation associated 

with large storms can generate noise at frequencies as low as 100 Hz and significantly affect ambient 

noise levels at a considerable distance from the storm‘s center (U.S. Navy 2001). In addition, thunder and 

lightning are loud, explosive events that have a short-term local effect on ambient noise. Underwater 

recordings of received sound of thunder from a storm 3-6 mi (5-10 km) away have been measured up to 

15 dB above background levels at peak frequencies between 50 and 250 Hz (NRC 2003a). The source 

level of lightning strikes on the water surface has been estimated to be 260 dB (Urick 1984; Hill 1985).

3.1.1.3 Geological Noise

Noise from earthquake, volcanic, and hydrothermal vent activity can contribute significantly to ambient 

noise at low frequencies, particularly in geologically active areas. Movement of sediment by currents 

across the ocean bottom can also be a significant source of ambient noise at frequencies from 1 to >200 

kHz (NRC 2003a).

3.1.1.4 Sea Ice Noise

Although the levels of sea ice noise are highly variable, sea ice noise can be significant at high latitudes. 

The impact from ice cover varies according to the type and degree of ice cover, whether it is shore-fast 

pack ice, ice floes and moving pack ice, or at the marginal ice zone (NRC 2003a). Noise from sea ice 

arises from two mechanisms: thermal stress and mechanical stress. Thermal stress occurs when 

temperature changes induce cracking. Mechanical stress occurs when pressure from wind and currents 

causes ice deformation and produces significant noise at low frequencies. Noise from ice deformation has 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-3

been measured at frequencies of 4-200 Hz with source levels for 4- and 8-Hz tones ranging from 124 to 

137 dB re 1 Pa-m (Urick 1984; Richardson et al. 1995a).

3.1.1.5 Biological Noise

Biological sources of underwater noise are sounds created by animals and can contribute significantly to 

the ambient noise levels in certain areas of the ocean. Marine mammals are major contributors, but some 

Crustacea (e.g., snapping shrimp) and fish (e.g., drumfish) can also be significant. Frequencies of 

biological noises range from approximately 12 Hz to over 100,000 Hz (Richardson et al. 1995a; NRC 

2003a).

3.1.1.6 Shallow Water Ambient Noise

Shallow water is often defined as water <656 ft (200 m) deep. There is a wider range of ambient noise 

levels and frequency in shallow water than in deep water under similar wind and wave conditions. The 

primary sources of noise in shallow water regions are shipping, industrial, or seismic-survey activities; 

wind and waves; and biological noise. Sound propagation in shallow water is strongly influenced by 

bottom conditions, including depth, slope, and type of bottom (e.g., sand, rock). Ambient noise levels 

tend to be high where the bottom is reflective and low where it is absorptive (Urick 1984; Richardson et 

al. 1995a).

3.1.1.7 Deep Water Ambient Noise

The primary sources of deep-water ambient noise include shipping, geologic activity, and weather (e.g., 

precipitation, wind). From 20-300 Hz, noise from shipping usually exceeds noise from wind. Depending 

on the level of wind-dependent ambient noise, shipping may or may not be significant above 300 Hz. 

From 500 Hz to 50 kHz, wind, wave, and precipitation dominate the ambient acoustic environment (Urick 

1984; Richardson et al. 1995a). 

3.1.1.8 Anthropogenic Noise

Most man-made noises that may affect marine mammals or other marine animals come from a few 

general types of activities that occur on or beneath the ocean: transportation (surface vessels and aircraft), 

recreation, dredging, construction, hydrocarbon and mineral exploration and extraction, seismic surveys, 

sonars, explosions, and ocean acoustic studies. Surface vessels are a major contributor to ocean ambient 

noise, especially at frequencies between 5 and 500 Hz (Richardson et al. 1995a; NRC 2003a; Bradley and 

Stern 2008). 

3.1.2 Factors Affecting Sound Propagation in the Marine Environment

3.1.2.1 Geology, Bottom Topography, and Bottom Substrates

The topography and physical properties of the ocean bottom have a significant influence on the 

propagation of sound, particularly in shallow water. Sound penetrates sediments easily, particularly at low 

frequencies and steep angles of incidence (Clay and Medwin 1977; Hamilton 1980). Sound speed and 

absorption within various sediment layers and underlying bedrock determine travel paths and 

transmission loss within the sub-bottom, and possibly back into the water column. For example, a smooth, 

relatively dense bottom (e.g., compacted sand or bedrock) or sub-bottom layers will result in greater 

reflection of sound back into the water column; more absorptive sediments (e.g., mud) will result in 

greater bottom loss (Clay and Medwin 1977; Hamilton 1980; Medwin 2005).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-4

3.1.2.2 Temperature and Salinity

The speed of sound in seawater depends on temperature, salinity, and pressure (depth). Vertical gradients 

in sound speed result in refraction, and thus determine the paths followed by propagating sound. Near the 

surface, variations in temperature with season and time of day (e.g., from solar heating and wind mixing) 

produce large variations in sound speed. For example, if the wind has mixed the water to a constant 

temperature near the surface, then the increase in speed with depth will result in upward refraction (see 

Section 3.1.2.4). In a temperate or tropical thermocline, temperature and sound speed decrease with depth, 

but below this, the temperature is constant and sound speed begins to increase again with depth (Pickard 

and Emery 1990). The resulting sound speed minimum can result in refraction of sound toward the depth 

at which the minimum occurs (see Section 3.1.2.3). In cold polar waters, the minimum sound speed is 

usually at the surface, and below that the sound speed increases with depth (Pickard and Emery 1990; 

Medwin 2005; Bradley and Stern 2008; International Association of Oil & Gas Producers [OGP] 2008).

3.1.2.3 Deep Water Propagation and Acoustic Ducting

As described in Section 3.1.2.2, where the vertical SSP features a mid-water minimum (from the 

combined effects of temperature and pressure on sound speed), sound will tend to be refracted toward the 

depth at which this minimum occurs. In deep water (>6,562 ft [2,000 m]), the deep sound channel allows 

refracted sounds to travel long distances without losses from reflection at the bottom due to the upwardrefracting SSP below the deep sound channel. The depth of this channel is around 1,000 m at midlatitudes and at the surface at high latitudes (Pickard and Emery 1990; Medwin 2005; OGP 2008). 

3.1.2.4 Shallow Water Propagation

In shallow water (less than 200 m), SSPs tend to be downward refracting or nearly constant with depth

(due to the combined effects of solar heating and wind mixing, as discussed above), resulting in repeated 

bottom interaction. The intensity of this effect depends on surface temperature (higher near-surface 

temperatures result in higher surface sound speeds and so greater downward refraction), and thus on 

season. In well-mixed surface waters or cold polar waters, sound speed increases with depth (see Section 

3.1.2.2), and sound will tend to be channeled in a surface duct formed by downward reflection from the 

sea surface and upward refraction by the positive vertical sound speed gradient (Medwin 2005). Because 

of the considerable spatial and/or temporal variation in water and bottom properties, as well as the 

likelihood of multiple bottom reflections (particularly in downward-refracting situations), long-range 

propagation in shallow water can be complicated and difficult to predict. 

3.1.2.5 Winds and Waves

Similar to the effect of bottom topography, wave-related ―roughness‖ of the ocean surface determines 

how sound is reflected at or transmitted through the air-sea interface. As such, propagation may be 

reduced when the sea surface is rougher (Weston and Ching 1989). As with bottom roughness, this effect 

is frequency-dependent. In addition, near-surface wind mixing produces a more constant temperature 

profile, tending to result in a mildly upward-refracting sound-speed profile, as discussed above.

3.1.2.6 Absorption

As sound waves propagate, they interact at a molecular level with the constituents of seawater through a 

range of mechanisms, resulting in absorption of sound energy. This occurs even in completely particulatefree waters, and is in addition to scattering that may occur from particulates such as zooplankton or 

suspended sediments. The absorption of sound energy by water contributes to the transmission loss 

linearly with range from the source and is given by an attenuation coefficient in units of dB/km. This 

absorption is computed from empirical equations and increases with the square of frequency from 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-5

thousandths of a dB/km at 100 Hz to a few tens of dB/km at 100 kHz (Francois and Garrison 1982a, b; 

Medwin 2005). Thus, low frequencies are preferentially favored for long-range propagation.

3.1.2.7 Shallow Source and Receiver Effects

Near the sea surface, the sound field includes reflections from the sea-air interface. These reflections, or 

―ghosts‖, create interference patterns (maxima and minima in the sound field) with sound traveling 

directly from the source. In particular, if both the source and the receiver are very shallow, this ―Lloyd‘s 

mirror interference‖ may result in the receiver recording a different value than would be expected from 

spherical spreading from the source in the absence of the surface ghosts (Medwin 2005; OGP 2008).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-6

3.2 MARINE INVERTEBRATES

Marine invertebrates have considerable ecological and economic importance in the world‘s oceans. They 

provide the basis of the marine food web, along with phytoplankton (i.e., plant plankton), and support the 

survival of other marine invertebrates and vertebrates. They also play important roles in nutrient 

recycling. Marine invertebrate species number in the hundreds of thousands and exhibit considerable 

variability in form and function. They range in size from microscopic free-swimming and suspended 

animals known as zooplankton to macro-benthic animals, such as crabs and polychaetes, to enormous 

giant squids that range up to 1,980 pounds (lbs) (900 kg) in weight and 59 ft (18 m) in length. Various life 

stages of marine invertebrates occur throughout the water column, as well as on and within the bottom 

substrate. The distribution and abundance of marine invertebrates is closely tied with the biological 

productivity of marine waters, which in turn influences the distribution and abundance of higher tropic 

level species, such as fish, sea turtles, seabirds, and marine mammals.

Of relevance to marine seismic activities are those invertebrates potentially sensitive to low-frequency 

seismic noise. Limited studies suggest that a few invertebrate groups are capable of detecting seismic 

noise. Among invertebrates, only decapods (lobsters, crabs and shrimps, including prawns [e.g., Offutt 

1970]), and mollusks (cephalopods such as octopuses, squids, cuttlefishes, and nautiluses [e.g., 

Budelmann and Williamson 1994]) are known to sense low-frequency sound. 

No decapod crustaceans or cephalopod species of invertebrates are listed as vulnerable, threatened, or 

endangered within the 13 analysis areas (Table 3.2-1) (NOAA Fisheries 2006a; Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered Species [CITES] 2010; International Union for the Conservation of 

Nature [IUCN] 2010). The white abalone is a non-cephalopod mollusk listed as endangered under the 

ESA and is found in the S California DAA. U.S.-designated EFH for invertebrates occurs in three of the 

analysis areas as indicated below (see Chapter 1 for regulations associated with EFH).

Table 3.2-1. Summary of the Status, Economic Importance, General Ecology, and General 

Distribution and Movement of Decapod Crustaceans and Cephalopod Mollusks Potentially 

Occurring within the Analysis Areas

Species/Group

Status(a)

ESA/MSA/

IUCN/CITES

Economic

Importance(b)

General Ecology,

Depth, Habitat, Prey(c)

Horizontal Distribution,

Migratory Movement(d)

DECAPOD CRUSTACEANS

Lobsters -/-/-/- M S, B, BII/BIE ICS, NS/IO

Crabs -/EFH/-/- M S, B, BII/BIE ICS, NS/IO

Shrimps -/-/-/- H S/I, D/P, BIE/PI ICS/OCS, IO

CEPHALOPOD MOLLUSCS

Octopuses -/-/-/- L S/I, B/D, BII/BIE ICS/OCS/BCS, IO

Squids -/EFH/-/- H S/I/D, P, BIE/PI/DF/PF ICS/OCS/BCS, HM

Cuttlefishes -/-/-/- L S, D/P, BIE ICS/OCS, IO

Nautiluses -/-/-/- L S, D/P, BIE/PI/DF OCS/BCS, IO

Notes: 

(a)

- = no species listed.

(b) Relative ratings of economic importance: H = high, M = medium, L = low; based on recent landings values in relevant 

Large Marine Ecosystems and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Areas.

(c) Typical water depth: S = shallow (< 100 m), I = intermediate (100-1,000 m), D = deep (>1,000 m); 

Habitat Type: B = benthic, D = demersal, P = pelagic; Typical Prey: BII = benthic invertebrate infauna, 

BIE = benthic invertebrate epifauna, PI = pelagic invertebrates, DF = demersal fish, PF = pelagic fish.

(e) Horizontal Distribution: ICS = inner continental shelf (<50 m), OCS = outer continental shelf (50-200 m),

BCS = beyond continental shelf (>200 m); Migratory Variability: NS = negligible shift, IO = slight inshore-offshore 

movement, HM = highly migratory.

Sources: Barnes 1980; Sea Around Us Project (SAUP) 2010; U.S. Navy 2005; CephBase 2006; CITES 2010; IUCN 2010; NOAA 

Fisheries 2010.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-7

In terms of commercial value worldwide, shrimps are the most economically important crustaceans, 

followed by lobsters and crabs. Among cephalopods, squids are the most economically important, 

followed by octopuses, cuttlefishes, and nautiluses. 

This chapter provides an overview of the taxonomic characteristics of decapods and cephalopod mollusks 

due to their sensitivity to low-frequency sounds. A summary of their economic importance with respect to 

fisheries, general ecology, and typical distribution and migratory movements is provided in Table 3.2-1. 

The review section is followed by a general summary of the known occurrence, abundance, and ecology 

of these groups in the five DAAs and the eight QAAs.

3.2.1 Overview of Decapod Crustaceans and Cephalopod Mollusks

3.2.1.1 Decapods (Lobsters, Shrimp, and Crabs)

The order Decapoda includes the largest and some of the most highly specialized crustaceans. With over 

8,500 species, Decapoda is the largest order of crustaceans, representing approximately one-third of the 

known species of crustaceans. Most decapod crustaceans are marine, and they occur in all of the world‘s 

oceans. Benthic decapods including lobsters and  ̳true‘ crabs are adapted for crawling on the bottom 

substrate. Both lobsters and crabs are found on all types of substrate over a range of water depths. Many 

shrimps (including the peneaid shrimps better known as prawns) are also benthic, but some species are 

better adapted to swimming and have a more pelagic lifestyle. Shrimps occur in both coastal and oceanic 

waters. Although pelagic shrimps occur at all water depths, most are found in epipelagic (0-653 ft [0-200

m] depth) and mesopelagic waters (656-3,281 ft [200-1,000 m] depth). Pelagic shrimps typically exhibit 

diel vertical migration, occurring near bottom during the day and migrating up in the water column at 

night. Most decapods obtain their food by both predation and scavenging. Female decapods generally 

brood their eggs attached to the underside of their abdomens. One exception to this are penaeid shrimp 

(i.e., prawns; Penaeus spp.). Penaeids disperse their fertilized eggs into the water where development 

occurs. Decapod larvae are typically planktonic. 

3.2.1.2 Cephalopods (Squid, Octopus, Cuttlefish, and Nautilus)

Cephalopods occur in all of the world‘s oceans and include over 780 known living species of octopus, 

squid, cuttlefish, and nautilus. The largest marine invertebrates are cephalopods. Cephalopods have welldeveloped senses and large brains and are generally considered the most intelligent of all invertebrates.

Adapted to a pelagic or demersal existence, these predators typically swim using a water jet produced by 

expelling water from their body cavities. Nautiluses tend to be slower swimmers than octopuses, squids, 

and cuttlefishes. Octopuses usually crawl in benthic habitat but still use jet propulsion to escape. 

Fertilized eggs are typically encased and either deposited or shed into the seawater. Cephalopod eggs 

generally develop directly into adults, although some cephalopod species do have pelagic larval/juvenile 

stages. 

3.2.1.3 Acoustic Capabilities

Most available information on acoustic abilities as they relate to marine invertebrates pertains to 

crustaceans, specifically lobsters, crabs, and shrimps. Fewer acoustic-related studies have been conducted 

on cephalopods, as summarized below.

Sound Production

Many invertebrates are capable of producing sound, including barnacles, amphipods, shrimp, crabs, and 

lobsters (Au and Banks 1998; Tolstoganova 2002). Invertebrates typically produce sound by scraping or 

rubbing various parts of their bodies, although they also produce sound in other ways. Sounds made by 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-8

marine invertebrates are primarily associated with territorial behavior, mating, courtship, and aggression. 

A summary of what is known about the function of sound production in decapod crustaceans is presented 

below. Details on the characteristics of these sounds in terms of frequency range, source levels, etc. are 

summarized in Table 3.2-2.

Table 3.2-2. Summary of Underwater Acoustic Capabilities of Decapod Crustaceans and 

Cephalopod Mollusks

Sound Production Detection

Group

Frequency

Range

(Hz)

Source SPL

(dB re 1 μPa-m)

Frequency

Range

(Hz)

Dominant

Frequency

(Hz)

Minimum

Threshold SPL

(dB re 1 μPa)

Decapods

Lobsters (Homarus) 87-261(a, b) 18.5(?)

(a, b) 20-5,000(a)

Lobsters (Panulirus) 3,300-66,000(c) 50.1-143.6(?)

(c)

Lobsters (Nephrops) 20-200(j)

Crabs 100-18,000(d)

Shrimps 2,000-200,000(e) 166-172(rms)

(e) 100-3,000(f) 100(f) 105(rms)(f)

Cephalopods

Octopuses

1-100(g)

400-1,000(k)

50-150(l)

50-283(m)

120(rms)

(l)

Squids 1-100(g)

400-1,500(l)

Cuttlefishes 20-9,000(h, i)

Notes: (?) = unspecified.

Sources: (a)Pye and Watson III 2004; (b)Henninger and Watson 2005; (c)Latha et al. 2005; (d)Tolstoganova 2002; (e)Range 

provided is transformed from 183-189 (Peak-Peak), as reported in Au and Banks (1998); (f)Lovell et al. 2005a; 

(g)Packard et al. 1990; (h)Komak et al. 2005; (i)Rawizza 1995; (j)Goodall et al. 1990; (k)Hu et al. 2009; (l)Kaifu et al. 

2007; (m)Kaifu et al. 2008.

Both male and female American lobsters produce a buzzing vibration with their carapace when grasped 

(Pye and Watson III 2004; Henninger and Watson III 2005). Larger lobsters vibrate more consistently 

than smaller lobsters, suggesting that sound production is involved with mating behavior. Sound 

production by other species of lobsters has also been studied. Among deep-sea lobsters, sound intensity 

was more variable at night than during the day, with the highest intensities occurring at the lowest 

frequencies.

While feeding, king crabs produce pulsed sounds that appear to stimulate movement by other crabs 

receiving the sounds, including approach behavior (Tolstoganova 2002). King crabs also appeared to 

produce  ̳discomfort‘ sounds when environmental conditions were manipulated. These discomfort sounds 

differ from the feeding sounds in terms of frequency range and pulse duration.

Snapping shrimp are among the major sources of biological sound in temperate and tropical shallowwater areas (Au and Banks 1998). By rapidly closing one of its frontal chela (claws), a snapping shrimp 

generates a loud click and produces a forward jet of water. Both the sound and the jet of water function as 

weapons in the territorial behavior of alpheidae shrimp. Measured source SPLs for snapping shrimp 

ranged from approximately 166-172 dB (rms) re 1 μPa-m (peak-to-peak = 183-189 dB), and extended 

over a frequency range of 2-200 kHz (Table 3.2-2).

Sound Detection

There is considerable debate about the hearing capabilities of aquatic invertebrates. Whether they are able 

to hear or not depends on how underwater sound and underwater hearing are defined. In contrast to fish 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-9

and aquatic mammals, no physical structures have been discovered in aquatic invertebrates (except 

aquatic insects) that are stimulated by the pressure component of sound. However, vibrations (i.e., 

mechanical disturbances of the water) characterize sound waves as well. Rather than being pressuresensitive, invertebrates appear to be most sensitive to the vibrational component of sound or particle 

motion (Breithaupt 2002). Particle motion is a measure of the back and forth motion of particles within a 

medium (e.g., water) relative to their static positions. Localized motion within a medium caused by the 

energy from a sound wave is called  ̳acoustic particle velocity‘. When an aquatic animal is ensonified, the 

sound energy creates forces and motions inside the animal‘s body just as it does in a fluid medium. The 

role of particle motion in underwater sound is rapidly becoming a high-profile issue with respect to 

potential effects on aquatic invertebrates. Units for particle velocity are typically nanometers per second. 

Particle motion can also be expressed as particle displacement in nanometers and particle acceleration in 

nanometers per second squared (Hastings and Popper 2005; Hawkins 2006; Popper et al. 2006). Sensory 

organs called statocysts may provide one means of vibration detection for aquatic invertebrates (Popper 

and Fay 1999). 

More is known about the acoustic detection capabilities of decapod crustaceans than any other marine 

invertebrate group. Crustaceans appear to be most sensitive to sounds of low frequencies (i.e., <1,000 Hz) 

(Table 3.2-3) (Budelmann 1992; Popper et al. 2001). A study by Lovell et al. (2005a) showed that one 

species of shrimp was sensitive to frequencies as low as 100 Hz (Table 3.2-2). Studies on American 

lobster suggest that some marine invertebrates are more sensitive to higher frequency sounds than 

previously thought (Pye and Watson III 2004).

It is likely that cephalopods also use statocysts to detect low-frequency aquatic vibrations (Budelmann 

and Williamson 1994; Budelmann 1996; Kaifu et al. 2008). Studies by Packard et al. (1990), Rawizza 

(1995), Komak et al. (2005), Kaifu et al. (2007), and Hu et al. (2009) have quantified some of the 

optimally detected sound frequencies for various octopus, squid, and cuttlefish species (Table 3.2-2).

3.2.2 Affected Environment: Detailed Analysis Areas (DAAs)

This section summarizes the known region-specific use and unique habitat features for the decapod 

crustacean and cephalopod mollusk groups potentially occurring within the five DAAs (refer to Figure 

2-18). The economic and cultural importance of these two groups of marine invertebrates, including 

fisheries, are also presented. Discussion is limited to those species or species groups that possibly occur 

within each DAA during the period when the exemplary marine seismic surveys might be conducted 

(Table 3.2-3). 

3.2.2.1 NW Atlantic

The NW Atlantic DAA occurs within the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem 

(LME) (refer to Figure 2-23) (Sea Around Us Project [SAUP] 2010). Various crustacean, 17 squid, and 6 

octopus species are listed as occurring in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME (CephBase 2006) 

(Table 3.2-3). EFH occurs in or proximate to the NW Atlantic Analysis Area and pertains to the following 

species and life stages: red deepsea crab (eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults, spawning adults); longfin squid 

(juveniles, adults); and northern shortfin squid (juveniles, adults) (U.S. Navy 2005).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-10

Table 3.2-3. Potential Occurrence of Decapod Crustaceans and Cephalopod Mollusks within the 

DAAs during the Period of Exemplary Seismic Surveys

Group

NW Atlantic

(Sum)*

(a-c)

Caribbean

(Spr or Sum)*

(b, c)

S Calif.

(Late Spr or Early Sum)*

(b, c) 

W Gulf of

Alaska

(Sum)*

(b, c, d)

Galapagos 

Ridge

(Win)*

(b, c)

Decapods

Lobsters B F E a B F E a B F E a - -

Crabs B F E a B F a B F E a B F E a B F c

Shrimps B F E a B F E a B F E a B F E a B F E a

Cephalopods

Octopuses B F u B F c B F c B F u B F c

Squids B F E a B F a B F E a B F c B F c

Cuttlefishes - - - - -

Nautiluses - - - - -

Notes: *(Season) = Northern hemisphere season during which the exemplary seismic cruise would occur within the analysis area; 

Spr = spring, Sum = summer, Win = winter. B = breeds within the area; E = economically important fishery within the 

area; F = feeds within the area; M = migrates through the area but unlikely to breed. a = abundant: the species group is 

expected to be encountered during a single visit to the area and the number of individuals encountered during an average 

visit may be as many as hundreds or more; c = common: the species group is expected to be encountered once or more 

during 2-3 visits to the area and the number of individuals encountered during an average visit is unlikely to be more than 

a few 10s; u = uncommon: the species group is expected to be encountered at most a few times a year assuming many 

visits to the area; - = species group does not occur there. 

Sources: (a)U.S. Navy 2005; (b)CephBase 2006; (c)SAUP 2010; (d)L-DEO and NSF 2004.

Important decapods and cephalopods harvested recently during commercial fisheries in the NW Atlantic 

Analysis Area include lobsters, crabs, shrimps, and squids (Table 3.2-3). These include the following six 

species: American lobster, blue crab, red deepsea crab, northern shrimp, longfin squid, and northern 

shortfin squid. Fisheries for five of these six invertebrate species may occur in the NW Atlantic DAA 

during the summer months. Only the northern shrimp is typically fished outside of the season for the 

exemplary seismic survey (U.S. Navy 2005; SAUP 2010).

Of relevance for EFH is the timing of reproductive events relative to the summer timing of the exemplary 

seismic research survey identified for the NW Atlantic DAA. Blue crabs typically spawn during the late 

spring to early fall months. American lobsters generally begin spawning as early as late spring but have 

completed spawning by mid-to-late summer. The fertilized eggs are carried by the female at the sea 

bottom and the larvae subsequently move up into surface waters. Red deepsea crabs spawn primarily on 

the upper slope (656 to 1,312 ft [200 to 400 m]) of the continental shelf. Summer spawning by this crab 

species is followed by larval hatch during January to June, with peak hatch between April and June. As is 

the case with most lobsters and crabs, the fertilized eggs are carried by the female at the substrate and the 

larvae move up into the surface waters after hatching. Longfin squid typically spawn between April and 

November, peaking in May. Demersal egg masses are attached to hard substrate features. Peak hatching 

time for longfin squid is around July; the resultant pelagic larvae/juveniles occur near the water surface. 

Northern shortfin squid are thought to spawn in August and September. Their primary spawning location 

is likely south of the survey area near Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Both the eggs and larvae/juveniles 

of the northern shortfin squid are believed to be pelagic. Northern shrimp typically spawn during the late 

summer months in offshore waters. The fertilized eggs are carried by the females until hatching occurs 

the following winter/early spring in inshore waters (U.S. Navy 2005).

3.2.2.2 Caribbean

The Caribbean DAA occurs within the Caribbean Sea LME, primarily on the shelf region north of 

Venezuela (refer to Figure 2-22). A number of commercially important decapod species as well as 21 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-11

squid and 17 octopus species are listed as occurring in this LME (CephBase 2006) (Table 3.2-3). 

According to commercial fisheries records, the most important crustaceans landed in the Caribbean Sea 

LME include lobsters and penaeid shrimps/prawns, particularly the Caribbean spiny lobster (Table 3.2-3) 

(SAUP 2010). Spiny lobsters tend to occur in relatively shallow waters, while the shrimp fishery off 

Venezuela is conducted by midwater fleets (i.e., on the continental shelf). These two fisheries could 

spatially and temporally overlap a seismic survey such as the exemplary Caribbean survey where water 

depths are < 328 ft (100 m) deep.

The exemplary spring-summer seismic survey overlaps with the reproductive events of some 

invertebrates in the Caribbean. Spiny lobsters typically spawn during the late spring to early summer 

period. The fertilized eggs are carried by the female at the sea bottom until larval hatch, at which time the 

larvae become pelagic. Spiny lobster larvae exhibit diel vertical migration, moving higher in the water 

column during the night. Prawn spawning is typically timed so that the larval hatch coincides with peak 

phytoplankton blooms. Prawn nursery areas are most often located nearshore where water temperatures 

are highest and food sources are common. It is likely that both spiny lobster and penaeid shrimp 

reproduce inshore of the Caribbean DAA.

3.2.2.3 S California

The S California DAA occurs within the California Current LME (refer to Figure 2-20) (SAUP 2010). 

Numerous crab and shrimp species and at least 18 squid and 13 octopus species likely occur in the 

California Current LME (CephBase 2006). Penaeid shrimps are the single most important invertebrate 

species landed during recent commercial fisheries within this LME (SAUP 2010) (Table 3.2-3). Other 

crustacean and cephalopod species that are harvested include spiny lobsters, Dungeness crab, and 

California market squid. Shrimp harvesting in the analysis area occurs between April and October. 

Shrimps along the California coast typically occur in waters 230-755 ft (70-230 m) deep. They tend to 

exhibit diel vertical migration, moving into the upper water column at night. The commercial invertebrate 

fishery occurs after the timing suggested for the exemplary seismic operation off S California. The spiny 

lobster fishing season typically occurs between mid-fall and late winter (October-March), peaking from 

early October to early January. The Dungeness crab commercial fishery in the analysis area typically 

occurs between mid-November and late-June. California market squid are typically harvested between 

late October and the following spring.

With respect to timing of the exemplary late spring or early summer seismic survey, the shrimp breeding 

season occurs in September and October, followed by hatching in late March/early April. California spiny 

lobsters spawn during spring and summer and then move slightly offshore in the fall to mate. The 

fertilized eggs are carried by the female lobsters until hatching occurs in the spring and summer. Larvae 

are pelagic and remain in the water column for 18 months before settling to the bottom. Adult spiny 

lobsters may occur in water depths as great as 246 ft (75 m) deep. Dungeness crabs mate in nearshore 

coastal locations between March and July. Larval hatch occurs approximately 3 months after the eggs are 

fertilized (i.e., June-October). The larvae of this crab species are planktonic. California market squid tend 

to spawn in semi-protected bays between October and April.

3.2.2.4 W Gulf of Alaska

The W Gulf of Alaska DAA occurs within the East Bering Sea LME (refer to Figure 2-19) (SAUP 2010). 

Various shrimp and crab, 17 squid, and 1 octopus species, and EFH occur in this LME (CephBase 2006) 

(Table 3.2-3). The most valuable invertebrate species landed during recent commercial fisheries 

conducted in the East Bering Sea LME are northern shrimps (SAUP 2010). Other important commercial 

crustacean species include king crabs and tanner crabs. It is unlikely that any crab fishing would be 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-12

conducted in the analysis area during the time of year when a seismic survey would be conducted. Crab 

species are typically targeted in the fall–winter months (L-DEO and NSF 2004d).

Six crab species have EFH in the W Gulf of Alaska Analysis Area: golden king crab, red king crab, and 

scarlet king crab and grooved tanner crab, triangle tanner crab, and tanner crab (L-DEO and NSF 2004d). 

Crab life stages associated with the EFH within the analysis area are as follows: golden king crab (eggs, 

late juveniles and adults); red king crab (eggs, larvae, late juveniles and adults); scarlet king crab (eggs 

and adults); grooved tanner crab (eggs and adults); triangle tanner crab (adults); and tanner crab (eggs, 

late juveniles and adults). Relative to the summer period when the exemplary seismic survey would be 

conducted in the W Gulf of Alaska, king and tanner crabs typically mate in winter/early spring months; 

larval hatch generally occurs during late spring/summer months, coinciding with plankton blooms and 

ensuring optimal food supply for the larvae.

3.2.2.5 Galapagos Ridge

The Galapagos Ridge DAA occurs in pelagic open seas within the SE Pacific Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Area (refer to Figure 2-21) (SAUP 2010). It is likely that 

lobsters, crabs and shrimps as well as 36 squid and 13 octopus species occur in the SE Pacific FAO Area 

(CephBase 2006). However, pelagic species spawn closer to shore, which is outside of the analysis area, 

and benthic species are a considerable distance from the water surface (i.e., > 3,280 ft [1,000 m] depth). 

Characteristics of spawning by decapods and cephalopods in the analysis area are unknown. 

Since commercial fisheries for either crustaceans or cephalopods are conducted closer to shore, it is 

unlikely that significant invertebrate fisheries occur in this DAA. The most valuable decapod and 

cephalopod landed recently during commercial fisheries in the general SE Pacific FAO Area near shore 

include jumbo flying squid and marine crabs. Other decapods and cephalopods historically landed in the 

general SE Pacific FAO Area include squat lobsters, common squids, Chilean nylon shrimp, octopuses, 

and softshell red crab (SAUP 2010).

3.2.3 Affected Environment: Qualitative Analysis Areas (QAAs)

This section summarizes the known region-specific use and unique habitat features for the decapod 

crustacean and cephalopod mollusk groups potentially occurring within the eight QAAs. The economic 

and cultural importance of these two groups of marine invertebrates, including fisheries, are also 

presented. Discussion is limited to those species or species groups that possibly occur within each QAA 

during the period when the exemplary marine seismic surveys might be conducted (Table 3.2-4). 

3.2.3.1 N Atlantic/Iceland

The N Atlantic/Iceland QAA occurs within the Iceland Shelf LME (refer to Figure 2-17). Various 

crustaceans and 36 squid and 13 octopus species are listed as occurring in this LME (CephBase 2006; 

SAUP 2010). The most notable decapod landed during the recent commercial fisheries within the Iceland 

Shelf LME is the northern shrimp. The Norway lobster and the European lobster also occur in this LME 

(SAUP 2010).

3.2.3.2 BC Coast

The BC Coast QAA occurs within the southern part of the Gulf of Alaska LME (refer to Figure 2-17) 

(SAUP 2010). Various crustacean and 17 squid species occur in Canada‘s Pacific coastal waters and most 

of these are common in nearshore and inshore waters throughout their ranges (Table 3.2-4). Seven species 

of octopus are known to occur in the Gulf of Alaska LME (CephBase 2006). The northern giant Pacific 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-13

octopus is one octopus species that is distributed along the rocky areas of the Pacific coast from the 

intertidal zone to depths of > 330 ft (100 m) (L-DEO and NSF 2006a).

The most valuable decapods and cephalopods landed during recent commercial fisheries in the QAA 

include Dungeness crab, shrimps, penaeid shrimps, opal squid, and krill (L-DEO and NSF 2006a). A 

modest fishery also occurs on octopuses. Dungeness crab and shrimp are important recreational and First 

Nations fisheries within the BC Coast QAA. First Nations subsistence fisheries along the BC Coast have 

significant food, social, and ceremonial value in addition to their commercial value. Many First Nations 

participate in the general commercial fisheries and also rely heavily on their traditional fisheries for these 

same species. 

3.2.3.3 SW Atlantic

The SW Atlantic QAA occurs within the North Brazil Shelf LME (refer to Figure 2-17) (SAUP 2010). 

Various crustaceans and 30 squid and 13 octopus species are listed as occurring in the North Brazil Shelf 

LME (CephBase 2006). The most notable decapod crustaceans historically landed during commercial 

fisheries within the North Brazil Shelf LME are lobsters and shrimps (SAUP 2010) (Table 3.2-4). They 

include Caribbean spiny lobster, penaeid shrimps, various crabs, and Dana‘s swimming crab.

3.2.3.4 Mid-Atlantic Ridge

The Mid-Atlantic Ridge QAA occurs proximate to the border shared by the W Central Atlantic and the E 

Central Atlantic FAO Areas (refer to Figure 2-17) (SAUP 2010). While there are some invertebrate data 

associated with both of these FAO areas, both include nearshore areas (i.e., eastern North America and 

western Africa), and it is not possible to accurately extract data relevant to the pelagic conditions of the 

Mid-Atlantic Ridge QAA. It is likely that crabs and shrimps occur in the analysis area. In terms of 

cephalopods, 6 octopus, 20 squid, and 1 cuttlefish species occur in both the E and W Central Atlantic 

FAO Areas (CephBase 2006) (Table 3.2-4). Given its mid-ocean location, it is unlikely that any 

significant invertebrate fishery occurs in this analysis area.

3.2.3.5 W Australia

The W Australia QAA occurs within both the NW Australian Shelf and W Central Australian Shelf LMEs 

(refer to Figure 2-17) (SAUP 2010). Various decapod crustacean species and nine squid, six octopus, and 

five cuttlefish species are listed as occurring in these two LMEs (CephBase 2006) (Table 3.2-4). The most 

notable decapods and cephalopods historically landed during commercial fisheries within the two LMEs 

are lobsters, crabs, penaeid shrimps, octopuses, squids, and cuttlefishes (SAUP 2010). They include the 

Australian spiny lobster, blue swimming crab, other crabs, penaeid shrimps, octopuses, common squid, 

and other squids, and cuttlefishes.

3.2.3.6 W India

The W India QAA occurs within the Arabian Sea LME (refer to Figure 2-17) (SAUP 2010). Various 

decapod species and 17 squid, 13 octopus, and 11 cuttlefish species are listed as occurring in this LME 

(CephBase 2006). The most valuable decapods and cephalopods historically landed during commercial 

fisheries within the Arabian Sea LME are shrimps, penaeid shrimps, and cuttlefishes (SAUP 2010) (Table 

3.2-4). 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-14

Table 3.2-4. Potential Occurrence of Decapod Crustaceans and Cephalopod Mollusks within the Qualitative Analysis Areas 

during the Period of Exemplary Seismic Surveys

Group

N Atlantic/

Iceland

(Sum)*

(a, b)

BC

Coast

(Fall)*

(a-c)

SW

Atlantic

(Any)*

(a, b)

Mid-Atlantic

Ridge

(Spr, Sum,

or Fall)*

(a, b)

W Australia

(Spr or Fall)*

(a, b)

W India

(Late Spr,

Sum, or

Early Fall)*(a, b)

Marianas

(Spr)* (a, b)

SubAntarctic

(Win)* (a, b)

Decapods

Lobsters B F c - B F E a - B F E a B F d B F d B F E a

Crabs B F c B F E a B F E a B F d B F E a B F c B F E a B F E a

Shrimps B F E a B F E a B F E a B F d B F E a B F E a B F E a B F c

Cephalopods

Octopuses B F u B F E a B F u B F d B F E c B F E c B F c B F c

Squids B F M c B F E M a B F M c B F M d B F E M c B F E M c B F E M a B F E M a

Cuttlefishes - - - B F d B F E c B F E a B F E a B F c

Nautiluses - - - - - - B F c -

Notes: *(Season) = Northern hemisphere season during which the exemplary seismic cruise would occur within the analysis area; Spr = spring, Sum = summer, 

Win = winter (N hemisphere winter is S hemisphere summer). 

B = breeds within the area; E = economically important fishery within the area; F = feeds within the area; M = migrates through the area but unlikely to 

breed there. a = Abundant: the species group is expected to be encountered during a single visit to the area and the number of individuals encountered 

during an average visit may be as many as hundreds or more; c = common: the species group is expected to be encountered once or more during 2-3 

visits to the area and the number of individuals encountered during an average visit is unlikely to be more than a few 10s; u = uncommon: the species 

group is expected to be encountered at most a few times a year assuming many visits to the area; d = degree of occurrence not known: the species group 

occurs but degree of occurrence not known; - = species group does not occur there; ? = not known whether species group occurs or not

Sources: (a)SAUP 2010; (b)CephBase 2006; (c) L-DEO and NSF 2006a.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-15

3.2.3.7 Marianas

The Marianas QAA occurs within the W Central Pacific FAO Area (refer to Figure 2-17) (SAUP 2010). 

Various decapod crustaceans and 44 squid, 13 octopus, 18 cuttlefish, and 3 nautilus species are listed as 

occurring in this FAO Area (CephBase 2006). The most notable decapods and cephalopods historically 

landed during the commercial fisheries within the W Central Pacific FAO Area are peneaid shrimps, blue 

swimming crab, common squids, other squids, and cuttlefishes (SAUP 2010).

3.2.3.8 Sub-Antarctic

The Sub-Antarctic QAA occurs within the SW Pacific FAO Area (refer to Figure 2-17) (SAUP 2010). 

Various species of decapods and 35 squid, 10 octopus, and 4 cuttlefish species are listed as occurring in 

this FAO Area (CB 2006). The most notable decapods and cephalopods historically landed during 

commercial fisheries within the SW Pacific FAO Area are red rock lobster, various crabs, Wellington 

flying squid, and other squids (SAUP 2010).

3.2.4 Environmental Consequences – General

The existing body of published and unpublished scientific literature on the impacts of seismic survey 

sound on marine invertebrates is limited, and there are no known systematic studies of the effects of sonar 

sound on invertebrates. Furthermore, it has not been specifically documented that invertebrates are 

capable of detecting the acoustic sources proposed for use in NSF‘s and USGS‘s marine seismic research, 

although limited data suggests this may be possible. The available information involves studies of 

individuals of only a few species and/or developmental stages; there have been no studies at the 

population scale. Recent work by André et al. (2011) purports to present the first morphological and 

ultrastructural evidence of massive acoustic trauma (i.e., permanent and substantial alterations of statocyst 

sensory hair cells) in four cephalopod species subjected to low-frequency sound. The cephalopods, 

primarily cuttlefish, were exposed to continuous 50–400 Hz sinusoidal wave sweeps (100% duty cycle 

and 1-sec sweep period) for 2 hours while captive in relatively small tanks (one 2,000 L and one 200 L 

tank). The received SPL was reported as 157±5 dB re 1μPa, with peak levels at 175 dB re 1μPa. As in the 

McCauley et al. (2003) paper on sensory hair cell damage in pink snapper as a result of exposure to 

seismic sound, the cephalopods were subjected to higher sound levels than they would be under natural 

conditions, and they were unable to swim away from the sound source. 

The most important aspect of potential impacts concerns how exposure to seismic survey sound 

ultimately affects invertebrate populations and their viability, including availability to fisheries and to 

species that prey on marine invertebrates. There are currently no data indicating that the types of activities 

proposed under marine seismic research funded by NSF or conducted by USGS would result in any 

population-level effects, and no such effects are expected. Extrapolation from a few studies suggests that 

an insignificant number of some species or developmental stages of individual invertebrates could 

theoretically sustain injurious effects within very close range (several meters) of an operating source; 

however, numbers potentially impacted would not exceed numbers experiencing injury under natural 

conditions. The following sections provide a synopsis of available information on the effects of seismic 

survey sounds, MBES, and SBP on decapod crustacean and cephalopod species. These are the two 

taxonomic groups of invertebrates on which most acoustic studies have been conducted. A more detailed 

review of the literature on the effects of underwater anthropogenic sound on invertebrates is provided in 

Appendix D. 

There are three types of potential effects on marine invertebrates with exposure to seismic surveys: 

pathological, physiological, and behavioral. Pathological effects involve lethal and temporary or 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-16

permanent sub-lethal injury. Physiological effects involve temporary and permanent primary and 

secondary stress responses, such as changes in levels of enzymes and proteins. Behavioral effects refer to 

temporary and (if it occurs) permanent changes in exhibited behavior (e.g., startle and avoidance 

behavior). The three categories are interrelated in complex ways. For example, it is possible that certain 

physiological and behavioral changes could potentially lead to an ultimate pathological effect on 

individuals (i.e., mortality). Based on what is known about the physical structure of their sensory organs, 

marine invertebrates appear to be specialized to respond to particle displacement components of an 

impinging sound field rather than the pressure component (Popper et al. 2001; also see review in Section 

3.2.1.3). The amplitude of particle velocity is proportional to the associated pressure. 

Pathological Effects. Very few specific data are available on levels of seismic signals that may result in 

pathological effects on invertebrates and such studies are limited to a small number of invertebrate 

species and life stages (reviewed in Appendix D). Some studies indicate no documented effects of 

exposure to seismic while others indicate limited pathological effects at close range on some species and 

developmental stages (see Section 3.2.4.3 below). For the types and source levels of seismic airguns and 

arrays proposed, the pathological (mortality) zone for some species or developmental stages of 

crustaceans and cephalopods is expected to be within a few meters of the seismic source. This premise is 

based on the peak pressure and rise/decay time characteristics of seismic airgun arrays currently in use.

However, the number of individual invertebrates potentially affected in this manner are expected to be 

insignificant compared to overall population sizes and pathological effects that occur under natural 

conditions (e.g., predation, environmental, etc.).

Some studies have suggested that seismic survey sound has a limited pathological impact on early 

developmental stages of crustaceans (Pearson et al. 1994; Christian et al. 2003; DFOC 2004b; Payne et al. 

2007; Boudreau et al. 2009). Controlled field experiments on adult crustaceans (Christian et al. 2003, 

2004; DFOC 2004b) and adult cephalopods (McCauley et al. 2000a, b) exposed to seismic survey sound 

have not resulted in any significant pathological impacts on the animals. It has been suggested that 

exposure to commercial seismic survey activities has injured giant squid (Guerra et al. 2004), but there is 

no scientific evidence to support such claims. 

Physiological Effects. Physiological effects refer mainly to biochemical responses by marine invertebrates 

to acoustic stress. Such stress could potentially affect invertebrate populations by increasing mortality or 

reducing reproductive success. Any primary and secondary stress responses (i.e., changes in levels of 

enzymes, proteins, etc. in the haemolymph or circulatory system) of crustaceans after exposure to seismic 

survey sounds appear to be temporary (hours to days) in studies done to date (Payne et al. 2007). The 

periods necessary for these biochemical changes to return to normal are variable and depend on numerous 

aspects of the biology of the species and of the sound stimulus. Payne et al. (2007) noted more deposits of 

material, possibly glycogen, in the hepatopancreas of some of the exposed American lobsters during 

histological analysis conducted 4 months post-exposure. Accumulation of glycogen could be due to stress 

or disturbance of cellular processes.

Behavioral Effects. Direct and indirect effects of seismic and other sounds on invertebrate behavior, 

particularly in relation to the consequences for fisheries are also important. Changes in behavior could 

potentially affect reproductive success, distribution, susceptibility to predation, and catchability by 

fisheries. Studies investigating the possible behavioral effects of exposure to seismic survey sound in 

crustaceans and cephalopods have been conducted on both uncaged and caged animals. In some cases, 

invertebrates exhibited startle responses (e.g., squid in McCauley et al. 2000a, b) and changes in 

respiratory activity (e.g., octopus in Kaifu et al. 2007). In other cases, no behavioral impacts were noted 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-17

(e.g., snow crab in Christian et al. 2003; DFOC 2004b). Increased food consumption by lobsters exposed 

to airgun noise was noted by Payne et al. (2007). Price (2007) observed that blue mussels closed their 

valves upon exposure to 10 kHz pure tone continuous sound.

There have been anecdotal reports of reduced catch rates of shrimp shortly after exposure to seismic 

survey sound; however, other studies have not observed significant changes in shrimp catch rate 

(Andriguetto-Filho et al. 2005). Analysis of data related to rock lobster commercial catches and seismic 

surveying in Australia between 1978 and 2004 did not suggest any significant effect on lobster catches 

(Parry and Gason 2006). Any adverse effects on crustacean and cephalopod behavior or fisheries due to 

seismic survey sound are likely specific to the species in question and the nature of its fishery (season, 

duration, fishing method).

3.2.4.1 Criteria

It is theoretically possible that the seismic and sonar sounds associated with the proposed action may 

adversely affect invertebrates. However, there is insufficient knowledge to establish objective criteria for 

determining the potential for and the level at which adverse effects on invertebrates and related fisheries 

may occur. Generally, adverse effects on a particular invertebrate species can be considered significant if 

they result in a reduction in the overall health and viability of a population or significantly impact 

fisheries targeting that population. These are the general criteria used to determine significance of effect 

in this assessment. However, on the ocean-basin or regional scale, determining whether or not there is a 

reduction in the overall health (or abundance) of an invertebrate population is problematic and is typically 

confounded by a number of factors which include the general lack of pre-impact information, the 

multitude of environmental or non-project related factors influencing marine invertebrate populations, and 

often the large or unknown extent of the habitat in which the invertebrates reside relative to the impact 

area. 

3.2.4.2 Sound Sources and Characteristics

It is theoretically possible that individual invertebrates within several meters of a sound source operating 

at high levels could potentially be harmed by the energy of the sound. The airguns and airgun arrays, 

MBES, SBP, and/or ship hull and engine sounds produced by project activities overlap the known sound 

detection or sound production range of some invertebrates but do not overlap that of other invertebrate 

species. However, it is theoretically possible that the energy of sound outside of detection and production 

ranges might also be harmful to the animals. The sound characteristics of each of the project sound 

sources are described below relative to the minimal information known on sound detection and sound 

production of invertebrates (also see Table 3.2-2). 

The airguns and airgun arrays have dominant frequency components of 2-188 Hz (Table 2-3) and zero-topeak nominal source outputs ranging from 240-265 dB re 1 μPa-m. This frequency range overlaps with 

the frequencies detectable by one crustacean species (prawn) for which frequency sensitivity has been 

studied (Lovell et al. 2005a) (Table 3.2-2). However, that study was conducted with a sound source in air 

and not underwater; thus, the applicability to the underwater environment is unknown. Overall, the full 

degree of overlap between the dominant frequencies in airgun sounds and the frequencies detectable by 

invertebrates is unknown.

The Kongsberg EM122 MBES proposed for use on the R/V Langseth operates at 10.5-13 (usually 12) 

kHz. Other types of MBES used for deep-water operations aboard other research vessels associated with 

the proposed action operate at similar or higher frequencies (see Table 2-5). These frequencies are above 

the frequency ranges known to be detectable by some crustaceans and cephalopods (Table 3.2-2). The 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-18

frequencies of sounds produced by certain crustaceans do overlap with the sonar frequencies. However, 

the functionality of these relatively high-frequency crustacean sounds remains unknown.

The SBP operates at 3.5 kHz. This is within the known detection range of some invertebrate species 

(Table 3.2-2). The SBP has a maximum source output of 222 dB re 1 μPa-m, which is well above the 

detection thresholds of some marine invertebrates (Table 3.2-2), indicating that those invertebrates could 

detect the SBP if close enough to the source. 

Ship engines, propulsion systems, and the vessel hull itself also emit sounds into the marine environment

with frequencies that overlap with the frequencies and thresholds associated with marine invertebrate 

sound detection. However, virtually nothing is known about the possible effects of vessel noise on 

invertebrates. The source level of vessel noise would be considerably less than source levels of the pulsed 

sound sources associated with the seismic research activities (see Chapter 2). Further, vessel sounds 

would be at levels expected to cause only possible localized, short-term behavioral changes. Thus, 

potential effects of vessel noise on invertebrates are not further discussed in detail.

3.2.4.3 Acoustic Effects

Table 3.2-5 summarizes the known general effects or lack thereof of seismic and other project-related 

sound on crustaceans, cephalopods, and associated fisheries based on the small number of available 

studies. For most of these invertebrates, airguns represent the project sound source most likely to affect

invertebrates. Other project sound sources (i.e., MBES, SBP, pingers, and ship) are considered to have 

considerably less potential to interfere with sound production or detection by crustaceans and 

cephalopods. This assessment is based on the narrow beams and intermittent nature of the MBES and 

SBP, and the frequency range and/or source level relative to what is known regarding the sensitivity of 

invertebrates to these aspects (see Section 3.2.4.2 and Chapter 2).

In general, effects of sound on invertebrates are considered unknown or are based on only a small number 

of studies on a few species and developmental stages. Known effects are limited primarily to short-term, 

(i.e., lasting minutes to hours) non-lethal effects. The possible exception is that a relatively small number 

of invertebrates inhabiting near-surface waters and occurring within several meters of an active, highenergy sound source could be lethally affected or physiologically impaired or injured. Notwithstanding 

that exception, for many crustacean and cephalopod species throughout the world, the greatest potential 

for acoustic impacts from NSF‘s or USGS‘s marine seismic research activities involve masking, changes 

in behavior (e.g., disturbance), and impacts on fisheries. Each of these is described briefly below. A more 

detailed review of these effects is presented in Appendix D. In general, none of these effects would be 

expected to exceed what already occurs under normal, natural environmental conditions.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-19

Table 3.2-5. Summary of Known or Suggested Effects of Seismic Survey Sound on Marine 

Invertebrates (Crustaceans and Cephalopods) and Associated Fisheries*

Groups of

Concern**

Pathological

Effects

Physiological

Effects

Behavioral

Effects

Sound

Detection

Impairment

Fishery

Effects

Crustaceans

 Evidence of sublethal effects on snow 

crab embryos and 

larvae (e.g., delayed 

but normal 

development); 

supportive data are 

minimal.

 No evidence of 

effects on adult snow 

crabs, adult lobster, or 

adult shrimp; 

supportive data are 

minimal.

 Evidence of effects on 

adult lobster (e.g., 

decreased levels of 

enzymes and calcium 

ions in haemolymph, 

accumulation of 

glycogen in 

hepatopancreas tissue, 

and increased 

feeding).

 No evidence of effects 

on adult snow crab.

 Evidence of 

temporary 

disturbance effects on 

adult shrimp (e.g., 

avoidance) and adult 

lobster (e.g., 

decreased feeding).

 No evidence of 

disturbance effects on 

adult snow crab

 Masking effects 

unknown.

Unknown –

no relevant 

data available.

 No evidence 

of effects on 

snow crab 

and shrimp.

Cephalopods

 No evidence of 

effects on squid.

 No evidence of effects 

on squid and 

cuttlefish.

 Evidence of 

disturbance effects on 

adult squid and 

cuttlefish (e.g., 

startle, alarm, and 

avoidance).

 Evidence of 

respiratory 

suppression by 

octopus.

Unknown –

no relevant 

data available.

Unknown – no 

relevant data 

available.

Notes: See Appendix D for detailed literature review of the potential effects of exposure to sound on crustaceans and cephalopods, including 

available details of exposure.

*Effects of sonar sounds are not included because there are no known systematic studies of the effects of sonar sound on invertebrates.

**No invertebrate species that may occur in any of the 13 Analysis Areas are listed under the ESA; however, EFH occurs in the NW 

Atlantic and W Gulf of Alaska DAAs—see Table 3.2-6.

Masking

Masking is defined as interference with the detection of a signal of biological relevance by another signal. 

Although not demonstrated in the literature, masking can be considered a potential effect of 

anthropogenic underwater sound on marine invertebrates. Some invertebrates are known to produce 

sounds (Au and Banks 1998; Tolstoganova 2002; Latha et al. 2005). The functionality and biological 

relevance of these sounds are not understood (Jeffs et al. 2003, 2005; Lovell et al. 2005a; Radford et al. 

2007). Masking of produced sounds and received sounds (e.g., conspecifics and predators), at least the 

particle displacement component, could potentially have adverse effects on marine invertebrates. 

It has not been specifically documented that invertebrates are capable of detecting the acoustic sources 

proposed for use in NSF-funded or USGS marine seismic research. Furthermore, masking is extremely 

unlikely due to the low duty-cycle of the sources as well as the short duration of the moving seismic 

vessel at a given location. Airgun, MBES, SBP, and pinger sounds are intermittent with low duty cycle, 

and thus would not mask other sounds for more than a small percentage of the time. Masking due to 

acoustics sources is not expected to impact invertebrate species at the population level. 

Disturbance

For the purposes of this analysis, disturbance to crustacean and cephalopod species from acoustic sources 

refers to any change in behavior that would not occur in the absence of the acoustic source. Of primary 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-20

importance is any change in behavior that increases mortality, results in reduced reproductive success, or 

has substantial effects on commercial species. 

Airguns and airgun arrays could potentially disturb a proportionally small number of certain invertebrates 

within close range of the airgun sources (see Section 3.2.4 and Appendix D). To be significant, such 

behavioral changes would need to result in an overall reduction in the health, abundance, or catchability 

of a species of concern. Thus, adverse effects to individuals are not considered significant unless a 

significant portion of the population is affected. In general, the temporal and spatial scale of disturbance 

effects on invertebrates would likely be short-term and limited to the localized area immediately 

surrounding an active airgun. Further, effects would be limited to the relatively small portion of the local 

invertebrate populations that would be closely approached by the active acoustic source as it moves along 

the survey lines. Associated potential disturbance, if detectable above the normal background 

environmental changes, would be insignificant given the small spatial and temporal scales, transience of 

the proposed activities, and results of available studies summarized in Appendix D. None of the proposed 

activities are expected to result in adverse effects at the population level.

The potential disturbance effects of the MBESs, SBPs, and pingers on the few invertebrate species that 

may detect sound within the relevant frequency ranges are unknown. However, for reasons described 

above, such effects would be insignificant given the even smaller area exposed by the narrow beams of 

these acoustic sources compared to that of the airguns. 

Detection Impairment

There is no scientific evidence that exposure to airgun or sonar sounds can result in temporary impairment 

of the abilities of marine invertebrates to detect sound. However, the received particle velocity level 

required to induce temporary detection impairment in marine invertebrates has never been studied. If any 

such effects did occur as a result of proposed activities, they are expected to be limited to areas very near 

the active acoustic source(s) and would not result in any significant effects at the population level given 

the small spatial and temporal scales of the proposed activities.

Injury

As described in Section 3.2.4, the acoustic sounds produced by the airguns and airgun arrays could cause 

acute injury and perhaps mortality of an insignificant number of some crustacean and mollusk species, 

particularly larval and egg stages if they were in extreme proximity to the seismic source (i.e., a few 

meters; see Appendix D). However, no population-level effects are expected to marine invertebrates as 

the result of proposed seismic research activities.

While it is known that the airguns and airgun arrays could theoretically result in injury to some individual 

invertebrates (see Appendix D), the effects of the MBESs, SBPs, and pingers on marine invertebrates are 

unknown. However, given their acoustic characteristics, potential impacts from MBESs, SBPs, and 

pingers would be expected to be even less than those of airguns.

3.2.4.4 Other Potential Effects

Effects on Fisheries

As stated in Section 3.2.4 and Appendix D, there is the potential for certain crustacean and cephalopod 

fisheries to be temporarily affected by the proposed seismic surveys in one of two ways: (1) acoustic 

disturbance to crustaceans and cephalopods near the seismic survey lines resulting in changes in behavior 

or distribution and a reduction in catchability (e.g., displacement from traditional fishing grounds), and 

(2) direct interference with the act of fishing (e.g., physically displacing fishing vessels or entanglement 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-21

with fishing gear). Minimizing potential impacts to fisheries may, at times, require adjustments to 

tracklines and timing of surveys as well as communication with fishers during the surveys (see mitigation 

discussed in Chapter 2). 

3.2.5 Environmental Consequences – Alternative A and Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)

3.2.5.1 Acoustic Effects

Under Alternatives A and B, the proposed marine seismic research activities would include mitigation 

and monitoring measures as described in Chapter 2. Site-specific mitigation and monitoring measures are 

considered for implementation before and during the seismic survey, depending on the resources of 

concern that could potentially be impacted. Alternatives A and B would include provisions to plan the 

seismic surveys to avoid EFH and to avoid and minimize any potential effects on any listed species to the 

maximum extent practicable. With these mitigation measures in place, no significant impacts to

crustacean and cephalopod populations or to EFH are expected in any of the exemplary DAAs and QAAs

with implementation of Alternatives A or B (Table 3.2-6). 

Airguns

Under Alternative A or B, the airguns and airgun arrays may theoretically impact crustacean and 

cephalopod species as described above, although predicted effects are extrapolated from a few limited 

studies (see Appendix D). Most potential effects involve changes in behavior and other non-lethal, shortterm temporary impacts. A relatively small and insignificant number of individuals within several meters 

of an active airgun(s) might be injured; however, there would be no significant impacts on any 

invertebrate population. Some invertebrates might indirectly benefit from mitigation measures 

implemented for marine mammals under Alternatives A and B (e.g., ramp-ups, power downs, and 

shutdowns). Specific invertebrate avoidance and mitigation measures will be evaluated on a site-specific 

basis under Alternative A in situations where commercially important fisheries are known to occur (e.g., 

by siting or timing the surveys to avoid specific locations). In summary, with implementation of 

Alternative A or B, there would be no significant impacts to crustacean and cephalopod populations or to 

EFH in exemplary DAAs and QAAs from the use of airguns or airgun arrays (Table 3.2-6). 

Table 3.2-6. Summary of Potential Impacts to Crustaceans, Mollusks (Cephalopods), and Related 

Fisheries with Implementation of Alternatives A and B

Analysis Area Alternatives A and B*

DAAS

NW Atlantic

W Gulf of Alaska

Caribbean Sea

S California

Galapagos Ridge

 Potential short-term behavioral or possibly physiological effects on individuals.

 Potential adverse but not significant impacts to individuals < several m from the active 

sound source.

 No significant impacts at the population level.

QAAS

BC Coast

Marianas

Sub-Antarctic

N Atlantic/Iceland

SW Atlantic

W India

W Australia

Mid-Atlantic Ridge

 Potential short-term behavioral or possibly physiological effects on individuals.

 Potential adverse but not significant impacts to individuals < several m from the active 

sound source.

 No significant impacts at the population level.

Note: *Impacts under Alternatives A and B assume that provisions would be made to plan the seismic surveys to avoid EFH and 

commercially important fisheries to the maximum extent practicable. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-22

MBESs, SBPs, and Pingers

Impacts to cephalopod and crustacean populations from the use of MBESs, SBPs, and pingers are 

expected to be even less than those previously described for airguns (Table 3.2-5). Effects of the MBES

will impact a smaller area due to the narrow beam as discussed previously and in Chapter 2. The effects 

of the SBP would be even smaller in scale than for the MBES given the small beam and lower source 

level. Furthermore, any potential impacts would be restricted to those few crustaceans and cephalopods 

that produce and/or detect high-frequency sounds that overlap the frequencies of the MBESs, SBPs, and 

pingers. Therefore, no significant impacts to crustacean and cephalopod populations or to EFH are 

expected with the use of MBESs, SBPs, and pingers under Alternative A or B (Table 3.2-6). 

3.2.5.2 Other Potential Effects

Effects on Fisheries

Under Alternative A, the airgun arrays, MBESs, SBPs, and pingers may impact invertebrate fisheries that

are important in all of the analysis areas. In addition, the seismic vessel itself may interfere with fisheries. 

Alternative A includes measures to avoid impacting these fisheries by siting or timing the surveys 

appropriately. Therefore, no significant impacts to fisheries are anticipated with implementation of 

Alternative A or B.

3.2.6 Environmental Consequences – Alternative C (No-Action Alternative)

Under the No-Action Alternative, NSF-funded and USGS marine seismic research surveys using various 

acoustic sources (e.g., airguns, MBESs, SBPs, and pingers) would not occur. Therefore, baseline 

conditions would remain unchanged and there would be no impacts to marine invertebrates with 

implementation of Alternative C.

3.2.7 Summary of Environmental Consequences – Invertebrates

Under Alternative A and B, some decapod crustaceans and cephalopods might detect the sound from the 

airguns and airgun arrays. The MBESs, SBPs, and pingers might be similarly detectable by fewer

invertebrate species. For those invertebrate species capable of detecting such sounds, there would 

theoretically be potential for adverse pathological and physiological effects at extremely close range, and 

for behavioral effects extending to somewhat greater ranges. These effects could temporarily change the 

catchability of some crustacean and mollusk fisheries in localized areas. The likelihood of each of these 

effects depends on the sound level received by the individual. As described in Chapter 2, the received 

sound level is generally related to proximity to the source but is influenced by other factors as well (e.g., 

water depth, sound velocity profile of the water, bottom conditions, airgun array size, etc.). The potential 

for pathological effects is expected to be limited to those individual invertebrates within several meters of 

an active source operating at high levels and producing sounds within the frequency range to which the 

animals are sensitive. On a population level, the potential effects are considered insignificant. 

In summary, based on the limited available information about the effects of airgun and sonar sounds on 

invertebrates, there would be no significant impacts to marine invertebrate populations, fisheries, and 

associated EFH with implementation of Alternative A or B. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-23

3.3 MARINE FISH

3.3.1 Overview of Fish Groups

Fish addressed in this section are those of ecological or economical concern that occur in or near the 13

analysis areas during the exemplary seismic survey periods. These include fish species or groups that are 

listed under the ESA, are associated with U.S.-designated EFH, or are considered the basis of important 

fisheries. Fish are further addressed and discussed relative to their known sensitivity to low-frequency 

impulse sound associated with seismic surveys. The status, general ecology, and general distribution and 

migratory movements of these fish are summarized in Table 3.3-1 and discussed briefly below. 

Table 3.3-1. Summary of the Status, General Ecology, and General Distribution and Movement of 

Higher Fish Groups Potentially Occurring within the Analysis Areas

Higher Group(a)

Status(b)

ESA/IUCN/CITES General Ecology(c-e)

General Distribution/

Migratory Movements(f, g)

Hagfishes &

Lampreys (Agnatha) 0/0/0 S, PS ICS/OCS/BCS, ICS, OCS

Sharks, Skates, 

Rays, & Chimeras

(Chondrichthys)

0/43/3 S/I/D, D/P, PV/PN ICS/OCS/BCS; HM

Sturgeons

(Acipenseriformes) 3/3/2 S, D/P, PV ICS/OCS; HM

Herring-likes

(Clupeiformes) 0/0/0 S, P, PV ICS; HM

Salmon, Smelts, etc.

(Salmoniformes) 7/1/0 S, P, PV/PN ICS/OCS/BCS; HM

Cod-likes

(Gadiformes) 0/2/0 S/I, P, PV ICS/OCS; HM

Pipefishes &

Seahorses

(Gasterosteiformes)

0/7/6 S/I, P, PV/PN ICS/OCS/BCS; NS

Scorpionfishes

(Scorpaeniformes) 0/3/0 S/I/D, D/P, PV ICS/OCS/BCS;NS/IO

Perch-likes

(Perciformes) 0/32/1 S/I/D, P, PV ICS/OCS/BCS; NS

Tuna & billfishes

(Perciformes) 0/3/0 S/I; P, PV ICS/OCS/BCS; HM

Flatfishes

(Pleuronectiformes) 0/2/0 S/I, D, PV ICS/OCS/BCS; NS/IO

Coelacanths

(Coelacanthiformes) 0/1/1 I/D, P, PN ICS/OCS/BCS; NS

Notes: (a) Higher groups as defined by SAUP (2005). The names of the relevant orders have been added except in the case of the cartilaginous 

fishes (Class Chondrichthys) which contains several orders.

(b) Number of species listed as critically endangered, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable under each status type (see Table 3.3-2 for 

species status by analysis area and species). Federally designated EFH occurs in 5 of the 13 analysis areas as indicated in Tables 

3.3-3 and 3.3-4.

(c) Typical water depth: S = shallow (<100 m), I = intermediate (100-1,000 m), D = deep (>1,000 m).

(d) Habitat Type: D = demersal; P = pelagic.

(e)

Feeding behavior: PV = piscivorous, PN = planktivorous, PS = parasitic, S = scavenger.

(f) Horizontal Distribution: ICS = inner continental shelf (<50 m water depth), OCS = outer continental shelf (50-200m), BCS = 

beyond continental shelf (>200m).

(g) Distribution Variability: NS = negligible shift, IO = slight inshore-offshore movement, HM = highly migratory.

Sources: CITES 2010; IUCN 2010; NOAA Fisheries 2010; SAUP 2010.

3.3.1.1 Taxonomic Groups of Fish

There are thousands of species of marine fish, so for the purposes of this PEIS, fish are organized into 12 

―higher‖ taxonomic groups (higher groups) following the SAUP classification system initiated at the 

University of British Columbia (SAUP 2010) (Table 3.3-1). This classification system revolves around 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-24

commercially exploited species based on catch data for the entire world; however, it excludes many 

species of fish that are not exploited and might not fall into any of these higher groups. The 12 higher 

groups generally follow major taxonomic groupings based on Superclass and/or Class but do not exactly 

match current thought on fish taxonomy and evolution (see Nelson 2006). Species with special status (i.e., 

listed under ESA, IUCN, or CITES) occur within 10 of these 12 higher groups and are discussed below. 

Only the higher groups of hagfishes and lampreys (Superclass Agnatha) and the herring-likes (Order 

Clupeiformes) do not include special-status species. Of the approximate 29,000 extant fish species in the 

world, only a few are agnathans – some 800 are sharks, skates, and rays; the rest are bony fishes (Helfman 

et al. 1997). General information on the 12 higher groups of fish addressed in this section is summarized 

below. 

3.3.1.2 Distribution and Movements

Table 3.3-1 presents some generalizations about the ecology, distribution, and movements of fish groups. 

Marine fish occupy a wide variety of water depths and habitats. The vast majority of marine fishes are 

free-swimming pelagic forms. Other diverse and sometimes abundant fish species inhabit the near-bottom 

and demersal (bottom) habitats of much of the world‘s oceans, including flatfishes (Order 

Pleuronectiformes including soles, halibuts, and allies); sharks, skates, and rays; hagfishes; sturgeons; 

cods; rat-tails; and many others (Nelson 2006). In general, sturgeons (Order Acipenseriformes), the 

herring-like fishes, and the cod-like fishes (Order Gadiformes) tend to dwell only within the confines of 

the continental shelf. Other higher groups of fish are more widely dispersed throughout the world‘s 

oceans. Some are highly migratory (e.g., tunas, lampreys, herrings, salmons) while others are much more 

sedentary (e.g., lingcod, some rockfishes, tropical reef fishes). Table 3.3-1 illustrates these ecological 

diversities among the higher groups of fish.

Most marine fish are piscivorous, meaning they primarily eat other fish. A few, from anchovies to whale 

sharks and basking sharks, are predominantly or exclusively planktivorous, consuming primarily small 

invertebrates (e.g., krill, zooplankton). Relatively few are primarily dependent on phytoplankton or 

macroalgae as food for much of their life cycle. 

3.3.1.3 Important Ecological Considerations

Important ecological considerations for fish resources of concern with respect to seismic activities 

considered in this analysis are the life-history and reproductive characteristics. These are important 

determinants of population-scale vulnerability or robustness to disturbance. However, the reproductive 

strategies of marine fishes vary significantly, including those that bear live young, those that disperse 

their young as larvae, those that fertilize externally and broadcast their eggs, those that spawn into 

bottom-attached egg masses or the nests (redds) of river spawners. More fecund fishes that have large 

ranges and high rates of dispersal tend to be more resilient to exploitation, disturbance, or other 

population-level stressors than those that are restricted to smaller areas and specific microhabitats. 

In terms of commercial value world-wide, the herring-like fishes (e.g., herrings, sardines, shads, and 

anchovies) and cod-like fishes (e.g., cods, haddocks, hakes, pollocks, and whitings) are the most 

economically important. Next are perch-like fishes (the most modern, diverse, and speciose order, the 

Perciformes). The salmons and smelts (Order Salmoniformes) are also of great commercial importance. 

3.3.1.4 Special-Status Species

Nine ESA-listed fish species potentially occur within three DAAs in U.S. waters (Tables 3.3.1 and 3.3-2). 

The majority (seven) are salmonid species (six of which occur in the North Pacific Ocean) and two are 

sturgeons. For Pacific salmon, the seven listed species are further divided into 27 Distinct Population 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-25

Segments (DPSs) or Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs). In addition, EFH occurs in 4 of the 13

analysis areas located within U.S. waters and is discussed in more detail by analysis area as appropriate. 

EFH within these four analysis areas is designated for the life or developmental stages of 11 of the 12 

higher groups of fish addressed in this analysis (the one exception is the Coelacanths Higher Group). 

3.3.1.5 Acoustic Capabilities

Marine fishes are a diverse group and, relative to the total number of species, few species have been 

studied for audiology. However, there is good understanding of fish hearing in general. For the most part, 

as compared to mammals, fish hearing is restricted to rather low frequencies (Table 3.3-3). Reviews of 

fish-hearing mechanisms and capabilities can be found in Fay and Popper (2000) and Ladich and Popper 

(2004).

All fish species have hearing and skin-based mechanosensory systems (inner ear and lateral line systems, 

respectively). Research indicates that fish detect, and sometimes respond to, sound in their environment 

(Fay and Popper 2000). These sounds may be produced by other fish, or they may be sounds of other 

organisms (e.g., snapping shrimp, marine mammals), or they may be environmental sounds such as waves 

breaking on the shore, rain on the water surface, etc. The growing consensus is that fish (as virtually all 

animals) use the sounds in their environment (the ―acoustic scene‖) to get a sense of the world around 

them, and especially the environment beyond the detection range of their other senses, such as vision. In 

effect, sound provides fish (and other aquatic animals) with a much larger view of the surrounding 

environment than does any other sense. And, while fish get a broad sense of their environment from 

sound, it is also clear that fish are probably able to detect prey and predators by  ̳listening‘ to the 

environmental cues (e.g., Hawkins 1981; Popper et al. 2003). Anthropogenic sounds that affect fish 

hearing or other sensory systems may have important consequences for fish survival and reproduction. 

Potential negative effects include masking of important environmental sounds or social signals, displacing 

fish from their habitat, or interfering with sensory orientation and navigation.

Sound consists of two components – pressure and particle motion (see Kalmijn 1988, 1989; Rogers and 

Cox 1988). While both are present in air, the particle motion attenuates (drops off) very quickly and so 

most terrestrial vertebrates do not have adaptations to detect this. In contrast, in water, which is much 

denser than air, the particle motion component of sound travels much further from the source, and its 

detection is a very critical part of the hearing system of fish. Indeed, it is thought that the original hearing 

system in fish (and all vertebrates) probably was to detect particle motion, and only later in evolution did 

some fish start to detect sound pressure. However, it must be understood that both particle motion and 

pressure are ultimately detected by the sensory hair cells of the inner ear. The difference in detection of 

pressure and particle motion are the pathways by which the signals get to the inner ear.

Sound detection in fish involves an inner ear which is, in most ways, very similar to the inner ears found 

in mammals. However, fish, unlike most terrestrial vertebrates, do not have external openings to the ear. 

The ear in fish is located in the brain cavity, somewhat behind the eyes. The regions of the ear associated 

with hearing in fish are called otolithic organs (separately known as the saccule, lagena, utricle) (see 

reviews in Popper et al. 2003; Ladich and Popper 2004). Each otolithic organ has a sensory tissue, or 

epithelium, that contains many sensory hair cells, each of which is surrounded by supporting cells. The 

lumen (or space) of each otolithic organ contains a very dense structure made of calcium carbonate called 

the otolith.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-26

Table 3.3-2. Potential Occurrence of Special-Status Fish Species within the Analysis Areas

Species

Status**

ESA/IUCN/CITES

Analysis Areas with Potential for Occurrence

DAA QAA

SHARKS, SKATES, RAYS, AND CHIMERAS

Whale shark -/V/II S California, Galapagos Ridge SW Atlantic, W India, W Australia, BC Coast, Marianas

Sand tiger shark -/V/- NW Atlantic SW Atlantic, W India, W Australia, Marianas

Basking shark -/V/II NW Atlantic, S California, Galapagos Ridge, 

Caribbean

Marianas, BC Coast, N Atlantic/Iceland, SW Atlantic, 

W India, W Australia

Great white shark -/V/II NW Atlantic, S California, Galapagos Ridge, 

Caribbean BC Coast, SW Atlantic, W India, W Australia, Marianas

Southern sawtail catshark -/V/- SW Atlantic

Lizard catshark -/V/- SW Atlantic

New Caledonia catshark -/V/- Marianas

Pondicherry shark -/CR/- W India, W Australia, Marianas

Smoothtooth blacktip -/V/- W India

School shark -/V/- S California, Galapagos Ridge N Atlantic/Iceland, SW Atlantic, W India, W Australia, 

Marianas, BC Coast

Striped dogfish -/CR/- SW Atlantic

Deepwater spiny dogfish -/V/- W India, W Australia, Marianas, N. Atlantic/Iceland

Gulper shark -/V/- W India, W Australia, Marianas

Dumb shark -/CR/- W Australia

Fossil shark -/V/- W India, W Australia, Marianas

Tawny nurse shark -/V/- W India, W Australia, Marianas

Sharptooth lemon shark -/V/- W India, W Australia, Marianas

Shorttail nurse shark -/V/- W India

Smoothnose wedgefish -/V/- W India, W Australia, Marianas

Leopard shark -/V/- W India, W Australia, Marianas

Smoothback angel shark -/E/- SW Atlantic

Eastern angel shark -/V/- Marianas

Angular angel shark -/V/- SW Atlantic

Dwarf sawfish -/E/I W Australia, Marianas

Largetooth sawfish C/CR/I SW Atlantic, Galapagos Ridge

Smalltooth sawfish -/E/I SW Atlantic, W India, W Australia

Green sawfish -/E/I W India, W Australia, Marianas

Freshwater sawfish -/E/I W Australia, Marianas

Knifetooth sawfish -/E/I W India, W Australia, Marianas

Brazilian blind electric ray -/V/- SW Atlantic

Brazilian guitarfish -/CR/- SW Atlantic

White-spotted guitarfish -/V/- W Australia, Marianas

White-spot giant guitarfish -/V/- W India, W Australia, Marianas

Onefin skate -/V/- SW Atlantic

Spotback skate -/E/- SW Atlantic

Common skate -/E/- N Atlantic/Iceland

Barndoor skate -/E/- NW Atlantic
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-27

Table 3.3-2. Potential Occurrence of Special-Status Fish Species within the Analysis Areas

Species

Status**

ESA/IUCN/CITES

Analysis Areas with Potential for Occurrence

DAA QAA

Mud skate -/V/- W India, W Australia, Marianas

Brown stingray -/V/- Marianas

Common shovelnose ray -/V/- W India, W Australia, Marianas

Brazilian crownose ray -/E/- SW Atlantic

Porcupine ray -/V/- W India, W Australia, Marianas

Banded eagle ray -/V/- W India, W Australia, Marianas

STURGEONS

Atlantic sturgeon C/-/II NW Atlantic

Shortnose sturgeon DPS E/V/I NW Atlantic

Baltic sturgeon -/E/I N Atlantic/Iceland

SALMON, SMELTS, ETC.

Chinook salmon ESUs T/-/- S California, W Gulf of Alaska BC Coast

Chum salmon ESUs T/-/- W Gulf of Alaska BC Coast

Coho salmon ESUs T/-/- S California, W Gulf of Alaska BC Coast

Steelhead DPSs E/-/- S. California, W Gulf of Alaska BC Coast

Sockeye salmon ESUs E/-/- W Gulf of Alaska BC Coast

Atlantic salmon DPSs E/-/- NW Atlantic

Bulltrout DPSs T/V/- S California BC Coast

COD-LIKES

Atlantic cod -/V/- NW Atlantic N Atlantic/Iceland

Haddock -/V/- NW Atlantic N Atlantic/Iceland

PIPEFISHES AND SEAHORSES

Big-belly seahorse -/V/II W Australia

Tiger tail seahorse -/V/II W Australia, Marianas

Lined seahorse -/V/II NW Atlantic, Caribbean SW Atlantic

Pacific seahorse -/V/II S California

Common seahorse -/V/II W India, W Australia, Marianas

Hedgehog seahorse -/V/II W India, W Australia, Marianas

Flat-faced seahorse -/V/II W India, W Australia, Marianas

Hardwicke‘s pipefish -/V/- W India, W Australia, Marianas

SCORPIONFISHES

Shortspine thornyhead -/E/- S California BC Coast

Redfish -/E/- NW Atlantic N Atlantic/Iceland

Bocaccio rockfish -/CR/- S California BC Coast

PERCH-LIKES

Giant sea bass -/CR/- S California

Marbled grouper -/V/- Caribbean SW Atlantic

Masked hamlet -/V/- Caribbean SW Atlantic

Hogfish -/V/- Caribbean SW Atlantic

Mutton snapper -/V/- Caribbean SW Atlantic

Cubera snapper -/V/- Caribbean SW Atlantic
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-28

Table 3.3-2. Potential Occurrence of Special-Status Fish Species within the Analysis Areas

Species

Status**

ESA/IUCN/CITES

Analysis Areas with Potential for Occurrence

DAA QAA

White-edged rockcod -/V/- W India

Dusky grouper -/E/- W India, SW Atlantic

Snowy grouper -/V/- SW Atlantic

Nassau grouper -/E/- SW Atlantic, Caribbean

Speckled hind -/CR/- SW Atlantic, Caribbean

Goliath grouper -/CR/- SW Atlantic, Caribbean

Giant grouper -/V/- Galapagos Ridge W India, W Australia, Marianas

Warsaw grouper -/CR/- Caribbean SW Atlantic

Leopard grouper -/V/- S California

Venezuelan grouper -/V/- Caribbean SW Atlantic

Gulf grouper -/V/- S California

Gag grouper -/V/- Caribbean SW Atlantic

Sailfin grouper -/V/- Galapagos Ridge

Sawtail grouper -/V/- S California

Red porgy -/E/- NW Atlantic SW Atlantic

Protemblemaria punctata -/V/- SW Atlantic

Pale dottyback -/V/- W India

Rainbow parrotfish -/V/- Caribbean SW Atlantic

Humphead wrasse -/E/II Galapagos Ridge W India, W Australia, Marianas

Brownstriped grunt -/E/- SW Atlantic

Anthias regalis -/V/- Galapagos Ridge

Anthias salmopunctatus -/V/- SW Atlantic

Yellow-crowned butterflyfish -/V/- Marianas

Chaetodon obliquus -/V/- SW Atlantic

Tayrona blenny -/V/- Caribbean SW Atlantic

Stegastes sanctipauli -/V/- SW Atlantic

TUNA AND BILLFISHES

Southern bluefin tuna -/CR/- W India, W Australia, Marianas, SW Atlantic

Bigeye tuna -/V/- NW Atlantic, Caribbean W India, W Australia, Marianas, SW Atlantic

Monterrey Spanish mackerel -/E/- S California

SMELT

Pacific eulachon (Southern DPS) T/-/- BC Coast

FLATFISHES

Atlantic halibut -/E/- NW Atlantic N Atlantic/Iceland

Yellowtail flounder -/V/- N Atlantic / Iceland

COELACANTHS

Coelacanth -/CR/I W India

Notes: *C = Candidate, CR = Critically Endangered, E = Endangered, PT = Proposed Threatened, T = Threatened, V = Vulnerable.

Sources: CITES 2010; IUCN 2010; NOAA Fisheries 2010; SAUP 2010.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-29

Table 3.3-3. Summary of Underwater Hearing and Sound Production Characteristics of Fish

Sound Production(a) Hearing

Species or Group

Frequency 

Range

(Hz)

Dominant 

Frequency

(kHz)

Source Level

(dB re 1 μPa-m)

Frequency

Range

Threshold

(dB re 1 μPa)

Hagfishes & lampreys Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Sharks and Rays Unknown Unknown Unknown

Sturgeons <100 – >1,000(1) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Herring-likes Unknown Unknown 120 – 130(5) 30 Hz – 4 kHz(2-8) 110 @ 1 – 1.2 kHz(6-8)

Alosine herrings

(shads and allies)

Unknown Unknown About 130 - 180(5) 200 Hz – 180 kHz(5)or

200 kHz(8)

About 155 @ 40 kHz(5)

Salmon, smelts, etc. Unknown Unknown Unknown < 1 – 800 Hz(9, 10) 94 @ 100 – 120 Hz(9, 10)

Cod-likes 50 – 1 kHz(11) < 1 Hz – 1 kHz(10, 12 – 16) 74 @ 200 Hz(10, 14)

Pipefishes & seahorses Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Scorpionfishes Unknown Unknown Unknown

Perch-likes 30 – 5,000(16, 17) 100 – 3,000(16, 17) 127(16) 85 Hz– > 2 kHz(12 - 20)

Tuna and billfishes Unknown Unknown Unknown 50 Hz– 1.1 kHz(22, 23) 89 – 111 @ 500 Hz(22, 23)

Flatfishes Unknown Unknown Unknown

Coelacanths Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Notes: * - Values given are, at best, examples from published and unpublished sources. Sound production and hearing of most fishes in most groups have not 

been studied. Frequency bins in this table sometimes bracket the low ends of some species and the high ends of other species within a given group. 

This is particularly true of the very anatomically, behaviorally, ecologically, and bioacoustically diverse Order Perciformes (perch-like fishes) 

which includes over 9,000 species in 148 families world-wide (fresh and salt water combined), or over one-third of all fish species (Helfman et al. 

1997). It includes, besides the tunas and billfishes (listed separately here) basses, tilefishes, remoras, jacks, snappers, grunts, sculpins, porgies, and 

many other groups. 

- There is little known about elasmobranch hearing sensitivities and the mechanisms thereof. With the inevitable ambiguities of the relevant stimulus, 

such as particle motion vs. sound pressure, describing hearing or other mechanosensory thresholds may be meaningless. Some of the problems 

inherent in making generalizations involving different data sets collected in different ways on different or even the same fishes are reviewed by 

Hawkins (1981).

- In cases where cells are left blank it is the opinion of the preparers that the group represented is so species diverse and/or the available data sets are 

so different in nature as to make such a brief description meaningless or misleading. A more complete treatment is available in U.S. Navy (2005b).

- Due to the physical limitations of recording and measurement equipment and environments wherein fish will produce natural sounds, source levels 

are often difficult or impossible to obtain and are usually not available.

Sources: (1)Johnstone and Phillips 2003; (2)Denton et al. 1979; (3)Schwartz and Greer 1984; (4)Enger 1967; (5)Mann et al. 2001; (6)Mann et al. 2005; (7)Akematsu 

et al. 2003; (8)Gregory and Claburn 2003; (9)Hawkins and Johnstone 1978; (10)U.S. Navy 2007; (11)Hawkins and Rasmussen 1978; (12)Sand and Karlsen 

1986; (13)Chapman and Hawkins 1973; (14)Chapman 1973; (15)Tavolga and Wodinsky 1963; (16)Luczkovich et al. 1999; (17)Gilmore 2003; 

(18)Ramicharitar et al. 2001; (19)Ramicaritar and Popper 2004; (20)Tavolga and Wodinsky 1965;(21)Iverson 1967; (22)Iverson 1969; (23)Chapman and Sand 

1974; (24)Zhang et al. 1998; (25)Fujeida 1996.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-30

The sensory hair cells are virtually identical to those found in all other vertebrate ears (and in the fish 

lateral line). Each sensory hair cell has a series of cilia (which have some resemblance to hairs – hence the 

name of the cell) that project upwards into the lumen of the otolithic organ. The tips of the cilia contact 

the overlying otolith. When the otolith moves relative to the sensory epithelium on which the sensory hair 

cells sit, the cilia bend, and this activates the cells (reviewed in Popper et al. 2003).

Most fish have two pathways for sound to the ear. One, referred to as the ―direct pathway‖, responds to 

the particle motion component of the sound field. When the fish moves in a sound field, the denser 

otoliths lag slightly behind. This differential movement of fish and otolith results in the bending of the 

cilia on the sensory hair cells, as described above (Popper and Fay 1993; Popper et al. 2003). 

The second, or indirect, pathway is for detection of sound pressure and for converting the pressure to a 

signal that can stimulate the ear. Most frequently, the detector is the swim bladder(1)or some other bubble 

of air in the body of the fish. The air in the swim bladder is of a different density than the rest of the fish 

and the surrounding water. Any such gas chamber, being more compressible and expandable than either 

water or fish tissue, will contract and expand in response to the pressure signal. This vibrating bubble can 

be considered as a secondary source of the sound, and this energy is re-radiated from the bubble to the 

ear. This re-radiated energy has a large particle motion component, and this directly stimulates the ear 

(see Popper et al. 2003; Ladich and Popper 2004). 

A third mechanosensory pathway, the lateral line system, is found in most bony fishes and elasmobranchs 

(i.e., sharks) (see Coombs and Montgomery 1999 for a review of the structure and function of the lateral 

line). The lateral line is sensitive to water motions. The basic sensory unit of the lateral line system is the 

same sensory hair cell that is found in the ear, but in the lateral line these are organized into structures 

called neuromasts. Neuromasts may sit on the surface of the fish (call free neuromasts) or be embedded in 

canals within the skin (canal neuromasts). The lateral line detects the motion of the water. For example, 

when fish are swimming in a current, the lateral line detects the movement of the current and helps the 

fish orient so that it can swim against or with the current, whichever is appropriate. Fish also use the 

lateral line to detect low frequency acoustic signals (1-200 Hz, depending upon the species) over a 

distance of one to two body lengths. Typically, the lateral line is used in conjunction with other sensory 

information, including hearing (Sand 1981; Coombs and Montgomery 1999). 

Although studies of fish hearing capabilities are limited to very few of the more than 29,000 existing fish 

species,(2)there are data on representative species of a number of diverse fish taxa (see Fay 1988; Popper

et al. 2003; Ladich and Popper 2004). Thus, what is known about hearing capabilities across the very 

diverse fish taxa is based on a rather sparse sampling of species. Although a few species can hear at high 

frequencies (see below), for the majority of fish species hearing is restricted to rather low frequencies 

(Table 3.3-3). Most fish species can hear sounds from a few cycles per sec (Hz) up to 300-1,000 Hz. Fish 

of a few species are known to detect sounds less than 1 Hz(3)(Sand and Karlsen 1986, 2000; reviewed in 

Popper et al. 2003). 

There are several recent reviews on fish hearing that provide a detailed discussion of the issues raised 

here; most notably, see Fay and Simmons (1999), Fay and Popper (2000), Popper et al. (2003), and 

 

(1)The swim bladder is a large structure in the abdominal cavity of the vast majority of fish, but it is not found in flatfish or sharks 

and their relatives. The major role of the swim bladder is to help the fish maintain neutral buoyancy at any depth in the water. 

By adjusting the amount of air in the swim bladder, fish can be neutrally buoyant, and thus do not have to expend energy to 

stay at a desired depth.

(2) See www.fishbase.org.

(3)

Sounds below about 30 Hz are often referred to as infrasound in the literature.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-31

Ladich and Popper (2004). Webb et al. (2008) provide a broad overview of all aspects of fish hearing. A 

recent paper by Popper and Fay (2010) discusses the designation of fishes based on sound detection 

capabilities. They suggest that the designations  ̳hearing specialist‘ and  ̳hearing generalist‘ no longer be 

used for fishes because of their vague and sometimes contradictory definitions, and that there is instead a 

range of hearing capabilities across species that is more like a continuum, presumably based on the 

relative contributions of pressure to the overall hearing capabilities of a species.

According to Popper and Fay (2010), one end of this continuum is represented by fishes that only detect 

particle motion because they lack pressure-sensitive gas bubbles (e.g., swim bladder). These species 

include elasmobranchs (e.g., sharks) and jawless fishes, and some teleosts including flatfishes. Fishes at 

this end of the continuum are typically capable of detecting sound frequencies less than 1.5 kHz.

The other end of the fish hearing continuum is represented by fishes with highly specialized otophysic 

connections between pressure receptive organs, such as the swim bladder, and the inner ear. These fishes 

include some squirrelfish, mormyrids, herrings, and otophysan fishes (freshwater fishes with Weberian 

apparatus, an articulated series of small bones that extend from the swim bladder to the inner ear). Rather 

than being limited to 1.5 kHz or less in hearing, these fishes can typically hear up to several kHz. One 

group of fish in the anadromous herring subfamily Alosinae (shads and menhaden) can detect sounds to 

well over 180 kHz (Mann et al. 1997, 1998, 2001). This may be the widest hearing range of any 

vertebrate that has been studied to date. While the specific reason for this very high frequency hearing is 

not totally clear, there is strong evidence that this capability evolved for the detection of the ultrasonic 

sounds produced by echolocating dolphins to enable the fish to detect and avoid predation (Mann et al. 

1997; Plachta and Popper 2003).

All other fishes have hearing capabilities that fall somewhere between these two extremes of the 

continuum. Some have unconnected swim bladders located relatively far from the inner ear (e.g., 

salmonids, tuna) while others have unconnected swim bladders located relatively close to the inner ear 

(e.g., Atlantic cod). There has also been the suggestion that Atlantic cod can detect 38 kHz (Astrup and 

Møhl 1993). However, the general consensus was that this was not hearing with the ear, but probably the 

fish responding to exceedingly high pressure signals of the 38-kHz source through some other receptor in 

the skin, such as touch receptors (Astrup and Møhl 1998). 

Fish ears respond to changes in pressure and particle motions (van Bergeijk 1967; Schuijf 1981; Kalmijn 

1988, 1989; Schellert and Popper 1992; Hawkins 1993; Fay 2005). Sound amplitude generally attenuates 

(decreases) with increasing distance from the sound source (exceptions can occur in water that is shallow 

relative to the sound‘s wavelength). Thus, even very powerful and low-frequency sound sources are 

unlikely to have profound effects at anything but rather short ranges (Kalmijn 1988, 1989). On the other 

hand, sound propagation is more efficient at lower frequencies, assuming boundary conditions, especially 

water depth, are adequate for sound propagation (Rogers and Cox 1988). As a result, low-frequency 

sound may be propagated over a considerable distance. Because seismic surveys are characterized by 

low-frequency sounds, this aspect needs to be considered with respect to potential impacts on fish and 

their auditory functions, the acoustic environments they inhabit, and their associated ecology.

3.3.2 Affected Environment: Detailed Analysis Areas (DAAs)

This section summarizes region-specific use and habitat features relative to fishes, with particular 

emphasis on ESA-listed species, occurring within the five DAAs. Discussion is limited to those species or 

higher groups that potentially occur within each DAA during the season of the exemplary marine seismic 

survey (Table 3.3-4). Critical habitat, as designated under the ESA, and EFH, as designated under the 

MSA, are also discussed.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-32

Table 3.3-4. Potential Occurrence of Higher Fish Groups and EFH within the DAAs during 

the Season of the Exemplary Seismic Surveys

Higher Group and EFH

NW

Atlantic

(Sum)

Caribbean

(Spr or Sum)

S Calif

(Spr or

Sum)

W Gulf

of Alaska

(Sum)

Galapagos

Ridge

(Win)

HIGHER GROUP*

Hagfishes and Lampreys B F M - B F M B F M B F M

Sharks, Skates, Rays, & Chimeras B E F E F M B F M B F M B F M

Sturgeons F M - B F M - -

Herring-likes E F M B E F B E F M B E F M B E F M

Salmon, Smelts, etc. B F M - B E F M EFM B E F M

Cod-likes B E F M - - B E F M B E F M

Pipefishes and Seahorses - - B F - B E F M

Scorpionfishes F M - B E F M B E F M B E F M

Perch-likes B E F B E F B E F M B E F M B E F M

Tuna and Billfishes E F M E F M B E F M - B E F M

Flatfishes B E F - B E F B E F M B E F M

EFH**

Hagfishes and lampreys E L J A E L J A E L J A

Sharks, Rays, and Chimeras N J A E J A E J A

Sturgeons - E N J A -

Herring-likes J A E L J A E L J A

Salmon, Smelts, etc. - J A A

Cod-likes E L J A - E L J A

Pipefishes and Seahorses - E J A -

Scorpionfishes - E L J A E L J A

Perch-likes E L J A E L J A E L J A

Tuna and Billfishes J A E L J A -

Flatfishes E L J A E L J A E L J A

Notes: *(Season) = N hemisphere season during which the exemplary seismic cruise would occur within the analysis area; Spr 

= spring, Sum = summer, Win = winter; B = breeds within the area, E = economically important fishery within the 

area, F = feeds within the area, M = migrates through the area, - = does not occur.

**EFH occurs only within the U.S. EEZ; analysis areas with shaded cells do not occur within the U.S. EEZ; E = eggs, 

L = larvae, N = neonates, J = juveniles, A = adults.

Sources: U.S. Navy 2005; SAUP 2010.

3.3.2.1 NW Atlantic

The NW Atlantic DAA occurs within the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME (refer to Figure 2-23) 

(SAUP 2010). Two fish species in this analysis area are listed as endangered under the ESA: shortnose 

sturgeon and Atlantic salmon. An additional 11 species are identified as ―At Risk‖ under IUCN or CITES 

(Table 3.3-2). 

Shortnose Sturgeon. The shortnose sturgeon was listed as endangered in 1967. Its known distribution 

extends from the Indian River, Florida, to the Saint John River, New Brunswick, Canada. Although it is 

endangered rangewide, NMFS recognizes 19 DPSs, 4 of which occur within states in the vicinity of the 

DAA: Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware (NMFS 1998c). Shortnose 

sturgeon are generally confined to freshwater, estuarine, and nearshore areas. They inhabit the main stems 

of their natal rivers, migrating between freshwater and mesohaline river reaches, and sometimes to sea. 

They do not appear to make long offshore migrations. To date, there has been no critical habitat 

designated for the shortnose sturgeon.

Atlantic Salmon. The Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic salmon has been designated as endangered under the 

ESA. This DPS includes all naturally reproducing wild populations and those river-specific hatchery 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-33

populations of Atlantic salmon having historical, river-specific characteristics found north of and 

including tributaries of the lower Kennebec River to, but not including, the mouth of the St. Croix River 

at the U.S.-Canada border (Fay et al. 2006). 

Atlantic salmon reproduce in coastal rivers of northeastern North America, Iceland, Europe and 

northwestern Russia and migrate through various portions of the North Atlantic Ocean. Stocks originating 

from North America range from the Ungava area of northern Quebec, southeast to Newfoundland and 

southwest to Long Island Sound. The North American group of Atlantic salmon includes Canadian 

populations (e.g., St. Lawrence River Basin, outer Maritimes, Bay of Fundy and NewfoundlandLabrador) and U.S. populations. The Gulf of Maine DPS is known to migrate as far north as the Labrador 

Sea where it mixes with Atlantic salmon stocks of Canadian origin. To date, there is no designated critical 

habitat for the Gulf of Maine Atlantic salmon DPS (NMFS 2005d).

Essential Fish Habitat. EFH for various life stages of numerous fish species, including Atlantic cod, 

Atlantic salmon, Atlantic halibut, flounder, hake, herring and other pelagic species, occurs in or 

proximate to the analysis area extending out to the limit of the U.S. EEZ (Table 3.3-4) (U.S. Navy 2005; 

New England Fishery Management Council 1998). Unless otherwise indicated, these life stages of the 

various species can occur anywhere in the water column. Designated EFH for adult Atlantic salmon 

represents all 26 rivers where Atlantic salmon are currently present and includes those bays and estuaries 

that support Atlantic salmon adults at the ―abundant‖, ―common‖ or ―rare‖ level. No offshore marine 

areas have been designated as EFH for Atlantic Salmon (New England Fishery Management Council 

1998).

Fisheries of the western North Atlantic Ocean are historically and currently fundamental to northeastern 

North American populations and economies, and were a primary reason for European settlement and 

success there. The presence and richness of fisheries in relatively shallow-water areas (―banks‖) in the 

western North Atlantic have been a source of tremendously successful and important fisheries, especially 

for codfishes. Current commercial fisheries identified in this analysis area include those for bluefish, 

black sea bass, silver hake, monkfish, tunas, striped bass, menhaden, Atlantic mackerel, Atlantic cod, 

haddock, and yellowtail flounder. Skates, spiny dogfish, Atlantic herring, and other large pelagic fishes 

such as sharks and swordfish are also fished commercially in the region. In addition, there is a fairly 

recent hook-and-line fishery for wreckfish which lands on the order of 100 metric tons from the 

―Charleston Bump‖ (off the SE U.S.), well south of the analysis area. However, the wreckfish population 

extends well north and across the North Atlantic to Europe (Vaughan et al. 2001). 

According to the U.S. Navy‘s Marine Resource Assessment of the Northeast Operating Areas (U.S. Navy 

2005), a recreational fishing hotspot occurs immediately west of the analysis area. The primary target 

species include bluefish, Atlantic mackerel and Atlantic cod in federal waters, and striped bass in state 

waters. Sport fishing tournaments occur in the analysis area in spring, summer, and fall.

3.3.2.2 Caribbean

The Caribbean DAA occurs within the Caribbean Sea LME, primarily on the shelf region north of 

Venezuela (refer to Figure 2-22) (SAUP 2010). No ESA-listed fish species or EFH occur in this analysis 

area, but 17 species of fish have been identified as  ̳At Risk‘ by IUCN or CITES (Table 3.3-2). 

The current commercial fisheries identified in this analysis area include those for yellowfin tuna, 

swordfish, coralline reef fishes, round sardinella, sea catfishes, bigeye scad, grunts (Haemulidae), jacks, 

and weakfishes (SAUP 2010; FishBase 2006) (Table 3.3-4). Sport fishing occurs inshore of the analysis 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-34

area. It is likely that some of the fisheries carried out within this analysis area would coincide with the 

season proposed for the Caribbean DAA exemplary seismic survey.

3.3.2.3 S California

The S California DAA (refer to Figure 2-20) is a diverse and seasonally productive marine system area 

(SAUP 2010). The region is strongly influenced by wind-driven upwelling, topography, currents 

(Nishimoto and Washburn 2002), and anthropogenic influences. Deep, nearshore canyons bring 

deepwater conditions and species near the coast, and structures associated with considerable offshore oil 

development serve as attractive and productive habitat, especially for rockfishes (family Scorpaenidae) 

(Love and York 2005; Love et al. 2005). 

Nine ESA-listed fish species occur in this analysis area: four threatened or endangered salmon ESUs (3

Chinook, 1 coho), four steelhead DPSs, and the threatened southern green sturgeon DPS (Table 3.3-2). 

An additional 12 IUCN- and/or CITES-listed  ̳At Risk‘ fish species occur in the analysis area in the 

California Current-Southern-California Bight. 

Salmon and Steelhead. ESA-listed salmon and steelhead ESUs originating in California all undertake 

northerly migrations along the west coast of North America upon leaving their natal rivers as juveniles. 

For this reason, their occurrence in the S California DAA is likely to be rare. Critical habitat designations 

for ESA-listed salmon and steelhead originating from rivers in California are restricted to freshwater and 

estuarine habitats (NOAA Fisheries 2005). 

Green Sturgeon. Green sturgeon spend the majority of their lives in coastal waters between northern Baja 

California and the Aleutian Islands, Alaska (Moyle 2001). Green sturgeon are very migratory and data 

suggest they inhabit coastal areas within the 328-ft (110-m) bottom contour. Little is known about the 

specific migration pathways and oceanic distribution of the southern green sturgeon DPS but they are 

believed to migrate northward to Alaska (NMFS 2005e). This suggests that occurrences of green sturgeon 

in the S California DAA would be rare. Critical habitat has not been designated for the green sturgeon 

(NMFS 2005e).

Essential Fish Habitat. EFH has also been designated by the Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(PFMC) for various non-listed species known to occur in California waters including northern anchovy, 

Pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel, jack mackerel, common thresher shark, pelagic thresher shark, bigeye 

thresher shark, shortfin mako shark, blue shark, albacore tuna, bigeye tuna, northern bluefin tuna, skipjack 

tuna, yellowfin tuna, striped marlin, swordfish, dorado, and for as many as 80 species of groundfish. 

Salmon EFH is broad, covering freshwater, estuarine, and marine environments. Salmon EFH extends 

from the nearshore and tidal submerged environments within state territorial waters out to the full extent 

of the EEZ offshore of California north of Point Conception (PFMC 1998, 2006, 2007). 

Fishing has been an important part of the life of western North America for thousands of years, from 

indigenous subsistence fisheries to industrialized net and hook-and-line fisheries. The seasonal winddriven upwelling, a spring phenomenon, replenishes nutrients in the upper ocean and drives, along with 

longer day length, a spectacular spring bloom in productivity. Current commercial and sport fisheries are

important and diverse (see Schroeder and Love 2002), and have been very important to the development 

of the region. However, many of these fisheries have recently been in decline, particularly the salmon 

fisheries. A high-seas yellowfin tuna seine fishery, mostly out of San Diego, California, still exists but has 

declined. Bottom trawling and, more recently, midwater trawling, have been very important but have 

recently been restricted. The central California sardine fishery was very productive while it lasted and it is 

slowly rebuilding. Gillnetting has been important both near-shore and offshore. Offshore trolling for 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-35

albacore is important. Near-shore sport fishing, from both private and for-hire boats, is mostly for salmon, 

rockfishes, and sometimes albacore.

3.3.2.4 W Gulf of Alaska

The nearest LME to the W Gulf of Alaska DAA is the East Bering Sea LME (SAUP 2010). This region is 

a bathymetrically diverse and abrupt basin. Important natural bathymetric features include the Emperor 

Seamount Chain extending south roughly along the International Date Line, the Aleutian Trench running 

parallel with and south of the Aleutian Island Chain, the Aleutian Islands, and the Patton and Gilbert 

seamounts to the east. These features constrain circulation and serve as attraction points for marine fish 

(Mecklenberg et al. 2002). A few of the eastern seamounts, some as far west as Umiak Island, are Alaska 

Seamount Marine Reserves. The climate is sub-Arctic and productivity is governed by currents, 

temperature, and day length in winter. Sea ice and its effect on light penetration as well as that of many 

associated organisms are important determinants of productivity. 

Twenty-seven ESA-listed threatened or endangered DPSs of anadromous salmon and steelhead 

potentially occur within the Gulf of Alaska: 16 salmon ESUs (2 sockeye, 9 Chinook, 3 coho, and 2 

chum) and 11 steelhead ESUs (Table 3.3-2). The only other ESA-listed marine species that could occur 

within the W Gulf of Alaska is the southern green sturgeon DPS. There is no ESA-designated critical 

habitat in the waters of Alaska (Table 3.3-4) (NMFS 2005a). 

Salmon and Steelhead. All W Coast salmon species (and associated ESUs) currently listed as threatened 

or endangered under the ESA originate in freshwater habitat in Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and 

California. Although some of the listed species migrate as adults into marine waters off Alaska, no stocks 

of Pacific salmon or steelhead originating from freshwater habitat in Alaska are listed under ESA. Only 

one Chinook salmon and three steelhead ESUs are thought to range into marine waters off Alaska during 

the ocean migration portion of their life history. In the Gulf of Alaska, ESA-listed salmon ESUs are 

mixed with hundreds to thousands of other salmon stocks originating from the Columbia River in 

Washington and Oregon and river drainages in British Columbia, Alaska, and Asia; ESA-listed fish are 

visually indistinguishable from these unlisted stocks (NMFS 2005a).

Green Sturgeon. Green sturgeon spend the majority of their lives in coastal waters between northern Baja 

California and the Aleutian Islands, Alaska (Moyle 2001). Green sturgeon are very migratory and data 

suggest they inhabit coastal areas within the 328-ft (110-m) bottom contour. Little is known about the 

specific migration pathways and oceanic distribution of the southern green sturgeon DPS but they are 

believed to migrate northward to Alaska; occurrences in the Gulf of Alaska are thought to be rare. Critical 

habitat has not been designated for the green sturgeon (NMFS 2005e).

Essential Fish Habitat. EFH for several species and life stages of marine fish, including Alaskan stocks of 

Pacific salmon and approximately 25 species of groundfish is designated in the W Gulf of Alaska DAA

(Table 3.3-4). EFH for Alaskan stocks of Pacific salmon extends from the mean higher tide line to the 

200-nm limit of the U.S. EEZ (NMFS 2005a). 

Fisheries have always and necessarily been important to the people inhabiting this region and to others, 

from indigenous subsistence fishers to very large-scale industrial fishing efforts by Canada, the U.S., or 

the nations of Asia. The severity of the climate and sea has largely limited exploitation until the last halfcentury, and winters are especially severe. The commercial fisheries of the W Gulf of Alaska are 

important and diverse involving both anadromous fishes (salmonids) and marine fishes (halibut and other 

flatfishes, Pacific herring, rockfishes, cods, and pollocks). Bottom trawling for groundfish is especially 

important. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-36

3.3.2.5 Galapagos Ridge

The Galapagos Ridge DAA is comprised of a tectonic spreading ridge running roughly parallel to the 

western coastline of South America. Its location is approximately 1,864 mi (3,000 km) offshore (refer to 

Figure 2-21) and thus well west of the nearest LME, the highly productive Humboldt Current. The 

Humboldt Current carries cold, low-salinity, nutrient-rich Antarctic water north along the western coast of 

South America. However, the offshore deep ocean waters of the tropical Pacific Ocean are more nutrient 

poor, similar to mid-ocean tropical seas around the world. No ESA-listed species are identified for the 

analysis area, although eight IUCN-listed fish species may be encountered there (Table 3.3-2). Since this 

DAA is outside the U.S. EEZ, EFH is not present within this analysis area. 

The eastern tropical Pacific Ocean is the site of a very large and important international pelagic seine 

fishery for yellowfin and other tunas. Some pelagic long lining for tunas and billfishes also occurs. Largescale industrial over-fishing is considered an ongoing problem. Sportfishing is usually confined to waters 

near islands or larger landmasses. 

3.3.3 Affected Environment: Qualitative Analysis Areas (QAAs)

This section summarizes region-specific use and habitat features relative to fishes occurring within the 

eight QAAs. Discussion is limited to those species or higher groups that potentially occur within each 

QAA during the season of the exemplary marine seismic survey (Table 3.3-5). Since all the QAAs are 

outside the U.S. EEZ, designated critical habitat for ESA-listed species and EFH are not present within 

any of the QAAs. 

Table 3.3-5. Potential Occurrence of Higher Fish Groups within the QAAs during the Season of the 

Exemplary Seismic Surveys

Higher Group

N Atlantic/

Iceland

(Sum)

BC

Coast

(Fall)

SW

Atlantic

(Any)

Mid-Atlantic

Ridge

(Spr, Sum,

or Fall)

W Australia

(Spr or Fall)

W India

(Spr or Fall)

Mariana

Islands

(Spr)

SubAntarctic

(Jan-Feb)

Hagfishes & Lampreys - B F M B F B F B F B F B F -

Sharks, Skates, Rays,

& Chimeras

E F M - E F M E F M E F M E F M - B F M

Sturgeons B F M F M - - - - - -

Herring-likes E F M M B E F - E F M E F M - -

Salmon, Smelts, etc. E F M M E - - - - - -

Cod-likes B E F B F M - - - - B F M B E F M

Pipefishes &

Seahorses

- - - - - - B F M -

Scorpionfishes E F M B F

M E

E F - - - - B F M

Perch-likes - B F M B E F - B E F B E F B F M B E F M

Tuna & Billfishes - - E F M E F M E F M E F M B E F M B F M

Flatfishes B E F B F

M E

- - - B E F - B E F M

Coelacanths - - - - - - - -

Notes: *(Season) = N hemisphere season during which the exemplary seismic cruise would occur within the analysis area; Spr = spring, Sum = summer. 

B = breeds within the area; E = economically important fishery within the area; F = feeds within the area; M = migrates through the area.

Source: SAUP 2010.

3.3.3.1 N Atlantic/Iceland

The N Atlantic/Iceland QAA occurs within the Iceland Shelf LME (refer to Figure 2-18) (SAUP 2010). 

Although no ESA-listed species occur within this analysis area, nine fish species do occur that have been

identified as  ̳At Risk‘ by IUCN or CITES (Table 3.3-2). 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-37

The current commercial fisheries identified in the LME of this analysis area include those for capelin, 

Atlantic cod, blue whiting, Atlantic herring, Greenland halibut, saithe or pollock, haddock, redfish, ocean 

perch, Atlantic wolffish, and European plaice. The most important species group in terms of shelf catches 

is the pelagic fishes followed by the demersal (or benthic) groundfishes (SAUP 2010).

3.3.3.2 BC Coast

The BC Coast QAA is located at the southern part of the Gulf of Alaska LME (refer to Figure 2-18) 

(SAUP 2010). Twenty-seven ESA-listed threatened or endangered species or DPSs of anadromous 

salmon and steelhead and the ESA-listed green sturgeon originating in U.S. waters potentially migrate 

along the BC Coast QAA during their seaward or river-ward migrations. An additional seven species of 

fish have been identified as  ̳At Risk‘ by the IUCN or CITES within the BC Coast QAA. 

Although Canada has no EFH-equivalent designation for various life stages of marine fish species along 

the BC Coast, DFOC uses regulatory power to open and close fisheries and fishing areas in Canadian 

waters to protect stocks of fish, either temporarily or permanently. Species of fish with such area closures 

are rockfish, herring, and salmon. In particular, inshore rocky reefs, kelp beds, and estuaries are 

commonly identified as important habitat for these species by DFOC.

An extensive commercial fishery occurs along the BC Coast throughout the year. This fishery is 

distributed across the entire continental shelf and beyond. Groundfish species (including rockfishes, 

halibut, and sablefish) make up the majority of the landed value, followed by herring and salmon. There 

are lesser fisheries on other species such as sardine. The BC Coast is renowned for its sport fishing that 

primarily targets salmon. This is, for the most part, a spring to late-winter fishery that occurs in nearcoastal waters. Sport fishers also target halibut and inshore rockfish species. First Nations traditional and 

food fisheries along the BC Coast have significant food, social, and ceremonial value to the local 

communities. In addition, many First Nations people participate in the general commercial fisheries.

3.3.3.3 SW Atlantic

The SW Atlantic QAA along coastal Brazil occurs within the North Brazil Shelf LME (refer to Figure 

2-18) (SAUP 2010). No ESA-listed fish species occur within this analysis area while 42 species do occur 

that have been identified as  ̳At Risk‘ by IUCN or CITES (Table 3.3-2). 

The current commercial fisheries identified in the LME of this analysis area include those for 

wreakfishes, drums or croakers (Sciaenidae), Atlantic seabob, jacks, sea catfishes, round sardinella, and 

Brazilian sardinella. Fisheries in the North Brazil Shelf LME are dominated by artisanal fishing methods 

(SAUP 2010). Therefore, fish catches are relatively low when compared to other areas with larger-scale 

and industrialized fishing methods.

3.3.3.4 Mid-Atlantic Ridge

The Mid-Atlantic Ridge QAA occurs proximate to the border shared by the West Central Atlantic and the 

East Central Atlantic FAO Areas (refer to Figure 2-18) (SAUP 2010). While there are substantial fish 

data associated with both of these FAO areas, both areas include primarily nearshore areas (i.e., eastern 

North America and western Africa) that are more productive than the mid-ocean waters of the MidAtlantic Ridge QAA. Thus, it is not possible to accurately extract the data relevant only to the MidAtlantic Ridge QAA. The limited fish information provided in this section is in the context of these 

broader FAO Areas. 

No ESA-listed fish species are identified for this analysis area. There are no data on any IUCN- or 

CITES-listed fish species specific to this area in the mid-Atlantic; however, it is likely that any listed fish 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-38

species occurring in this analysis area belong to either the tunas/billfishes or sharks/rays Higher Group 

classifications. 

It is unlikely that many commercial fisheries are conducted in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge QAA given its 

distance from shore. Medium to large pelagic fishes and sharks most likely dominate the pelagic fish 

assemblage in the analysis area; deepwater benthic and bathypelagic fish species also occur.

3.3.3.5 W Australia

The W Australia QAA occurs within both the Northwest Australian Shelf and West Central Australian 

Shelf LMEs (refer to Figure 2-18) (SAUP 2010). Some fish information provided in this section is in the 

context of these LMEs. No ESA-listed fish species occur within this analysis area while there are 36 

species that are IUCN- or CITES-listed (Table 3.3-2). 

The current commercial fisheries identified in the LMEs of this analysis area include those for goldstripe 

sardinella, bigeyes, threadfin breams, torpedo scad, Indo-Pacific anchovies, squirefish, southern bluefin 

tuna, yellowfin tuna, smelt-whitings, silky shark, Australian ruff, mullets, and barrelfishes (SAUP 2010).

3.3.3.6 W India

The W India QAA occurs within the Arabian Sea LME (refer to Figure 2-18) (SAUP 2010). Some fish 

information provided in this section is in the context of this LME. No ESA-listed fish species occur 

within this analysis area, but 36 species are CITES- or IUCN-listed (Table 3.3-2). 

The current commercial fisheries identified in the LME of this analysis area include those for Indian oil 

sardine, drums or croakers, sea catfishes, threadfin breams, Bombay duck, cutlassfishes, slimys, 

slipmouths or ponyfishes, anchovies, Indian mackerel, skipjack tuna, and yellowfin tuna (SAUP 2010).

3.3.3.7 Marianas

The Mariana Islands are a bathymetrically extreme region. The Marianas Ridge runs northward and 

separates the Philippine Sea from the North Pacific Ocean (Figure 2-18). To the east and running parallel 

to the ridge is the Marianas Trench, which includes the Challenger Deep that is the deepest part of all the 

world‘s oceans. No ESA-listed fish species are identified for this analysis area while there are at least 27 

species of cartilaginous fishes that are IUCN- and CITES-listed (Table 3.3-2). 

The largest and most profitable fisheries-related component of the economies of the Federated States of 

Micronesia, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands involves the fishery for tunas and its care, 

preparation, and transportation (usually by air) to market. This is due to the abundance of tunas in the 

region and the proximity to the very profitable market for fresh tuna in Japan. This fishery is primarily 

based on the catch of foreign-owned vessels licensed by the island governments. There are both privatesector and government long-line fisheries as well. Aquaculture is growing in the region. In some places, 

small-scale and artisanal fisheries persist. On many islands, especially those with inter-island air service, 

boat-based big game sportfishing and diving (spear fishing) is a growing component of the island 

economies.

3.3.3.8 Sub-Antarctic

The Sub-Antarctic QAA occurs within the Southwest Pacific FAO Area (refer to Figure 2-18) (SAUP 

2010). There are no ESA-, IUCN-, or CITES-listed fish species identified for this analysis area. The subAntarctic oceans are productive with long day lengths in the austral summers. As a result, they have long 

been the target of international fisheries for fish, whales, and invertebrates. Due to the remote and harsh 

nature of the southern oceans, these are all high-seas industrial fisheries. For the last 60 years very diverse 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-39

landings have come from the Southwestern Pacific Ocean, including the blue grenadier, a deepwater 

(2,625 ft [800 m]) demersal fish. The Inca scad, a jack, comprises the major fraction of landings in the SE

Pacific Ocean. 

3.3.4 Environmental Consequences – General

There are three types of potential effects on fish from exposure to underwater seismic and other 

anthropogenic sounds: pathological, physiological, and behavioral. These effects were previously defined 

in Section 3.2.4. The specific received sound levels at which permanent adverse effects to most fish 

species could potentially occur are little studied and largely unknown and information on the impacts of 

seismic surveys on marine fish populations is limited (Table 3.3-6 and Appendix D). Furthermore, 

available information on the potential impacts of seismic surveys on marine fish involves studies of a 

limited number of species and individuals and thus portions of a population; there have been no such 

studies at the population scale. This makes drawing conclusions about impacts to fish problematic since 

ultimately, the most important aspect of potential impacts relates to how exposure to seismic survey 

sound affects marine fish populations and their viability, including their availability to fisheries.

The following sections provide a general synopsis of available information on the effects of exposure to 

seismic and other anthropogenic sound as relevant to fish. The information comprises results from 

scientific studies of varying degrees of rigor plus, given the paucity of available data, some anecdotal 

information. Some of these data sources may have serious shortcomings in methods, analysis, 

interpretation, and reproducibility which must be considered when interpreting their results (see Hastings 

and Popper 2005). Criteria used to assess effects are first described, followed by a comparison of the 

frequencies of sounds from each source vs. sound frequencies detected and produced by fish, insofar as 

known. The types of potential impacts on fish resulting from the proposed seismic survey activities are 

then discussed. A more detailed review of the literature on the effects of seismic survey sound on fish is 

presented in Appendix D. 

Pathological Effects. The potential for pathological damage to hearing structures in fish depends on the 

energy level of the received sound and the physiology and hearing capability of the species in question. 

For a given sound to result in hearing loss, the sound must exceed, by some specific amount, the hearing 

threshold of the fish for that sound (Popper 2005). The consequences of temporary or permanent hearing 

loss in individual fish or a fish population is largely unknown. However, it likely depends on the number 

of individuals affected and whether critical behaviors involving sound (e.g., predator avoidance, prey 

capture, orientation and navigation, reproduction, etc.) are adversely affected.

Rather little is known about the mechanisms and characteristics of potential injury to fish from exposure 

to seismic survey sounds. Few data have been presented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. There 

are few papers with proper experimental methods, controls, and careful pathological investigation 

implicating that sounds produced by actual seismic survey airguns cause adverse anatomical and hearing 

effects. McCauley et al. (2003) found that exposure to airgun sounds (600 pulses with peak-to-peak 

source SPL just below 223 dB re 1 μPa) caused observable anatomical damage to the auditory maculae of 

pink snapper (see Appendix D for more details on the McCauley (2003) study). This damage in the ears 

did not repair in fish examined almost 2 months after exposure. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-40

Table 3.3-6. Summary of Known Effects of Seismic Survey Sound on Marine Fish and Related Fisheries

Higher

Group

Masking or

Disturbance*

Hearing or

Detection

Impairment*

Auditory

Tissue

Damage*

Non-Auditory

Injury or Mortality*

Physiological

Effect(stress)

Fishery

Effects*

Hagfishes & lampreys Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Sharks, rays, & chimeras Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Sturgeons Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Herring-likes

 Limited evidence of short-term 

behavioral effects for caged 

herring (Engås et al. 1995).

Unknown Unknown  Limited evidence of increased 

mortality of eggs (anchovy) at 

close range (<10 m) to multiple 

exposures to airguns (Holliday 

et al. 1987).

Unknown

Herring, no significant effect 

on distribution (Slotte et al. 

2004).

Salmon, Smelts, etc.

 Negligible behavioral response of 

Atlantic salmon to small airgun 

array (Thomsen 2002).

No evidence 

in one 

salmonid 

species 

(Popper et al. 

2005).

Unknown  Some evidence of swim bladder 

damage to young Arctic cisco to 

pulsed airgun sound at <2 m but 

no mortality observed (Falk and 

Lawrence 1973).

 No evidence of lethal effects to 

caged coho salmon (Weinhold 

and Weaver 1972).

Unknown Unknown

Cod-likes

 Evidence of short-term behavioral 

effects for hake with evidence of 

habituation (Chapman and 

Hawkins 1969).

 No behavioral response observed 

for pollock, saithe, juvenile cod 

(Wardle et al. 2001).

Unknown  Evidence of injury to caged cod 

and plaice from continuous nearfield exposure (<4 m) (Matishov 

1992).

 Evidence of injury and mortality 

to eggs and larvae of cod, turbot, 

plaice (Booman et al. 1996).

Unknown  Blue whiting – no 

significant effects on 

distribution, moved deeper 

(Slotte et al. 2004).

 Evidence of reduced catch 

rates for cod, haddock 

(Engås et al. 1996).

Pipefishes & seahorses Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Scorpionfishes

 Evidence of short-term behavioral 

effects for rockfish (Pearson et al. 

1992)

Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown  Evidence of reduced catch 

rates for rockfish (Skalski 

et al. 1992)

Perch-likes

 Evidence of short-term behavioral 

effects for sea bass (Santulli et al. 

1999).

 Short-term behavioral response in 

sandeels (Hassel et al. 2003, 

2004).

 No behavioral response observed 

for mackerel (Wardle et al. 2001).

Unknown  Evidence of 

permanent 

structural change in 

pink snapper from 

many exposures to 

airguns (McCauley 

et al. 2003).

 No evidence of injury to sea 

bass (Santulli et al. 1999).

 Evidence of increased mortality 

of eggs (red mullet, blue runner) 

at close range (<10 m) to 

multiple exposures to airguns 

(Kostyvchenko 1973).

 Evidence of 

short-term 

increase in 

stress levels 

(cortisol) of 

sea bass 

(Santulli et 

al. 1999).

 No evidence of reduced 

catch rates for bass 

(Pickett et al. 1994).

Tuna & billfishes, 

Flatfishes, Coelacanths Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

*Unknown indicates no studies. See text and Appendix D for further details and citations for the studies summarized in this table.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-41

Popper et al. (2005) documented TTS (as determined by auditory brainstem response) in two of three 

fishes (northern pike and lake chub in the Mackenzie River Delta). This study found that broad whitefish 

that received an SEL of 177 dB re 1 μPa2∙s showed no TTS. In both cases, the repetitive exposure to 

sound was greater than would be expected in a typical seismic survey. Fishes involved in the study by 

Popper et al. (2005) were examined for damage to the sensory cells of the inner ear as a result of exposure 

to seismic sound and no damage was observed (Song et al. 2008). Besides these two studies, at least with 

airgun-generated sound treatments, most contributions rely on rather subjective assays such as  ̳fish 

alarm‘ or  ̳startle response‘, or changes in catch rates by fishers. While these experiments are relevant in 

that they attempt to use the levels of exposures that are likely to be encountered by most free-ranging fish 

in actual seismic survey areas, the associated sound stimuli are often poorly described and the biological 

assays are varied (Hastings and Popper 2005). 

Wardle et al. (2001) suggest that acute injury and death of organisms exposed to seismic energy in water 

depends primarily on two features of the sound source: the received peak pressure and the time required 

for the pressure to rise and decay. Generally, as received pressure increases the period for the pressure to 

rise and decay decreases and the chance of acute pathological effects increases. According to Buchanan et 

al. (2004), for the types of seismic airguns and arrays involved with the proposed NSF-funded or USGS 

marine seismic research, the pathological (mortality) zone for fish would be expected to be within a few 

meters of the seismic source. Numerous other studies provide examples of no fish, fish egg, or fish larvae

mortality upon exposure to seismic sources (Falk and Lawrence 1973; Holliday et al. 1987; La Bella et al. 

1996; Santulli et al. 1999; McCauley et al. 2000a, b; Thomsen 2002; Hassel et al. 2003; McCauley et al. 

2003; Popper et al. 2005; Payne et al. 2009).

Other studies have reported, some equivocally, that mortality of fish, fish eggs, or larvae can occur close 

to seismic sources (Kostyvchenko 1973; Dalen and Knutsen 1986; Booman et al. 1996; Dalen et al. 

1996). Some of these investigated seismic effects from treatments quite different from actual seismic 

survey sound stimuli or even reasonable surrogates. Saetre and Ona (1996) applied a  ̳worst-case 

scenario‘ mathematical model to investigate the effects of seismic energy on fish eggs and larvae. They 

concluded that mortality rates caused by exposure to seismic surveys are so low as compared to natural 

mortality rates that the impact of seismic surveying on recruitment to a fish stock must be regarded as 

insignificant.

Physiological Effects. Physiological effects refer to cellular and/or biochemical responses by fish to 

acoustic stress. Such stress could potentially affect fish populations by increasing mortality or reducing 

reproductive success. Primary and secondary stress responses of fish after exposure to seismic survey 

sound appear to be temporary (Sverdrup et al. 1994; McCauley et al. 2000a, b). The periods necessary for 

these biochemical changes to return to normal are variable and depend on numerous aspects of the 

biology of the species and of the sound stimulus (see Appendix D).

Behavioral Effects. Behavioral effects include changes in the distribution, migration, mating, and 

catchability of fish populations. Studies investigating the possible effects of sound (including seismic 

survey sound) on fish behavior have been conducted on both uncaged and caged individuals (Chapman 

and Hawkins 1969; Pearson et al. 1992; Santulli et al. 1999; Wardle et al. 2001; Hassel et al. 2003; 

Boeger et al. 2006). In these studies, fish typically exhibited a sharp  ̳startle‘ response at the onset of a 

sound followed by habituation and a return to normal behavior after the sound ceased. Investigation by 

Jorgenson and Gyselman (2009) indicated that behavioral characteristics of arctic riverine fishes were 

generally unchanged by exposure to airgun sound.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-42

Although reduced catch rates have been reported in some marine fisheries during seismic surveys, in a 

number of cases the findings are confounded by other sources of disturbance (Dalen and Raknes 1985; 

Dalen and Knutsen 1986; Løkkeborg 1991; Skalski et al. 1992; Engås et al. 1996). In other airgun 

experiments, there was no change in catch per unit effort of fish when airgun pulses were emitted, 

particularly in the immediate vicinity of the seismic survey (Pickett et al. 1994; La Bella et al. 1996). For 

some species, reductions in catch may have resulted from a change in behavior of the fish such as a 

change in vertical or horizontal distribution (Slotte et al. 2004). 

In general, any adverse effects on fish behavior or fisheries due to seismic surveys may depend on the 

species in question and the nature of the fishery (season, duration, fishing method). It may also depend on 

the age of the fish, its motivational state, its size, and numerous other factors that are difficult, if not 

impossible, to quantify, particularly under realistic at-sea conditions.

3.3.4.1 Criteria

Sounds associated with the proposed seismic survey activities could impact some individual fish, at least 

behaviorally and perhaps physiologically. Pathological effects are also potentially possible for the 

relatively small numbers of individual fish that could occur in close proximity to an operating, highenergy sound source (i.e., within several meters). However, there is insufficient knowledge to establish 

objective criteria for determining the potential for adverse effects on fish and fisheries, let alone the sound 

level at which such effects may occur. Generally, adverse effects on a particular species can be considered 

significant if they result in a reduction in the overall health and viability of a population or significantly 

impact fisheries targeting that population. This is the general criterion used to determine significance of 

effect on fish in this PEIS. On the ocean-basin or regional scale, determining whether or not there is a 

reduction in the overall health (or abundance) of a fish population is problematic. Such assessments are 

typically confounded by the general lack of pre-impact information, the multitude of environmental or 

non-project-related factors influencing marine fish populations, and often the large or unknown extent of 

the habitat in which they reside relative to the potential impact area. However, given the localized and 

transient spatial scale of no more than a few NSF-funded seismic vessels operating at any one time as 

presented in this PEIS relative to the generally large-scale distribution of fish populations, no populationlevel effects are expected as a result of project implementation as described later in this section (also see 

Table 3.3-6).

3.3.4.2 Sound Sources and Characteristics

Determining the potential behavioral or ecological effect of project sound sources on marine fish 

populations requires identification of overlap in the frequencies detected or produced by these species as 

compared with the frequencies of the acoustic sources proposed for use. The behavior and ecology of fish 

whose hearing and emitted sounds do not overlap those of the project acoustic sources would not, in most 

cases, be expected to be affected by those sources. A possible exception would be that those individuals 

within several meters of a sound source operating at high levels could still potentially be harmed by the 

energy of the sound to an unknown extent. Sounds from airguns and ships overlap in frequency with the 

frequencies at which many fish are known to detect or produce sound. In contrast, the frequencies of the 

MBESs, SBPs, and pingers do not overlap the frequencies at which most marine fishes are known to 

detect or produce sound. The sound characteristics of each of the project acoustic sources are described 

below relative to what is known about sounds produced and detected by fish. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-43

Airguns and Airgun Arrays

The airguns and airgun arrays have dominant frequency components of 2-188 Hz (Table 2-3) and zero-topeak nominal source outputs of 240-265 dB re 1 Pa-m. This frequency range overlaps with the 

frequencies detected by many fish species in all the higher groups for which hearing ranges have been 

studied or surmised (Table 3.3-3). This frequency range also overlaps with the likely hearing of ESAlisted salmonids and sturgeons (see Table 3.3.2 for ESA-listed species in the analysis areas). The hearing 

capability of Atlantic salmon indicates a rather low sensitivity to sound (Hawkins and Johnstone 1978). 

Laboratory experiments yielded responses only to 0.58 kHz and only at high sound levels. Poor hearing 

by salmon is likely due to the lack of a link between the swim bladder and inner ear (Jorgensen et al. 

2004).

There are limited data on hearing in sturgeon, and none in the published literature. However, initial 

studies suggest that sturgeon may be able to detect sounds from below 100 Hz to perhaps 1,000 Hz 

(Meyer and Popper 2002; Popper 2005). Lovell et al. (2005b) tested the sound reception and hearing 

abilities of the lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) using a combination of morphological and 

physiological approaches and found that it was responsive to sounds with frequencies from 100 to 500 

Hz.

The nominal source outputs of individual airguns (as well as airgun arrays) are substantially higher than 

the hearing thresholds for those species studied. Thus, there is potential for acoustic effects on some 

individuals of some fish species, including ESA-listed salmonids and sturgeon. 

MBESs, SBPs, and Pingers

The Kongsberg EM122 MBES proposed for use on the R/V Langseth operates at 10.5-13 (usually 12) 

kHz. Other types of MBESs used for deep-water operations aboard other research vessels associated with 

the proposed action operate at similar or higher frequencies (see Table 2-5). These frequencies are above 

the known hearing ranges of most marine fish species (Table 3.3-3) and above the known hearing ranges

of ESA-listed salmonids and sturgeon. An exception to this is that some of the herring-like fishes (of the 

Clupeoid subfamily Alosinae, the shads, river herrings, and near-shore menhadens) can detect ultrasonic 

(>20 kHz) signals (Mann et al. 2001). As far as is known, non-alosine Clupeoids (sea herrings, sardines, 

and anchovies, among others) do not hear above 4 or 5 kHz (Mann et al. 2001, 2005). For those fishes in 

the Alosine subfamily of herrings that can hear at these frequencies, exposures of most individual fish 

(those not very close to the MBES) would be very brief. Therefore, use of the MBES is extremely 

unlikely to result in population-level effects on any marine fish species.

The SBP operates at 2-5 kHz. These frequencies are within the hearing range of some species in the order 

Clupeiformes (herring-like species). The Pacific herring, for example, showed an auditory brainstem 

response up to 5 kHz (Mann et al. 2005). No other marine fish are currently known to hear as high as 2.5 

kHz (Table 3.3-3).

The SBP on the R/V Langseth has a maximum source output of 204 dB re 1 μPa-m, which is well above 

the hearing threshold of most fish species. However, these sounds are higher than most marine fish 

species are likely to hear. Furthermore, for those Clupeiformes that can hear at these frequencies, the 

exposures of most individual fish (those not very close to the SBP) would be brief. Therefore, the use of 

the SBP is not expected to result in population-level effects on any marine fish species.

There is considerable literature devoted to the avoidance by fish of fisheries survey vessels utilizing depth 

sounders (Gerletto and Fréon 1992; Misund et al 1996; Fernandez et al. 2003; Handegard et al. 2003; 

Mitson and Knudsen 2003; Gerletto et al. 2004). These investigators have reported varying degrees of 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-44

horizontal and/or vertical avoidance but correlating avoidance with such acoustic sources is confounded

by the presence of vessel noise. The lone exception is Fernandez et al. (2003) who reported no avoidance 

by fish to a relatively small (223 ft [68 m]) vessel specially designed for quietness. Furthermore, in the 

aforementioned studies, the assessment methods and the types and frequencies of fisheries sonars that 

were used have varied, as have the contexts and environments in which they occurred. Regardless, no 

population-level effects on marine fish populations have been demonstrated.

Pingers proposed for use would have a peak output of 183 dB at 55-110 KHz. These sounds are at 

frequencies higher than most marine fish species are likely to hear. Furthermore, for those Clupeiformes

that can hear at these frequencies, the exposures of most individual fish (those not very close to the 

pingers) would be brief. Therefore, the use of pingers is not expected to result in population-level effects 

on any marine fish species.

Vessel Sound

Ship engines, propulsion systems, and the vessel hull itself also emit sounds into the marine environment 

with frequencies that overlap with frequencies and thresholds associated with sound production and 

detection in marine fish. Richardson et al. (1995a) present a helpful discussion of vessel-generated 

sounds. Ship-generated sound is an important component of background sound at sea (Urick 1983; 

Popper 2003) and the magnitude of that component is growing (Andrew et al. 2002; McDonald et al. 

2006). Recent research by Vasconcelos et al. (2007) and Wysocki et al. (2006) suggests that ship noise 

may affect fish auditory sensitivity or cortisol levels for the species studied but for the most part effects of 

vessel noise on fish are largely unknown. The source level of vessel sound would be considerably less 

than source levels of the pulsed sound sources associated with the proposed action. Further, vessel sounds 

would be at levels expected to cause only possible localized, short-term behavioral changes. Thus, 

potential effects of vessel sounds on marine fish are not further discussed in detail.

3.3.4.3 Acoustic Effects

Table 3.3-6 summarizes the known general effects of seismic survey (airgun) sound on fish and related 

fisheries. Based on the limited studies of a small number of species, acoustic energy from seismic airguns 

could cause adverse effects to individual fish at a localized spatial and temporal scale, though no 

significant effects are expected to fish populations (reviewed in Appendix D). Available information 

indicates that most effects would be limited to short-term non-lethal impacts, such as changes in behavior 

or short-term stress reactions. This assessment is related to the pulsed nature of the airgun operations, 

vessel speed, and distance between the source and most fish. The seismic vessel is underway at 4-5 kt (7-

9 km/hr) while emitting short (<1 sec duration) airgun sound pulses typically spaced >20 sec apart is 

highly unlikely to expose individual fish to more than 1 or 2 pulses that could result in potential impacts. 

For the MBES and SBP, although some fish species are potentially capable of hearing at the frequencies 

of these systems, no population-level effects are expected due to the extreme short duration of the 

transmissions and narrow beamwidth. For fish species, the greatest potential for adverse impacts related 

to project sounds is related to changes in behavior (e.g., masking, disturbance, fisheries). Each of these is 

described briefly below. 

Masking

Currently there are no studies documenting that seismic surveys result in masking effects on any fish 

species (Table 3.3-6). Masking is the effect of an acoustic source interfering with the reception and 

detection of an acoustic signal or other sound of biological importance to a receiver. For a discussion of 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-45

the biological relevance of ambient and signal sounds to fish, see Fay and Popper (2000). Any sound 

within an animal‘s hearing range can mask relevant sounds. 

Theoretically, the airguns or airgun arrays, MBESs, SBPs, pingers, and vessel sound could contribute 

minimally to localized short-term and transitory masking of sound detection by some marine fishes, at 

least those species whose sound detection capacities are in the frequency range of the seismic survey 

sound source(s). Based on the known or presumed hearing ranges of ESA-listed salmonids and sturgeon, 

the airguns or airgun arrays could contribute to localized short-term and transitory masking of sound 

detection by these species. However, in general, the potential for masking effects would be limited and 

localized in extent given the brief, pulsed nature of the seismic survey sounds and the transiting seismic 

vessel relative to individual fish; related effects would be insignificant at the population scale. Sound 

detection by marine fishes of the MBESs, SBPs, and pingers, and hence masking, is unlikely to occur due 

to the much higher frequencies of these instruments relative to fish hearing capabilities. 

Disturbance

For the purposes of this analysis, disturbance to marine fish from proposed sound sources refers to any 

change in behavior resulting from the presence of a sound or of the vessel. Of primary importance is any 

change in behavior that increases mortality or results in reduced survival or reproductive success. To be 

significant, such behavioral changes would need to cause an overall reduction in the abundance of the 

population for the species of concern. Thus, adverse effects to individuals are not considered significant 

unless the sum of these effects adversely affects a significant portion of the population. 

While it is known that acoustic impulses from airguns and airgun arrays may disturb some species of fish, 

this disturbance is generally brief with some evidence of habituation (Table 3.3-6, Section 3.3.4, and 

Appendix D). The temporal and spatial scale of these effects would be short-term and localized to the area

ensonified at the sound level causing the disturbance response (see Chapter 2 for a review of distances to 

various sound levels for the proposed airgun arrays). For most marine fish populations, including ESAlisted salmonids and sturgeon, disturbance from the seismic airguns and arrays would be limited to the 

relatively small portion of the population near the active sound source (see Table 3.3-6 and Appendix D 

for specifics). Such effects would be considered insignificant at the population level. 

The potential disturbance effects of the MBESs, SBPs, and pingers on the few fish species that detect 

sound within the frequency ranges of those sources are unknown. For alosine herrings, there could be 

some disturbance from the MBES and SBP. However, for reasons described previously, such effects, if 

they even occur, would be considerably less than the potential effects of seismic survey sound. Therefore, 

potential impacts to fish as a result of the MBESs, SBPs, and pingers would not be considered significant 

at the population level. Sound detection by marine fishes of the pingers, and hence disturbance, is 

unlikely to occur due to the much higher frequencies of these instruments relative to fish hearing 

capabilities. 

Hearing or Detection Impairment

Although some studies have documented acoustically induced auditory damage and its biological repair, 

nearly all involved laboratory conditions, acoustic sources dissimilar to those proposed under the 

proposed action, and/or freshwater fishes with specialized connections between the swim bladder and the 

inner ear that may be more vulnerable to sound-induced damage than those fishes without the specialized 

connections (Scholik and Yan 2002; Amoser et al. 2004; Smith et al. 2004a, b; Smith et al. 2006)

(Appendix D). Furthermore, the few studies documenting such effects were on caged fish that could not 

avoid the sound source. Two important exceptions are studies by McCauley et al. (2003) and Popper et al. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-46

(2005) wherein physiological damage from airgun sources was documented among a few fish species in 

very shallow water (<7 ft [2 m] and approximately 30 ft [9 m]). Popper et al. (2005) found that resulting 

TTS disappeared in two freshwater species of fish within 24 hr. In contrast, McCauley et al. (2003) 

reported no recovery within approximately 2 months for pink snapper in Australian marine waters. 

However, the inherent shallow-water boundary conditions in these two studies are quite unrealistic to 

those of an actual seismic survey. This indicates that generalizing from a small number of study results 

under specific conditions to different species, sounds, and environments is inconclusive.

It is largely unknown what level and duration of TTS or PTS are required to affect survival and 

reproduction in an individual of any fish species. Temporary hearing impairment is often considered an 

insignificant effect for fish if it does not adversely affect orientation, predator avoidance, prey capture, or 

communication for the purposes of mating, and does not result in a reduction of overall population health. 

Experiments conducted with a small number of captive marine fish species should not be considered 

representative models of what free-ranging fish of multiple species would experience from an actual 

seismic survey and the associated acoustic sources. Furthermore, a wide range of fish taxa is likely to be 

exposed in any oceanic seismic survey. Based upon the best available data, population-scale impacts to 

wide-ranging and abundant marine fish populations are considered highly unlikely as a result of proposed 

seismic survey activities. However, to the extent threatened or endangered populations of a marine fish 

species might be adversely affected by a marine seismic survey, such surveys should be planned on a sitespecific basis in consultation with the responsible agencies (e.g., NMFS) as required to avoid designated 

critical habitat and/or localized sensitive periods.

The potential for hearing impairment by the MBESs, SBPs, and pingers on the few fish species that detect 

sounds within the frequency range of these sources is unknown. However, given their considerably 

narrower beam characteristics, related effects would be even more localized than those of the airguns, 

with no significant impacts on marine fish populations. Sound detection by marine fishes of the pingers, 

and hence hearing impairment, is unlikely to occur due to the much higher frequencies of these 

instruments relative to fish hearing capabilities. 

Non-auditory Injury or Mortality

As with auditory damage, few data support the possibility of non-auditory injury or mortality of fish close 

to an airgun(s) (Table 3.3-6). However, theoretically, airguns and airgun arrays could potentially result in 

acute injury and mortality of a minimal number of individuals of some species of fish, their larvae, and/or 

eggs when in very close proximity (a few meters) to a high-energy acoustic source (Table 3.3-6 and 

Appendix D). This would be most probable and potentially severe in fish with trapped gas pockets such 

as swim bladders, which expand and contract in concert with the ambient pressure changes. However, 

given the small area exposed to such levels (within several meters of the source), the transience of the 

moving seismic source relative to the ocean scale, and the small number of fish potentially within this 

localized area, the chance of non-auditory injury or mortality would be limited to an insignificant number 

of individual fish. Such effects on a small number of individual fish would be insignificant at the

population scale and would be considerably smaller than the natural mortality rate. Therefore, based on 

the limited best available science, seismic surveys are not expected to result in significant non-auditory 

injury or mortality impacts on marine fish at the population scale. 

Effects of the MBESs, SBPs, and pingers on the few marine fish species that hear within the frequency 

range of these sources are unknown. However, given the considerably narrower beam characteristics of 

the MBES and SBP combined with the brief period the transiting seismic vessel would pass individual 

fish, potential effects would be even more localized than those of the airguns, with no anticipated 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-47

significant impacts on marine fish populations. Sound detection by marine fishes of the pingers, and 

hence injury or mortality, is unlikely to occur due to the much higher frequencies of these instruments 

relative to fish hearing capabilities.

3.3.4.4 Other Potential Effects

Effects on Fisheries

There is the potential for fisheries to be temporarily affected by the proposed seismic surveys. This could 

happen in a number of ways besides actual physiological damage or stress to fish. Disturbance to fish 

population structures and distributions could result in reduced catch. An example would be temporary 

displacement of fish from traditional fishing grounds. Direct interference with the act of fishing is 

possible (e.g., displacing fishing vessels or entanglement with fishing gear), as well as simply putting 

target fish  ̳off the bite‘ for hook fisheries or changing fish distributions so as to reduce catch in net 

fisheries. However, research seismic surveys are not prolonged or repeated annually in the same 

locations.

Hirsh and Rodhouse (2000) reviewed studies investigating the hypothesis that seismic survey sounds have 

a deleterious effect on (usually commercial) fishing success. In most cases, these studies (e.g., Pearson et

al. 1992; Skalski et al. 1992; Engås et al. 1996) found that fishing catch of one or more target species 

declined with the onset of seismic survey operations and remained depressed throughout this activity and 

for some time thereafter. As with vessel avoidance, it is problematic to predict a sustained effect on 

fisheries. Minimizing potential adverse effects on fisheries can generally be accomplished through 

adjustments to tracklines and timing of surveys as well as communication with fishers during the surveys. 

In summary, potential effects of seismic survey sounds on fisheries would be temporary and localized 

during the period of seismic survey operations.

Other Activities

The proposed seismic research surveys may include other activities that could result in physical 

disturbance to fish and fish habitat such as coring, dredging, sediment sampling, and the deployment of 

OBS/Hs (see Chapter 2). However, these activities would be very limited in scope and size compared to 

the surrounding area. The size of disturbed areas at the bottom of the sea would be limited to the short 

term in roughly the footprint size of the equipment involved. These activities would temporarily directly 

disturb bottom substrate inhabited by demersal (living on or near the bottom substrate) fish species. There 

would be no long-term effects to habitats or populations of demersal fish because disturbed areas of the 

sea bottom substrate are typically re-colonized by benthic invertebrates in the short term (e.g., less than 1

year) (Pranovi et al. 2005). Furthermore, the size of the area disturbed would be very small in size and 

insignificant in proportion to the availability of surrounding habitat; thus, direct and indirect impacts to 

individual fish species would also be insignificant and no impacts would occur at the population level. 

Dredging also typically results in suspension of bottom matter in the water column in a small area over 

the very short term (i.e., less than 24 hours) (Wilber and Clarke 2001). This increase in turbidity could 

temporarily displace a small number of demersal and deep-water pelagic fish species. However, these 

effects would be insignificant in the small, limited scope of time and area affected by proposed project 

activities and would have no individual or population-level effects.

3.3.5 Environmental Consequences – Alternative A and Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)

Short-term behavioral effects potentially resulting in short-term, localized displacement or disturbance of 

individual fish are the most likely effects expected under Alternative A or B as a result of exposure to 

airgun and airgun array sounds (see Section 3.3.4 and Table 3.3-7). The small number of individual fish 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-48

that could potentially experience injurious or mortal impacts when within a few meters of a high-energy 

acoustic source is considered insignificant on a population scale. 

The potential for impacts upon exposure of fish to the MBES and SBP is considerably less for two 

reasons. First, few fish species are capable of detecting or hearing the high-frequency sounds produced by 

these two acoustic sources. Secondly, the narrower along-track beam of these two acoustic sources would 

affect a considerably smaller area than the broader areas affected by the airguns and arrays; as a result, a 

given fish location near the transiting source would be ensonified for only one brief ping at most. The 

potential for impacts upon exposure of fish to the pingers is not likely given the much higher frequency of 

this instrument relative to fish hearing capabilities.

For any ESA-listed species of fish whose hearing is within the frequency range of the airguns, there may 

be short-term impacts to a small number of individuals that are very close to an airgun (a few meters), but 

these effects are not likely to adversely affect these populations. Furthermore, impacts to ESA-listed fish 

species or EFH are not anticipated to occur as implementation of Alternatives A or B include provisions 

to plan the seismic surveys to avoid, to the maximum extent practicable, federally designated critical 

habitat for threatened or endangered fish populations. With these mitigation measures in place, no 

significant impacts on threatened or endangered fish populations or to EFH are anticipated in any of the 

exemplary DAAs or QAAs due to any of the proposed sound sources (Table 3.3-7). 

Table 3.3-7. Summary of Potential Impacts to Fish Species of Special Concern, EFH, and Related 

Fisheries with Implementation of Alternatives A or B

Analysis Area Species, EFH, or Fisheries Alternative A or B*

DAAS

NW Atlantic

 ESA-listed species: shortnose 

sturgeon, Atlantic salmon

 EFH for numerous species

 Important fisheries  May affect but would not adversely affect ESAlisted species. 

 Primarily short-term behavioral or possibly 

physiological impacts to small numbers of

individuals of most higher groups.

 No significant impacts to fisheries.

 No adverse effects on EFH.

 No significant impacts at the population level.

W Gulf of Alaska

 Important fisheries

 EFH for numerous species including 

salmon and groundfish

Caribbean Sea

Galapagos Ridge  Important fisheries

S California

 ESA-listed species: green sturgeon, 

Chinook & coho salmon, steelhead, 

bull trout

 EFH for numerous species

 Important fisheries

QAAS

BC Coast

 ESA-listed species: green sturgeon; 

bull trout; steelhead; sockeye salmon; 

Chinook, chum, and coho salmon

 Important fisheries

 May affect but would not adversely affect ESAlisted species. 

 Primarily short-term behavioral or possibly 

physiological impacts to small numbers of 

individuals of most higher groups.

 No significant impacts to fisheries.

 No adverse effects to EFH.

 No significant impacts at the population level.

Mid-Atlantic Ridge

Marianas

Sub-Antarctic

N Atlantic/Iceland

 Important fisheries

SW Atlantic  EFH for numerous species

 Important fisheries

W India

W Australia  Important fisheries

Note: *Impacts under Alternative A assume that provisions would be made to plan the seismic surveys to avoid, to the 

maximum extent practicable, critical habitat for federally listed species
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-49

3.3.6 Environmental Consequences – Alternative C (No-Action Alternative)

Under the No-Action Alternative, NSF-funded and USGS marine seismic research surveys using airguns 

and other acoustic sources (e.g., MBESs, SBPs, and pingers) would not occur. Therefore, baseline 

conditions would remain unchanged and there would be no impacts to marine fish, ESA-listed species, 

EFH, and associated fisheries with implementation of Alternative C.

3.3.7 Summary of Environmental Consequences – Fish

Based on the available information, the potential impacts of NSF-funded or USGS geophysical 

exploration and scientific research using seismic surveys on marine fish populations are predicted to be 

not significant under Alternatives A and B (Preferred Alternative). In survey areas where commercially 

important fisheries or critical habitat for ESA-listed fish species are known to occur, pre-survey planning

would be conducted to the greatest extent practicable as required to minimize adverse impacts to the 

associated populations. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-50

3.4 SEA TURTLES

Among the approximately 64 species of marine reptiles and sea turtles that potentially occur in some of 

the analysis areas, the seven sea turtle species are of most relevance and concern. Six of the seven species 

of sea turtles are ESA-listed: green, hawksbill, loggerhead, olive ridley, Kemp‘s ridley, and leatherback; 

the flatback is not listed (Table 3.4-1). Three groups of marine (or estuarine) reptiles could occur within 

some of the exemplary analysis areas: saltwater or estuarine crocodile, marine iguana, and approximately

55 species of sea snakes. However, these reptiles are considered extralimital and highly unlikely to occur 

within the analysis areas. However, they are addressed briefly below with discussion limited to this 

introduction. 

The saltwater crocodile may occur thousands of kilometers from shore and has a range that encompasses 

northern Australia, much of Southeast Asia, Sri Lanka, and the eastern coast of India (IUCN 1992). 

Individuals have been found as far north as Japan and as far west as islands in the Indian Ocean. The two 

exemplary seismic surveys off W India and W Australia in the Indian Ocean have a slight chance of 

encountering saltwater crocodiles; however, they are expected to be extralimital in those areas and as such 

are not discussed further in this PEIS. 

The marine iguana is found only on the Galapagos Islands and does not range beyond the nearshore zone 

(Burghardt and Stanley 1982). Since the exemplary Galapagos Ridge seismic survey does not approach 

closer than approximately 870 mi (1,400 km) of the Galapagos Islands, the marine iguana is not 

considered further in this PEIS.

The 55 species of sea snakes account for 86% of the marine reptile species alive today. Sea snakes are 

found primarily in warm tropical waters of the Indo-West Pacific but are absent from the Atlantic Ocean 

and Caribbean Sea. Approximately 22 species are known to occur in W Australian waters. Because of the 

largely coastal distribution of sea snakes, and the limited data available on sea snake acoustics, sea snakes 

are not considered further in this PEIS.

The remainder of this section focuses on the seven species of sea turtles, with at least one species 

occurring in each of the 13 analysis areas. The status, general ecology, and general distribution and 

migratory movements of these species are summarized in Table 3.4-1 and discussed below. 

3.4.1 Overview of Sea Turtle Species

Sea turtles primarily inhabit tropical and subtropical seas throughout the world, with several species 

ranging well into temperate zones (Ernst et al. 1994). Sea turtles are morphologically adapted to spend 

almost their entire lives in the water. They can remain underwater for 30-40 min when resting, but when 

actively swimming they must swim to the surface to breathe every 5-10 min (Keinath 1993). Sea turtles 

possess powerful modified forelimbs used for continuous swimming as well as compact streamlined 

bodies that help reduce drag (Wyneken 1997). These adaptations are important as sea turtles often travel 

long distances between their feeding grounds and nesting beaches (Meylan 1995). Sea turtles have also 

evolved physiological traits and behavioral patterns that allow them to spend as little as 3-6% of their 

time at the water‘s surface (Lutcavage and Lutz 1997).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-51

Table 3.4-1. Summary of the Status, Global Population Size, General Ecology, and General 

Distribution and Movement of Sea Turtles Potentially Occurring within the Analysis Areas

Species

Status(a)

ESA/IUCN/CITES

Global

Population

Size/Trend

General Ecology

General Distribution/

Migratory Movements

Green T & E(b)/E/I 108,761-

150,521

Coastal, seagrass beds; 

feeds primarily on 

seagrasses, 

macroalgae, and reefassociated organisms.

Commonly found between 

15°N and 90°W between the 

Galapagos and C American 

coast & as far N as BC.

Hawksbill E/CR/I

21,212–

28,138

Coral reefs, 

mangroves, hard 

bottom habitats, 

oceanic; feeds 

primarily on coral-reefassociated sponges, 

anemones, squid, 

shrimp, corals, 

tunicates, and algae.

Worldwide tropical and 

subtropical waters in the 

Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian 

oceans; range from 30°N to 

30°S.

Loggerhead T/E/I 43,320–44,560

Oceanic, coastal 

estuaries; carnivorous, 

feeds primarily on 

benthic mollusks, 

crustaceans, and 

coelenterates, jellyfish.

Temperate, tropical, and 

subtropical waters of the 

Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian 

oceans.

Olive ridley T & E(c)/V/I 2,000,000

Oceanic; feeds 

primarily on crabs, 

clams, mussels, 

shrimp, but also fish, 

sea urchins, squid, and 

jellyfish.

Worldwide tropical and warm 

temperate waters.

Kemp‘s ridley E/CR/I 5,000

Temperate and tropical 

coastal; feeds primarily 

on crabs, shrimp, 

gastropods, clams, 

urchins, jellyfish, squid 

eggs, and fish.

Gulf of Mexico; W North 

Atlantic.

Leatherback E/CR/I 35,860

Oceanic, continental 

shelf, nearshore; feeds 

primarily on jellyfish.

Global between 71°N and 

47°S.

Flatback - /DD/I 8,050–32,520

Soft-bottomed, 

nearshore; feeds 

primarily on sea 

cucumbers, jellyfish, 

mollusks, and other 

invertebrates.

Nearshore Australia, migrates 

between feeding and breeding 

areas.

Notes: (a) E = endangered, T = threatened, CR = Critically Endangered, DD = Data Deficient, I = Appendix I; V = Vulnerable. 

(b) Endangered along Florida and Pacific Coast of Mexico.

(c) Mexican population endangered. 

Sources: NMFS and USFWS 2007a, b; CITES 2010; IUCN 2010; NOAA Fisheries 2010.

3.4.1.1 General Distribution and Movements

Sea turtle distribution is mostly limited to between 40° N and 35° S longitude; however, during warmer 

seasons, this range is substantially expanded (Davenport 1997). Some species are circumglobally 

distributed within their latitudinal range (e.g., the hawksbill), whereas others are very limited in 

distribution (e.g., the flatback occurs only in nearshore Australia) (Table 3.4-1). Distribution is dependent 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-52

on ocean temperature, currents, turbidity, salinity, and food availability. Water temperature appears to be 

especially important for sea turtles (Lutcavage and Musick 1985; Epperly et al. 1995; Coles and Musick 

2000). Many species of sea turtles become lethargic if temperatures rise to >40 degrees Celsius (oC) or 

fall to <10oC (Spotila et al. 1997). Coles and Musick (2000) note that sea turtle distribution is regulated 

by the specific temperature preferences of the species with the majority of species preferring a range of 

13.3-28oC; however, range varies with age class and season. Leatherback sea turtles inhabit the widest 

range of water temperatures because of their greater ability to maintain a constant body temperature 

(Spotila et al. 1997).

All turtle species nest on land; however, other than females returning to shore to nest, sea turtles spend 

little time on land (Musick and Limpus 1997). Males in particular rarely appear to return to land, whereas 

females may return to lay their eggs on the same beach where they were hatched. Nesting seasons occur 

at different times around the world, depending on the latitude and species concerned (Miller 1997). 

Female sea turtles may lay several egg clutches during a single nesting season, with each clutch 

containing between 50 and 180 eggs, depending on the species (Ehrhart 1995). Females of most species 

(except possibly for Kemp‘s ridley) do not nest in consecutive years, but typically have a gap of 2 to 3 

years between breeding cycles. Male sea turtles generally breed every 1 to 2 years (Miller 1997). The 

concentration of turtles during nesting and hatching are events of particular vulnerability to sea turtles. 

Conservation and protection of nesting beaches is considered vital for survival of endangered species.

When hatchlings emerge from the terrestrial nest, they use visual cues such as light intensity and 

wavelength to orient themselves toward the sea (Lohmann et al. 1997). Hatchlings have a strong tendency 

to crawl toward the brightest light present; this strategy usually takes them towards the horizon over the 

ocean (Ernst et al. 1994). Hatchlings can become disoriented by lights from beachfront houses leading 

them away from the water, increasing the danger of predation and injury (Lutcavage et al. 1997). 

Hatchlings that successfully reach the ocean spend the first few years of their lives drifting with ocean 

currents and feeding along convergence zones where food and debris collect (Carr 1987). Once hatchlings 

have reached the juvenile stage, they begin to reappear in nearshore feeding areas where they are more 

easily studied (Musick and Limpus 1997). After transitioning from oceanic hatchlings to nearshore 

juveniles and finally adults, most species also modify their foraging behavior from surface to benthic, 

preying on larger organisms such as fish, crustaceans, mollusks, coelenterates, and seagrasses (prey 

selection is species-specific) (Bjorndal 1997). Table 3.4-1 summarizes foraging preferences of the seven 

sea turtles species.

3.4.1.2 Important Ecological Considerations

Important ecological considerations for sea turtles with respect to activities considered in this analysis are 

the periods, duration, and proximity of nesting and hatchling emergence as well as coastal feeding 

concentrations. Another important ecological consideration is that many sea turtle species are known to 

regularly dive at depth for extended periods of time. Deep prolonged dives could expose them to seismic 

survey sounds for sustained periods at potentially higher intensities (see Appendix B for a discussion of 

the relationship between water depth and underwater sound properties including pressure-release effects 

near the water surface). Depth and length of dives appear to vary by species, depth of prey type, and turtle 

age, as well as water temperature. 

Leatherbacks are the deepest-diving sea turtle (3,937 ft or 1,200 m) with variable dive depths and dive 

times depending on the geographic location and time of day (Eisenberg and Frazier 1983; Davenport 

1988; K.L. Eckert et al. 1989; Eckert et al. 1996; Eckert 2002). Typical dive durations averaged 6.9 to 

14.5 min per dive, with a maximum of 42 min (Eckert et al. 1996). In contrast, green sea turtles typically 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-53

dive less than 98 ft (30 m) (Hochscheid et al. 1999; Hays et al. 2000) to a maximum known depth of 240-

361 ft (73-110 m) (Berkson 1967). Maximum dive time can be up to 66 min, with routine dives ranging 

from 9 to 23 min (Brill et al. 1995). Dive habits vary seasonally (Southwood et al. 2003). Hawksbill, 

loggerhead, and olive ridley turtles are considered shallow or intermediate divers. Typical dive depths

range from <80 ft (24 m) for hawksbills, <98 ft (30 m) for loggerheads (Sakamoto et al. 1990; Polovina et 

al. 2003), and 490 ft (150 m) for olive ridleys (Eckert et al. 1986). Routine dives last approximately 4-172 

min (Byles 1988; Sakamoto et al. 1990; Renaud and Carpenter 1994; Hawkes et al. 2007). Recent 

satellite-tagging studies of loggerheads during winter in the western North Atlantic off the U.S. east coast 

found that female loggerhead turtles made long resting dives of up to 7 hr 24 min, indicating that some 

turtles remain in cold waters by apparently hibernating instead of migrating to warmer waters (Hawkes et 

al. 2007).

Primary threats to sea turtles include entanglement in fishing gear and debris, vessel collisions, dredging 

operations, increased coastal development on nesting beaches including artificial lights at night, and 

illegal harvesting of turtles and eggs. 

3.4.1.3 Special-Status Species

Six species of sea turtles are listed under the ESA, on the IUCN Red List, or in Appendix I of CITES 

(Table 3.4-1). Under the ESA, the hawksbill, Kemp‘s ridley, and leatherback turtles are listed as 

endangered; the loggerhead turtle is listed as threatened; and the green and olive ridley turtles are listed as 

threatened in most of their range but endangered in parts of their range. Furthermore, the global 

populations for all seven sea turtle species addressed in this analysis are declining. 

3.4.1.4 Acoustic Capabilities

Little is known about sea turtle sound production and hearing or their dependency on sound for survival

(Croll et al. 1999; Bartol and Ketten 2006) (Table 3.4-2). While light and visual cues are clearly important 

to hatchlings, the relative importance of hearing is less understood. The majority of studies have looked at 

green (Ridgway et al. 1969) and loggerhead sea turtles (Bartol et al. 1999). More recently, auditory 

brainstem response hearing studies have been conducted on captive juvenile and subadult green and 

juvenile Kemp‘s ridley sea turtles (Bartol and Ketten 2006). These studies indicate that some species hear 

low-frequency sounds (Ridgway et al. 1969; Lenhardt et al. 1983; Bartol et al. 1999), and that sensitivity 

appears to vary with age (Bartol and Ketten 2006). The measured range of best hearing for sea turtles is 

approximately 200-700 Hz (Table 3.4-2). Hearing below 80 Hz is apparently less sensitive but still 

potentially of use (Lenhardt 1994). Green turtles are most sensitive between 200 and 700 Hz, with peak 

sensitivity at 300-400 Hz with slight variation for juveniles and subadults, the latter based on a few 

individuals (Ridgway et al. 1969; Bartol and Ketten 2006) (Table 3.4-2). The overall range of green sea 

turtle hearing is reported at 50-1,600 Hz (Dow et al. 2008). Juvenile loggerheads were reported to have a 

hearing range of 250-1,000 Hz (Bartol et al. 1999). Loggerheads avoid sources of low-frequency sound in 

the 25-1,000 Hz range (O‘Hara and Wilcox 1990). Two juvenile Kemp‘s ridley turtles generally had a 

lower upper range and lower range of sensitivity compared to what is known for green and loggerhead sea 

turtles (Table 3.4-2). Sounds emitted by nesting female leatherback turtles had a peak frequency range of 

300-500 Hz (Mrosovksy 1972; Cook and Forrest 2005). 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-54

Table 3.4-2. Summary of Underwater Sound Production and Hearing 

Characteristics of Sea Turtles

Sound Production Hearing

Species

Frequency

Range

(Hz)

Range

(Hz)

Most Sensitive

Frequency

(Hz)

Green NA

100-500(a)

100-800(b)

60-1,000(c)

50-1,600(d)

200-400(a)

600-700(b)

300-400(c)

50-400(d)

Hawksbill NA NA NA

Loggerhead NA 250-1,000(e)

25-1,000(f) 250(e)

Olive ridley NA NA NA

Kemp‘s ridley NA 100-500(g)100-200(g)

Leatherback 300-500(h)

300-4,000(i) NA NA

Flatback NA NA NA

Notes: NA – No specific data available.

Sources: (a)six subadults (Bartol and Ketten 2006); (b)two juveniles (Bartol and Ketten 2006); 

(c)Ridgway et al. 1969; (d)Dow et al. 2008; (e)

juveniles (Bartol et al. 1999); (f)O‘Hara and 

Wilcox 1990; (g)two juveniles (Bartol and Ketten 2006); (h)Mrosovksy (1972); (i)Cook and 

Forrest 2005.

3.4.2 Affected Environment: Detailed Analysis Areas (DAAs)

This section summarizes the known region-specific use and unique habitat features relative to the seven 

sea turtles occurring within the DAAs (refer to Figure 2-18). Discussion is limited to those species 

occurring during the period of the exemplary marine seismic surveys. One to six species of sea turtles are 

likely to be uncommon to common in three DAAs: NW Atlantic, Caribbean, and S California (Table 3.4-

3). Data from monitoring conducted during previous NSF-funded geophysical surveys are included as 

relevant. Because six species of sea turtles that occur in the analysis areas are ESA-listed, they are further 

described in separate subsections in each analysis area where they are likely to occur. 

3.4.2.1 NW Atlantic

Five species of sea turtles potentially occur in the NW Atlantic DAA during the exemplary summer 

seismic survey: loggerhead, green, hawksbill, Kemp‘s ridley, and leatherback turtle. Among these, the 

loggerhead and leatherback are most likely to be encountered there during the summer months. Of the 

remaining three species, green turtles are rarely seen in the open ocean except as pelagic hatchlings, and 

are considered rare in temperate waters characteristic of the analysis area. The hawksbill is the most 

tropical of all sea turtles; hatchlings are believed to be pelagic, whereas juveniles, subadults, and adults 

reside in coral reef foraging grounds (NMFS 2002). Only juvenile Kemp‘s ridleys are likely to occur in 

the analysis area along the mid-Atlantic coast from spring to fall (Lazell 1980; Lutcavage and Musick 

1985; Weber 1995). Juveniles of this species are known to range between the tropics and temperate 

coastal areas of the northwest Atlantic, and have been seen as far north as Nova Scotia. Adult Kemp‘s 

ridleys usually remain in the Gulf of Mexico. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-55

Table 3.4-3. Potential Occurrence of ESA-listed Sea Turtles within the DAAs during the 

Period of Exemplary Seismic Surveys

Species

NW

Atlantic

(N Sum)(*, a)

Caribbean

(N Spr or Sum)(*, b)

S

California

(N Spr or Sum)(*, c)

W Gulf

of Alaska

(N Sum)(*, d)

Galapagos

Ridge

(N Win/ S

Sum)(*, e)

Green r? c? B F u F r? r?

Hawksbill r? c? B F r M - r?

Loggerhead u? F M u? B F u M r? r?

Olive ridley - u? F r M F r? u M

Kemp‘s ridley r? u F M - - -

Leatherback c F M u B u M F r M u M

Notes: *(Season) = Northern (N) and southern (S) hemisphere season during which the exemplary seismic cruise would 

occur within the analysis area; Spr = spring, Sum = summer, Win = winter. B = Breeds/nests within the area, 

F = feeds within the area, M = migrates through the area, ? = unknown/possible, c = common: the species is 

expected to be encountered once or more during 2-3 visits to the area and the number of individuals 

encountered during an average visit is unlikely to be more than a few 10s, u = uncommon: the species is 

expected to be encountered at most a few times a year assuming many visits to the area; r = rare: the species is 

not expected to be encountered more than once in several years; - = species does not occur there.

Sources: (a)Kenney 1996; Gaywood 1997; Musik and Limpus 1997; Godley et al. 1998; Witzell 1998; Bjorndal et al. 

2000; NMFS 2002; Avens et al. 2003; Frick et al. 2003; Haley and Koski 2004; USFWS 2005a; EuroTurtle 

2006. 

(b)Márquez 1990; Horrocks 1992; Sybesma 1992; Barmes et al. 1993; d‘Auvergne and Eckert 1993; Scott and 

Horrocks 1993; EuroTurtle 2006.

(c)

Stinson 1984; Clifton et al. 1995; NMFS and USFWS 1998a, b, c, d, e, f; Nichols et al. 2000a; NMFS 2003a; 

Parker et al. 2004.

(d)Hodge 1979; Márquez 1990; Green et al. 1992, 1993; Bowlby et al. 1994; NMFS and USFWS 1998a; 

Buchanan et al. 2001; Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) 2005.

(e)

Smultea and Holst 2003; EuroTurtle 2006.

During the July-August 2004 Atlantic Deep Western Boundary Current seismic cruise in the NW Atlantic 

Ocean, 26 sea turtles were observed (Haley and Koski 2004). Two of the 26 turtles were identified as 

leatherbacks, but identifications were not possible for the other 24 turtles. Further detail is provided below 

on the loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles because they are considered most likely to occur in the NW 

Atlantic seismic survey. The other three species are considered rare if they occur there at all (Table 3.4-3)

Loggerhead Turtle. The loggerhead sea turtle is a widely distributed species and is expected to feed and 

migrate in the NW Atlantic DAA during the summer (Table 3.4-3). It prefers to feed in coastal bays and 

estuaries, and in the shallow waters along the continental shelf. Loggerheads typically undertake long 

migrations that take them far from their breeding grounds and may be seen in the open seas during 

migration. After leaving their pelagic stage, loggerheads originating from the east coast of the U.S. return 

there to forage in inshore waters such as sounds, bays, and estuaries (Avens et al. 2003). Some demersal 

juveniles make seasonal foraging migrations into temperate latitudes as far north as Long Island, New 

York. Most (936 of 1,337) loggerhead captures off the east coast by the U.S. longline fleet during 1992-

1995 were in the northeast distant NMFS pelagic fishing area, mostly on the Grand Banks, whereas 108 

of the captures were in the mid-Atlantic Bight NMFS pelagic fishing area (Witzell 1999), which includes 

the NW Atlantic DAA. 

Major nesting areas for loggerheads in the western North Atlantic occur in the SE U.S., Yucatan 

Peninsula of Mexico, Columbia, Cuba, South Africa, eastern Australia, and Japan (EuroTurtle 2006). 

They typically nest from May to August (USFWS 2005a). In the North Atlantic, post-hatchling 

loggerheads are known to migrate from their rookery beaches in the SE U.S. to oceanic development 

habitats in waters of the eastern North Atlantic (Frick et al. 2003). They spend at least 6 years (Bjorndal et 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-56

al. 2000) or approximately their first 10 years (Avens et al. 2003) inhabiting the North Atlantic Gyre, 

which extends roughly from Bermuda to the Azores. Such movements of pelagic-stage turtles are 

substantiated by recaptured tagged turtles (Bolten et al. 1994, 1996) and by incidental capture in longline 

fisheries around the Azores and Madeira (e.g., Brongersma 1995). Recent studies indicate that some 

loggerheads remain in U.S. mid-Atlantic waters during winter, hibernating in deep waters where food 

productivity remains high, with potentially large aggregations occurring in and around North Carolina, 

Virginia, and Florida (Hawkes et al. 2007).

Leatherback Sea Turtle. Leatherbacks feed and migrate during summer in the NW Atlantic DAA (Table 

3.4-3). These individuals nest during January-July in the Caribbean islands, Costa Rica, Panama, 

Columbia, Surinam, and French Guiana. Hatchling leatherbacks are pelagic, but nothing is known about 

their distribution for their first 4 years (Musik and Limpus 1997). Off northeastern North America, 

including the analysis area, leatherbacks are commonly taken incidentally in the longline fishery (Brady 

and Boreman 1994). Many (593 of 1,264) leatherback captures off the east coast by the U.S. longline fleet 

during 1992-1995 were in the northeast distant NMFS pelagic fishing area; the second-ranked area (at 

252 captures) was the mid-Atlantic Bight (Witzell 1998), which includes the analysis area. There are two 

peaks in occurrence of leatherback turtles in temperate waters of the North Atlantic. The first peak occurs 

off the northeastern U.S. in late summer (Kenney 1996); the second peak occurs off the United Kingdom 

between August and October (Gaywood 1997; Godley et al. 1998). Leatherbacks are thought to follow 

the Gulf Stream because jellyfish, their main prey, are concentrated where this current meets the cold 

Labrador Current. Non-nesting leatherbacks in the North Atlantic have been found as far north as the 

North Sea, Norwegian Sea, Barents Sea, Newfoundland, and Labrador. 

3.4.2.2 Caribbean

Six species of sea turtles are likely to occur in the Caribbean DAA during the exemplary spring or 

summer seismic period: loggerhead, green, hawksbill, leatherback, Kemp‘s ridley, and olive ridley 

turtles. The green and hawksbill turtles are the only common species in the analysis area (Table 3.4-3). 

Four turtle species nest in the region, and the other two feed and/or migrate there. The natural history of 

these species relative to the analysis area is described below, mainly based on information from Márquez 

(1990) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) technical reports (Horrocks 1992; Sybesma 

1992; Barmes et al. 1993; d‘Auvergne and Eckert 1993; Scott and Horrocks 1993).

Green Turtle. Green turtles nest and feed in the analysis area during the spring and summer. The major 

nesting beaches in the Atlantic Ocean occur in Mexico, Costa Rica, Venezuela, and Surinam. Known 

nesting areas in the Caribbean Sea, including the analysis area, are coastal Venezuela, the Netherland 

Antilles, Barbados, Aruba, St. Vincent, the Grenadines, and St. Lucia. Peak breeding in the Caribbean 

generally occurs from April to October (EuroTurtle 2006). Nonetheless, adult green turtles are present in 

these areas year-round. They live in bays and along protected shorelines, and feed during the day on 

seagrass and algae (Bjorndal 1995). Juvenile and sub-adult green turtles travel extensively and may travel 

thousands of kilometers before they return to breeding and nesting grounds (Carr et al. 1978).

Hawksbill Turtle. Hawksbill turtles nest in the analysis area during all months except February and 

March, peaking in June and August. Known documented nesting areas in the Caribbean include St. 

Vincent, the Grenadines, Dominica, Trinidad, St. Lucia, Aruba, Barbados, and the Netherland Antilles. 

Hawksbills are the most tropical of all sea turtles, with nesting confined to areas with water temperatures 

25-35oC. Hawksbill turtles also feed year-round in the analysis area. They inhabit shallow waters with 

seagrass or algal meadows and clear littoral waters of mainland and island shelves; they are most common 

where reef formations occur. Hawksbill turtles commonly make short-distance movements between 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-57

nesting beaches and offshore feeding areas. Non-nesting hawksbill turtles are known as far north as Cape 

Cod. 

Loggerhead Turtle. Loggerheads nest and feed in the Caribbean DAA during the exemplary spring or 

summer seismic period; however, their distribution and seasonal occurrence there are poorly documented 

(Table 3.4-3). In the analysis area, loggerheads have been documented to nest from mid-May to mid-July 

at minor sites in Venezuela, Aruba, the Netherland Antilles, and (rarely) Barbados. During, or shortly 

after the breeding season, females disperse to distant feeding grounds via poorly-delineated migration 

routes. Loggerheads occasionally have been observed feeding in waters near Venezuela, St. Lucia, St. 

Vincent, the Grenadines, and Barbados. In the Atlantic, major nesting areas include the SE U.S., the 

Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico, Columbia, Cuba, and the Atlantic coast from Venezuela to Brazil 

(EuroTurtle 2006).

Olive Ridley Turtle. Olive ridley turtles feed regularly in the analysis area during the spring and summer 

near Isla Margarita and Trinidad, but they rarely penetrate further west. They typically forage in offshore 

surface waters or dive to depths of 500 ft (150 m) to feed on bottom-dwelling crustaceans. Some nesting 

sites are located along the north coast of Venezuela; however, no nesting occurs there during the 

exemplary seismic period. Olive ridley turtles are pantropical, occurring in waters with temperatures of at 

least 20oC. They travel between breeding and feeding grounds in continental coastal waters, and are rare 

around oceanic islands. Olive ridleys nest annually, and nesting concentrations occur in the W Atlantic 

near Surinam; some nesting also occurs in NW Guiana, French Guiana, and along the N coast of 

Venezuela (Sternberg 1981). 

Kemp’s Ridley Turtle. Only feeding and/or migrating juvenile Kemp‘s ridley turtles are expected to occur 

in the analysis area, as other life stages tend to remain in the Gulf of Mexico year-round. Kemp‘s ridleys 

have a more restricted distribution than other sea turtles. Juveniles range between the tropics and 

temperate coastal areas of the W Atlantic, as far as New England. Adults that remain in the Gulf of 

Mexico migrate along the coast between nesting beaches and feedings areas. Occasionally, individuals 

may be carried by the Gulf Stream as far as northern Europe, although those individuals are considered 

extralimital and probably lost to the breeding population.

Leatherback Turtle. Leatherbacks nest and mate in the analysis area in Venezuela and the Caribbean 

islands (St. Lucia, St. Vincent, the Grenadines, the Netherland Antilles, and Barbados). They are only 

found in the Caribbean during the mating and nesting period from March to July; their feeding areas are 

in more northern temperate waters (Eckert and Eckert 1988). They also nest in Columbia, Surinam, 

French Guiana, Costa Rica, and Panama. 

3.4.2.3 S California

Five species of sea turtles are considered rare to uncommon in the S California DAA during the 

exemplary spring or summer seismic period: green, hawksbill, loggerhead, olive ridley, and leatherback 

turtles. Although uncommon, the most likely species to be encountered are the green, loggerhead, and 

leatherback (Table 3.4-3). In the eastern North Pacific Ocean, sea turtles are not particularly common 

north of Mexico. Sea turtles are much less abundant off S California than they are in more 

tropical/subtropical areas of the U.S. such as off southern Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Hawaiian Islands. 

The distribution of sea turtles off S California (and further north) is strongly affected by seasonal changes 

in water temperature. In general, sea turtle sightings off S California peak during summer (July through 

September) coinciding with the exemplary seismic cruise; they would also potentially occur in the 

analysis area during abnormally warm-water years or El Niño years. During El Niño years, changes in 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-58

ocean currents bring warmer waters north to S California, which in turn brings more sea turtles (and their 

preferred prey) to the region (NMFS 2003a).

For a number of reasons, it is highly unlikely that any sea turtles nest along the California coast. 

Throughout much of the year, the Pacific coast of North America experiences cool water temperatures 

(<20°C), well down to Baja California because of strong upwelling and the southward flow of the 

California current. Because of cool water temperatures, sea turtles are not known to nest on S California 

beaches (NMFS and USFWS 1998a, b, c, d, e). Regular nesting by leatherbacks and olive ridley turtles 

occurs along the Pacific coast of Baja California Sur, which is the northernmost known nesting site in the 

Eastern Pacific Ocean (Fritts et al. 1982; Sarti-M. et al. 1996; López-Castro et al. 2000).

Green Turtle. Green turtles are considered locally uncommon feeders in the S California DAA during the 

summer, mainly in continental shelf waters; however, they are rare in the analysis area in other habitats 

and at other times of the year (Stinson 1984; Dutton et al. 2002) (Table 3.4-3). Ocean waters shoreward of 

the 328-ft (100-m) isobath off S California and northern Baja California are designated as areas of 

secondary occurrence because they provide benthic (e.g., rocky ridges and channels) and pelagic (e.g., 

kelp beds) habitats suitable for green turtle foraging and resting. Green turtles are occasionally sighted 

near kelp beds off Point Loma and Scripps Pier in June and July; others have been observed around the 

Channel Islands, where eelgrass provides beds for feeding and submarine caves for resting (Airame et al. 

2003). Nearshore waters are not designated as areas of primary occurrence because they are often at 

temperatures below the thermal preferences of this primarily tropical species. Green turtles are much 

more common in the subtropical waters off of southern Baja California, located several hundred 

kilometers south of the analysis area (NMFS and USFWS 1998c).

Stinson (1984) reviewed sea turtle sighting records from northern Baja California to Alaska, and 

determined that the East Pacific green turtle was the most commonly observed hard-shelled sea turtle on 

the U.S. Pacific coast. Most of the sightings (62%) were reported from northern Baja California and S 

California. The northernmost reported resident population occurs in San Diego Bay (Stinson 1984; 

Dutton and McDonald 1990a, b, 1992; Dutton et al. 2002). Green turtles are sighted year-round in the 

waters of S California, with the highest frequency of sightings occurring during the warm summer months 

of July-October (Stinson 1984). In waters south of Point Conception, Stinson (1984) found this seasonal 

sighting pattern to be independent of inter-year temperature fluctuations. North of Point Conception, more 

sightings occurred during warmer years.

The resident San Diego population of green turtles occurs year-round in south San Diego Bay. Eelgrass 

beds and marine algae are particularly abundant in the southern half of the bay, and green turtles are 

frequently seen foraging on these items in the southern bay‘s many channels (U.S. Navy 2000; Dutton et 

al. 2002). Green turtles inhabit these waters throughout the year because they are sheltered from strong 

currents and are continually warmed by the Duke Energy power plant effluent (Dutton and McDonald 

1990a, b). Ultrasonic tracking studies have shown that green turtles in south San Diego Bay have 

relatively small home ranges (Dutton et al. 2002). During summer months, green turtles may venture into 

the northern part of the bay, or out of it entirely, as water temperatures rise. 

Loggerhead Turtle. Loggerhead turtles migrate through the analysis area during the spring and summer in 

offshore waters. They primarily occur in deep oceanic waters southwest of Guadalupe Island associated 

with fronts comprising the northern edge of the Subtropical Frontal Zone. Scientists believe that this 

frontal area, which is frequently occupied by juvenile loggerheads throughout the year, is situated along 

the 17° and 20°C isotherms (Polovina et al. 2000). Large aggregations (thousands) of mainly juvenile and 

subadult loggerheads are found off the southwestern coast of Baja California in a band starting about 19 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-59

mi (30 km) offshore and extending out at least another 19 mi (30 km) with maximum abundance at Bahia 

Magdalena (NMFS and USFWS 1998b; Nichols et al. 2000b). Concentrations ranged from one to five 

turtles per km2 at peak sightings in good weather. Some loggerheads also enter the Gulf of California; 

Seminoff et al. (2004) recorded them at Bahía de los Angeles and the Infiernillo Channel, but the low 

capture per unit effort suggested that the Gulf of California may not provide important habitat for 

loggerhead turtles in the eastern Pacific.

Satellite-tracking data indicate that loggerhead turtles can also be found in S California waters during 

their transoceanic crossings to adult nesting and foraging areas in the western Pacific Ocean (Nichols et 

al. 2000b; Parker et al. 2004). There have been a number of loggerhead turtle sightings, strandings, and 

incidental bycatches in the nearshore waters of S California, notably during the warm-water period. 

During El Niño events, loggerheads that regularly occur off Baja California Sur, where they are highly 

abundant, may expand their nearshore range north into S California waters. 

Leatherback Turtle. Leatherbacks regularly migrate and feed off S California during the spring and 

summer (Table 3.4-3). The seasonal presence of leatherbacks off S California is believed to coincide with 

the summer arrival of the 16-17°C isotherm, which moves north from Mexico during May and June 

(Stinson 1984). Satellite-tracking studies show that deep oceanic waters are the most preferred habitats of 

leatherbacks off S California. Aerial surveys off the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington have 

shown that most leatherback turtles occur in continental slope waters, with fewer occurring over the 

continental shelf. Although leatherbacks regularly enter nearshore waters off central and northern 

California (e.g., Monterey Bay), they do not enter the coastal waters off S California as often, except 

during an El Niño event. There were 96 sightings of leatherbacks within 31 mi (50 km) of Monterey Bay 

from 1986 to 1991 (Starbird et al. 1993).

Stinson (1984) noted that two-thirds of the leatherback sightings in the northeastern Pacific Ocean were 

from waters north of Point Conception, and that leatherbacks are only found south of Point Conception 

during the warmest months of the year (July through September). Data suggest that leatherbacks begin to 

appear in ocean waters off central California and further north in the late summer and fall (Benson et al. 

2003). The current northernmost nesting sites in the Eastern Pacific Ocean are located in the Mexican 

states of Baja California Sur and Jalisco (Fritts et al. 1982).

Olive Ridley Turtle. On rare occasions, olive ridleys migrate and feed in the analysis area during springsummer, although they are much less common there than loggerheads (Table 3.4-3). Olive ridleys prefer

oceanic habitat, primarily waters located far beyond the continental shelf break. Sighting, stranding, and 

incidental fisheries bycatch records are scarce in the S California region. A few stranding records are 

from S California, and some infrequent opportunistic sightings have been reported off San Diego, San 

Clemente Island, and Baja California; the latter occurrence records are described in Stinson (1984).

Hawksbill Turtle. Hawksbill turtles are rare throughout the year in S California. Individuals were 

observed off the coast of Baja California as recently as 20-30 years ago (Clifton et al. 1995). Thus, the 

potential exists for this species to occur in the analysis area, albeit in extremely low numbers. If 

hawksbills were to occur there, it would most likely be during migration during an El Niño event, as they 

are a highly tropical species. 

3.4.2.4 W Gulf of Alaska

The leatherback turtle is expected to be encountered only rarely in the W Gulf of Alaska DAA during the 

exemplary summer seismic cruise period (Márquez 1990; Alaska Department of Fish and Game [ADFG] 

2005). Although even more rare, the green, olive ridley, and loggerhead turtles have also been recorded in 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-60

Alaskan waters, with the green turtle the mostly likely among them to occur there. The leatherback is most 

likely because it regularly inhabits relatively cold water; the other three species are considered warm-water 

species and would be extralimital (ADFG 2005). All sea turtles potentially occurring in the analysis area 

would be non-nesting individuals. 

Leatherback Turtle. Migrating leatherbacks may occur in small numbers in the W Gulf of Alaska DAA. 

Leatherback turtles have occasionally been documented off the coasts of Oregon and Washington (Green 

et al. 1992, 1993; Bowlby et al. 1994; Buchanan et al. 2001) and British Columbia (MacAskie and 

Forrester 1962). Sightings and incidental capture data indicate that leatherbacks are found in Alaska as far 

north as 60.34oN, 145.38oW, and as far west as the Aleutian Islands (Hodge 1979). 

3.4.2.5 Galapagos Ridge

Five sea turtle species occur in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP): leatherback, green, loggerhead, 

hawksbill, and olive ridley turtles. At the pelagic, open-ocean location of the Galapagos Ridge DAA, 

approximately 870 mi (1,400 km) west of the Galapagos Islands (see Figure 2-21), all five species could 

be encountered during the exemplary winter seismic period, especially the primarily pelagic leatherback 

and olive ridley turtles. During the Hess Deep survey in 2003 in the ETP approximately 620 mi (1,000 

km) west of the analysis area, a total of six sea turtles of three species were sighted (Smultea and Holst 

2003). Two were positively identified as leatherback turtles, two were probable green turtles, one was 

positively identified as an olive ridley, and one was a probable olive ridley.

Leatherback Turtle. The leatherback turtle is one of the species most likely to be encountered in the 

Galapagos Ridge DAA because of its preference for pelagic habitat. During the exemplary winter seismic 

period, some leatherbacks would be nesting in Central America. In the ETP, leatherbacks nest along the 

west coast of Mexico and Central America. In Guatemala, they nest in limited numbers from November 

to December (NMFS 2002); in El Salvador, they nest sporadically in the dry months between November 

and February (Hasbún and Vásquez 1999); and in Costa Rica, leatherback nesting activity increases 

gradually from October to December, and then gradually declines until February (Lux et al. 2003). 

Hatchling leatherbacks are pelagic, but nothing is known about their distribution for the first 4 years 

(Musick and Limpus 1997). Post-nesting adult leatherbacks appear to migrate along bathymetric contours 

from 656 to 11,483 ft (200 to 3,500 m) (Morreale et al. 1994), and most of the ETP nesting stocks migrate 

south (NMFS 2002). There is evidence that leatherbacks are associated with oceanic front systems, such 

as shelf breaks and the edges of oceanic gyre systems where their prey is concentrated (Lutcavage 1996).

Loggerhead Turtle. Non-breeding adult or juvenile loggerheads might be encountered in the Galapagos 

Ridge DAA. The loggerhead is a widely distributed species, occurring in coastal tropical and subtropical 

waters around the world. Loggerhead turtles undertake long, open-ocean migrations that take them far 

from their breeding grounds. Loggerheads prefer to feed in coastal bays and estuaries, and in the shallow 

waters along continental shelves. Adult loggerheads feed on a variety of benthic fauna like conchs, crabs, 

shrimp, sea urchins, sponges, and fish. During migration through the open sea, they eat jellyfish, 

pteropods, floating mollusks, floating egg clusters, flying fish, and squid.

There are no reported loggerhead nesting sites in the eastern or central Pacific (NMFS 2002). Most of the 

loggerheads in the eastern Pacific are believed to originate from beaches in Japan, where the nesting 

season is late May-August (NMFS and USFWS 1998b). The size structure of loggerheads in coastal and 

nearshore waters of the E and W Pacific suggest that Pacific loggerheads have a pelagic stage similar to 

that in the Atlantic (NMFS 2002); loggerheads spend the first 2-6 years of their lives at sea. When mature, 

they return to breed at the beaches where they were hatched. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-61

Green Turtle. It is possible that small numbers of green turtles would be encountered in the analysis area. 

Some green turtles would be nesting in Mexico and the Galapagos Islands during the exemplary northern 

winter/southern summer seismic period. The green turtle is widely distributed in tropical and subtropical 

waters near continental coasts and around islands. Green turtles typically migrate along coastal routes 

from rookeries to feeding grounds, although some populations conduct trans-oceanic migrations (e.g., 

Ascension Island, Brazil). Hatchlings are epipelagic (surface dwelling in the open sea) for approximately

1–3 years before moving to nearshore areas. Adults live in bays and along protected shorelines, and feed 

during the day on seagrass and algae (Bjorndal 1995). Juvenile and sub-adult green turtles may travel 

thousands of kilometers before they return to breeding and nesting grounds (Carr et al. 1978).

Major nesting beaches for green turtles are found throughout the western and eastern Atlantic, Indian 

Ocean, and western Pacific (EuroTurtle 2006). In the eastern Pacific, the primary nesting grounds are 

located in Michoacán, Mexico, and the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador (NMFS and USFWS 1998c). Nesting 

occurs in Michoacán between August and January with a peak in October and November, and on the 

Galapagos Islands between December and May with a peak in February (Alvarado and Figueroa 1995).

Hawksbill Turtle. It is unlikely that hawksbill turtles would be found in the deep, offshore waters near the 

Galapagos Ridge DAA, except for perhaps post-hatchlings. Adult hawksbill turtles are observed in 

shallow waters with seagrass or algal meadows, and are most common where reef formations are present. 

They live in clear, littoral waters of mainland and island shelves. Posthatchlings are believed to be 

pelagic, taking shelter in weed lines around convergence zones; they re-enter coastal waters after attaining 

a length of 8-10 inches (20-25 cm). Hawksbill turtles most commonly perform short-distance movements 

between nesting beaches and offshore feeding banks, although long-distance movements are also known. 

No major nesting sites for hawksbill turtles occur on the Pacific coast of Central America (EuroTurtle 

2006). The nesting season of the hawksbill turtle is approximately 6 months in duration and generally 

occurs from June to December, preceded by courtship and mating. 

Olive Ridley Turtle. The olive ridley turtle is one of the species most likely to be encountered in the 

Galapagos Ridge DAA, albeit in small numbers, because of its preference for pelagic habitat. Juveniles 

from the nursery/feeding area off Colombia and Ecuador likely would be present, whereas breeding adult 

olive ridleys would be nesting in Central America during the exemplary northern winter/southern summer 

seismic period. The olive ridley has a large range in tropical and subtropical regions in the Pacific, Indian, 

and south Atlantic oceans, and is generally found between 40oN and 40oS. Most olive ridley turtles lead a 

primarily pelagic existence. The Pacific population migrates throughout the Pacific, from their nesting 

grounds in Mexico and Central America to the North Pacific (NMFS 2002). The post-nesting migration 

routes of olive ridleys tracked via satellite from Costa Rica traversed thousands of kilometers of deep 

oceanic waters ranging from Mexico to Peru, and more than 1,864 mi (3,000 km) out into the central 

Pacific (Plotkin et al. 1994a). The olive ridley is the most abundant sea turtle in the open ocean waters of 

the ETP (Pitman 1990).

Olive ridleys nest throughout the year in the eastern Pacific with peak months, including major nesting 

aggregations known as arribadas, occurring from September through December (NMFS and USFWS 

1998e). Females and males begin to aggregate in ―reproductive patches‖ near their nesting beaches 2 

months before the nesting season, and most mating is generally assumed to occur near the nesting beaches 

(NMFS 2002). Most olive ridleys nest synchronously in arribadas, with several thousand females nesting 

at the same time; others nest alone, out of sequence with the arribada (Kalb and Owens 1994). 

Although most mating is generally assumed to occur near nesting beaches, Pitman (1990) observed olive 

ridleys mating at sea, as far as 1,150 mi (1,850 km) from the nearest mainland, during every month of the 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-62

year except March and December. However, there was a sharp peak in offshore mating activity during 

August and September, corresponding with peak breeding activity in mainland populations. Of the 324 

olive ridleys observed and captured during NMFS dolphin surveys from July-December 1998 and 1999, 

50 were involved in mating (Kopitsky et al. 2002). 

Outside of the breeding season, olive ridleys disperse, but little is known of their behavior. Neither males 

nor females migrate to one specific foraging area, but exhibit a nomadic movement pattern and occupy a 

series of feeding areas in the oceanic waters (Plotkin et al. 1994a, b). Sightings of large aggregations of 

ridleys at sea (e.g., Oliver 1946) have led to unconfirmed speculation that turtles travel in large flotillas 

between nesting beaches and feeding areas (Márquez 1990). Aggregations of turtles (75% of which were 

olive ridleys), sometimes >100 individuals, have been observed as far offshore as 120°W, 1,864 mi

(3,000 km) from shore (Arenas and Hall 1991).

Tagged turtles nesting in Costa Rica were recovered as far south as Peru, as far north as Oaxaca, Mexico, 

and offshore to a distance of 1,243 mi (2,000 km) (Cornelius and Robinson 1986). Data collected during 

tuna fishing cruises from Baja California to Ecuador and from the coast to almost 150oW indicated that 

the two most important areas in the Pacific for the olive ridley are the central American coast and the 

nursery/feeding area off Colombia and Ecuador; both adults (mostly females) and juveniles are often seen 

in this area (NMFS and USFWS 1998e). Several sources of data (e.g., Green and Ortiz-Crespo 1995; 

Meylan 1995) suggest that the large numbers of ridleys that occur (or formerly occurred) off Ecuador and 

Colombia are comprised of seasonal migrants from nesting populations to the north. Over two-thirds of 

all small individuals were seen in the feeding area off Ecuador and Colombia during July through 

December. In the offshore region, both males and females were observed, but only during May through 

June (NMFS and USFWS 1998e).

3.4.3 Affected Environment: Qualitative Analysis Areas (QAAs)

This section summarizes the known region-specific use of sea turtles occurring within the eight QAAs 

(refer to Figure 2-18). Two to five species of sea turtles are considered uncommon to common in six of 

the eight QAAs: BC Coast, SW Atlantic, W Australia, W India, Marianas, and Sub-Antarctic. In the 

remaining two QAAs (N Atlantic/Iceland and Mid-Atlantic Ridge), three to six sea turtle species could 

possibly occur on rare occasions (Table 3.4-4). 

3.4.3.1 N Atlantic/Iceland

This QAA is significantly north of the range of most sea turtle species. The leatherback is known to occur 

regularly in the Norwegian Sea, and the loggerhead turtle has been seen in the Barents Sea. In summer, 

leatherbacks and loggerheads may move northwards to high latitudes. The leatherback record is held by 

an individual taken alive off the Norwegian coast at 69o18‘ N (Brongersma 1995). The loggerhead record 

is held by an individual taken alive at Murmansk (68o55‘ N) (Brongersma 1995). No breeding areas occur 

close to this analysis area, and only migrating individuals would be rarely encountered (Table 3.4-4). 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-63

Table 3.4-4. Potential Occurrence of Sea Turtles within the QAAs during the Period of Exemplary 

Seismic Surveys

Species

N Atlantic/

Iceland

(N Sum)*

a

BC

Coast

(N Fall)*

b

SW

Atlantic

(Any)*

c

Mid-Atlantic

Ridge

(N Spr –

Fall)*

a

W Australia

(N/S Spr or

Fall)*

d

W India

(N Spr or

Fall)*

a

Mariana

Islands

(N Spr)*

a, f

SubAntarctic

(N Sum/ S

Win)*

e

Green turtle - u M c? BF r M c FM c? B,M u? MF c M

Hawksbill - - u? BF r c? BFM u? B,M u? MF c M

Loggerhead r M r M u? BF r u FM u? M u? MF u? M

Olive ridley - r M u? BF r c? MF c B,M u? MF c MF

Kemp‘s ridley - - - r M - - - -

Leatherback r M u M u? BF r M u? MF u? M u? MF u? MF

Flatback - - - - u BF - - -

Notes: *(Season) = Northern (N) and southern (S) hemisphere season during which the exemplary seismic cruise would occur within the 

analysis area; Spr = spring, Sum = summer, Win = winter; B = known to breed or calve within the area, F = known to feed within the 

area, M = known to migrate through the area; c = common: the species is expected to be encountered once or more during 2-3 visits 

to the area and the number of individuals encountered during an average visit is unlikely to be more than a few 10s, u = uncommon: 

the species is expected to be encountered at most a few times a year assuming many visits to the area, r = rare: the species is not 

expected to be encountered more than once in several years; - = species does not occur there; ? = uncertain.

Sources: 

(a)Caribbean Conservation Corporation (CCC) 2003; EuroTurtle 2006.

(b)Márquez 1990; ADFG 2005; MacLean and Koski 2005.

(c)CCC 2003; Parente et al. 2006.

(d)

Prince 1993, 1994a, b; Limpus 1995a; Whiting 1997; CCC 2003; ADEH 2005; EuroTurtle 2006.

(e)

Pitman 1990; Arenas and Hall 1991; Balazs et al. 1995; NMFS 2002; CCC 2003; USFWS 2005a; EuroTurtle 2006.

(f)Eldredge 2003.

3.4.3.2 BC Coast

No sea turtles are considered regular inhabitants of the BC Coast QAA during the exemplary northern fall 

seismic period, and any sightings would be non-nesting migrating turtles. The leatherback is the most 

likely to occur in small numbers in the relatively cold water of this analysis area, and possibly green 

turtles in even smaller numbers (Márquez 1990; ADFG 2005) (Table 3.4-4). The other two species that 

have been recorded occasionally in BC waters, the loggerhead and olive ridley, are considered rare and 

extralimital (ADFG 2005). No sea turtles were observed during a vessel survey conducted in BC waters 

in fall 2005 (LGL 2005) or during monitoring in transit through the area to Alaska during seismic 

programs conducted by L-DEO in 2004 and 2008 (MacLean and Koski 2005; Hauser and Holst 2009). 

However, one leatherback turtle was sighted far offshore Vancouver Island, BC, during an L-DEO 

seismic program in 2009 (Holst and Beland 2010).

3.4.3.3 SW Atlantic

The SW Atlantic QAA located northeast of the Amazon River delta is within the range of five species of 

sea turtles, all of which nest in the region: green, hawksbill, loggerhead, olive ridley, and leatherback 

turtles (Table 3.4-4). The green turtle is considered most likely to occur in the analysis area. However, 

information on sea turtle abundance at sea is lacking for this region.

Green Turtle. Juvenile green turtles are common along the Brazilian coast in the analysis area. This 

species prefers to nest on ocean islands, such as Fernando de Noronha in the state of Pernambuco, Atol 

das Rocas in the state of Rio Grande do Norte, or Trinidade in the state of Espírito Santo (Projecto 

TAMAR 2006). As many as 3,000 females may nest in Brazil (EuroTurtle 2006). During seismic surveys 

conducted off northeastern Brazil in 2002 and 2003, the green turtle was the most commonly sighted 

turtle (Parente et al. 2006).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-64

Hawksbill Turtle. Juvenile or subadult hawksbill turtles are found all along the coast of northeastern 

Brazil in the region of the analysis area (Projecto TAMAR 2006); however, they nest mostly on the north 

coast of Bahia and Sergipe. A minor nesting area has been identified near the Amazon fan region 

(Caribbean Conservation Corporation [CCC] 2003).

Loggerhead Turtle. The loggerhead is found throughout the Brazilian coastal region of the analysis area. 

Nesting sites are located in northern Rio de Janeiro, Espirito Santo, Bahia, and Sergipe (Projecto TAMAR 

2006). Nesting loggerheads may also be present in the Amazon River Delta (CCC 2003). During seismic 

surveys conducted off northeastern Brazil in 2002 and 2003, only one sighting of a loggerhead turtle was 

noted (Parente et al. 2006).

Olive Ridley Turtle. The largest concentration of nesting olive ridley turtles in Brazil is in the state of 

Sergipe (Projecto TAMAR 2006). The species also nests to the north in Surinam (CCC 2003; EuroTurtle 

2006). During seismic surveys conducted off northeastern Brazil in 2002 and 2003, only one sighting of 

an olive ridley turtle was noted (Parente et al. 2006).

Leatherback Turtle. The only location in Brazil where leatherbacks are known to nest is the state of 

Espirito Santo far to the south of the analysis area (Projecto TAMAR 2006). However, other nesting areas 

are present further north in Trinidad, Guyana, and Surinam (EuroTurtle 2006). Leatherback nesting is 

concentrated between October and January.

3.4.3.4 Mid-Atlantic Ridge

The Mid-Atlantic Ridge QAA is within the range of several sea turtle species: loggerhead, green, 

hawksbill, Kemp‘s ridley, and leatherback turtles. Because of the largely coastal nature of most of these 

species, only the leatherback turtle is likely to occur in most of the analysis area. However, loggerhead, 

Kemp‘s ridley, green, and hawksbill turtles may occur, particularly in waters surrounding the Azores. 

None of these species breed near the analysis area. During a fall 2003 seismic program, no sea turtles 

were observed in the analysis area (Holst 2004). 

Green Turtle. Green sea turtles typically migrate along coastal routes from rookeries to feeding grounds 

(CCC 2003; EuroTurtle 2006). However, a few individuals may migrate through the mid-ocean analysis 

area, as some populations conduct trans-oceanic migrations (e.g., Ascension Island, Brazil) (Hays et al. 

2002). The most important nesting beaches in the northern hemisphere Atlantic are in the Caribbean and 

the coast of South America (CCC 2003; EuroTurtle 2006).

Hawksbill Turtle. Hawksbill turtles most commonly perform short-distance movements between nesting 

beaches and offshore feeding banks, although long-distance movements are also known. Post-hatchlings 

are believed to be pelagic, taking shelter in weed lines around convergence zones; they re-enter coastal 

waters once attaining a length of 8-10 inches (20-25 cm). A juvenile hawksbill tagged in Brazil was 

captured 6 months later in Dakar, Senegal (Eckert 1995b). Non-nesting hawksbill turtles are known as far 

north as Cape Cod and Ireland (Eckert 1995b), but they are considered extremely rare outside of tropical 

waters. They have been found in the Azores, Madeira, and at numerous locations along the entire western 

coast of Africa (Brongersma 1995). 

Kemp’s Ridley Turtle. Juvenile and immature Kemp‘s ridley turtles could occasionally occur in the 

analysis area. Adults are generally restricted to the Gulf of Mexico. Juveniles and immatures range 

between the tropics and temperate coastal areas of the northwest Atlantic, as far as New England (Lazell 

1980; Lutcavage and Musick 1985; Weber 1995). Occasionally, individuals may be carried by the Gulf 

Stream as far as northern Europe and the Atlantic coast of West Africa (EuroTurtle 2006), although those 

individuals are considered lost to the breeding population. There are only a few sightings from the Azores 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-65

and Madeira (Brongersma 1995), and they have been captured occasionally in waters near there (Bolton 

and Martins 1990). 

Loggerhead Turtle. In the North Atlantic, post-hatchling loggerhead turtles are known to migrate from 

their rookery beaches in the SE U.S. to oceanic development habitats in the waters of the eastern North 

Atlantic (Frick et al. 2003). They spend at least 6 years (Bjorndal et al. 2000), or approximately their first 

10 years (Avens et al. 2003), inhabiting the North Atlantic Gyre, which extends roughly from Bermuda to 

the Azores. Such movements of pelagic-stage turtles are substantiated by recaptures of tagged turtles 

(Bolten et al. 1994, 1996) and by incidental capture in longline fisheries around the Azores and Madeira 

(Brongersma 1995). In the eastern Atlantic Ocean, loggerheads have been reported from numerous 

locations throughout the European Atlantic. Loggerheads occur in large numbers around the Azores and 

in the sea north of there to 42o N (Brongersma 1995). In summer, they may move northwards to high 

latitudes. 

Leatherback Turtle. Leatherbacks may migrate through the Mid-Atlantic Ridge QAA. They are highly 

pelagic and approach coastal waters only during the reproductive season (EuroTurtle 2006). They appear 

to migrate along bathymetric contours ranging from depths of 656 to 11,484 ft (200 to 3,500 m) 

(Morreale et al. 1994). In the North Atlantic, leatherback turtles are found in the North Sea, Barents Sea, 

and coastal Newfoundland and Labrador. In the northern-hemisphere Atlantic, leatherbacks nest in the 

Caribbean islands, Costa Rica, Panama, Columbia Surinam, and French Guiana (CCC 2003; EuroTurtle 

2006). In the eastern Atlantic, leatherbacks have been reported from numerous locations throughout the 

European Atlantic (Brongersma 1995), the Azores, Madeira, the Canary Islands, and West Africa (Fretey 

2001). A tagged adult female traveled 3,666 mi (5,900 km) to Ghana, West Africa, after nesting in 

Surinam (Pritchard 1973). In summer, leatherbacks may move northwards to high latitudes (Brongersma 

1995). Nesting has been reported in a number of countries from Senegal south to Angola (Eckert 1995a). 

3.4.3.5 W Australia

The W Australia coastal region is within the range of six species of sea turtles: green, hawksbill, 

loggerhead, olive ridley, leatherback, and flatback turtles. Of these six species, at least three (green, 

hawksbill, and flatback) nest in the region. The green turtle is expected to be the most common sea turtle 

species in the analysis area, followed by the hawksbill and olive ridley.

Green Turtle. Green sea turtles commonly feed and nest in the analysis area. One of four major breeding 

units for green turtles in Australia occurs on the NW Shelf in W Australia (Limpus 1995a). This area 

includes major nesting on the Lacepede Island, Monte Bellow Island, Barrow Island, the islands of the 

Dampier Archipelago, Browse Island, and the North West Cape (Prince 1993, 1994a, b). Nesting also 

occurs in moderate numbers on Ashmore Reef and Cartier Island in the Indian Ocean (Guinea 1995; 

Whiting et al. 2000). Nesting occurs in summer in W Australia (Prince 1994a). The W Australia 

population estimate is 20,000 (ADEH 2005). 

Hawksbill Turtle. Australia has two nesting populations of hawksbill turtles, at the Great Barrier 

Reef/Arnhem Land and the NW Shelf. These populations are genetically distinct from each other, 

indicating little interbreeding between populations (Broderick et al. 1994). Australia may support the 

largest breeding populations of hawksbills in the world following serious declines in stocks in other 

countries. Australia also holds the last remaining large rookeries for this species in the world (Limpus

1995b). In W Australia, major nesting occurs at Varanus Island and Rosemary Island (Prince 1993, 

1994b). The current estimate of the number of annually nesting females in W Australia is 2,000 (Limpus 

1995a). Nesting occurs year round with a peak between October to January (Robinson 1990 in Limpus 

1995a). Limited studies have shown that this species migrates up to 1,491 mi (2,400 km) between 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-66

foraging areas to nesting beaches (Miller et al. 1998). No migration records are known for the Indian 

Ocean.

Olive Ridley Turtle. Olive ridley turtles are expected to feed and migrate in the W Australia QAA (Table 

3.4-4). Breeding individuals may also occur there based on low-density nesting sites in the Northern 

Territories. However, no nesting has been recorded in W Australia, or further west than Fog Bay, Darwin, 

Northwest Territories (Whiting 1997). Because there is limited nesting of this species in the western 

Pacific Ocean and Southeast Asia, the Australian population may represent an isolated breeding 

population. The breeding season appears to peak in the dry season of northern Australia between May and 

August (Cogger and Lindner 1969; Guinea 1990; Whiting 1997). In Australia, there are no records of this 

species forming large synchronous nesting aggregations (arribadas) that are typical of the species in 

Mexico, Costa Rica, Surinam, and India (Hirth 1980; Marquez 1990). Detailed information on the size of 

nesting and foraging populations is unknown, although the nesting population is estimated at between 500 

and 1,000 (Limpus 1995a). Over 100 turtles were killed by set netting in Fog Bay, Northern Territories, in 

one incident in 1994 (Guinea and Chatto 1992), which indicates that this species can forage in large 

aggregations. Reproductive migrations have not been recorded for this species in Australia because no 

ongoing tagging program exists. However, studies in the eastern Pacific and Atlantic Ocean show longdistance reproductive migratory behavior similar to other sea turtle species (Meylan 1995). 

Loggerhead Turtle. Loggerheads may feed and migrate in the analysis area but are not expected to nest 

there. They typically inhabit coral reefs, bays, and estuaries of W Australia. Loggerheads tagged in W 

Australia have been recaptured in the Northern Territories, W Australia, and Indonesia. Nesting areas in 

W Australia include Murion Island and further south near Shark Bay. Loggerheads nest from late October 

to late February or early March, peaking in late December. Hatchlings emerge from nests between 

December and April, peaking from February to early March (ADEH 2006).

Flatback Turtle. Flatback turtles nest, breed, and feed in coastal areas of the W Australia QAA. However, 

they rarely leave the shallow waters of the continental shelf and nest only in northern and northeastern 

Australia. Nesting occurs from October to February in Queensland‘s Northern Territory, but may extend 

for the entire year in NW Australia. Important nesting beaches are located in the Kimberley region of W 

Australia, extending through the Gulf of Carpentaria to the Torres Strait. Flatbacks nest on both inshore 

islands and the mainland. They feed around the northern half of Australia, and in the seas between 

northern Australia and the southern parts of Indonesia and Papua New Guinea (ADEH 2006).

Leatherback Turtle. Migrating and feeding leatherbacks are expected to occur in the analysis area during 

the austral spring or fall (Table 3.4-4). This species makes reproductive migrations from foraging areas to 

nesting beaches (Lazell 1980). Limited data exist on nesting leatherbacks in Australia because of low 

numbers observed and tagged. Nesting in W Australia is still unknown or unconfirmed (Prince 1994b). 

However, limited nesting occurs from December to January in scattered isolated nests (1-3 nests per 

annum) in the adjacent Northern Territory (Limpus and McLachlan 1994) and southern Queensland 

(Limpus and McLachlan 1979, 1994; Limpus et al. 1984). Nesting is mainly confined to tropical beaches 

although some nesting occurs on subtropical beaches (Marquez 1990). 

3.4.3.6 W India

The W India QAA in the Arabian Sea is within the range of five sea turtle species (CCC 2003; EuroTurtle 

2006): the loggerhead, green, hawksbill, olive ridley, and leatherback. Although all five species nest in 

the general region, either on the west coast of India or on the Arabian Peninsula, only the green, 

hawksbill, and olive ridley are known to nest in the W India QAA proper (Table 3.4-4). The olive ridley 

is the most numerous among the sea turtles found in India, and as such is described separately below. The 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-67

remaining four species occur in smaller numbers in the analysis area. Green turtle nesting occurs near the 

analysis area and is reported near Malvan in Maharashtra, the Gulf of Kutch, near Junagardh on the 

Gujarat coast, on the Arabian Peninsula in Oman and Yemen, and on select islands in Lakshadweep, far 

to the south of the analysis area. Sporadic nesting has been recorded elsewhere along the coastline. 

Hawksbill sea turtles nest on coral reefs of Lakshadweep to the south of the analysis area and along the 

Arabian Peninsula. Loggerheads migrate in the Indian Ocean, although no nesting has been reported in 

the W Indian QAA or along any of the Indian coastline; loggerheads are known to nest on the Arabian 

Peninsula at Masirah, Oman. 

Olive Ridley Turtle. The olive ridley is common in the W India QAA. In the Indian Ocean, Gahirmatha, 

located in the Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary of India‘s east coast, supports perhaps the largest nesting 

population with an average of 398,000 females nesting in a given year (NMFS and USFWS 1998e; 

NMFS 2006c). Nesting along the west coast of India consists of far fewer turtles and usually occurs 

during November-March, but in some areas it occurs during June-September (CCC 2003). Olive ridleys 

also nest on the Arabian Peninsula. Populations of olive ridleys have been observed in large flotillas 

traveling between feeding and nesting grounds in the Eastern Pacific and Indian Oceans (EuroTurtle 

2006).

3.4.3.7 Marianas

The loggerhead, green, hawksbill, olive ridley, and leatherback turtles that may inhabit waters around the 

Mariana Islands are likely foraging and migrating, although small numbers of green turtles have been 

documented to nest in the Marianas. The hawksbill turtle may also nest there in extremely low numbers. 

Hawksbills, olive ridleys, and leatherbacks are considered rare in the area. The green turtle is the most 

widespread sea turtle species in the Marianas and is described separately below. Very little is known 

about populations of sea turtles near the Mariana Islands (Eldredge 2003).

Green Turtle. Some foraging green turtles could be encountered in the Marianas QAA. Nesting occurs 

mostly on beaches around Tinian (late January-mid July, with a peak in May) and Saipan (April-August). 

Aggregations of foraging and resting turtles have been observed around the larger islands of Guam, 

Tinian, Saipan, and Rota, concentrated in waters <164 ft (50 m) deep. Approximately 1,500 individuals 

(including juveniles, immature adults, and adults) have been estimated to forage in the waters around the 

southern islands of Rota, Tinian, and Saipan, based on surveys carried out in August 1999 and March 

2001 (Kolinski et al. 2001; Eldredge 2003). 

3.4.3.8 Sub-Antarctic

Five species of sea turtles could occur in the Sub-Antarctic QAA, including the green, hawksbill, 

loggerhead, olive ridley, and leatherback sea turtles (Table 3.4-4). Among these, migrating and/or feeding 

green, hawksbill, and olive ridley turtles would be the most common during the exemplary austral spring 

or fall analysis period, as described below. No sea turtle nesting occurs in the region.

Green Turtle. Some migrating green turtles could be encountered in the Sub-Antarctic QAA. However, 

foraging animals would not occur there because they are benthic feeders, and the waters in the analysis 

area do not provide suitable foraging habitat given their deep, mid-ocean depths (>3,281 ft [1,000 m]). 

Individual green turtles that may migrate through the Sub-Antarctic QAA nest primarily between October 

and December in tropical and sub-tropical waters of the western Pacific, including French Polynesian 

waters where they are considered common though in decline; however, nesting also occurs in small 

numbers throughout the year (Balazs et al. 1995). With the exception of Scilly Atoll, no other known 

nesting sites of any magnitude for sea turtles occur throughout the 130 islands and atolls that comprise 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-68

French Polynesia (Balazs et al. 1995). Nesting can occur throughout the year, but peaks between October 

and December.

Hawksbill Turtle. Some migrating hawksbill turtles could be encountered in the Sub-Antarctic QAA, 

although this area is south of its typical range and the hawksbill is the least likely among all sea turtle 

species to occur in temperate waters; hawksbill turtles generally inhabit tropical waters with coral reefs 

(Perrine 2003). Foraging hawksbills are not likely to occur in the QAA because they tend to be shallow

benthic feeders, and the waters in the analysis area do not provide suitable foraging habitat given their 

deep, mid-ocean depths (>3,281 ft [1,000 m]). Several nesting sites occur west of the analysis area, 

including approximately 3,000 animals that nest in the Pacific east of Australia (SIO and NSF 2005).

However, nesting occurs more commonly in waters of French Polynesia (Perrine 2003).

Olive Ridley Turtle. Migrating or foraging olive ridley turtles likely would occur in the Sub-Antarctic 

analysis area. No nesting colonies of olive ridley turtles occur in the analysis area. The closest nesting 

locations are to the west near Papua New Guinea. Outside of the breeding season, the turtles disperse, but 

little is known of their behavior. Neither males nor females migrate to one specific foraging area, but 

exhibit a nomadic movement pattern and occupy a series of feeding areas in the oceanic waters (Plotkin et 

al. 1994a, b). Aggregations of turtles (75% of which were olive ridleys), sometimes >100 individuals, 

have been observed as far offshore as 120°W, 1,864 mi (3,000 km) from shore (Arenas and Hall 1991).

Loggerhead Turtle. Some migrating loggerheads could be encountered in the Sub-Antarctic QAA. 

However, foraging loggerheads would not occur there because they are benthic feeders, and the waters in 

the analysis area do not provide suitable foraging habitat given their deep, mid-ocean depths (>3,281 ft 

[1,000 m]). The size structure of loggerheads in coastal and nearshore waters of the eastern and western 

Pacific suggest that hatchling loggerheads in the Pacific have a pelagic stage similar to that in the Atlantic 

(NMFS 2002), and thus could occur in the analysis area; loggerheads spend the first 2-6 years of their 

lives at sea. There are no reported loggerhead nesting sites in the eastern or central Pacific (NMFS 2002). 

The closest nesting beaches to the analysis area are in eastern Australia. The major nesting areas for 

loggerheads include the SE U.S., Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico, Columbia, Cuba, South Africa, eastern 

Australia, and Japan (EuroTurtle 2006). Most of the loggerheads in the eastern Pacific are believed to 

originate from nesting beaches in Japan where nesting typically occurs from May to August (USFWS 

2005a). 

Leatherback Turtle. Migrating or foraging leatherbacks likely would be the most frequently encountered 

sea turtle in the analysis area because of their tolerance of cold water. No nesting occurs in the general 

region. In the Pacific, leatherbacks nest along the west coast of Mexico and Central America from 

September to March, and in Irian Jaya and New Guinea. No leatherback turtles nest in French Polynesian 

waters, although non-breeding animals are seen in the region.

3.4.4 Environmental Consequences – General

Existing data on the impacts of seismic and other underwater sound on sea turtles are limited to a small 

number of individual turtles and species. Furthermore, most of these studies have been conducted on 

captive sea turtles, under constrained experimental conditions, and/or to sounds presented in air rather 

than in water. Studies of free-ranging sea turtles exposed to seismic sounds are also limited. Existing 

evidence of potential effects of underwater sound on sea turtles involves temporary or short-term 

behavioral effects, localized displacement, and temporary hearing impairment.

The following sections and Table 3.4-5 provide a general summary of available information on the effects 

of exposure of seismic surveys and other anthropogenic sounds (e.g., sonar) on sea turtles. This synopsis 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-69

provides the basis for assessing effects of the alternatives. The three types of potential effects of exposure 

to underwater seismic and other anthropogenic sounds on sea turtles are pathological, physiological, and 

behavioral as defined earlier in Section 3.2.4. Criteria used to assess effects are first described, followed 

by a comparison of the overlap between the sound frequency ranges of each source with what is known 

about sea turtle hearing and sound production. 

Table 3.4-5. Summary of Known and Anticipated General Effects of Seismic Noise and Other ProjectRelated Noise on Sea Turtles*

Species** Masking Disturbance

Temporary

Hearing

Impairment Injury

Other

Physiological

Effects Comments

Green Unknown Possible –

Short-term

Possible if close 

to high-energy 

acoustic source

Unknown Unknown

Potential for limited adverse 

effects due to overlapping 

frequency of seismic source and 

green sea turtle hearing based 

on airborne sounds not 

measured behaviorally 

(Ridgway et al. 1969; Bartol 

and Ketten 2006; Dow et al. 

2008) 

Hawksbill Unknown Possible –

Short-term

Possible if close 

to high-energy 

acoustic source

Unknown Unknown No studies available

Loggerhead Unknown Possible –

Short-term

Possible if close 

to high-energy 

acoustic source

Unknown Unknown

Potential for limited adverse 

effects due to overlapping 

frequency of seismic source and 

a study indicating that 

loggerhead avoided lowfrequency sound (O‘Hara and 

Wilcox 1990)

Olive Ridley Unknown Possible –

Short-term

Possible if close 

to high-energy 

acoustic source

Unknown Unknown No studies available

Kemp‘s Ridley Unknown Possible –

Short-term

Possible if close 

to high-energy 

acoustic source

Unknown Unknown

Potential for limited adverse 

effects due to overlapping 

frequency of seismic source and 

juvenile Kemp‘s ridley sea 

turtle hearing (Bartol and 

Ketten 2006)

Leatherback Unknown Possible –

Short-term

Possible if close 

to high-energy 

acoustic source

Unknown Unknown

Potential for limited adverse 

effects due to overlapping 

frequency of seismic source and 

leatherback vocalizations

(Mrosovksy 1972)

Flatback Unknown Possible –

Short-term

Possible if close 

to high-energy 

acoustic source

Unknown Unknown No studies available

Notes: *No known systematic studies of the effects of sonar similar to the MBES and SBP proposed for use during the marine seismic surveys. Limited 

available data on sea turtle hearing sensitivity indicate that they are not capable of hearing the higher frequencies associated with these acoustic 

sources (see Table 3.4-2). 

**All sea turtle species listed except for the flatback have ESA status (see Table 3.4-1).

3.4.4.1 Criteria

As indicated in Section 3.4.1.4, little is known about the acoustic capabilities of sea turtles, either in terms 

of hearing ability or sound production (see Table 3.4-2). With such limited data, it is currently not possible 

to determine how far away a particular airgun array may be audible to a sea turtle. Thus, it is not possible to 

identify specific sound criteria for sea turtles above which TTS, PTS, or injury could occur based on empirical 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-70

data. However, as a conservative measure, NMFS has identified two levels of sound exposure criteria for sea 

turtles during NSF-funded seismic research surveys (see Table 2-1) in areas where sea turtles were anticipated 

to be numerous (e.g., L-DEO and NSF 2003e, 2003f, 2007a, 2007b, 2008a, 2008b). The most recent (through 

2009) of these two criteria correspond to a conservative Level A safety radius of 180 dB re 1 μPa above 

which TTS or PTS is considered possible and should thus be avoided. The second is a conservative Level B 

radius of 166 dB re 1 μPa above which behavioral ―harassment‖ changes may occur. These criteria were 

identified to precautionarily limit the potential risk of physical injury and to address behavioral 

disturbance, respectively, since the associated limits were unknown. NMFS (2004b, 2005f, 2008a) 

indicated that sea turtles exposed to received levels at 166 dB re 1 μPa or higher are likely to be harassed. 

NMFS (2004b) also indicated that the 166 dB re 1 μPa criterion was considered a ―conservative 

threshold‖, given the paucity of relevant data. The latter criterion is based on captive studies indicating 

that some sea turtles have shown changes in behavior to sounds at 166 dB re 1 μPa (see below).

Limited new data have become available since NMFS first implemented the threshold criteria (reviewed 

below). These data suggest that considerably higher sound levels (closer to approximately 175 dB re 1 

μPa) would be needed to induce behavioral avoidance. Presumably, even higher (though still unknown) 

thresholds would correspond to levels at which PTS or injury could occur. However, as a precautionary

measure for the purposes of this analysis, the same exposure criteria previously used by NMFS are 

assumed for ESA-listed sea turtles. Thus, a precautionary threshold of 180 dB re 1 μPa would be 

implemented as the safety exposure mitigation radii for this analysis, above which exposure should be 

avoided. The 166 dB re 1 μPa is used herein to identify the distances from the various exemplary arrays at 

which behavioral disturbance may occur. The limited, largely captive studies of sea turtles upon which 

these criteria have precautionarily been based, as well as additional newer studies, are discussed in 

Section 3.4.4.3.

3.4.4.2 Sound Sources and Characteristics

To assess potential effects of project sound sources on sea turtles, it is important to identify any overlap in 

their known hearing range with the characteristics of the sound sources that would be used. In general, sea 

turtles whose hearing or sound production overlap those of the sound sources would be expected to hear 

those sound sources. In addition, it is plausible that a sea turtle sufficiently close to and for a sufficient 

duration to a sound source operating at high levels could potentially be harmed by the energy of the 

sound, even if the sound‘s frequencies are outside the hearing sensitivity range of the animal. The degree 

of frequency overlap between the airguns, MBESs, SBPs, pingers, and vessel sounds associated with 

proposed activities are described below relative to what is known for hearing among sea turtles (see Table 

3.4-2). 

Based on available data, the range of best hearing sensitivity for sea turtles is probably roughly 200-700 

Hz based on auditory data from limited studies of three species of varying ages (see Table 3.4-2); the

possible upper hearing limit is 1,600 Hz (Dow et al. 2008). Hearing below 80 Hz is apparently less 

sensitive but still potentially of use. In general, sensitivity decreases at lower or higher frequencies. In one 

study, loggerheads have been shown to avoid sources of low-frequency sound in the 25-1,000 Hz range 

(O‘Hara and Wilcox 1990). Finally, sensitivity even within the optimal hearing range is apparently low: 

threshold detection levels are relatively high at 160-200 dB re 1 μPa (Lenhardt 1994). See Section 3.4.1 

and Table 3.4-2 for further information on sea turtle hearing.

Airguns have dominant frequency components of 2-188 Hz and zero-to-peak nominal source outputs 

ranging from 234 to 265 dB re 1 μPa-m (Table 2-3). This dominant frequency range overlaps the lower 

frequency range of the known hearing capabilities of sea turtles. Although this range appears to be below 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-71

what is known about peak hearing sensitivity for green and loggerhead sea turtles, it is within the peak 

hearing sensitivity of 100-200 Hz documented for two juvenile Kemp‘s ridley sea turtles (Bartol and 

Ketten 2006). Furthermore, since most energy from airguns occurs at frequencies <500 Hz (see Chapter 

2), there is substantial overlap in the frequencies that sea turtles detect vs. the frequencies in airgun 

pulses. In addition, the nominal source outputs of the project airguns are likely substantially higher than 

and thus well within the sound detection thresholds of sea turtles (Table 3.4-2). 

The Kongsberg EM122 MBES proposed for use on the Langseth operates at 10.5-13 (usually 12) kHz 

with a maximum source level of 242 dB re 1 μPa. Other types of MBESs used for deep-water operations 

aboard other research vessels associated with the proposed action operate at similar or higher frequencies 

(see Table 2-5). These frequencies are well above the known detection ranges of sea turtles (Table 3.4-2). 

Thus, the known frequency sensitivity range of sea turtles does not overlap with the frequencies of the 

MBES and sea turtles are not expected to be capable of hearing these sounds.

The SBP operates at 3.5 kHz with a maximum source output of 222 dB re 1 μPa-m. Thus, the frequency 

range of the SBP is outside the known detection range of sea turtles based on available data. As a result, 

sea turtles are not expected to be capable of hearing the higher frequency sounds produced by SBPs. 

Furthermore, the intermittent and narrow downward-directed nature of the MBES and SBP as emitted 

from the transiting seismic vessel would result in no more than one or two brief ping exposures. 

Pingers are small omnidirectional acoustic transponders proposed for use to obtain locations of 

hydrophone arrays with respect to each other in multi-streamer 3-D seismic survey mode (see Chapter 2). 

The R/V Langseth will deploy up to 32 such pingers: 7 on each streamer and 1 on each source array 

string. Their peak output is 183 dB at 55-110 KHz, with a maximum ping-set rate of 3 pings per 10 sec. 

In addition, other pingers are proposed for use only during those seismic survey cruises that have 

ancillary coring operations. A battery-powered pinger (i.e., acoustic beacon) is attached to each coring 

mechanism to monitor the depth of the corer relative to the sea floor. The pinger produces an 

omnidirectional 12-kHz signal with a source output of approximately 192 dB re 1 μPa-m with one ping of 

0.5, 2, or 10 ms duration per second. 

Ship engines and the vessel hull itself also emit sounds into the marine environment (reviewed in 

Richardson et al. 1995a). These frequencies and amplitudes overlap with the frequencies and thresholds 

associated with sea turtle hearing. However, only anecdotal reports are available regarding the possible 

effects of vessel sound on sea turtles. These observations indicated that turtles exposed to vessel sound 

may respond by exhibiting a startle response and moving away from the sound, producing a temporary 

stress response (NRC 1990). A free-ranging leatherback‘s response to the sound of a boat motor suggests 

that leatherbacks may be sensitive to low-frequency sounds, but the response could have been to mid- or 

high-frequency components of the sound (Advanced Research Projects Agency 1995). The source level of 

vessel sound would be considerably less than the airgun, MBES, and SBP sound sources (see Chapter 2 

and review in Richardson et al. 1995a). Vessel sounds would be at levels expected to potentially cause 

only localized, short-term behavioral changes. In addition, in all oceans of the world, large vessel traffic is 

currently so prevalent that it is commonly considered a usual source of ambient sound. Based on the 

above, potential effects of vessel sound on sea turtles are considered to be short-term behavioral in nature 

and are not discussed further.

In summary, based on what is known regarding sea turtle hearing, airgun transmissions would be 

detectable but the MBES, SBP, and pingers would not be detectable by sea turtles. Potential adverse 

effects on sea turtles from exposure to airgun sounds are discussed below. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-72

3.4.4.3 Acoustic Effects

Masking

Masking occurs when interfering sounds obscure sounds of biological importance to the animals of 

interest. Biological sounds include those produced by conspecifics as well as natural sounds used by sea 

turtles for orientation or other purposes. It is unknown how dependent sea turtles are on underwater sound 

for their survival. For example, underwater hearing (reviewed in Section 3.4.1) may aid turtles with 

migration, navigation, predator avoidance, etc.

The little information available on the hearing abilities of sea turtles means that it is not possible to 

determine whether masking presents a significant problem to these animals. Masking is known to occur in 

birds, a group with ears similar to turtles. Based on the limited available sea turtle hearing data, it is 

assumed that masking would only be possible during the actual brief, intermittent airgun pulse emissions. 

The brief emissions by the MBES, SBP, and pingers would not mask turtle hearing because their 

frequencies do not overlap those known to be used by sea turtles.

Disturbance

Most studies of the biological effects of airgun pulses have occurred during the past two decades on 

marine mammals (Richardson et al. 1995a; Gordon et al. 2004; Nowacek et al. 2007; Southall et al. 2007) 

and fish (Thomson et al. 2001; Herata 2007; Payne et al. 2008). There have been far fewer studies of the 

effects of airgun or other sound on sea turtles. Four studies focused on short-term behavioral responses of 

sea turtles in enclosures to single airguns. In addition, data on reactions of free-swimming turtles to 

seismic pulses have been collected during multiple monitoring and mitigation programs conducted during 

NSF-funded seismic geophysical studies (e.g., Smultea and Holst 2003; Smultea et al. 2004; Holst et al. 

2005b; Hauser et al. 2008; Holst and Smultea 2008) and other studies. Comparisons of results among 

studies are difficult because experimental designs and reporting procedures have varied greatly, and few

studies provided specific information about the levels of the airgun pulses received by the turtles. Another 

provided estimates of the received levels near sea turtles based on results of acoustic modeling. There 

have been no studies on the potential long-term or population-level effects of seismic survey or other 

anthropogenic sounds on sea turtles. 

The most recent study of caged sea turtles exposed to airgun pulses was conducted by McCauley et al. 

(2000a, b) off Western Australia. This is apparently the only such study in which received sound levels 

were estimated carefully. McCauley et al. (2000b) exposed one caged green and one loggerhead sea turtle 

to pulses from an approaching and then receding 20-in3airgun firing every 10 sec at 1,500 psi at a depth 

of 16 ft (5 m). There were two trials separated by 2 days: the first trial involved approximately 2 hr of 

airgun exposure and the second trial approximately 1 hr of airgun exposure. The results from these two 

trials showed that above a received level of 166 dB re 1 Pa (rms)(4)the turtles noticeably increased their 

swim speed relative to periods when no airguns were operating. The behavior of the sea turtles became 

more erratic when received levels were >175 dB re 1 Pa (rms). The authors suggested that the erratic 

behavior exhibited by the caged sea turtles would likely, in unrestrained turtles, be expressed as an 

avoidance response (McCauley et al. 2000a, b).

 

4This measure represents the average received sound pressure over the duration of the pulse, with duration being defined in a 

specific way (i.e., from the time when 5% of the pulse energy has been received to the time when 95% of the energy has been 

received). The rms received level of a seismic pulse is typically about 10 dB less than its peak level, and about 16 dB less than its 

peak-to-peak level (Greene 1997; Greene et al. 2000; McCauley et al. 1998, 2000b).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-73

In another study, O‘Hara and Wilcox (1990) tested the reactions of nine loggerhead sea turtles to airguns. 

For each experiment, a single turtle was held in a 984 ft x 148 ft (300 m x 45 m) enclosed area within a 

33-ft (10-m) deep canal in Florida. The nine turtles were tested at different times and some turtles were 

used in more than one experiment with at least 10 days between tests. The sound source consisted of one 

10-in3airgun plus two 0.8-in3―poppers‖ operating at 2,000 psi(5)at a depth of 7 ft (2 m) for periods of 20-

36 hr. Combined results indicated that turtles maintained a stand-off range of approximately 98 ft (30 m)

when exposed to airgun pulses every 7.5 or 15 sec. It was also possible that some turtles remained on the 

bottom of the enclosure when exposed to airgun pulses. O‘Hara and Wilcox (1990) did not measure the 

received airgun sound levels. McCauley et al. (2000a, b) estimated that ―the level at which O‘Hara saw 

avoidance was around 175-176 dB re 1 Pa (rms).‖ The sound levels received by the turtles in this 

Florida study probably were actually a few dB less than 175-176 dB. This is because the calculations by 

McCauley et al. (2000a, b) apparently did not allow for the shallow 7-ft (2-m) airgun depth in the Florida 

study. The effective source level of airguns is less when they are near 7 ft (2 m) depth than at 16 ft (5 m)

(Greene et al. 2000). 

In a third study, Moein et al. (1994) investigated the avoidance behavior and physiological responses of 

10 loggerhead turtles exposed to an operating airgun, as well as the effects on their hearing. The turtles 

were held in a netted enclosure approximately 59 ft x 200 ft (18 m x 61 m) at a depth of 12 ft (3.6 m), 

with an airgun of unspecified size at each end of the enclosure. Only one airgun was operated at any one 

time; the firing rate was one shot every 5-6 sec. Ten turtles were tested individually, seven of which were 

retested several days later. The airgun was initially discharged when the turtles were near the center of the 

enclosure and the subsequent movements of the turtles were documented. The turtles exhibited avoidance 

during the first presentation of airgun sounds at a mean range of 79 ft (24 m); however, the avoidance 

response waned quickly. Additional trials conducted on the same turtles several days later did not show 

statistically significant avoidance reactions; however, there was an indication of slight initial avoidance 

followed by rapid waning of the avoidance response. The authors described the rapid waning of the 

avoidance response as ―habituation.‖ Their auditory study indicated that exposure to the airgun pulses 

may have resulted in temporary hearing impairment (i.e., TTS). Reduced hearing sensitivity may also 

have contributed to the waning response upon continued exposure. There was some evidence of increased 

stress in the sea turtles based on physiological measurements; however, this stress could also have 

resulted from handling of the turtles.

Inconsistencies in reporting procedures and experimental design prevent direct comparison of this study 

with either McCauley et al. (2000b) or O‘Hara and Wilcox (1990). Moein et al. (1994) stated, without 

further details, that ―three different decibel levels (175, 177, 179) were utilized‖ during each test. These 

figures probably are received levels in dB re 1 Pa, and probably relate to the initial exposure distance 

(mean 79 ft [24 m]); however, these details were not specified. Also, it was not specified whether these 

values were measured or estimated, or whether they were expressed in peak-to-peak, peak, rms, SEL, or 

some other units. Given the shallow water in the enclosure (12 ft [3.6 m]), any estimates based on simple 

assumptions about propagation would be suspect. 

Lenhardt (2002) exposed captive loggerhead sea turtles while underwater to seismic airgun (Bolt 600) 

sounds in a large net enclosure. At received levels of 151–161 dB re 1 Pa, turtles were found to increase

swim speeds. Similar to the McCauley et al. studies (2000a, b), near a received level of approximately

 

5 There was no significant reaction by five sea turtles during an initial series of tests with the airguns operating at the unusually 

low pressure of 1,000 psi. The source and received levels of airgun sounds would have been substantially lower when the air 

pressure was only 1,000 psi than when it was at the more typical operating pressure of 2,000 psi.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-74

175 dB re 1 Pa, an avoidance reaction was common in initial trials, but habituation then appeared to 

occur. A TTS of over 15 dB was found in one animal, with recovery 2 weeks later. Lenhardt (2002) 

suggested that exposure of sea turtles to airguns at water depths >33 ft (10 m) may result in exposure to 

more energy in the low frequencies with unknown biological effects. 

In addition to the above studies on caged turtles, at-sea data on responses, distribution, and sighting rates 

of sea turtles have been collected during marine mammal and sea turtle monitoring and mitigation 

programs associated with various seismic operations around the world (Holst et al. 2006; Parente et al. 

2006; Weir 2007). Results generally suggest that sea turtles showed localized avoidance during large- and 

small-source surveys when the airgun arrays were operating (Holst et al. 2006; Weir 2007). During NSFfunded academic seismic surveys from aboard the R/V Ewing from 2003-2005 (Holst et al. 2006) and 

aboard the R/V Langseth (e.g., Richardson et al. 2009) visual observations and various types of mitigation 

similar to those proposed under Alternative A were conducted. These included ramp ups, power downs, 

and shutdowns of the seismic source if marine mammals or turtles were detected in or about to enter 

designated safety radii. The most recent (2009) NMFS-designated safety radius for sea turtles during 

these surveys was the 180 dB re 1 μPa isopleth. Visual observations for marine mammals and turtles have 

taken place during all 11 L-DEO surveys from 2003 through 2005 on the R/V Ewing and all surveys on 

the R/V Langseth. During six large-source surveys (10 to 20 airguns; 3,050 to 8,760 in3) from the R/V 

Ewing, the mean closest point of approach (CPA) for turtles was closer during non-seismic (456 ft [139 

m]) than seismic (748 ft [228 m]) periods. During small-source surveys (up to six airguns or three GI 

guns; 75 to 1,350 in3) from the R/V Ewing, the mean CPA for turtles was 394 ft (120 m) during nonseismic and 935 ft (285 m) during seismic periods. 

During a large-source L-DEO seismic survey off the Pacific coast of Central America in 2008 from the 

R/V Langseth, the turtle sighting rate during non-seismic periods was seven times greater than that during 

seismic periods (Holst and Smultea 2008). In addition, distances of turtles seen from the seismic vessel 

were significantly farther from the airgun array when it was operating (mean 159 m, n = 77) than when 

the airguns were off (mean 118 m, n = 69; Mann-Whitney U test, P<0.001) (Holst and Smultea 2008). 

During another L-DEO survey in the Eastern Tropical Pacific in 2008 from the R/V Langseth, the turtle 

sighting rate during non-seismic periods was 1.5 times greater than that during seismic periods; however, 

turtles tended to be seen closer to the airgun array when it was operating, but this difference was not 

statistically significant (Hauser et al. 2008).

Weir (2007) reported on the behavior of sea turtles near industrial seismic exploration off Angola, West 

Africa. A total of 240 sea turtles were seen during 676 hr of vessel-based monitoring, mainly for 

associated marine mammals mitigation and monitoring observations. Airgun arrays with total volumes of

5,085 or 3,147 in3 were used at different times during the seismic program. Sea turtles tended to be seen 

slightly closer to the seismic source during airguns off vs. full-array periods, and turtle sighting rate 

during airguns off was double that during periods when the full array was operating. However, there was 

no significant difference in the median distance of turtle sightings from the array during airguns off 

(mean = 743 m, n = 112) vs. full-array on (mean = 779 m, n = 57). Weir (2007) indicated that these 

results should be interpreted cautiously due to potential biases in data collection. It was not possible to 

differentiate turtle responses to airgun sounds vs. the vessel and towed equipment. Sea turtles often 

exhibited a startle response to the vessel or towed surface floats during both airguns on and off periods, 

usually at close range (<33 ft [10 m]) to approaching objects, apparently based mainly on visual cues. 

However, most turtles continued basking at the surface as the vessel and towed equipment passed by, 

remaining visible at the surface well behind the vessel. Weir (2007) suggested that the apparent observed 

lack of movement by turtles away from operating airguns may indicate that turtles only detected airguns 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-75

at close range or were not mobile enough to move away from the approaching arrays, particularly if 

basking at the surface. 

Results of another recent biota monitoring program were reported in association with seismic operations 

conducted off northeastern Brazil (Parente et al. 2006). A total of 46 sea turtles were seen during 2,028 hr 

of vessel-based monitoring of seismic surveys that utilized four to eight GI airguns of 1,410 psi each. No 

evidence of adverse impacts on sea turtles from seismic operations was apparent, although there was 

considerable variability in the data set (Parente et al. 2006). In both the Parente et al. (2006) and Weir 

(2007) studies, sea turtle sighting rates decreased with increasing Beaufort sea state, with Weir (2007) 

reporting significantly more turtles seen than expected in Beaufort sea states 0 and 1 compared to sea 

states 2 to 4. Both studies indicated that lowered effectiveness for sighting sea turtles in higher Beaufort 

sea states reduces effectiveness of associated monitoring and mitigation measures during seismic 

operations. 

There is a consistent trend among the captive and at-sea studies, including the results of previous NSFfunded seismic cruises. This trend indicates that, at some received level, sea turtles show avoidance of an 

operating airgun, despite the inherent problems in comparing some of these studies. McCauley et al. 

(2000a, b) found evidence of behavioral responses when the received level from a single small airgun was 

166 dB re 1 Pa (rms), and avoidance responses at 175 dB re 1 Pa (rms). Based on these data, 

McCauley et al. (2000b) estimated that, for a typical airgun array (2,678 in3, 12 elements) operating in 

water 328-394 ft (100-120 m) deep, sea turtles may exhibit behavioral changes at approximately 1.2 mi (2 

km) and avoidance at approximately 0.6 mi (1 km). These estimates are subject to significant variation, 

depending on the seismic source and local propagation conditions.

Three other related studies involving stimuli other than airguns may also be relevant. Two loggerhead 

turtles resting on the bottom of shallow tanks responded repeatedly to low-frequency (20-80 Hz) tones by 

becoming active and swimming to the surface (Lenhardt 1994). They remained at the surface or slightly 

submerged for the remainder of the 1-min trial. No detailed data on sound levels at the bottom vs. surface 

were reported. However, the surfacing response probably reduced the levels of underwater sound to 

which the turtles were exposed (Lenhardt 1994). In a separate study, a loggerhead and Kemp‘s ridley sea 

turtle responded similarly when 1-sec vibratory stimuli at 250 or 500 Hz were applied to the turtle‘s head 

for 1 sec (Lenhardt et al. 1983). There appeared to be rapid habituation to these vibratory stimuli. In the 

third study, sea turtles in tanks showed agitated behaviour when exposed to simulated boat noise and 

recordings from the U.S. Navy‘s Low Frequency Active (LFA) sonar (Samuel et al. 2005, 2006). The 

tones and vibratory stimuli used in these three studies were quite different from airgun pulses. However, it 

is possible that resting sea turtles may exhibit a similar ―alarm‖ response, possibly including surfacing or 

alternatively diving, when exposed to any audible sound, regardless of whether it is a pulsed sound or 

tone.

In summary, in captive enclosures as well as during NSF-funded at-sea seismic monitoring programs, sea 

turtles generally respond to seismic survey sound with behavioral changes such as startling, increasing 

swimming speed, swimming away from, and/or locally avoiding the source. In captivity, animals resting 

on the bottom often become active and move toward the surface where received sound levels normally 

would be reduced. Based on available results of the at-sea studies to date, free-ranging sea turtles appear 

to show localized avoidance of seismic airguns and airgun arrays (Holst et al. 2006; Weir 2007). Thus, 

combined available studies indicate that exposure to seismic sounds results in short-term behavioral 

changes and localized avoidance by sea turtles. Available evidence suggests that the zone of avoidance 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-76

around seismic sources is a few kilometers or less (McCauley et al. 2000a, b; Holst et al. 2006; Weir 

2007).

We are not aware of any information indicating that sea turtles show more than localized short-term 

avoidance of airguns. For example, during the NSF-funded seismic surveys summarized above, sea turtles 

continued to be seen in the seismic survey area throughout each cruise. Whether potentially displaced 

individual turtles would return quickly after seismic survey activities ended is unknown; no tagging 

studies of sea turtles have been conducted relative to seismic surveys to allow re-identification or tracking 

of movements of individual turtles. Theoretically, avoidance reactions over an extended period in a 

localized area could prevent sea turtles from using an important coastal area or bay if there was a 

prolonged seismic operation in the area, particularly in shallow water (see Pendoley 1997); however, this 

is not a situation anticipated for research use of airguns under the Proposed Action. Sea turtles might be 

excluded from the area for the duration of the seismic operation, or they might remain but exhibit 

abnormal behavioral patterns (e.g., lingering longer than normal at the surface where received sound 

levels are lower). However, potential impacts could be minimized through mitigation measures such as 

avoiding sensitive nesting or foraging areas used by ESA-listed sea turtles and by using PSVOs and 

implementing power down and shutdown measures, etc. 

The Proposed Action is not expected to adversely affect populations of ESA-listed nesting sea turtles

because seismic surveys would be planned in coordination with NMFS to minimize and avoid disturbance 

of their known active nesting areas. It is unclear whether exclusion from a particular nesting beach by 

seismic operations, if it occurred, would prevent or decrease reproductive success. It is believed that 

females migrate to the region of their birth and select a nesting beach. The degree of site fidelity varies 

between species and also intra-seasonally by individuals. If a sea turtle is excluded from a particular 

beach, it may select a more distant, undisturbed nesting site in the general area (Miller 1997). Under 

apparently undisturbed conditions, sea turtles naturally vary the intra-seasonal distance between nesting 

sites. For example, Bjorndal et al. (1983) (in Miller [1997]) reported a maximal intra-seasonal distance 

between nesting sites of 180 mi (290 km), indicating that sea turtles use multiple nesting sites spaced up 

to a few hundred kilometers apart. Also, it is unknown whether a turtle that failed to go ashore because of 

seismic survey activity would abandon the area for that full breeding cycle, or would simply delay going 

ashore until the seismic survey activities moved to a different area.

In comparison, results of experiments and monitoring studies on responses of marine mammals and fish 

to seismic surveys show that responses or lack thereof can be related to species, time of year, activity of 

the animal, and other unknown factors. The same species may show different kinds of responses at 

different times of year or even on different days (e.g., Richardson et al. 1995a; Thomson et al. 2001). It is 

reasonable to expect similar variability in the case of sea turtles exposed to the airgun sounds. For 

example, sea turtles of different ages vary in size, behavior, feeding habits, preferred water depths, and 

hearing sensitivity. Nothing specific is known about the ways in which these factors may be related to the 

effects of airgun sound. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to expect reduced effects in young turtles 

concentrated near the surface (where levels of airgun sounds are attenuated) as compared with older 

turtles that spend more time at depths where airgun sounds are generally stronger.

Temporary Hearing Impairment

Moein et al. (1994) used an ―evoked potential method‖ to test the hearing of 11 loggerhead sea turtles 

exposed to a few hundred pulses from a single airgun. Turtle hearing was tested before and within 24 hr

and 2 weeks after exposure to pulses of airgun sound. Levels of airgun sound to which the turtles were 

exposed were not specifically reported. The authors concluded that: (1) five turtles tested exhibited some 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-77

change in their hearing when tested within 24 hr after exposure relative to pre-exposure hearing, and (2) 

hearing had reverted to normal for turtles when tested 2 weeks after exposure. The results are consistent 

with the occurrence of TTS upon exposure of the turtles to airgun pulses. Unfortunately, the size of the 

airgun used or the received sound levels at various distances were not reported and the distances of the 

turtles from the airgun were also variable during the tests. A turtle was approximately 98 ft (30 m) from 

the airgun at the start of each trial but could then either approach the airgun or move away to a maximum 

of approximately 213 ft (65 m) during subsequent airgun pulses. Thus, the levels of airgun sounds that 

apparently elicited TTS are unknown. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that there was evidence of TTS from 

exposure to pulses from a single airgun. However, the turtles were confined and unable to move more 

than approximately 213 ft (65 m) away. Similarly, Lenhardt (2002) exposed loggerhead turtles in a large 

net enclosure to airgun pulses. He noted TTS of >15 dB in one loggerhead turtle, with recovery occurring 

in 2 weeks. Turtles in the open sea might move away from an airgun operating at a fixed location, and in 

the more typical case of a towed airgun or airgun array, very few shots would occur at or near a single 

location. Thus, sea turtle reactions to exposure to underwater sound during net-enclosure experiments is 

not considered typical of that expected during an operational seismic survey.

Overall, in the absence of relevant absolute threshold data, we cannot estimate how far away an airgun

array might be audible to a sea turtle. TTS apparently occurred in loggerhead turtles exposed to many 

pulses from a single airgun 213 ft (65 m) away (Moein et al. 1994). This suggests that sounds from an 

airgun array might cause temporary hearing impairment in sea turtles if they do not avoid the (unknown) 

radius where TTS occurs. However, exposure duration during the exemplary surveys analyzed for this 

PEIS would be much less than during the study by Moein et al. (1994). This is based on the transitory 

nature of the seismic vessel (i.e., the vessel travels considerably faster than a sea turtle) and other factors 

described later in this section.

Injury

Noise-induced hearing damage can be either temporary or permanent. In general, the received sound must 

be strong (i.e., at a high level) for either to occur, and must be especially strong and/or prolonged for 

permanent impairment to occur. There have been few studies that have directly investigated hearing or 

sound-induced hearing loss in sea turtles. Moein et al. (1994) studied the effect of sound pulses from a 

single airgun of unspecified size on loggerhead sea turtles (see above). Apparent TTS was observed after 

exposure to a few hundred airgun pulses at distances <213 ft (65 m). The hearing capabilities had 

returned to ―normal‖ when the turtles were re-tested 2 weeks later. Similarly, Lenhardt (2002) noted 

recovery of TTS in a loggerhead turtle within 2 weeks.

Behavioral avoidance and hearing damage are related. If sea turtles exhibit little or no behavioral 

avoidance, or if they acclimate to seismic survey sound to the extent that avoidance reactions cease, sea 

turtles might sustain hearing loss if they are close enough to seismic sources. Furthermore, sea turtles in 

the area of seismic operations prior to start-up may not have time to move out of the area even if standard 

ramp-up (i.e., soft-start) procedures are in effect. Eckert (2000) proposed that sea turtles require a longer 

ramp-up period because of their relatively slow swimming speeds. However, it is unclear at what distance 

(if any) from a seismic source sea turtles could sustain hearing impairment, and whether there would ever 

be a possibility of exposure to sufficiently high levels for a sufficiently long period to cause permanent 

hearing damage. In summary, there are many unknowns with respect to potential injurious effects of 

airgun or other anthropogenic sound on free-swimming sea turtles.

In theory, a reduction in hearing sensitivity, either temporary or permanent, may be harmful for sea 

turtles. However, very little is known about the role of sound perception in the sea turtle‘s normal 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-78

activities. While it is not possible to estimate how much of a problem it would be for a turtle to have 

either temporary or permanent hearing impairment, there is some evidence indicating that hearing plays 

an important role in sea turtle survival. 

1) It has been suggested (Eckert et al. 1998; Eckert 2000) that sea turtles may use passive reception 

of acoustic signals to detect the hunting sonar of killer whales, a known predator of leatherback 

sea turtles (Fertl and Fulling 2007). Further investigation is needed before this hypothesis can be 

accepted. Some communication calls of killer whales include components at frequencies low 

enough to overlap the frequency range where sea turtles hear. However, the echolocation signals 

of killer whales are at considerably higher frequencies and may be inaudible to sea turtles (e.g., 

Simon et al. 2007). 

2) Hearing impairment, either temporary or permanent, might inhibit a turtle‘s ability to avoid injury 

from vessels. A recent study found that green sea turtles often responded behaviorally to close, 

oncoming small vessels and that the nature of the response was related to vessel speed, with 

fewer turtles displaying a flee response as vessel speed increased (Hazel et al. 2007). However, 

Hazel et al. (2007) suggested that a turtles‘ ability to detect an approaching vessel was visiondependent. 

3) Hearing may play a role in navigation. For example, it has been proposed that sea turtles may 

identify their breeding beaches by their acoustic signature (Lenhardt et al. 1983). However,

available evidence suggests that visual, wave, and magnetic cues are the main navigational cues 

used by sea turtles, at least in the case of hatchlings and juveniles (Lohmann et al. 1997, 2001; 

Lohmann and Lohmann 1998).

Other Physiological Effects

Little information is available on other potential physiological effects of underwater sound on sea turtles. 

Theoretically, non-auditory physiological effects or injuries could occur in sea turtles exposed to highlevel underwater sound. These include stress, neurological effects, and organ or tissue damage. Moein et 

al. (1994) noted evidence of increased stress in sea turtles during enclosed airgun exposure experiments; 

however, this stress could also have resulted from handling of the turtles. There is no proof that any of 

these effects occur in sea turtles exposed to sound from airgun arrays (even large ones). However, there 

have been no direct studies of the potential for airgun pulses to elicit any of those effects. If such effects 

do occur, they would probably be limited to unusual situations when animals might be exposed at close 

range for unusually long periods. Overall, it is considered unlikely that sea turtles would be exposed to 

sound levels of sufficient strength and for sufficient duration to cause significant physiological effects. 

3.4.4.4 Other Potential Effects

Entanglement and Ingestion

Other potential project-related effects on sea turtles involve ingestion of marine debris as well as 

entanglement and entrapment in marine debris and equipment. Onshore and onboard waste management

are of issue with respect to marine debris. Plastics and other foreign materials are prevalent in the marine 

environment. They present a serious risk of injury through ingestion and entanglement. Researchers have 

estimated that the North Pacific Gyre contains six times as much plastic by mass as it does plankton. 

Sampling in the North Pacific found 334,271 plastic pieces/km2 (Moore et al. 2001). 

Sea turtles appear to be particularly susceptible to mortality associated with ingestion of plastics and other 

materials. It is believed that floating plastic bags may be mistaken for jellyfish or simply accidentally 

ingested as sea turtles feed on other prey. The NRC (1990) identified ingestion of debris as a source of sea 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-79

turtle mortality related to human activities but was unable to determine the level of significance for 

hatchling, juvenile, and adult sea turtles. An estimated 24,000 metric tons of plastic packaging is dumped 

into the ocean each year (Welch 1988). Over 100,000 marine mammals and turtles die each year from 

eating or becoming entangled in plastic debris, including netting, plastic fishing line, packing bands, and 

Styrofoam (Welch 1988; McGavern 1989; Sanders 1989).

Sea turtles ingest a wide variety of marine debris including plastic bags, plastic sheeting, balloons, 

Styrofoam, and fishing line. Ingestion of these foreign materials can cause intestinal blockage, release 

toxic chemicals, inhibit feeding or mating, and result in suffocation, ulceration, malnutrition, and 

starvation (Wehle and Colemar 1983; Wallace 1985; O‘Hara et al. 1986; Gramentz 1988; Welch 1988; 

McGavern 1989). In one 22-month study, plastic was found in nearly 80% of turtle stomachs (Stanley et 

al. 1988). NMFS estimates that one-third to one-half of all turtles have ingested plastic products or 

byproducts (Cottingham 1988).

Entanglement of sea turtles with marine debris, fishing gear, dredging operations, and equipment 

operations are a documented occurrence and of elevated concern for sea turtles. Turtles can become

wrapped around cables, lines, nets, or other objects suspended in the water column and become injured or 

fatally wounded, drowned, or suffocated (e.g., Hofman 1995; NMFS 2007). During proposed seismic

operations, numerous cables, lines, and other objects associated with the airgun array and hydrophone 

streamers are towed behind the survey at water depths up to approximately 39 ft (12 m) (Tables 2-3 and 

2-4) and could potentially entrap sea turtles. Seismic personnel reported that sea turtles (number 

unspecified) became fatally entrapped between gaps in tail-buoys associated with industrial seismic vessel 

gear deployed off West Africa in 2003 (Weir 2007).

We are not aware of any other cases of entanglement by sea turtles with seismic survey equipment. With 

PSVO monitoring, no incidents of entanglements of sea turtles with this gear has been documented in 

over 54,000 nm (100,000 km) of previous NSF-funded seismic surveys (e.g., Smultea and Holst 2003; 

Smultea et al. 2004; Holst et al. 2005b; Holst and Smultea 2008; Hauser et al. 2008; refer to Table 2-1). 

Towing of the hydrophone streamer or other equipment is not expected to significantly interfere with sea 

turtle movements, including migration, unless they were to become entrapped as indicated above. Sea 

turtles are expected to be capable of swimming around, under, or avoiding such equipment as long as they 

are able to detect it. The actual volume/area ―occupied‖ by this equipment is minute compared to 

surrounding water; however, there is a potential low risk that a sea turtle could encounter and become 

entangled with seismic lines and gear. Monitoring for sea turtles from seismic vessels would reduce the 

potential for related adverse effects. Modifying equipment in which sea turtles can become entangled is 

also a possible mitigation measure. Weir (2007) suggested that ―turtle guards‖ could be placed over gaps 

between tail-buoys (e.g., in deployed seismic vessel gear) to avoid entanglement of sea turtles with 

seismic gear in areas where sea turtles occur.

Waste management plans are in place on all research vessels used for NSF-funded or USGS seismic 

research. These plans would be designed to minimize the amount of plastic used on board. Further, in 

accordance with U.S. and international marine laws and regulations, no plastic materials would be

disposed of at sea. Monitoring for sea turtles from seismic vessels by trained biological observers and 

subsequent attempts to maneuver the ship to avoid potential entanglements with sea turtle(s) would 

reduce the potential low risk of this occurrence.

Ship Strikes

Sea turtles are at risk from collisions with vessels. In Florida, surveys in 1998 found that one-third of the 

566 dead turtles examined showed signs of boat-related injuries (CCC and Sea Turtle Survival League 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-80

1998). Earlier studies of turtles stranded on the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coasts of the U.S. found that 

6-9% of strandings had boat-related injuries, involving an average of about 150 turtles per year 

(Schroeder 1987; Schroeder and Warner 1988; Teas and Martinez 1989). 

Little information is available on the types of vessels responsible for turtle deaths, although the focus has 

tended to be on recreational boat traffic (NRC 1990). In the Virgin Islands, sea turtles are reportedly 

regularly hit and killed by ferries (Hillis-Starr et al. 1998). NRC (1990) provides a qualitative ranking of 

the relative importance of various mortality factors on sea turtle adults, eggs, and hatchlings. Entrapment 

in shrimp trawling gear caused more turtle deaths than any other human activities, followed by other 

fisheries interactions (rated medium to low). Collision with boats was considered of ―low‖ importance for 

juveniles and adults and to be ―unimportant‖ with respect to hatchlings (NRC 1990).

Collision of sea turtles with seismic vessels and associated deployed/towed gear and equipment is 

possible, including airgun arrays (on or off), buoys, cables, hydrophone streamers, and coring equipment 

(see Chapter 2). Based on a recent report by Weir (2007) (see preceding subsection), sea turtles 

sometimes were startled near and moved away from the seismic vessel and/or towed equipment, but 

apparently resumed their previous behaviors after being startled. A total of 13 sea turtles dived in 

apparent response to the seismic vessel, including nine that ―startle dived‖ at the bow (seven while the 

airguns were off). Another seven sea turtles dived in apparent response to towed seismic equipment: six 

near surface floats (five while airguns were off) and one near an inactive array (Weir 2007). These 

responses usually occurred within 33 ft (10 m) of approaching objects; thus, reactions were likely based 

mainly on visual detection. These observations suggest that some turtles may avoid collisions by diving. 

However, Weir (2007) also reported ―near misses‖ of collisions between ―basking‖ sea turtles and towed 

seismic survey gear. 

It has been hypothesized that hearing impairment in sea turtles, either temporary or permanent, might 

inhibit a turtle‘s ability to avoid injury from vessels, although this is largely conjectural. Hazel et al. 

(2007) suggested that a turtle‘s ability to detect an approaching vessel was vision-dependent. They found 

that as vessel speed increased, fewer green sea turtles displayed a flee response. Collisions, if they do 

occur, are likely to be fatal to individuals. However, since aggregations of turtles in pelagic waters tend to 

be rare, such incidents would be expected to be insignificant to regional populations. 

3.4.5 Environmental Consequences – Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)

Alternatives A and B include specific monitoring and mitigation measures to minimize the potential for 

adverse effects on sea turtles (see Chapter 2). As indicated above, data are limited on the potential effects 

of seismic and other underwater sound on sea turtles and there remain many unknowns. While a few 

existing studies provide some basis for short-term behavioral and TTS effects, there are no data with 

respect to potential PTS, injury, or mortality. Thus, it is unknown whether received sound levels near the 

airguns would be sufficiently high to potentially induce such effects on sea turtles (Table 3.4-5). Potential 

long-term effects of exposure to seismic survey sound are also unknown. There are no specific data that 

demonstrate the consequences to sea turtles if seismic operations occur in important areas at important 

times of year. Until there are sufficient new data to allow better assessment, it is considered prudent to 

implement precautionary monitoring and mitigation measures. This is the basis for the monitoring and 

mitigation measures proposed under Alternatives A and B. The primary monitoring and mitigation 

measures under Alternatives A and B that are applicable to sea turtles are summarized below (see Chapter 

2 for a complete description of monitoring and mitigation measures).

 Prior to a cruise, locations of survey lines will be planned to the maximum extent practicable to 

avoid critical breeding, nesting, rearing, and/or migration areas and periods for sea turtles. This 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-81

will be based on available data, in so far as these can be identified in advance from other sources 

of information, or during the cruise.

 Real-time visual monitoring for sea turtles by trained biologists approved by NMFS will be 

conducted immediately before and during seismic operations. This includes a minimum of 30 min 

prior to start up and ramp up of the airguns during both day and night (the airguns could not be 

turned on or up if a sea turtle is observed within the designated avoidance radii) and during all 

daytime seismic operations.

 If the airguns are started up at night, two PSVOs would watch for marine mammals and turtles 

near the source vessel for 30 min prior to start up of the airguns using NVDs, if the proper 

conditions for nighttime start up exist (see Chapter 2).

 As practicable, visual monitoring for sea turtles will be conducted during other non-seismic 

periods, including transits to and from the study area, to provide baseline data and to reduce the 

potential risk of vessel collisions with sea turtles; in some areas, the resultant data may provide 

information on sea turtles in areas with little or no previous data.

 The airguns will be ramped down or shut down if sea turtles are observed near, approaching, or 

within the estimated 180 dB re 1 μPa ―safety‖ radius. Airgun operations would not be restarted or 

ramped up until the turtle has been seen to move out of this radius or the vessel has moved 

outside the safety zone for turtles, whichever occurs first. 

On a site-specific basis, additional mitigation and monitoring measures may be implemented. These 

measures would be determined in coordination with NMFS based on the best available, site-specific 

information on sea turtles in a selected seismic survey area. Measures could also be based on information 

obtained during a seismic cruise, particularly in previously undescribed areas. Such measures could 

include:

 avoiding or remaining a minimum distance from certain areas considered important to sea turtles 

(e.g., nesting, breeding, feeding, migration, etc.), the use of which coincides with the season of 

the survey;

 implementing other site-specific mitigation measures on an adaptive mitigation approach based 

on data obtained during the cruise, in coordination with NMFS;

 adjusting safety radii based on any new data that may become available after completion of this 

PEIS. For example, NSF and USGS are aware that NMFS is developing new noise-exposure

guidelines for various marine animals that have not yet been finalized or approved for use. NSF 

will be prepared to develop their procedures for estimating numbers of turtles ―taken‖ (per the 

ESA) via sound exposure, safety radii, etc., as may be required at some future date by the new 

guidelines.

The following analysis of the environmental consequences of Alternative A or B on sea turtles assumes 

that the above and other monitoring and mitigation measures described in Chapter 2 would be 

implemented. 

3.4.5.1 Acoustic Effects

Potential impacts on sea turtles under Alternative A for each analysis area and species are summarized in 

Table 3.4-6. These effects are described below based on similarities between the physical characteristics 

and the nature of the seismic activities in each analysis area relative to the anticipated occurrence of sea 

turtle species. Based on the above review, implementation of Alternative A or B is expected to result in

short-term behavioral disturbance of sea turtles due to exposure to seismic airgun sounds; sea turtles are 

not expected to be capable of hearing the MBES, SBP, or pingers (Table 3.4-6). The impacts will likely 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-82

include behavioral changes and/or localized avoidance of an area of unknown size in the vicinity of the 

seismic vessel. There is also the unlikely possibility of temporary hearing impairment or perhaps even 

permanent hearing damage to individual turtles that are in very close proximity to the airguns when they 

are fired. There are few data on temporary hearing loss (i.e., TTS) and no data on permanent hearing loss 

(i.e., PTS) or mortality in sea turtles exposed to airgun pulses. Thus, the received sound level at which 

such impacts might occur is unknown (Table 3.4-5). However, the potential for mortality or permanent 

injury is considered negligible from the proposed seismic survey activities given a number of factors. 

These include the pulsed/intermittent downward-directed nature of the sounds, the brief period of 

potential exposure to a relatively slow-moving turtle while a vessel is transiting and transmitting pulsed 

sound, the low likelihood of encountering sea turtles sufficiently close and of sufficient duration to 

possibly induce such effects, and implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures. 

Table 3.4-6. Summary of Potential Impacts to Sea Turtles with Implementation of Alternative A or B

Analysis Area Species* Alternative A or B**

DAAS

NW Atlantic,

Caribbean

Green, hawksbill,

Kemp‘s ridley,

leatherback, loggerhead

 Short-term disturbance and localized displacement of small numbers of 

feeding/migrating leatherbacks and possibly loggerheads likely by small 

array in shallow to deep waters, other species highly unlikely. Affected 

number smaller than large-array areas with similar water depths.

 Potential for TTS unknown, considered possible close to airguns but unlikely 

to occur as turtles expected to avoid such exposure and vessel would quickly 

pass.

 Potential for PTS, injury, lethal effects from airguns unknown but considered 

unlikely as turtles expected to avoid such exposure and vessel would quickly 

pass.

 No significant impacts expected at the population level.

 May affect, likely to adversely affect leatherbacks and loggerheads.

 May affect, not likely to adversely affect green, hawksbill, and Kemp‘s 

ridley.

S California,

Galapagos

Green, hawksbill,

leatherback, loggerhead,

olive ridley

 Short-term disturbance and localized displacement of small numbers of 

breeding or feeding green and hawksbill likely and smaller numbers of 

breeding, feeding or migrating loggerhead, olive ridley, Kemp‘s ridley, and 

leatherback possible by large array in shallow to deep waters.

 TTS and PTS unlikely, no significant impacts to populations (see NW 

Atlantic).

 May affect, likely to adversely affect all six ESA-listed sea turtles.

W Gulf of Alaska Green, leatherback,

loggerhead, olive ridley

 Effects highly unlikely as all species considered rare in the project area.

 No significant impacts to populations (see NW Atlantic).

 May affect, not likely to adversely affect green, loggerhead, olive ridley and 

leatherback.

QAAs

BC Coast Green, leatherback, 

loggerhead, olive ridley

 Short-term disturbance and localized displacement of small numbers of 

migrating green and leatherback possible by large array in shallow and 

intermediate-depth waters, other species highly unlikely/rare.

 TTS and PTS highly unlikely, no significant impacts to populations (see NW 

Atlantic).

 May affect, likely to adversely affect green and leatherback.

 May affect, not likely to adversely affect loggerhead and olive ridley

Mid-Atlantic Ridge

Green, hawksbill, Kemp‘s

ridley, leatherback,

loggerhead, olive ridley

 Effects highly unlikely as all species considered rare within the project area.

 No significant impacts to populations (see NW Atlantic).

 May affect, not likely to adversely affect all six ESA-listed species
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-83

Table 3.4-6. Summary of Potential Impacts to Sea Turtles with Implementation of Alternative A or B

Analysis Area Species* Alternative A or B**

Marianas

Green, hawksbill,

leatherback, loggerhead,

olive ridley

 Short-term disturbance and localized displacement of small numbers of 

migrating or feeding individuals possible by large array in shallow to deep 

waters (all five species likely uncommon)

 TTS and PTS highly unlikely, no significant impacts to populations (see NW 

Atlantic)

 May affect, not likely to adversely affect green, hawksbill, loggerhead, olive 

ridley and leatherback 

Sub-Antarctic

Green, hawksbill,

loggerhead, olive ridley,

leatherback

 Short-term disturbance and localized displacement of very small numbers of 

migrating green, hawksbill and olive ridley likely and smaller numbers of 

migrating or feeding loggerhead and leatherback possible by small array in 

only deep waters. Affected number expected to be smaller than most other 

analysis areas with larger arrays and/or in shallow or intermediate-depth 

waters.

 TTS and PTS unlikely, no significant impacts to populations (see NW 

Atlantic).

 May affect, not likely to adversely affect green, hawksbill, loggerhead, olive 

ridley and leatherback.

SW Atlantic

Green, hawksbill,

loggerhead, olive ridley,

leatherback

 Short-term disturbance and localized displacement of small number of 

breeding or feeding green likely and smaller numbers of hawksbill, 

loggerhead, olive ridley and leatherback possible by large array in shallow to 

deep waters. 

 TTS and PTS unlikely, no significant impacts to populations (see NW 

Atlantic).

 May affect, not likely to adversely affect green, hawksbill, loggerhead, olive 

ridley, and leatherback.

W India

Green, hawksbill,

loggerhead, olive ridley,

leatherback

 Short-term disturbance and localized displacement of small number of 

breeding or migrating green and olive ridley likely and smaller numbers of 

hawksbill, loggerhead, and leatherback possible by large array in 

intermediate to deep waters. Affected number expected to be smaller than 

large array operating in shallow water.

 TTS and PTS unlikely, no significant impacts to populations (see NW 

Atlantic).

 May affect, not likely to adversely affect green, hawksbill, loggerhead, olive 

ridley and leatherback.

N Atlantic/

Iceland Leatherback, loggerhead

 Effects highly unlikely as both species considered rare

 No significant impacts to populations (see NW Atlantic)

 May affect, not likely to adversely affect loggerhead and leatherback

W Australia

Green, hawksbill,

leatherback, loggerhead,

olive ridley, flatback

 Short-term disturbance and localized displacement of small numbers of 

breeding, feeding or migrating green, hawksbill and olive ridley likely and 

smaller numbers of feeding or migrating loggerhead and leatherback, and 

breeding or feeding non-listed flatback possible by small array in shallow to 

deep waters. Affected number expected to be smaller than areas with larger 

array at same water depths.

 TTS and PTS unlikely, no significant impacts to populations (see NW 

Atlantic).

 May affect, not likely to adversely affect all six ESA-listed species.

Notes: *All sea turtle species listed except for the flatback have ESA status (see Table 3.4-1). ** No acoustic impacts to sea turtles from MBES, SBP, or 

pingers (above turtle hearing capability) in all the analysis areas. Low risk of potential entanglement in towed/deployed seismic gear (e.g., lines, 

buoys, etc.) as described in text; proposed mitigation and monitoring reduces this risk.

Anticipated short-term impacts would be limited to small numbers of seven sea turtle species depending 

on the analysis area; six of the seven species are ESA listed (see Table 3.4-1). Overall, no significant 

impacts are expected at the population level. Implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures 

proposed for Alternatives A and B are expected to effectively reduce the exposure of sea turtles to highintensity sound associated with the proposed action (see Chapter 2). 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-84

The acoustic assessment criterion for this PEIS consists of evaluating the potential for sea turtles to be 

exposed to the precautionary ―safety‖ radii corresponding to the 180 dB re 1 μPa isopleth, required as 

mitigation by NMFS during previous NSF-funded seismic surveys. These radii were estimated based on 

results of the acoustic modeling conducted specifically for the exemplary DAAs in this PEIS. However, 

because there are very limited/localized, if any, reliable data on the at-sea distribution and density of sea 

turtles and the analysis areas are exemplary, it is not possible to estimate the numbers of sea turtles that 

may potentially be exposed to the 180 dB re 1 μPa sound level criterion in any of the analysis areas. 

Therefore, only qualitative estimates of the relative numbers of sea turtles that may be exposed to airgun 

sounds during the exemplary seismic surveys can be made relative to the expected occurrence of sea 

turtles in these areas. Furthermore, these estimates are based on limited and general information on the 

occurrence, abundance, and distribution of sea turtles in the exemplary analysis areas. More detailed 

analyses on sea turtles and the preparation of additional environmental documentation would occur as 

required once actual seismic survey areas have been selected and proposed by NSF in coordination with 

NMFS, where relevant data are available.

In general, seismic operations in or near analysis areas where sea turtles concentrate and where large 

airgun arrays are proposed for use in shallow water are likely to have the greatest relative potential for 

acoustic impacts (acoustic propagation relationship to water depth and array size reviewed in Chapter 2). 

ESA-listed sea turtles are considered common or potentially common in 6 of the 12 analysis areas where 

turtles would occur during the season of an exemplary seismic cruise: NW Atlantic and Caribbean 

DAAs, and SW Atlantic, W Australia, W India, and Sub-Antarctic QAAs (Tables 3.4-3 and 3.4-4). A 

large array operating in shallow water is proposed for two of these six analysis areas: the Caribbean DAA

and SW Atlantic QAA. In addition, within the W India QAA, two turtle species may be common where a 

large array would operate in intermediate-depth waters. Thus, in the Caribbean, SW Atlantic, and W India 

analysis areas, the relatively greatest numbers of individual turtles are likely be affected behaviorally 

compared to the remaining 10 analysis areas where sea turtles occur in smaller numbers or where smaller 

arrays would be operated. This is based on the relatively larger areas estimated to be ensonified by 

received airgun sound levels of >180 dB re 1μPa (see Tables 2-7 and 2-10) and the predicted highest 

concentrations of turtles (Tables 3.4-3 and 3.4-4). 

Commensurately, in analysis areas where turtles are common but small arrays are proposed, relatively 

fewer sea turtles would be affected (compared to areas with larger arrays at the same water depths). This 

is because a smaller area would be ensonified to airgun sound levels >180 dB re 1μPa where small arrays 

are used (Table 2-11). Small arrays are proposed for the remaining three of six analysis areas where sea 

turtles are considered common (NW Atlantic DAA, W Australia QAA, and Sub-Antarctic QAA). 

Shallow-water surveys are proposed within the NW Atlantic DAA and W Australia QAA while deepwater surveys are proposed within the Sub-Antarctic QAA. Although shallow-water surveys are proposed 

in the NW Atlantic DAA and W Australia QAA, given the smaller array sizes, the number of individual 

sea turtles potentially affected would likely be considerably less than in those analysis areas with 

proposed shallow-water surveys but with large arrays (Caribbean DAA and SW Atlantic QAA described 

above). 

The relative numbers of individual sea turtles affected in the remaining seven of 13 analysis areas where 

sea turtles are considered uncommon or rare are unknown, and potential trends are less evident. Four of 

the seven sites involve a large array in shallow water (W Gulf of Alaska DAA and N Atlantic/Iceland, BC 

Coast, and Marianas QAAs); the remaining three involve a small array in shallow water (S California

DAA) or a large array in deep water (Galapagos Ridge DAA and Mid-Atlantic Ridge QAA). Given the 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-85

relatively fewer turtles expected within these seven analysis areas, the number potentially affected would 

likely be quite small, and smaller than at the other six analysis areas. 

Overall, under Alternatives A and B, potential acoustic effects in all of the 13 analysis areas where sea 

turtles may occur are expected to be limited to localized short-term behavioral or avoidance effects (Table

3.4-6). The only potential difference in effects between the 13 analysis areas are expected to be in relative 

numbers of turtles affected behaviorally. Differences would be related primarily to array size, turtle 

density, water depth, and site-specific sound-propagation characteristics. At all 13 analysis areas, the 

number of sea turtles potentially adversely affected is expected to be insignificant relative to the regional 

population sizes since only a minor proportion of the available habitat would be ensonified at levels 

where behavioral reactions might be expected to occur. 

Implementation of monitoring and mitigation under Alternatives A and B is expected to minimize and 

reduce potential impacts to sea turtles. Furthermore, the seismic vessel would be underway at 4-5 kt (7.4-

9.3 km/hr) while the airguns are intermittently active. Therefore, potential exposure of relatively slowmoving turtles to high-intensity sounds close to the faster-moving airguns would be of brief duration if it 

occurs at all. Further, available studies indicate that sea turtles would probably move away from the 

survey vessel and/or move to the water surface in response to seismic survey sounds. This behavior would 

reduce the sound levels to which turtles might be exposed to from proposed seismic survey activities. 

Thus, any sea turtles potentially missed during monitoring by observers are unlikely to experience more 

than short-term behavioral effects, even without the implementation of power-down or shut-down of the 

airguns. Therefore, implementation of Alternative A or B would result in disturbance or displacement of 

small numbers of individual sea turtles in localized, transient areas, including ESA-listed species. No 

significant impacts are expected to sea turtle populations due to acoustic sources during proposed seismic 

surveys.

3.4.5.2 Other Potential Effects

Entanglement

Although entanglement of sea turtles in fishing gear and marine debris are quite common, it is considered 

unlikely and of low risk that a sea turtle could get entangled in the airgun array, hydrophone streamer, 

buoys, or other gear deployed from the seismic vessel (see Section 3.4.4.4). Although we are aware of one 

incidence of reported sea turtle mortality associated with seismic vessel buoys (Weir 2007), entanglement 

has never been documented in over 54,000 nm (100,000 km) of previous NSF-funded seismic surveys 

(e.g., Smultea and Holst 2003; Smultea et al. 2004; Holst et al. 2005b; Holst and Smultea 2008; Hauser et 

al. 2008; refer to Table 2-1). Visual monitoring as proposed under Alternatives A and B further reduces

the risk of entanglement because observers watch for sea turtles near the vessel and array. Hydrophone 

streamers operating near the water surface are not expected to block movement or migration of sea turtles 

which spend most of their time swimming further below the water surface, although a low risk of 

entanglement exists (see Section 3.4.4.4). In summary, implementation of Alternative A or B is not likely 

to result in entanglement of individual sea turtles and no related significant effects are expected at the 

population level.

Ingestion

An oil spill (or fuel) spill is considered highly unlikely to occur during the exemplary seismic surveys. 

Also, no plastics or toxic materials are permitted to be disposed of from the vessel while at sea. 

Considering the vessel‘s safety protocols, implementation of Alternative A or B would have no 

significant impacts on sea turtles and no effect on ESA-listed species or populations due to ingestion.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-86

Ship Strikes and Other Activities

The chances of the seismic vessel or towed/deployed equipment striking a sea turtle are considered highly

unlikely (see Section 3.4.4.4). While vessel collisions with sea turtles are known to occur, the project 

vessel(s) will be moving relatively slowly (4-5 kt [7.4-9.3 km/hr]) and in a straight line at most times, 

particularly during seismic acquisition. There is indication from field observations that some turtles dive 

when in close proximity to seismic vessels and towed equipment, which presumably reduces the chances 

of collision if those dives are oriented away from and/or below the oncoming object (see Section 3.4.4.4). 

In general, the risk of collision or entanglement by sea turtles with seismic vessel gear is considered low 

relative to the many more miles of seismic surveys conducted with no such known occurrences reported 

(see above). In addition, under Alternatives A and B, PSVOs would watch for sea turtles within the safety 

radius defined under the proposed mitigation measures and advise ship personnel to avoid collisions with 

nearby sea turtle(s). PSVOs would also watch for sea turtles during transits to and from the study area as 

possible.

Proposed seismic research surveys could also include activities such as coring, dredging, sediment 

sampling, use of boomers and sparkers, and the deployment of ocean bottom hydrophones (see Chapter 

2). The physical presence or noise of these activities could disturb or displace sea turtles. In general, sea 

turtles are capable of and expected to move out of the way of these activities and equipment, and related 

potential disturbance or displacement of sea turtles is expected to be short-term (see Section 3.4.4.4). 

Indirect effects to sea turtle bottom habitat and associated prey or other food in shallow-water areas could 

occur from activities that disturb the sea bottom including coring, dredging, sediment sampling, and 

minimally, deployment of ocean-bottom hydrophones. However, these activities for the purposes of the 

proposed academic geophysical research (i.e., sampling) would be very limited in scope and size 

compared to the surrounding area. Mitigation and monitoring, including dedicated watches for sea turtles 

and avoidance of sensitive habitats and/or periods for ESA-listed turtle species, reduces the potential for 

adverse effects described above. 

In summary, under Alternatives A and B, collisions between sea turtles and project vessel(s) or 

towed/deployed equipment are unlikely. However, disturbance or displacement of a small number of 

individual sea turtles close to the vessel or equipment is possible in areas where they occur. The latter 

effects would not result in significant impacts on sea turtle populations. 

3.4.6 Environmental Consequences – Alternative C (No-Action Alternative)

Under the No-Action Alternative, NSF-funded and USGS marine seismic research surveys using various 

acoustic sources (e.g., airguns, MBES, SBPs, and pingers) would not occur. Therefore, baseline 

conditions would remain unchanged and there would be no impacts to sea turtles with implementation of 

Alternative C.

3.4.7 Summary of Environmental Consequences – Sea Turtles

3.4.7.1 Alternative A and Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)

Under Alternatives A and B, with the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures in place, no 

significant impacts are likely to sea turtle populations due to airgun operations in any of the analysis areas 

where they may occur (Table 3.4-6). The number of individual sea turtles expected to be closely 

approached during the exemplary surveys would be small in relation to regional population sizes. With 

the proposed monitoring, ramp-up, power down, and shutdown provisions, effects on those individuals 

are likely to be limited to short-term behavioral disturbance and short-term localized avoidance of an area 

of unknown size near the active airguns. Operation of the MBES, SBP, or pingers is not expected to affect 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-87

sea turtles, because the associated frequency ranges are above the known hearing range of sea turtles. 

Furthermore, the intermittent and/or narrow downward-directed nature of these sounds and the fact that 

they are emitted from a transiting seismic vessel would result in no more than one or two brief pulse 

exposures to relatively slow-moving sea turtles. In summary, implementation of Alternative A or 

Alternative B may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, ESA-listed sea turtle species occurring in 

analysis areas (Table 3.4-6). No significant impacts are expected to occur at the population level for any 

sea turtle species. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-88

3.5 SEABIRDS

The term ―seabirds‖ describes a diverse array of taxonomic families of birds that spend all or a 

considerable portion of their lives in marine environments. Seabirds invariably nest on land, and their use 

of marine waters is primarily for feeding and loafing. Seabirds covered by this assessment are limited to 

the 13 taxonomic families that surface- or plunge-dive below the water surface in search of prey. This 

behavior could expose such seabirds to underwater sound resulting from the exemplary seismic survey 

activities. The status, abundance, general ecology, general distribution and migratory movements of the 

13 seabird families of relevance are summarized in Table 3.5-1 and discussed briefly below. 

3.5.1 Overview of Seabird Groups

3.5.1.1 Taxonomic Groups of Seabirds

Of the approximate 20 taxonomic families of seabirds, 13 are included in the following discussion. 

Analyses focused on taxonomic families of seabirds rather than individual species for several reasons. 

First, families of seabirds share functional behavioral and physical similarities that naturally lend 

themselves to grouping in terms of effects of seismic noise. Second, detailed seasonal surveys of 

individual species are lacking for most parts of the world. Thus, available information is often limited to 

generalized distribution maps and movement patterns typically available only at the taxonomic family 

level. Third, the dynamic nature of the marine environment—particularly with regard to food 

availability—reduces the certainty with which the timing and abundance of a given species can be 

predicted, especially for pelagic species. 

3.5.1.2 Distribution and Movements

The life of adult seabirds cycles between breeding and non-breeding seasons which influence the 

distribution and movement of seabirds. Movements and distribution are typically most limited during the 

breeding and nesting season when they are geographically tied to nesting and the rearing of young. 

Collectively, some families of seabirds nest in very restricted geographic ranges while others are 

cosmopolitan, nesting throughout much of the world. Breeding typically occurs during the local spring or 

summer and may last for a few months or up to a full year in the case of some albatrosses. Nesting may 

be completed by lone pairs or in colonies numbering hundreds of thousands of breeding pairs. Following 

the breeding season, young and adults exhibit a range of movement patterns. Some reside near the 

breeding site year-round, some undergo a predictable migration to traditional areas where they feed and 

often molt, and others simply disperse with no overall pattern. Migration or dispersal distances can be 

modest or vast. Some species are always found in large flocks or in the presence of a few other 

individuals, while others are usually encountered individually. Arctic waters sustain an abundance of 

seabirds during the ice-free period but during winter, most of those birds travel to lower latitudes. While 

at sea, distribution and movements are closely tied to the distribution and abundance of prey which tends 

to be dynamic in nature. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-89

Table 3.5-1. Summary of the Status, General Ecology, and General Distribution & Movement of Seabirds Potentially Occurring within 

the Analysis Areas

Group (Family)*

Status**

ESA/CITES/

IUCN-BLI General Ecology

General Distribution/

Migratory Movements

Loons

(Gaviidae)

Four species globally

-/-/

LC

Lone pairs breed mostly on or near freshwater; winter alone 

or in large groups in nearshore marine waters; surface-dives 

2-10 m for small fish.

Circumpolar in Holarctic; highly migratory between Arctic 

and inland breeding areas and temperate nearshore marine 

areas.

Grebes

(Podicipedidae)

22 species globally

-/-/

LC

Lone pairs breed mostly near freshwater; some species winter 

alone or in groups in nearshore marine waters; shallow dives 

for invertebrates and fish.

All regions except Antarctic; highly migratory between 

inland breeding areas and (primarily) temperate nearshore 

marine areas.

Albatrosses

(Diomedidae)

14 species globally

E(1)/-/

NT, VU, E, CR

Highly pelagic; most species breed in colonies on islands; 

breeding cycle can last up to 1 year from nest to fledgling; 

annual and biannual breeding species; mature slowly (e.g., 

some species first breed at 9-10 years); usually forages alone; 

plunge- and surface-dives up to 1 m in pursuit of squid, fish, 

offal.

Circumpolar in S Ocean; throughout the Pacific Ocean and 

into the southern half of the Bearing Sea; disperses widely 

between island breeding colonies and offshore feeding areas; 

uses land only for breeding.

Petrels/Shearwaters

(Procellariidae)

70 species globally

-/-/

LC, NT, VU, E, CR

Highly marine; most species breed in colonies on islands; 

mostly gregarious outside breeding season; some shearwaters 

can plunge- or surface-dive up to 20 m in pursuit of 

invertebrates, fish, offal.

Cosmopolitan, in all oceans; many species are highly 

migratory between island breeding colonies and offshore and 

nearshore feeding areas.

Diving-petrels

(Pelicanoididae)

4 species globally

-/-/

LC, E

Highly marine; breed in colonies on islands and mainland; 

forages alone or in small groups; surface- and plunge-dives 

to depths of approximately 30-40 m (sometimes approaching 

100 m) for planktonic invertebrates, small fish, and 

cephalopods.

Circumpolar in S Ocean; subantarctic marine waters, inshore 

and offshore; not known to undertake migrations; tend to 

disperse randomly from breeding colonies after breeding 

season mostly to nearshore areas near breeding colonies, 

some disperse to pelagic areas.

Tropicbirds

(Phaethontidae)

3 species globally

-/-/

LC

Highly marine; generally breed in small colonies on islands; 

forages alone or in pairs; dives to several m in pursuit of 

invertebrates (mainly squid) and fish (mainly flying fish).

Pantropical; tropical and subtropical oceans; disperse widely 

between island breeding colonies and offshore feeding areas.

Pelicans

(Pelicanidae)

7 species globally

E(1)/-/

LC, VU

Most species are highly gregarious year-round; breeds in 

colonies on ground or in trees at inland and marine (island) 

locations; makes shallow surface- or plunge-dives (up to 2 

m) in pursuit of invertebrates and fish.

All regions except Antarctic; stretches of open water, both 

nearshore and inland from tropical to warmer temperate 

zones; disperse widely from inland and marine island nesting 

areas to freshwater and nearshore marine foraging areas.

Gannets/Boobies

(Sulidae)

9 species globally

-/CR/

LC, VU, E

Highly gregarious year-round; colonial breeders in marine 

environment; some species plunge-dive as deep as 25 m in 

pursuit of squid and fish.

All regions except Antarctic, North Pacific and Arctic; 

tropical, subtropical, and temperate oceans; some species 

migrate, others disperse widely from breeding areas to 

offshore and nearshore feeding areas.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-90

Table 3.5-1. Summary of the Status, General Ecology, and General Distribution & Movement of Seabirds Potentially Occurring within 

the Analysis Areas

Group (Family)*

Status**

ESA/CITES/

IUCN-BLI General Ecology

General Distribution/

Migratory Movements

Cormorants

(Phalocrocoracidae)

39 species globally

-/-/

LC, NT, VU, E

Highly gregarious year-round; colonial breeders in marine 

and freshwater environments; surface-dives in pursuit of 

invertebrates and fish (likely to depths of several meters or 

more).

Cosmopolitan, with greatest diversity in tropical and 

temperate zones; stretches of open water, both coastal and 

inland; some migrate but most species are sedentary or are 

locally/regionally dispersive after breeding.

Gulls (Laridae)

51 species globally

-/V(1)/

LC, VU, NT, E

Most species highly gregarious year-round; colonial breeders 

at marine and inland locations; make shallow surface- or 

plunge-dives (to max. depths of 1 m) in pursuit of 

invertebrates, fish, and offal.

Cosmopolitan; mainly coastal but also inland; some species 

migrate or disperse considerable distances between breeding 

areas and nearshore and offshore feeding areas.

Terns/Noddies

(Sternidae)

44 species globally

E(1)/-/

LC, VU, NT, E, CR

Highly gregarious year-round; most species breed in 

colonies; some species make shallow plunge-dives in pursuit 

of invertebrates and fish.

Most terns are migratory, some are nomadic during nonbreeding season; most that breed in north temperate region 

winter in tropics or S Hemisphere; occurs in nearshore and 

offshore marine environments.

Auks/Murres/Puffins

(Alcidae)

22 species globally

T(1)/-/

LC, VU, NT, E, CR

Highly social, with most species breeding in colonies or 

loose aggregations; all species surface-dive in pursuit of 

plankton or fish; larger species dive up to 100 m deep; 

smaller species to 20 m; some species avoid disturbance 

(e.g., vessels) by diving rather than flying away.

Circumpolar north of Tropic of Cancer; exclusively marine, 

neritic and pelagic; depending on species and area, can be 

sedentary, dispersive and migratory during post-breeding 

period.

Seaducks

(Anatidae: Mergini)

18 species globally

T(2)/-/

LC, VU, E, CR

Gregarious during non-breeding period; lone pairs nest at 

inland freshwater and marine environments; dive (likely <10 

m) for vegetation, benthic and pelagic invertebrates, fish.

Circumpolar north of Tropic of Cancer; highly migratory 

during post-breeding period; can occur in large numbers in 

nearshore marine environments.

Notes: *Limited to birds that use marine habitats. Species with ESA status identified within each seabird group. E = endangered, T = threatened, VU = vulnerable, CR = critically endangered, LC = 

least concern, NT = near threatened, - = none listed.

Sources: del Hoyo et al. 1992; Zavalaga and Jahncke 1997; BirdLife International (BLI) 2006; CITES 2010; IUCN 2010; USFWS 2010.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-91

3.5.1.3 Important Ecological Considerations

The key aspect of seabird ecology that makes them potentially vulnerable to seismic survey sound is that 

many species regularly dive beneath the surface as a means of obtaining food or, less regularly, as an 

avoidance mechanism. Seabirds are well adapted to capture prey in marine water using a range of tactics. 

These include shallow plunges that begin from the water surface down to depths of 3 ft (1 m), aerial 

plunges from various altitudes to depths of several meters, and dives to depths of a few meters to tens of 

meters or more. During such dives, the seabirds‘ wings (e.g., alcids) or feet (e.g., loons) provide 

propulsion. Invertebrates (e.g., squid) and small fish (e.g., flying fish, schooling fish such as anchovy, 

etc.) are prominent in seabird diets as summarized in Table 3.5-1.

Many seabirds are nocturnal—a strategy to avoid diurnal predators (Keitt et al. 2004). Artificial lights in 

close proximity to colonies can adversely affect nocturnal seabirds. Squid fisheries using lights at night 

and lights on oil platforms at sea attract seabirds. Fledgling murrelets, shearwaters, petrels, and stormpetrels are attracted to artificial lights during their first flights to sea. A common result is that many fall to 

the ground where they are injured, taken by predators, or die of starvation (Le Corre et al. 2002). The 

reason invoked to explain this attraction is that these birds typically feed on bioluminescent squids, and 

inexperienced birds tend to search for lights (including artificial ones) in an attempt to improve their 

foraging success (Imber 1975 cited in Le Corre et al. 2002). Seabirds are also known to be attracted to 

offshore rigs, presumably due to lights, structural stimuli, foodstuffs, oceanographic processes, and gas 

flares (Montevecchi et al. 1999; Wiese et al. 2001). Seabirds are often attracted to fishing vessels that 

provide them with foraging opportunities in the form of discarded bycatch and offal.

3.5.1.4 Special-Status Species

Table 3.5-1 presents a summary of the global conservation status of seabirds based on the 13 taxonomic 

families reviewed herein, including ESA, CITES, and IUCN rankings. BirdLife International (BLI), an 

international bird conservation organization, uses the IUCN rankings. Five marine bird species with ESA 

status occur within 5 of the 13 marine bird groups: three are endangered (short-tailed albatross, brown 

pelican, and roseate tern) and two are threatened (marbled murrelet and Steller eider) (Table 3.5-1). The 

five ESA-listed species are expected to occur in 8 of the 13 analysis areas during the period of the 

exemplary seismic surveys. In addition, on a global level, a total of 27 marine birds species have CITES 

and/or IUCN/BLI conservation status.

There are numerous causes for declines in some species of seabirds. Persecution as competitors for fish, 

breeding habitat alteration and destruction, egg and nestling predation by human-introduced animals (e.g., 

rats, cats), oiling, collision with offshore wind-farm turbines, longline/net bycatch, net-cable collisions, 

and plastics ingestion are known or suspected to contribute to seabird mortality or reduced reproductive 

output. 

3.5.1.5 Acoustic Capabilities

The physiology of avian audition is very similar to that of reptiles and mammals (including humans) 

(Dooling and Popper 2000). The frequency range of sound waves a single bird species can receive is 

narrower than that of most mammals. Birds are less sensitive to the high and low ends of their range than 

are mammals. However, MF bird hearing is similar, spanning 1-5 kHz with the greatest sensitivity to 

sounds at approximately 2-3 kHz (Dooling et al. 2000). Most birds have an upper limit of <15 kHz 

(Dooling 2002) (the normal range of human hearing is approximately 20-20,000 Hz; greatest sensitivity 

approximately 1-4 kHz). A notable exception is the rock pigeon, which can detect sounds in the region of 

1-10 Hz (Kreithen and Quine 1979). Like humans, birds are sensitive to fluctuations in pitch. They can 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-92

distinguish between frequencies that differ by 1% and between sounds separated in time by 2-3 ms 

(Dooling et al. 2000). 

Little if anything is known about the hearing abilities and sensitivities of seabirds. Available information 

suggests that the avian ear is adapted to in-air hearing although seabirds are believed to be able to hear 

underwater. For example, Melvin et al. (1999) found that underwater acoustic pingers operating at 1.5 

kHz (±1 kHz) at a signal duration of 300 ms (±10%) every 4 s (±10%) at 120 dB re 1 μPa deterred diving 

seabirds (common murre and rhinoceros auklet; family Alcidae) from gill nets used to catch salmon. 

For the purpose of impact assessment, it is assumed that the in-air hearing of seabirds is similar to that of 

other birds that have been tested. It is also assumed that the bird ear is better adapted for hearing in-air 

sounds than those underwater. Consequently, like other animals that have evolved to primarily hear in-air, 

but that are capable of hearing underwater (e.g., northern fur seal [Moore and Schusterman 1987] and 

humans [Parvin 1998]), frequency-dependent hearing thresholds of birds should be higher underwater 

than in-air.

3.5.2 Affected Environment: Detailed Analysis Areas (DAAs)

The general distribution and abundance of marine seabirds is described for the DAAs in Tables 3.5-1 and 

3.5-2. At sea, as stated previously, this information is typically not predictable beyond a general and 

regional level. While there is usually more information on nesting and breeding locations, even this 

information is scarce for many of the remote and/or little-studied analysis areas addressed in this PEIS. 

Furthermore, nesting and breeding areas are generally terrestrial locations, and the exemplary seismic 

studies addressed herein would occur well beyond any distance that could be expected to directly or 

indirectly affect any ESA-listed species of birds while they are in those areas. Moreover, the analysis 

areas addressed in this document are not meant to represent site-specific seismic survey locations, but 

rather exemplary locations within a region where a specific seismic cruise could potentially occur at a 

future date (see Chapters 1 and 2). 

The number and species of ESA-listed marine birds relevant to this assessment were discussed in the 

previous section and summarized for each DAA in Table 3.5-2. Five ESA-listed marine birds potentially 

occur in four of the five DAAs. These are the endangered short-tailed albatross, brown pelican, and 

roseate tern; and the threatened marbled murrelet and Steller eider. The highest number of ESA-listed 

species (three) occurs in the W Gulf of Alaska DAA, followed by two in S California, and one each in the 

NW Atlantic and Caribbean DAAs; no ESA-listed seabird species occur in the Galapagos Ridge DAA 

(Table 3.5-2). Both feeding and migration by ESA-listed species occurs in the five DAAs. The one 

exception is the endangered brown pelican, which feeds but does not migrate in the S California DAA 

during the exemplary spring or summer seismic survey period. All five ESA-listed species are considered 

common to locally abundant in the analysis areas where they occur. 

Table 3.5-2. Potential Occurrence of Seabirds within the DAAs during the Period of Exemplary 

Seismic Surveys

Group

NW Atlantic

(Sum)*

Caribbean

(Spr or Sum)*

S California

(Spr or Sum)*

W Gulf of Alaska

(Sum)*

Galapagos Ridge

(Win)*

Loons M u - F M u F u -

Grebes F M c F M u F M c F M u -

Albatrosses - - F r F c (STA) F c

Petrels/Shearwaters F M a F M a F M c F M a F M a

Diving-petrels - - - - -

Tropicbirds - F c F u - -
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-93

Table 3.5-2. Potential Occurrence of Seabirds within the DAAs during the Period of Exemplary 

Seismic Surveys

Group

NW Atlantic

(Sum)*

Caribbean

(Spr or Sum)*

S California

(Spr or Sum)*

W Gulf of Alaska

(Sum)*

Galapagos Ridge

(Win)*

Pelicans F u F u F c (BP)- -

Gannets/Boobies F M c F M c - - F M c

Cormorants F M c - F M a F M a -

Gulls F M a F M c F M a F M a -

Terns/Noddies F M c (RT) F M c (RT) F M c F M c F M u

Alcids F M a - F M a (MM) F M a (MM)-

Seaducks M u M u F M c F M a (STE)-

Notes: *(Season) = Northern Hemisphere seasons during which the exemplary seismic cruise would occur within the analysis area. Spr = spring, 

Sum = summer, Win = winter. F = known to feed within the area, M = known to migrate or disperse through the area; a = abundant: the 

species is expected to be encountered during a single visit to the area and the number of individuals encountered during an average visit 

may be as many as hundreds or more; c = common: the species is expected to be encountered once or more during 2-3 visits to the area 

and the number of individuals encountered during an average visit is unlikely to be more than a few 10s; u = uncommon: the species is 

expected to be encountered at most a few times a year assuming many visits to the area; r = rare: the species is not expected to be 

encountered more than once in several years; - = members of this group are not expected to be present. The potential presence of ESAlisted species in a given area is indicated by abbreviations that follow. Note that use and abundance ratings apply to the group, not 

necessarily to the ESA-listed species. ESA-listed species: BP = brown pelican, STA = short-tailed albatross, RT = roseate tern, MM = 

marbled murrelet, STE = Steller eider.

Sources: del Hoyo et al. 1992; L-DEO and NSF 2004d; BLI 2006; CITES 2010; IUCN 2010; USFWS 2010.

3.5.3 Affected Environment: Qualitative Analysis Areas (QAAs)

For the same reasons as stated above in Section 3.5.2, details on seabirds beyond those generalized in 

Tables 3.5-1 and 3.5-3 are not provided in this discussion. Three ESA-listed seabird species of relevance 

to the analysis occur in four of the eight QAAs (Table 3.5-3). These are the endangered short-tailed 

albatross and roseate tern, and the threatened marbled murrelet. Two ESA-listed species occur in the BC 

Coast QAA, and one each in the W Australia and Marianas QAAs. No ESA-listed seabird species occur 

in the N Atlantic/Iceland, SW Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic Ridge, or W India QAAs. Both feeding and 

migration by ESA-listed species occurs in the four QAAs. All three ESA-listed species are considered 

locally abundant in the analysis areas where they occur. 

3.5.4 Environmental Consequences – General

There are no scientific data indicating or suggesting that seabirds are adversely affected by seismic 

airguns or other sound sources used during the proposed seismic surveys. Moreover, thousands of hours 

of observational data by PSVOs during numerous seismic surveys throughout the world suggest that 

seabirds do not remain in the water near the airgun array where they would be at potential risk of injury.

In addition, the Lloyd‘s Mirror Effect (see Section 3.2.2.7) serves to reduce acoustic energy (i.e., sound 

levels) at and just below the water surface where seabirds occur and/or feed. Thus, the potential for 

acoustic sources associated with the proposed seismic surveys to injure seabirds is considered 

insignificant. Although these activities would likely affect seabird behavior above the water, such effects 

are considered short-term and negligible to individuals and populations. Given the general lack of 

empirical data on these subjects and the theoretical remote possibility of seabirds being below the water 

surface near operating airguns, potential project effects on seabirds from sound sources and other 

activities are addressed in the following subsections. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-94

Table 3.5-3. Potential Occurrence of Seabirds within the QAAs during the Period of Exemplary Seismic 

Surveys

Group

N Atlantic/

Iceland

(Sum)*

BC

Coast

(Fall)*

SW

Atlantic

(Any)*

Mid-Atlantic

Ridge

(Spr, Sum,

or Fall)*

W India

(Spr or

Fall)*

W

Australia

(Spr or

Fall)*

Mariana

Islands

(Spr)*

SubAntarctic

(Jan-Feb)*

Loons F a FM a - M u - - - -

Grebes FB c FM a - - - - - -

Albatrosses - F u (STA)- - - - FM a (STA) FM a

Petrels/Shearwaters FM a FM a FM a FM a FM u - FM a FM a

Diving-petrels - - - - - - - F a

Tropicbirds - - - - - FM u F c -

Pelicans - - F u - - - - -

Gannets/Boobies FM c - FM c - - FM c FM c FM u

Cormorants FM u FM a - - F u - - -

Gulls FM a FM a M u FM c FM a - FM a M r

Terns/Noddies FM a M u FM a M r FM a FM a (RT) FM c FM c

Alcids FM a FM a (MM)- FM u - - FM a -

Seaducks FM a FM a FM u - FM c - M u -

Notes: *(Season) = N hemisphere season during which the exemplary seismic cruise would occur within the analysis area; Spr = spring, Sum = summer. 

F = known to feed within the area; M = known to migrate or disperse through the area; a= abundant: the species is expected to be encountered 

during a single visit to the area and the number of individuals encountered during an average visit may be as many as hundreds or more, c = 

common: the species is expected to be encountered once or more during 2-3 visits to the area and the number of individuals encountered during 

an average visit is unlikely to be more than a few10s, u = uncommon: the species is expected to be encountered at most a few times a year 

assuming many visits to the area, r = rare: the species is not expected to be encountered more than once in several years, - = members of this 

group are not expected to be present. The potential presence of ESA-listed species in a given area is indicated by abbreviations that follow. 

Note that use and abundance ratings apply to the group, not necessarily to the ESA- listed species. ESA-listed species: STA = short-tailed 

albatross, RT = roseate tern, MM = marbled murrelet.

Sources: del Hoyo et al. 1992; BLI 2006; L-DEO and NSF 2006a; CITES 2010; IUCN 2010; USFWS 2010.

The following sections and Table 3.5-4 summarize the few studies and documented information regarding 

potential implications of seismic surveys for marine birds. In the face of current data gaps, we have 

postulated the pathways and significance of any adverse effects using empirical evidence from other 

species and analogous studies, known aspects of seabird ecology, and professional opinion. Only those 

taxonomic families whose members are known to dive beneath the surface are considered. Within those, 

families with deep-diving species are given more consideration. 

Table 3.5-4. Summary of Known and Anticipated General Effects of Seismic Survey Sound and Other 

Project-Related Sound on Seabirds

Species or

Group of Concern Masking Disturbance

Temporary Hearing Impairment,

Injury, or PTS and

Other Physiological Effects*

ESA-LISTED

Short-tailed albatross (E)

Brown pelican (E)

Roseate tern (T, E)

Steller eider (T)

Marbled murrelet (T)

Unknown Unknown Unknown
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-95

Table 3.5-4. Summary of Known and Anticipated General Effects of Seismic Survey Sound and Other 

Project-Related Sound on Seabirds

Species or

Group of Concern Masking Disturbance

Temporary Hearing Impairment,

Injury, or PTS and

Other Physiological Effects*

GROUP

Loons, petrels/shearwaters,

diving-petrels, gannets/

boobies, cormorants, alcids, 

grebes, albatrosses, 

tropicbirds, pelicans, gulls, 

terns/ noddies, seaducks

Unknown

 Stemp (1985): no conclusive evidence 

that airgun noise displaced fulmars, 

kittiwakes, or murres. 

 Lacroix et al. (2005): found no 

evidence that airgun noise affected 

distribution or diving patterns of longtailed ducks.

Unknown

Note: *As determined from the lack of published accounts of injurious effects, together with observational data by PSVOs with LGL 

Ltd. during many seismic surveys throughout the world, suggesting that seabirds do not remain in the water near the airgun 

array where they would be at risk of injury.

3.5.4.1 Criteria

It is not possible to use quantitative sound-energy criteria to assess impacts of airguns or sonar on 

seabirds as there are no measured or predicted underwater audiograms for any seabird species, published 

or otherwise, or quantitative noise criteria used to characterize effects of airgun noise on seabirds, such as

auditory thresholds corresponding to TTS or PTS levels caused by underwater noise. Where impact 

thresholds have been estimated for impulsive sources by others (e.g., Teachout 2006), criteria are highly 

speculative. In considering potential impacts of the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low 

Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) Sonar on seabirds, U.S. Navy (2005b) concluded that birds did not 

warrant detailed evaluation because, 1) there is no evidence that birds use sound underwater, 2) birds in 

that project area are shallow divers, and 3) birds can rapidly disperse away from the noise source if 

disturbed. In assessing potential impacts of (impulsive) pile driving noise on marbled murrelets 

underwater, Teachout (personal communication, Biologist, USFWS, Lacey, WA, June 2006) applied 

safety criteria to marbled murrelets based on data from studies of fish. In that project, 180 dB (peak) and 

150 dB (rms) were used as the thresholds for injury and temporary effects on behavior, respectively.

Considering the potential for other forms of acoustic injury, it is assumed that animals very close to the 

acoustic source (e.g., within a few meters) would theoretically be at risk. However, available data suggest 

that seabirds are not expected to occur this close to the acoustic source at depth. Other potential impacts 

from disturbance, collisions, and entanglement were evaluated according to documented ecological 

aspects of seabirds, description of the proposed action and alternatives (see Chapter 2), and documented 

interactions with analogous components of the proposed action (e.g., lighted vessel at night).

3.5.4.2 Sound Sources and Characteristics

Depending on received levels (largely a function of distance between source and receiver), portions of the 

sound frequency spectrum (primarily those in the range of 1-5 kHz) generated by airgun discharges and 

by the vessel‘s engine would be audible to seabirds below and above the water. Sounds produced by the 

MBES, SBP, and ADCP are believed to be well above the upper frequency limit of bird hearing. As a 

result, these devices should be inaudible to seabirds, but due to the lack of underwater audiograms for 

seabirds, this cannot be known with certainty.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-96

3.5.4.3 Acoustic Effects

Investigations into the effects of airguns on seabirds are extremely limited. A literature review of the 

effects of seismic surveys using airguns on marine-associated birds revealed only two primary 

investigations. Stemp (1985) conducted opportunistic observations on the effects of seismic exploration 

on seabirds. He did not find any conclusive evidence that seismic surveying affected the distribution or 

abundance of northern fulmars, black-legged kittiwakes, or thick-billed murres. However, he warned that 

his observations should not be extrapolated to areas with large concentrations of feeding or molting birds. 

In a more intensive and directed study, Lacroix et al. (2003) investigated the effect of seismic surveys on 

molting long-tailed ducks in the Beaufort Sea, Alaska. They did not detect any effects of nearshore 

seismic exploration on molting long-tailed ducks in the inshore lagoon systems of Alaska‘s North Slope. 

Both aerial surveys and radio-tracking indicated that the proportion of ducks that stayed near their 

marking location from before to after seismic exploration was unaffected by proximity to seismic survey 

activities. Seismic activity also did not appear to significantly change the diving intensity of long-tailed 

ducks. Neither Stemp (1985) nor Lacroix et al. (2003) observed any bird injuries or mortalities resulting 

from seismic surveying with airguns. 

Birds might be affected by seismic survey sounds, but the impacts are not expected to be significant to 

individual birds or their populations. The types of impacts that are possible are summarized below.

Masking

In the absence of empirical data on the underwater hearing ability of birds or their use of or dependence 

on underwater sound, the extent to which masking by seismic survey noise occurs cannot be predicted. 

However, even if birds exhibit some dependence on underwater sounds, considering the brief pulses and 

multi-second spacing between pulses, airgun noise is not expected to cause masking. If birds use 

underwater sounds, peripheral devices such as sonars might pose some potential for masking. However, 

the sound output from these devices is expected to be beyond the upper limit of the range of bird hearing, 

so no masking is expected. Further, MBESs and SBPs associated with the proposed seismic surveys have 

a narrow beam width and operate beneath the ship where the probability of a bird encountering the sound

field is considered negligible.

Disturbance

Four pathways of potential direct or indirect disturbance to seabirds from seismic surveying have been 

identified:

 Localized, temporary displacement and disruption of feeding. Such displacements would be 

similar to those caused by other large vessels that passed through the area. Any adverse effects 

would be negligible. 

 Disturbance to breeding birds. A vessel (seismic or otherwise) that approaches too close to a 

breeding colony could disturb adult birds from nests in response either to sonic or to visual 

stimuli. There is no potential for this because none of the exemplary surveys would occur close to 

land. 

 Egg and nestling mortality. Disturbance of adult birds from nests can lead to egg or nestling 

mortality via temperature stress or predation. There is no potential for this because none of the 

exemplary surveys would occur close to land.

 Modified prey abundance. It is unlikely that prey species for birds will be affected by seismic 

activities to a degree that affects the foraging success of birds. If prey species exhibit avoidance 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-97

of the ship, the avoidance is expected to be transitory and limited to a very small portion of a 

bird‘s foraging range. 

Temporary Hearing Impairment

Many species of marine birds feed by diving to depths of several meters or more. Flocks of feeding birds 

may consist of hundreds or even thousands of individuals. Also, some species of seabirds (particularly 

alcids) escape from approaching boats by diving. It is theoretically possible, though considered highly 

unlikely, that during the course of normal feeding or escape behavior, some birds could be near enough to 

an airgun to experience a TTS by a pulse if they dove to depths >33 ft (10 m) and were directly beneath 

an array. However, there is no evidence for such effects if they occur. There is no specific information 

available about the circumstances (if any) where this might occur. Furthermore, it is considered highly 

unlikely that marine birds would dive near enough to a sound source to experience TTS and Lloyd‘s 

Mirror Effect further reduces the potential for TTS.

Injury

 ̳If‘ airguns disorient, injure, or kill prey species, or otherwise increase the availability of prey species to 

marine birds, a seismic survey could attract birds to within approximately 33 ft (10 m) of active airguns. 

Birds very close to an airgun may be at risk of induced PTS or other injury due to the intense pressure 

pulses of the airgun discharges at such close range. However, available evidence from other seismic 

surveys utilizing airguns has not shown a pattern of fish (or other prey) kills from airguns (see Section

3.3, Fish). During a seismic study involving underwater explosives and airguns, Stemp (1985) reported 

that northern fulmars and black-legged kittiwakes ―persisted in hovering over the float bags [seismic 

survey gear]‖; however, no indication of feeding activity was reported. Presumably, that portion of 

Stemp‘s study involving explosives (individual charges 125 kg) could have killed or stunned fish that in 

turn attracted seabirds. However, available evidence from seismic testing with airguns has not shown a 

pattern of fish (or other prey) kills (Turnpenny and Nedwell 1994). Also, during thousands of hours spent 

conducting biological observations from operating seismic vessels, LGL personnel have seldom observed 

birds being attracted to an airgun array (e.g., Smultea and Holst 2003; Smultea et al. 2004; Holst et al. 

2005a, b; Ireland et al. 2005; Hauser et al. 2008; Holst and Smultea 2008). Furthermore, during the few 

occasions when seabirds were seen near active seismic arrays, it was not clear that the birds were attracted 

by stunned prey. Anecdotal reports during the ACCRETE seismic survey project in the eastern Pacific 

Ocean indicated that gulls were attracted to the vicinity of the array for what seemed to be reasons of 

curiosity rather than any enhanced foraging opportunities (L. Hollister, personal communication,

Professor of Geosciences, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. May 2006.)

Other Physiological Effects

As with auditory effects of seismic surveying on seabirds, we are unaware of any studies that have looked 

for evidence of physiological effects (e.g., stress) of underwater acoustic sources on seabirds.

3.5.4.4 Other Potential Effects

Collision, Entanglement, and Ingestion

Seabirds can be injured and killed by collisions with net-cables associated with fishing vessels (Wilson et 

al. 2004). Collisions and entanglement with wires is largely precipitated by the foraging opportunities 

provided by discarded offal, catch spillage, and baited gear associated with some fishing vessels. 

Considering that seismic survey vessels do not provide any such foraging opportunities, the apparent 

potential for seabirds to be struck by, or become entangled in, survey gear after being attracted to it is 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-98

negligible. For those species that dive to escape disturbance (e.g., alcids), it is possible that they could be 

struck by the vessel or its gear. The extent to which this occurs is unknown but would be expected to be 

negligible.

Many seabird species (primarily members of the families Procellariidae, Pelicanoididae, and Alcidae) in 

general are attracted to offshore rigs and vessels; presumably due to light attraction (Bertram 1995; 

Montevecchi et al. 1999; Black 2005). Fledgling petrels and shearwaters (Procellariidae) in particular are 

strongly attracted to artificial lights during their first flights to sea (Imber 1975; Le Corre et al. 2002). 

Bird mortality has been documented as a result of collision with oil platforms, oiling, and incineration in 

flares (Wiese et al. 2001) and as a result of light-induced attraction and subsequent collision with vessels 

(Bertram 1995; Black 2005). In the latter instance, the birds were consistently small, burrow-nesting 

alcids and petrels. Black (2005) reported that birds regularly strike ships at night, but that mortality is 

usually low. Occasionally, a strike can even involve hundreds of birds. 

Waste management practices that effectively prevent any form of overboard discharge of plastics, 

Styrofoam, or other such non-degradable solid waste products during a seismic survey preclude 

opportunities for ingestion by seabirds or other marine animals.

3.5.5 Environmental Consequences – Alternative A and Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)

There are no scientific data indicating or suggesting that seabirds are adversely affected by seismic 

airguns or other acoustic sources proposed under Alternative A and Alternative B. Based on the foregoing 

information, acoustic impacts of airguns, MBES, and SBP on seabirds are unlikely to occur under 

Alternative A or B. However, some mitigation and monitoring measures may be applicable on a sitespecific basis for ESA-listed seabird species if an actual proposed seismic survey occurred close to shore 

and could potentially disturb sensitive nesting, breeding, foraging, and resting areas. Accordingly, the 

potential occurrence of threatened and endangered bird species would be examined on a project-byproject basis to ensure that all applicable federal regulatory measures are followed. A preliminary review 

of project sites would be undertaken during NSF‘s or USGS‘s review of actual proposed seismic surveys 

and would identify any such concerns. At that time, specific mitigation measures and best management 

practices would be considered as required. Additional potential mitigation measures specific to seabirds 

are discussed in L-DEO and NSF (2006a). Potential effects on seabirds with implementation of

Alternative A or Alternative B are discussed and summarized below. 

3.5.5.1 Acoustic Effects

Masking

There is no empirical evidence to suggest that airgun noise or survey-associated sonar devices would, in 

any meaningful way, mask auditory signals used by seabirds. Similarly, there are no credible hypotheses 

by which noise from airguns or other proposed acoustic sources could impact seabirds via masking. 

Implementation of Alternative A or B is not expected to affect ESA-listed species or populations and 

impacts to other non-listed species would not be significant.

Disturbance

There is no empirical evidence to suggest that airgun noise or other survey-associated acoustic devices 

would, in any meaningful way, disturb seabirds. The presence of the seismic vessel and its associated 

equipment and supporting gear are expected to result in transient disturbance effects where birds are 

physically displaced by the moving vessel and gear. In some instances, modest numbers of seabirds 

(especially gulls) are expected to be attracted to the airspace above the airgun array and/or streamers. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-99

Such behavior is believed to be driven more by ―curiosity‖ than any enhanced opportunities to capture 

prey (e.g., by plunge-feeding or diving beneath the surface where the risk of injury is greater). Thus, 

implementation of Alternative A or B may change the behavior of individual seabirds, but such effects 

would be short-term and temporary, and populations would not be affected.

Temporary Hearing Impairment

There is no empirical evidence to suggest that airguns or survey-associated acoustic sources would result 

in temporary hearing impairment of seabirds. While it is theoretically possible that seabirds beneath the 

water in very close proximity to and below an operating airgun array could experience TTS, the lack of 

any published accounts of such effects, together with observational data by PSVOs during numerous 

previous marine seismic surveys throughout the world, suggests that seabirds do not remain in the water 

near the array where they would be at risk of hearing impacts. Lloyd‘s Mirror Effect further reduces this 

remote possibility.

Injury

There is no empirical evidence to suggest that airguns or other survey-associated acoustic sources would

injure seabirds. While it is theoretically possible that seabirds beneath the water in close proximity to an 

operating airgun array could experience acoustic trauma, this is highly unlikely to occur as discussed 

above. Regarding potential for acoustic injury, implementation of Alternative A or Alternative B is not 

expected to have any effect on ESA-listed species or populations and impacts to other non-listed species 

would not be significant.

3.5.5.2 Other Potential Effects

Collision, Entanglement, and Ingestion

The potential for the seismic survey vessel to cause seabird mortality via collision and effects of lightinduced attraction is considered negligible, particularly at the population level. Implementation of 

Alternative A or B may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, ESA-listed birds due to light-induced 

effects; populations are likely to experience no effect. Other potential effects on other species are 

expected to be not significant.

There is no empirical evidence that seabirds would become entangled in seismic survey gear deployed 

from the vessel (e.g., hydrophone streamers, buoys, scientific coring or dredging equipment, and pingers), 

including as a result of being attracted to it. Similarly, the proposed marine seismic surveys would not

discharge materials that would pose ingestion or entanglement hazards to seabirds. For those members of 

the family Alcidae that dive to escape surface-based disturbances such as vessels, there is a very low risk 

of collision with the vessel or survey gear. Regarding potential for collision, entanglement, and ingestion, 

implementation of Alternative A or B is expected to have no effect on ESA-listed species and impacts to 

other non-listed species would not be significant.

3.5.6 Environmental Consequences – Alternative C (No-Action Alternative)

Under the No-Action Alternative, NSF-funded or USGS marine seismic research surveys using various 

acoustic sources (e.g., airguns, MBES, SBPs, and pingers) would not occur. Therefore, baseline 

conditions would remain unchanged and there would be no impacts to seabirds with implementation of 

Alternative C.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-100

3.5.7 Summary of Environmental Consequences – Seabirds

Environmental consequences of implementing Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) are

summarized in Table 3.5-5. Implementation of Alternative A or B would have no significant impact on 

seabirds and no effect on ESA-listed species or populations. However, site-specific mitigation and 

monitoring measures should be considered if nesting or breeding colonies of ESA-listed seabirds or other 

sensitive aggregations or habitat-use areas for seabirds are found to be located near actual proposed 

seismic survey lines.

Table 3.5-5. Summary of Potential Impacts to Seabirds with Implementation of Alternative A or 

Alternative B

Analysis

Area

ESA-listed Species*

or Family Alternative A or B

DAAS

NW

Atlantic

Loons, grebes, petrels/shearwaters, pelicans, 

gannets/boobies, cormorants, gulls, terns/noddies 

(roseate tern), alcids, seaducks

 Low numbers of birds potentially displaced by 

physical presence of vessel.

 Potential for TTS, PTS, injury, lethal effects < several 

m from airguns unknown but not expected.**

 Petrels/shearwaters and alcids possibly attracted to 

vessel lights at risk for collision.

 For alcids that dive to escape disturbance, potential

collision with vessel or gear.

 No effect to ESA-listed species.

 No significant impacts expected at the population 

level for all seabird species.

Caribbean

Grebes, petrels/shearwaters, tropicbirds, pelicans, 

gannets/boobies, gulls, terns/noddies (roseate tern),

seaducks

 Same as above.

 No significant impacts expected at the population 

level.

S California

Loons, grebes, albatrosses, petrels/shearwaters, 

tropicbirds, pelicans (brown pelican),

gannets/boobies, cormorants, gulls,

terns/noddies, alcids (marbled murrelet), seaducks

 Same as above.

 No significant impacts expected at the population 

level.

W Gulf

of Alaska

Loons, grebes, albatrosses (short-tailed albatross), 

petrels/shearwaters, cormorants, gulls, terns/noddies, 

alcids (marbled murrelet), seaducks (Steller eider)

 Same as above.

 No significant impacts expected at the population 

level.

Galapagos Albatrosses, petrels/shearwaters,

gannets/boobies, terns/noddies

 Same as above.

 No significant impacts expected at the population 

level

QAAS

BC Coast

Loons, grebes, albatrosses (short-tailed albatross), 

petrels/shearwaters, cormorants, gulls, terns/noddies, 

alcids (marbled murrelet), seaducks

 Same as above.

 No significant impacts expected at the population 

level

Mid-Atlantic

Ridge

Loons, petrels/shearwaters, cormorants, gulls, 

terns/noddies, alcids

 Same as above.

 No significant impacts expected at the population 

level

Marianas

Albatrosses (short-tailed albatross), 

petrels/shearwaters, tropicbirds, gannets/boobies,

gulls, terns/noddies, alcids, seaducks

 Same as above.

 No significant impacts expected at the population 

level.

Sub-Antarctic

 Petrels/shearwaters, diving-petrels, gannets/boobies,

gulls, terns/noddies

 Same as above.

 No significant impacts expected at the population 

level.

N Atlantic/

Iceland

Loons, grebes, petrels/shearwaters, pelicans, 

gannets/boobies, cormorants, gulls, terns/noddies, 

alcids, seaducks

 Same as above.

 No significant impacts expected at the population 

level.

SW Atlantic Petrels/shearwaters, pelicans, gannets/boobies, gulls,

terns/noddies, alcids, seaducks

 Same as above.

 No significant impacts expected at the population 

level.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-101

Table 3.5-5. Summary of Potential Impacts to Seabirds with Implementation of Alternative A or 

Alternative B

Analysis

Area

ESA-listed Species*

or Family Alternative A or B

W India Petrels/shearwaters, cormorants, gulls, terns/noddies, 

seaducks

 Same as above.

 No significant impacts expected at the population 

level.

W Australia Tropicbirds, gannets/boobies, Terns/noddies (roseate 

tern)

 Same as above.

 No significant impacts expected at the population 

level.

Notes: *ESA-listed species in bold font.

**As determined from the lack of any published data of such effects, together with observational data by PSVOs with LGL Ltd. during 

numerous seismic surveys throughout the world, suggesting that seabirds do not remain in the water near the airgun array where they would 

be at risk of injury. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-102

3.6 MARINE MAMMALS – CETACEANS: MYSTICETES

3.6.1 Overview of Mysticete Groups

All 14 recognized mysticete (baleen whale) species (Rice 1998) may occur in some of the 13 exemplary 

analysis areas. The status, global population estimates, general ecology, and general distribution and 

migratory movements of these 14 species are summarized in Table 3.6-1 and discussed below. Ecological 

considerations, known hearing, and call characteristics of mysticetes are also discussed.

3.6.1.1 Taxonomic Groups of Mysticetes

Mysticetes, or baleen whales, are one of two suborders of cetaceans (odontocetes and mysticetes). 

Mysticetes use several hundred keratin baleen plates that hang from the top of their mouth to filter large 

quantities of water and capture small schooling fish, zooplankton, and sometimes other marine prey. 

Mysticetes are large, ranging in length from approximately 20 to 98 ft (6 to 30 m). The suborder Mysticeti 

includes four families (Balaenopteridae, Balaenidae, Eschrichtiidae, and Neobalaenida). The family 

Balaenopteridae, also known as rorquals, includes blue, fin, sei, Bryde‘s, Omura‘s, minke, Antarctic 

minke, and humpback whales. This family is characterized by a sleek body shape and pleats on the 

underside of the throat. The family Balaenidae includes the bowhead whale and the three species of right 

whales. Balaenids have no dorsal fin, no ventral pleats, and long, narrow baleen plates. The little-known 

pygmy right whale is the sole member of the family Neobalaenidae. The lone member of the family 

Eschrichtiidae is the gray whale. Gray whales possess relatively short, coarse baleen used to filter water 

and sediments for small, bottom-dwelling shrimp-like organisms. 

3.6.1.2 Distribution and Movements

Baleen whales are widely distributed throughout all major oceans (Table 3.6-1). They are highly mobile 

and often move seasonally for food and breeding. Nearly all baleen whales undertake significant seasonal 

migrations. Many stocks return to the same breeding and/or feeding areas each year including humpback, 

gray, and the North Atlantic, North Pacific, and southern right whales (Reeves et al. 2002). 

Many studies show correlations between whale densities and physical variables in the habitat that 

influence distribution and abundance of prey (e.g., bottom relief, water depth, water temperature, and 

water-mass boundaries) (Sutcliffe and Brodie 1977; Reeves and Whitehead 1997; Hooker 1999). Baleen 

whales often feed at high latitudes in summer, exploiting biologically productive areas, and move to 

lower latitudes during the winter to mate and calve. Exceptions include the Bryde‘s whale, which remains 

year-round in tropical and subtropical areas, and the pygmy right whale, which appears to remain in 

southern temperate and sub-polar waters (Reeves et al. 2002). Most baleen whale species calve in 

offshore areas. A few exceptions are the eastern Pacific gray whale and some populations of humpback 

and right whales that inhabit shallow coastal, reef, or lagoon areas during the calving season. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-103

Table 3.6-1. Summary of the Status, Global Population Size, General Ecology, and General Distribution and Movement of Mysticetes 

Potentially Occurring within the Analysis Areas

Species

Status*

ESA/MMPA

IUCN/CITES

U.S. 

MMPA Stock

Global Population

Size(a-c, e, h, l, m) General Ecology

General Distribution/

Migratory Movements (d, e, f)

N Atlantic right whale E, CH/SS

E/I Western approx. 393

Coastal, shallow shelf waters, 

occasionally offshore interm. & 

deep waters. Prey – copepods, 

other small crustaceans, krill.

Primarily temperate & subpolar waters of N. 

Atlantic; calve/winter coastal low latitudes, US 

& W Sahara; feed summer SE Canada/NE US. 

N Pacific right whale E, CH/SS

E/I E N Pacific

approx. 400

(E Pacific approx. 100;/near 

extinction; W Pacific approx. 

200-300/severely depleted)

Coastal, shallow shelf waters, 

occasionally offshore interm. & 

deep waters. Prey – copepods & 

krill.

Primarily temperate & subpolar waters of N 

Pacific; feed/summer Sea of Okhotsk/Kuril Isl.

E through Bering Sea, Aleutians to Gulf of 

AK; calving and breeding grounds unknown; 

historically winter S to Baja Calif. Sur & 

Taiwan; migratory patterns unknown; summer 

in higher latitudes.

S right whale E/SS

LC/I NA approx. 7,000

Coastal, shallow shelf waters, 

occasionally offshore interm. & 

deep waters. Prey – copepods & 

krill.

All S hemisphere waters 30-60°S; summers in 

Antarctica, S Ocean, open ocean; most feeding 

areas not well known; Austral winter & spring 

in N regions of range, mainly coastal; breed 

near Argentina, S Africa, S Australia.

Pygmy right whale -/-

DD/I NA NA

Coastal to pelagic shallow, 

interm. & deep waters. Prey –

copepods & euphausiids.

Sub-Antarctic & temperate waters 30-52° S, 

including S America, S Africa, Australia, New 

Zealand, year-round Tasmania; winters S 

Africa; unk. breeding, calving, migration areas.

E N Pacific gray whale

(California stock = 

E gray whale)

-/-

LC/I E N Pacific 18,813

Primarily shallow coastal waters 

& lagoons. Prey – benthic and 

epibenthic amphipods & midwater prey.

E N Pacific & Bering/Chukchi Seas; winter 

breeding/calving Mexican lagoons; spring & 

fall migration coastal NE Pacific; summer feed 

in Bering & Chukchi Seas & NW US & 

Canada; feeding may be far off coast where 

water is shallow.

W N Pacific gray whale**

(Korean stock = 

W gray whale)

E/SS

CR/I W N Pacific approx. 100

Primarily shallow coastal waters 

and lagoons. Prey – benthic 

amphipods and mid-water prey.

W N Pacific only; feeds Sea of Okhotsk; 

assumed to breed and calve off southeast

China in winter; migrates through Japan, 

Korea, China, Taiwan waters.

Humpback whale E/SS

LC/I

W N Pacific;

E N Pacific;

Central N Pacific;

Gulf of Maine

approx. 27,000-36,000

(N Pacific 18,302;

N Atlantic 11,600;

S hemisphere 10,000-

17,000)

Shallow to deep waters. Prey –

krill, small schooling fish

High-latitude summer feeding; low-latitude 

winter breeding/calving in coastal waters; 

some remain in high latitudes year round.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-104

Table 3.6-1. Summary of the Status, Global Population Size, General Ecology, and General Distribution and Movement of Mysticetes 

Potentially Occurring within the Analysis Areas

Species

Status*

ESA/MMPA

IUCN/CITES

U.S. 

MMPA Stock

Global Population

Size(a-c, e, h, l, m) General Ecology

General Distribution/

Migratory Movements (d, e, f)

Minke whale -/-

LC/I, II

Alaska;

CA/OR/WA;

E Coastal 

Canadian

approx. 960,000

(N Pacific 25,000;

N Atlantic 174,000;

S hemisphere 761,000(d, h))

Shallow to deep waters, often 

coastal. Prey – small schooling 

fish, euphausiids, copepods.

All N hemisphere oceans, polar waters to 

tropical regions; higher latitudes summer, 

lower latitudes winter; year-round Calif. & 

Gulf of Calif.; specific breeding areas 

unknown.

Dwarf minke whale

subspecies

-/-

LC/I NA NA Shallow to deep waters. Prey –small schooling fish, krill.

S hemisphere mid & lower latitudes; winter 

(May – Sept) Great Barrier Reef Australia, 

New Caledonia, S Africa, Brazil; summers in 

higher latitudes (65° S).

Antarctic minke whale -/-

DD/I NA 760,000 Shallow to deep waters. Prey –krill, small schooling fish.

Summer feeding Antarctic; winter breeding in 

dispersed open ocean in tropical & subtropical 

latitudes; breeding grounds include off Brazil 

coast.

Bryde‘s whale (2 

subspp.?),;

Omura‘s whale˄

-/-

DD/I ETP

90,000(i)

(W N Pacific 24,000; ETP 

13,000; other pops. NA)

Shallow to deep waters. Prey –

schooling fish, copepods, 

euphausiids.

Pantropical, generally between 40° N & 40° S; 

seasonally use temperate waters of W Pacific; 

year-round S Africa, Gulf of Calif.; breeding 

includes S Africa; foraging grounds not well 

known; pygmy form known in the Indian 

Ocean, Australasia, and western Pacific.(j)

Sei whale E/SS

E/I

E N Pacific;

W N Atlantic

>54,000/NA

(N Pacific approx. 7,000-

14,000;

N Atlantic 4,000(j);

S Hemisphere 10,000–

37,000; other pops. NA)

Primarily offshore pelagic deep 

& interm. waters. Prey –

copepods in higher latitudes, 

schooling fish in lower latitudes.

Global, temperate waters; summer feed high 

latitudes (e.g., Nova Scotia, Labrador, Gulf of 

AK, Bering Sea); winter breeding/calving 

subtropical or tropical waters (e.g., FL, CA, 

Japan); no specific breeding grounds known.

Fin whale E/SS

E/I

W N Atlantic;

N E Pacific;

CA/OR/WA

approx. 100,000-150,000

(N Atlantic approx. 

30,000(h); N Pacific approx. 

13,600-18,700(k); ETP 

approx. 1,851; S Hemisphere 

25,000-103,000; other pops. 

NA)

Mostly pelagic, continental slope 

interm. & deep waters. Prey –

planktonic crustaceans, fish, 

squid.

Global, rare in tropical or icy polar regions; 

common in Mediterranean Sea; summer feed 

in higher latitudes (some remain year round); 

winter, breed in lower-latitude areas; breeding 

areas, unknown but assumed mid-latitude 

pelagic waters.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-105

Table 3.6-1. Summary of the Status, Global Population Size, General Ecology, and General Distribution and Movement of Mysticetes 

Potentially Occurring within the Analysis Areas

Species

Status*

ESA/MMPA

IUCN/CITES

U.S. 

MMPA Stock

Global Population

Size(a-c, e, h, l, m) General Ecology

General Distribution/

Migratory Movements (d, e, f)

Blue whale

(incl. 3 subspecies)

E/SS

E/I

W N Pacific;

E N Pacific;

W N Atlantic

approx. 10,000-13,000

(E N Pacific approx. 1500-

2,000; ETP approx. 1400;

other N Pacific pops. in 

100s; NW Atlantic approx. 

300-500; NE Atlantic 

approx. 1,000; S. hemisphere 

5,000-10,000; Antarctic pop. 

extremely low; other pops. 

NA)

Coastal & pelagic shallow, 

interm. & deep waters; Prey –

euphausiids.

Global; summer feed high latitudes; winter low 

latitudes continental shelf, incl. Bermuda; 

some summer feeding in low-latitude 

upwelling areas in Pacific; some may be yearround residents.

Notes: * CH = critical habitat, E = endangered, SS = strategic stock, DD = data deficient, VU = vulnerable, CR = critically endangered, LC = least concern. CITES I = includes species threatened with 

extinction that are or may be affected by trade; CITES II = includes species that are not presently threatened with extinction, but may become so if their trade is not regulated. It also includes species 

that need to be regulated so that trade in certain other Appendix-I or -II species may be effectively controlled; these species are most commonly listed due to their similarity of appearance to other 

related CITES species. ? = unknown. NA = Reliable data not available or uncertain or species status was not assessed; interm. = intermediate; unk. = unknown.

**Although not occurring in any of the exemplary analysis areas examined in this PEIS, the W N Pacific gray whale (Korean stock or W gray whale) is the only mysticete not addressed in the current 

analysis. Any potential seismic survey cruise within the range of the W gray whale will need to specifically address this stock.

^ A new species described by Wada et al. (2003) for which very little species-specific information is known; previously together with Bryde‘s whale.

(a)Koski et al. 1998; (b)Wade et al. 2003; (c)Bradford et al. 2006; (d) Bannister et al. 1996; (e) Moore et. al. 2006; (f)May-Collado et al. 2005; (g)Wada et al. 2003; (h)

IWC 2006; (i)American Cetacean Society 

2004; (j)Perry et al. 1999; (k)Carretta et al. 2008; (l)Hain 2007; (m)Calambokidis et al. 2008.

Sources: Ridgway and Harrison 1989; Wade and Gerrodette 1993; Perry et al. 1999; Reeves et al. 2002; L-DEO and NSF 2003a, b, c, d, e; L-DEO and NSF 2004a, b, c, d; SIO and NSF 2004, 2005; U.S. Navy 

2005; L-DEO and NSF 2006a; NOAA Fisheries 2010; UNEP 2006; University of Texas-Austin (UTA) and NSF 2006; Waring et al. 2009; Angliss and Allen 2009; CITES 2010; IUCN 2010. Also see 

above.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-106

3.6.1.3 Important Ecological Considerations

Primary foods consumed by baleen whales include small crustaceans, such as krill (euphausiids), 

amphipods, and copepods; and small schooling fish such as anchovies and herring (Table 3.6-1). The 

highest levels of primary productivity tend to occur at high latitudes during summer. Summer is also 

when most baleen whales migrate to high-latitude waters to feed intensively on high concentrations of 

prey (Clapham 2001; Corkeron and Connor 1999; Reeves et al. 2002; Mesnick and Ralls 2002). During 

winter, most baleen whale populations migrate to low-latitude waters to breed and calve where they 

consume little if any food. In contrast, bowhead whales winter, breed, and calve in cold subarctic waters 

near the ice edge where prey is apparently more available, albeit at lower densities than at their arctic 

summering grounds. It is important that baleen whales consume adequate food sources during feeding 

periods to sustain them through their reproduction and migration periods, which tend to occur at lower

and generally less-productive latitudes (Reeves et al. 2002). 

3.6.1.4 Special-Status Species

All baleen whales (except the pygmy right whale) were heavily exploited by commercial whaling 

industries, in some cases over several centuries. In recent years, some species, or some stocks of some 

species, appear to be recovering. However, other species or stocks were hunted until their numbers were 

very low, and some of those stocks do not appear to have recovered and remain highly vulnerable to 

extinction. Distinct populations of 9 of the 14 mysticete species are listed as endangered under the ESA: 

North Atlantic, North Pacific, and southern right whales; W North Pacific gray whale; and the bowhead, 

humpback, sei, fin, and blue whales (Table 3.6-1). In addition, Critical Habitat under ESA is designated 

for the N Atlantic and N Pacific right whales. 

3.6.1.5 Acoustic Capabilities

The known hearing and sound production characteristics of baleen whales are summarized in Table 3.6-2. 

Although the hearing abilities of mysticetes have not been studied directly, they can be inferred from the 

vocalizations that they produce, the sounds to which they do and do not respond, and their auditory 

anatomy. Optimum hearing is likely within the frequency range of vocalizations emitted (see below), and 

hearing may extend beyond this frequency range since other environmental sounds may also be important 

(Ketten 2004; Southall et al. 2007) (Table 3.6-2). 

Overall, the current information suggests that mysticete hearing includes frequencies of 10-15 Hz (or 

lower) at the lower end and up to 20-30 kHz (Au et al. 2000; Frisk et al. 2003). Functional hearing for 

mysticetes as a group extends from approximately 7 Hz to 22 kHz, though the hearing range of individual 

species may not be as wide (Southall et al. 2007). The auditory threshold for mysticetes is unknown, but 

is estimated to be approximately 60-80 dB re 1 μPa within the frequency range of best hearing (Ketten 

2004). However, the absolute sound levels that mysticetes can detect at frequencies below 1 kHz are 

probably limited by increasing levels of natural ambient noise at decreasing frequencies; ambient noise 

levels tend to be higher at low frequencies than at mid-frequencies (Clark and Ellison 2004; Hildebrand 

2004). 

Sound production by some species of baleen whales has been documented at frequencies ranging up to 10

kHz to at least 24 kHz (Table 3.6-2). Spectral peaks in mysticete vocalizations are generally between 12 

Hz and 3 kHz, with the fin and blue whales producing infrasonic signals at frequencies as low as 10-12 

Hz (and commonly at 16-25 Hz).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-107

Table 3.6-2. Summary of Characteristics of Underwater Sounds Produced by Mysticetes Potentially 

Occurring within the Analysis Areas

Sound Production

Species(a)

Vocalization

Frequency

Range (Hz)

Dominant

Vocalization Frequencies

(Hz)

Source Level

(dB re 1 μPa-m)

N Atlantic

right whale 70–600 Low-frequency calls: 70 137–192

N Pacific

right whale <400 90–150 -

S right

whale 30–2,200 Tones: 160–500Pulses: 50–500 & 1,500 172–187

Pygmy right

whale 60–300 Pulses: 90–135 with downsweep to 60 153–179

E gray

whale 20–20,000

Knocks/pulses: 327–825

Tonal moans: 100–200 & 700–1,200

Calf clicks: 3400–4000 

167–188

Humpback

whale 10(b)

–>22,000(c)

Male Song: 120–4,000

Social sounds: <3,000

Feeding calls: 500

Calf sounds: 10–300(b)

Male song: 144–174 (mean 165)

Social sounds: 190

Minke

whale 60–20,000

Downsweeps: 50–250

Thumptrains: 100–200

Pulses: 50–9400

Moans: 60–140

Rachet: 850 

Pings/clicks: <12,000

151–175

Bryde's

whale 70–950

Moans: 124–250

Pulsed moans: 100–900 & <60

Calf pulses: 700–900

152–174

Sei

whale

approx. 100-150(d)–

3,500(e)

Low-frequency tonal moan &

frequency swept calls: approx. 100–1,000(e)

MF pulsive bursts: 1,500– 3,500(e)

147–156(f)

Fin

whale 10–750

Pulses: 18–35

FM calls: 20–70

Moans: 20

155–190

Blue

whale 10–390 Songs: 30–100FM calls/moans: 15–25 180–190

Sources: Richardson et al. 1995a; Au et al. 2000; U.S. Navy 2007; also see footnotes below.

Notes: (a) For some mysticete species, the frequency range of hearing has been suggested (e.g., footnotes c and d) based on indirect evidence. 

However, there are no specific data on the frequency range of hearing by any mysticete and the suggested ranges are of unknown 

accuracy. Some mysticetes may have at least limited hearing capabilities at frequencies as low as 7 Hz and up to at least 22-24 kHz (Au 

et al. 2006; Southall et al. 2007), given their auditory anatomy, the frequencies of their calls, and their responsiveness (or lack thereof) to 

sounds at particular frequencies. 

(b) Zoidis et al. 2005, 2008.

(c) Au et al. 2006.

(d)

Southall et al. 2007.

(e) Thompson et al. 1979; Knowlton et al. 1991.

(f)

(rms) re 1 μPa-m.

The hearing systems of baleen whales are more sensitive to low-frequency sounds than are those of small 

toothed whales (see Section 3.7). In particular, mysticetes are believed to hear well at frequencies below 1 

kHz, where most energy from airguns also occurs (Richardson et al. 1995a; Ketten 2000). Thus, baleen 

whales are likely to hear airgun pulses at greater distances from the source than can toothed whales

(odontocetes); at closer distances, airgun sounds may seem more prominent to baleen than to toothed 

whales. 

The in-water acoustic capabilities of marine mammals occurring in the analysis areas have been

categorized into four functional hearing groups based on anatomical information and available auditory 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-108

threshold data (Southall et al. 2007) (see Appendix B for more information). All mysticetes are members 

of the LF cetacean functional hearing group. The effective hearing bandwidth for this group is estimated 

to range from 7 Hz to 22 kHz (Southall et al. 2007). This LF group was further divided into four 

subgroups for purposes of AIM: (1) right whales; (2) gray whale; (3) humpback whale; and (4) minke, 

sei, Bryde‘s, fin, and blue whales (Appendix B).

3.6.2 Affected Environment: Detailed Analysis Areas (DAAs)

This section summarizes the region-specific occurrence of mysticetes within the five DAAs for which 

acoustic modeling was conducted. Discussion is limited to those species present during the season(s) of 

the exemplary marine seismic surveys (Table 3.6-3). Discussion is focused on species with special status 

(e.g., ESA) and those that are expected to be most abundant/common. 

Table 3.6-3. Potential Occurrence of Mysticetes within the DAAs during the Period of Proposed 

Exemplary Seismic Surveys

Species

(ESA status)*

NW Atlantic

(N Sum)* 1, 2, 3

Caribbean

(N Spr or Sum)* 4

S California

(N Spr or

Sum)* 7, 8, 9

W Gulf

of Alaska

(N Sum)* 6, 7, 11

Galapagos

Ridge

(N Win/S Sum)* 5, 10

N Atlantic right

whale (E) F r? - - - -

N Pacific right

whale (E) - - Spr M? r F r-u -

E gray

whale - - Spr M a F u -

Humpback

whale (E) F r Spr BM u Spr M u-cSum F u-c

F c M–S hem. pop. r

Minke whale F c Spr M? r F u FM c -

Bryde‘s whale^ - F c Sum? F? r - FB u

Sei whale (E) F? r Spr M? r Spr? M? r

Sum F r F u B? r

Fin whale (E) F c Spr? M? r Spr M u

Sum F u F c B? r

Blue whale (E) F r Spr? M? r FM c F? r B? r

Notes: *Excludes species that do not occur in the indicated analysis areas or do not occur in the analysis areas during the 

exemplary season. E = endangered; (Season) = northern (N) and southern (S) hemisphere season during which the 

exemplary seismic cruise would occur within the analysis area; Spr = spring, Sum = summer; B = known to breed or 

calve within the area/season; F = known to feed within the area/season; M = known to migrate through the 

area/season; ? = unknown/possible; c = common: the species is expected to be encountered once or more during 2-3

visits to the area during the relevant season; and the number of individuals encountered during an average visit is 

unlikely to be more than a few 10s; u = uncommon: the species is expected to be encountered (during the relevant 

season) at most a few times a year assuming many visits to the area; r = rare: the species is not expected to be 

encountered more than once in several years during the relevant season; - = species does not occur there.

^ Two subspecies – includes the new species described by Wada et al. (2003) and any subspecies.

Sources: Reeves et al. 2002; Carretta et al. 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008; Angliss and Allen 2009; Waring et al. 2009; and the 

following footnotes: 

1U.S. Navy 2005; 2L-DEO and NSF 2003d; 3U.S. Navy 2007; 4L-DEO and NSF 2003e; 5L-DEO 

and NSF 2003a; 6Moore et el. 2006; 7Koski et al. 1998; 8MMC 2004; 9Calambokidis et. al. 2002; 10L-DEO and NSF 

2004b; 11L-DEO and NSF 2004d.

3.6.2.1 NW Atlantic

The occurrence and distribution of mysticetes in the NW Atlantic is based on aerial and shipboard

(sighting) surveys, opportunistic and historical sightings, strandings, and incidental fisheries bycatch 

records, as well as radio- and satellite-tagging programs and other miscellaneous sources (U.S. Navy 

2005; Palka 2006). Five of the six mysticetes that could occur in the analysis area are listed as endangered 

under the ESA: North Atlantic right, humpback, sei, fin, and blue whales (Table 3.6-1). Based on Palka 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-109

(2006), feeding fin whales and a small number of the unlisted minke whale are most likely to occur in the 

NW Atlantic during the analysis period.

North Atlantic Right Whale. North Atlantic right whales (n = approximately 400) are believed to pass the 

coast of New Jersey during spring and fall migrations (Clapham et al. 1999; IWC 2001; Hain 2007; Kraus 

and Rolland 2007), including 70 mature females (Kraus et al. 2001). Due to this migration, any seismic 

survey off the New Jersey coast would occur in summer, rather than spring or fall, to minimize the 

likelihood of encounters. During spring and summer, North Atlantic right whales feed along the 

continental shelf off the northeastern U.S. and Canada (Table 3.6-1). Known calving grounds and two 

feeding areas in U.S. waters are designated as Critical Habitat for North Atlantic right whales under the 

ESA (NMFS 1994a). The nearest U.S. critical feeding habitat occurs approximately 155 mi (250 km) 

northeast of the NW Atlantic DAA; the nearest critical calving habitat occurs approximately 550 mi (880 

km) to the southwest. Although known feeding grounds are located north of the analysis area, it is 

possible that a small number of right whales could occasionally feed in the analysis area during the 

summer based on satellite tagging studies (e.g., Mate and Úrban 2005; Wade et al. 2005).

Humpback Whale. The principal feeding ground of western North Atlantic humpback whales is the Gulf 

of Maine during mid-April to mid-November; other aggregations feed from the coast of Massachusetts 

north to Canada, largely in shallow- to intermediate-depth waters (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment 

Program [CETAP] 1982; Whitehead 1982; Kenney and Winn 1987; Weinrich et al. 1997). Distribution in 

this region has been largely correlated to the distribution and abundance of prey species (Payne et al. 

1986, 1990). Although the NW Atlantic DAA is not a regular feeding ground, it is possible that some 

humpback whales may use the area to feed during summer.

Minke Whale. Minke whales are among the most widely distributed and most abundant of the baleen 

whales (Cawardine 1998). They occupy warmer tropical waters during winter and colder northern waters 

in summer where they frequently utilize coastal and shelf waters to feed on a variety of small schooling 

fish and krill (Reeves et al. 2002). In the N Atlantic, breeding takes place from October to March 

(Cawardine 1998). A small number of minkes are expected to occur in the NW Atlantic DAA during the 

summer based on past shipboard and aerial surveys in the area (Palka 2006).

Fin Whale. The fin whale is the most commonly sighted, ESA-listed large whale in the western North 

Atlantic (Palka 2006). From late spring through early fall fin whales feed along the continental shelf and 

shelf break waters from the U.S. mid-Atlantic coast north to eastern Canada (CETAP 1982; Hain et al. 

1992; Waring et al. 2004). They likely feed in the NW Atlantic DAA during the summer (Palka 2006). 

Blue Whale. The blue whale is considered an occasional visitor in the U.S. EEZ (Waring et al. 2004), 

which may represent the limits of its feeding range (CETAP 1982; Wenzel et al. 1988). Thus, a small 

number of blue whales may occasionally occur in the NW Atlantic DAA during the summer. 

Sei Whale. Sei whales are typically associated with steep bathymetric relief, such as the continental shelf 

break, canyons, or basins situated between banks and ledges where prey is concentrated (Kenney and 

Winn 1987; Schilling et al. 1992; Best and Lockyer 2002) (Table 3.6-1). Sei whales are not common in 

U.S. Atlantic waters, and thus are unlikely to occur in the NW Atlantic DAA (NMFS 1998b). 

3.6.2.2 Caribbean

Little is known about the occurrence and distribution of mysticetes in the SE Caribbean compared to the 

remainder of the Caribbean (reviewed in Smultea et al. 2004). Swartz et al. (2001, 2003) conducted a

major winter survey of Caribbean waters, but with limited effort in the exemplary analysis area. The most 

extensive survey of the SE Caribbean was conducted from April to June 2004 as part of a marine mammal 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-110

monitoring program during a previous NSF-funded marine seismic cruise (Smultea et al. 2004). Over 900 

hr and 5,400 nm (10,000 km) of visual observation effort and >800 hr and >3,942 nm (7,300 km) of 

acoustic monitoring effort were conducted by observers aboard the R/V Ewing and the R/V Seward 

Johnson II. The project provided survey data on the occurrence of cetaceans across a wide span of 

longitudes during spring. In particular, prior to this effort, no surveys had been undertaken in the SE

Caribbean Sea west of approximately 68oW. 

Based on the above cruise and other available data, six mysticete species have the potential to occur 

within the analysis area during the spring or summer (Romero et al. 2001; Swartz et al. 2001, 2003; 

Smultea et al. 2004) (Table 3.6-3). Four are listed as endangered under the ESA: humpback, sei, fin, and 

blue whales. Bryde‘s and minke whales are not ESA-listed but have IUCN and CITES status (Table 

3.6-1). 

Humpback, Minke, Sei, Fin, and Blue Whales. The humpback whale is the most abundant mysticete in the 

region during winter (Swartz et al. 2001, 2003), but most humpbacks migrate north to feeding grounds by 

early spring, prior to the date of the exemplary seismic survey (Note: the 2004 NSF-funded seismic 

survey in the SE Caribbean was purposefully scheduled to avoid the humpback wintering season [L-DEO 

and NSF 2003e]). No humpback, minke, sei, fin, or blue whales were seen in the SE Caribbean survey

area during the 2004 spring (April-June) seismic survey (Smultea et al. 2004). Blue and minke whales are 

uncommon in the region, and probably occur there only during the winter (reviewed in L-DEO and NSF 

2003e). Even less is known about the distribution, numbers, and occurrence of sei and fin whales in the 

analysis area (L-DEO and NSF 2003e). Any that do occur there in winter are likely to move north, out of 

the area, in spring. Neither of these species was seen or heard via PAM during the NSF-sponsored 2004 

spring seismic survey (Smultea et al. 2004). However, historical strandings of fin whales are known from 

the analysis area along the Venezuelan coast (Agudo 1995).

Bryde’s Whale. Bryde‘s whale is the only mysticete likely to occur within the analysis area during spring 

or summer. The Bryde‘s whale was the only mysticete species detected during a 2004 spring seismic 

survey (Smultea et al. 2004) and was the only mysticete recorded from Venezuelan strandings in 2000-

2004 (Bermudez-Villapol and Sayegh 2005). It is the second-most abundant mysticete in the region 

throughout the year. The Bryde‘s whale occurs primarily in waters <3,280 ft (1,000 m) deep and is a 

common year-round resident within the Caribbean DAA, particularly around and east of Margarita Island 

(Romero et al. 2001; Smultea et al. 2004). 

3.6.2.3 S California

Based on dedicated vessel and aerial surveys for marine mammals in coastal to pelagic waters off 

California (e.g., Forney and Barlow 1998; Calambokidis et al. 2002; Barlow 2003; Carretta et al. 2005),

up to eight mysticete species may occur within the S California DAA during spring and summer. Five of 

these species are listed under the ESA: North Pacific right, humpback, sei, fin, and blue whales (Tables 

3.6-1 and 3.6-3). During spring, the waters off S California are migration corridors for six mysticete 

species; in summer, the same waters provide feeding areas for four of these species plus two others (Table 

3.6-3).

E Gray Whale. The most abundant mysticete species during spring is the E gray whale as it migrates 

north to feeding areas through shallow coastal California waters. The spring migration is largely finished 

by approximately the end of May, although cows with newborn calves migrate through June (Carretta et 

al. 2005). Except for the aforementioned late-migrating individuals, gray whales are not expected in the S 

California DAA area during summer. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-111

Fin Whale. Fin whales are present off S California throughout the year, but are seen most frequently 

during summer when relatively high concentrations occur in offshore waters north of Point Conception 

and off S California near San Nicolas, San Clemente, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and Santa Rosa islands 

(Leatherwood et al. 1987; Bonnell and Dailey 1993; Koski et al. 1998). 

Humpback and Blue Whales. Humpback and blue whales are common spring migrants off S California; 

during the summer feeding period their numbers are fewer and more variable (Schulman 1984; Koski et

al. 1998; Calambokidis et al. 2003). However, Calambokidis (1995) reported that more than 100 blue 

whales were present in the Santa Barbara Channel during the summers of 1992 and 1994. 

Minke, Bryde’s, Sei, and N Pacific Right Whales. The remaining four mysticete species that may occur off 

S California are seen much less frequently and in considerably smaller numbers, if at all (Table 3.6-3). Sei 

whales are rare migrants in continental slope and offshore areas of S California. They may be seen during 

spring but are more likely to be seen in summer, and are not seen during other times of year. There is no 

estimate of the size of the sei whale stock that inhabits California waters, but the number is very small. 

Minke whales are uncommon off S California and occur primarily over the continental shelf, but they also 

occur in offshore waters. The number of minke whales peak in this area during the spring and summer 

migration, but a small number is also present year-round (Koski et al. 1998; Carretta et al. 2006, 2007). 

Bryde‘s whales may feed off S California in small numbers during summer (Koski et al. 1998). The N 

Pacific right whale probably migrates north off California in spring, but the total population size is very 

small, and sightings in this region are extremely rare (Scarff 1991; Carretta et al. 1994, 2005; Rowlett et 

al. 1994). Thus, it is highly unlikely that N Pacific right whales would be encountered in the S California 

DAA (Tables 3.6-1 and 3.6-3). 

3.6.2.4 W Gulf of Alaska

Numerous marine mammal visual and acoustic surveys have been conducted in the W Gulf of Alaska and 

the nearby Aleutian Islands region (e.g., Forney and Brownell 1996; Moore 2001; Moore et al. 2002a; 

Wade et al. 2003, 2005; Zerbini et al. 2003; Barlow 2004a, b). Recent information on the seasonal 

distribution of mysticetes in this region has been obtained from the reception of whale calls by bottommounted, offshore hydrophone arrays along the U.S. Pacific coast, in the central North Pacific, the Gulf 

of Alaska, and the western Aleutian Islands (Moore et al. 1998, 2006; Watkins et al. 2000a, b; Mellinger 

et al. 2004). Seven mysticete species potentially occur within the analysis area during the summer, five of 

which are listed under the ESA: N Pacific right, humpback, sei, fin, and blue whales (Table 3.6-3). The 

eastern gray and minke whales also occur there during summer. The most common species is expected to 

be the humpback whale as that species is known to feed commonly in this region (Zerbini et al. 2003; 

Barlow 2004a, b; L-DEO and NSF 2004d).

Humpback Whale. Humpback whales are commonly seen in the nearshore waters of the W Gulf of Alaska 

as well as the Aleutian Islands during the summer feeding season (Wade et al. 2003; Waite et al. 2003; 

Zerbini et al. 2003; Barlow 2004a, b). The humpback was the second-most frequently encountered 

cetacean and the most commonly seen large whale during surveys on the south side of the Aleutian 

Islands in 1994, mostly in deep offshore waters over the Aleutian Trench or the Aleutian Abyssal Plain 

(Forney and Brownell 1996). Zerbini et al. (2004a) estimated the abundance of humpbacks in the northern 

Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands at 2,866 whales, with most humpbacks seen from the Kenai 

Peninsula to Unimak Island. 

N Pacific Right Whale. Considering the rarity of N Pacific right whale sightings and the generally 

restricted area of Alaskan sightings, it is unlikely that any right whales would be seen in the analysis area 

during summer. No sightings have been made in the W Gulf of Alaska since 1998, despite dedicated 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-112

surveys in the region (e.g., Moore et al. 2000, 2002a; Angliss and Outlaw 2005). Only two right whale 

sightings are known from the W Gulf of Alaska in nearly 30 years. In 1979, a sighting of four right 

whales was reported at the mouth of Yakutat Bay, and in 1998 one individual was seen south of Kodiak 

Island (Waite et al. 2003), and additional lone animals were observed off Kodiak Island in the Barnabas 

Canyon area from NOAA surveys in August 2004, 2005, and 2006 (Allen and Angliss 2010). Most 

sightings and acoustic detections of N Pacific right whales have been made during summer in the SE

Bering Sea in Bristol Bay. These detections have occurred predominantly within a rectangle bounded by 

5800N to 5630N latitude and 16220W and 16650W longitude in an area called the ―right whale 

box‖ (Goddard and Rugh 1998; Tynan 1999; Moore et al. 2000, 2002a; Leduc et al. 2001; Tynan et al. 

2001; McDonald and Moore 2002; Angliss and Lodge 2004). The ―right whale box‖ is located 

approximately 186 mi (300 km) west-northwest of the analysis area on the north side of the Aleutian 

Islands chain. Critical Habitat for the N Pacific right whale was designated in April 2008 approximately

250 mi (400 km) east of the analysis area (NMFS 2008b).

Gray, Fin, Minke, Sei, and Blue Whales. These five species may be present in small numbers during the 

summer. Although gray whales are common in the W Gulf of Alaska and the Aleutian Islands during the 

spring and fall migrations, only small numbers of feeding gray whales may occur in summer in shallow 

nearshore waters, mostly near the Aleutian Islands (Brueggeman et al. 1987; Moore et al. 2002b; Wade et 

al. 2003). Fin whales are likely to be observed in the analysis area during summer based on various 

surveys and cruises in the W Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands (Forney and Brownell 1996; Moore 

2001; Moore et al. 2002a; Wade et al. 2003; Zerbini et al. 2003; Barlow 2004b). Fin whale calls have 

been detected year-round in this region, peaking from August to February (Moore et al. 2006). Minke 

whales are expected to be common in the eastern North Pacific (Brueggeman et al. 1990; Mizroch 1991). 

Sei whales may be observed feeding in small numbers in the Aleutians during summer but are considered 

rare in the W Gulf of Alaska (Sobolevsky and Mathisen 1996). Blue whale calls peak in the Gulf of 

Alaska from August to November (Stafford 2003); however, sightings are rare in Alaska. In July 2004, 

for the first time in the previous three decades, blue whales were sighted approximately 100 nm (185 km) 

southeast of Prince William Sound in waters about 2 mi (3.2 km) deep (NMFS 2004c; Calambokidis et al. 

2009) (approximately 100 nm northeast of the W Gulf of Alaska DAA). 

3.6.2.5 Galapagos Ridge

The Galapagos Ridge DAA is located in a remote, mid-ocean area approximately 4° south of the equator 

and 870 mi (1,400 km) southwest of the Galapagos Islands (refer to Figure 2-21). Largely due to this 

remoteness, very few marine mammal studies have been conducted there. Multi-year ship surveys for 

cetaceans have been conducted by the NMFS‘s Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) from late 

July to early December in the wider ETP encompassing the Galapagos Ridge DAA (e.g., Polacheck 1987; 

Wade and Gerrodette 1993; Ferguson and Barlow 2001). Observers aboard the R/V Ewing conducted a 

survey approximately 375 mi (600 km) north of the analysis area as part of a marine mammal monitoring 

program during an NSF-funded marine seismic survey in July 2003 (Smultea et al. 2003). However, no 

multi-species surveys are known to have occurred in or near the Galapagos Ridge DAA from January 

through June (which encompasses the exemplary seismic survey period). Based on the above data, six

mysticete species could potentially occur within the analysis area during the austral summer (N 

hemisphere winter – January-March): humpback, minke, Bryde‘s, Eden‘s, sei, fin, and blue whales. 

Humpback, sei, fin, and blue whales are listed as endangered under the ESA (Tables 3.6-1 and 3.6-3). 

Among the mysticetes that they may occur in the Galapagos Ridge DAA, Bryde‘s whale is the most 

likely to be present during the southern summer/northern winter (Table 3.6-3). It is a relatively common 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-113

year-round resident in the ETP (Ferguson and Barlow 2001). Little is known about the breeding habits of 

the remaining five mysticete species in these remote waters (Smultea et al. 2003). Northern hemisphere 

humpback, minke, sei, fin, and blue whales could occur there in small numbers (Ferguson and Barlow 

2001) as they migrate, breed, and calve in tropical waters during the northern winter. However, the S 

hemisphere populations of these species are not expected to occur along the Galapagos Ridge in the 

analysis area because they spend the austral summer (northern winter) feeding in sub-Antarctic and Arctic 

waters. Furthermore, the analysis area is located in deep pelagic waters where marine mammal density is 

expected to be relatively low based on past ETP surveys (e.g., Polacheck 1987; Wade and Gerrodette 

1993; Ferguson and Barlow 2001). 

3.6.3 Affected Environment: Qualitative Analysis Areas (QAAs)

This section summarizes the known region-specific use and occurrence of mysticetes within the eight 

QAAs. In general, these summaries address broader analysis areas than considered above for the DAAs 

for which acoustic modeling was conducted. Fewer data are available on distribution, occurrence, and 

particularly abundance of mysticetes for some of the QAAs as compared to most of the DAAs. As done 

for the DAAs, discussion herein is limited to those species occurring within each region during the season

when a marine seismic survey would potentially occur (Table 3.6-4). The following discussion focuses on 

species with special status (e.g., ESA, IUCN, etc.) and those that are expected to be most abundant or 

common. 

3.6.3.1 N Atlantic/Iceland

The occurrence and distribution of mysticetes in the N Atlantic near Iceland is well documented, 

including the analysis area off the SE Iceland coast. Information is based primarily on data collected 

during aerial and ship-based surveys and modern whaling excursions, but also commercial whalewatches, 

strandings, and incidental fisheries bycatch records (e.g., Larsen 1995; North Atlantic Marine Mammal 

Commission [NAMMCO] 2005; Cawardine 1998). Five of the six mysticetes known to occur in the 

analysis area during the summer are listed as endangered under the ESA: N Atlantic right, humpback, sei, 

fin, and blue whales (Table 3.6-4). The N Atlantic/Iceland region provides summer feeding habitat for all 

six of the mysticetes as described below. Humpback, fin, blue, and minke whales are expected to be the 

most common species potentially occurring in the analysis area during the summer. 

N Atlantic Right Whale. The population of right whales in the N Atlantic is depleted as a result of 

commercial whaling (Reeves et al. 2007). North Atlantic right whales were historically common off 

Iceland but until the 1990s had not been observed since the late 1800s. Knowlton et al. (1992) reported 

several long-distance movements of N Atlantic right whales as far north as the southeast coast of 

Greenland. In addition, photo-identified whales from the W Atlantic stock have been resighted off Iceland 

and arctic Norway (Waring et al. 2005b) but sightings are considered rare. 

Humpback Whale. Humpback whales feed in shallow waters around Iceland during the summer months, 

often in the fjords and bays. The population size in Icelandic waters is uncertain, but is estimated to be 

approximately 1,500-1,800 (Cawardine 1998; Husavik Whale Centre 2006).

Minke Whale. Minkes are considered abundant around the entire coast of Iceland where the estimated 

summer population is approximately 50,000-60,000 individuals (Cawardine 1998). Off Iceland, they are 

often associated with steep underwater drop-offs where prey tends to be concentrated (Husavik Whale 

Centre 2006). These minkes belong to the IWC central stock and are genetically distinct from minke 

populations in the NW Atlantic (Donovan 1991; NAMMCO 2005). 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-114

Table 3.6-4. Potential Occurrence of Mysticetes within the QAAs during the Period of Proposed Exemplary Seismic Surveys

Species

(ESA status)*

N Atlantic/

Iceland

(N Sum)* 1, 2, 3

BC

Coast

(N Fall)* 4

SW Atlantic

(Any)* 5, 6

Mid-Atlantic

Ridge

(N Spr, Sum

or Fall)* 7

W

Australia

(N/S Spr or

Fall)* 8, 9

W. India

(N/S Spr

Or Fall)* 8-10

Mariana

Islands

(N Spr)*

SubAntarctic

(N Win/

S Sum)* 8, 11

N Atlantic right whaleN(E) F r - - - - - - -

N Pacific right whaleN(E) - F M r? - - - - - -

S right whaleS(E) - - - - - - - F u

Pygmy right whaleS- - - - - - - F u-c 

E gray whaleN- M a F c - - - - - -

Humpback whale (E) F c F c Sum f B r+

S hem pop

Spr f M u M c F r M c Bc+ M r

Minke whale F c F c B? na Spr f M u M na M na M u See dwarf minke

Dwarf minke whaleSsubsp. - - - - M na - - F r?

Antarctic minke whaleS- - Sum B? na7- M na - - M r

Bryde‘s and Omura‘s whale^ - - B? F c F r B? F c B? F c B? F c F c

Sei whale (E) F u F M r Sum B? na7 Spr f M u M na M na M na F c

Fin whale (E) F c F M u Sum B? na Spr f M u M na M na M na M u

Blue whale (E)

Pygmy blue whaleS? subsp.

F c

-

F M r

-

Sum B? na

Sum B? na

Spr f M r

-

-

M na

M r§

F u M u

M r

-

M u

F u

Notes: *(Season) = northern (N) and southern (S) hemisphere season during which the exemplary seismic cruise would occur within the analysis area; B = known to breed or calve within the 

area; F = known to feed within the area; M = known to migrate through the area; W = winter, Spr = spring, Sum = summer, F= fall; ? = unknown/possible; a = abundant: the species is 

expected to be encountered during a single visit to the area and the number of individuals encountered during an average visit may be as many as hundreds or more; c = common: the 

species is expected to be encountered once or more during 2-3 visits to the area and the number of individuals encountered during an average visit is unlikely to be more than a few 10s; 

u = uncommon: the species is expected to be encountered at most a few times a year assuming many visits to the area; r = rare: the species is not expected to be encountered more than 

once in several years; na = reliable data not available or uncertain or species status was not assessed; - = species does not occur there. + Mothers and calves stay into N spring from N 

hemisphere population or into N fall/S spring for S hemisphere population. 

N Occurs only in the northern hemisphere; S

occurs only in the southern hemisphere; S? uncertain whether occurs only in the S hemisphere (Reeves et al. 2002).

§ Blue whales reported off W India likely to be pygmy blue whales (Stafford et al. 2005).

^ includes the new species described by Wada et al. (2003), as well as Eden‘s whale which may be a subspecies.

Sources: Reeves et al. 2002; Angliss and Lodge 2004; Carretta et al. 2004, 2005, 2008; Waring et al. 2004, 2009; Angliss and Allen 2009; also see footnotes below.

1UTA and NSF 2006; 2L-DEO and NSF 2003b; 3Cawardine 1998; 4L-DEO and NSF 2006a, Williams and Thomas 2007; 5UNEP 2006; 6Andriolo et al. 2006a, b; 7L-DEO and NSF 

2003c; 8Bannister et al. 1996; 9de Boer et al. 2003; 10 Stafford et al. 2005; 11SIO and NSF 2005.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-115

Sei Whale. The sei whale population that uses the N Atlantic near Iceland (including analysis area) for 

summer feeding is depleted. Sei whales have been observed off the west coast of Iceland, but appear to 

prefer deeper waters 30-60 mi (48-96 km) offshore. An estimated 10,000 sei whales feed in Icelandic 

waters every summer (Cawardine 1998).

Fin Whale. The fin whale is the second-most-common mysticete (after the minke whale) in Icelandic and 

adjacent waters. According to a sightings survey conducted in summer 2001, the abundance of fin whales 

in the East Greenland-Iceland stock was estimated at 24,887 individuals and may be approaching its 

carrying capacity (Gunnlaugsson et al. 2002). In Icelandic waters, fin whales feed predominantly on 

euphausiids (Sigurjonsson and Vikingsson 1997) and fish such as whiting and herring (Sigurjonsson 

1995). 

Blue Whale. The blue whale population that summers in the analysis area is estimated at approximately

700-1,000 individuals (Cawardine 1998). Blue whales migrate to Iceland where they spend the entire 

summer feeding off the western and northern coast. In September, they migrate south to unknown 

breeding grounds (Reeves et al. 2002). 

3.6.3.2 BC Coast

Considerable information is available on the occurrence and distribution of mysticetes in Canadian 

coastal waters that encompass the BC Coast QAA. Data were obtained primarily from aerial, acoustic, 

and ship-based (including photo-identification) surveys, but also from opportunistic and historical 

whaling records. Five of the seven mysticete species known or expected to occur in the analysis area 

during the fall are listed as endangered under the ESA: N Pacific right, humpback, sei, fin, and blue 

whales (Table 3.6-4). The E gray, minke, and humpback whales are the mysticetes most likely to occur in 

the analysis area during the fall (Williams and Thomas 2007). During fall, the analysis area is used for 

feeding as well as a migration corridor south to warmer breeding areas.

N Pacific Right Whale. N Pacific right whales are very rare in BC waters and are unlikely to be 

encountered in the analysis area. Historical whaling records (1785-1913) show that right whales occurred 

in offshore BC waters from April to October, presumably feeding or migrating to or from sub-tropical 

wintering/calving grounds (Reeves et al. 1985; Nichol et al. 2002; Clapham et al. 2004). Only seven right 

whales were documented as taken by BC whalers in 1900-51, mainly in coastal waters (North Pacific 

Right Whale Recovery Team 2004). The last documented sighting in BC waters occurred in 1970 west of 

the Queen Charlotte Islands (Wada 1975 cited in North Pacific Right Whale Recovery Team 2004). 

Seven individuals were seen in U.S. waters near the BC/Washington border from 1959 to 1992 (Fiscus 

and Niggol 1965; Rice and Fiscus 1968; Rowlett et al. 1994). The last sighting off the Washington coast 

was in May 1992 (Rowlett et al. 1994). No right whales were seen during 2,400 nm (4,400 km) of 

systematic small boat surveys conducted in coastal waters of BC during summers 2004 and 2005 

(Williams and Thomas 2007).

Humpback Whale. Humpback whales are commonly observed feeding in BC coastal waters off the Queen 

Charlotte Islands, W Hecate Strait, Langara Island, and Vancouver Island from May or June until October 

(Calambokidis et al. 1997, 2000, 2001, 2003; Williams and Thomas 2007). An NSF-funded baseline 

survey in October 2005 documented 40 humpbacks in the northern channels and inlets of the analysis area 

(LGL 2005). Recent acoustic data suggest that some individuals also use offshore areas during periods 

when they are not expected to be migrating (C.W. Clark cited in Baird 2003). Based on vessel-based 

sightings surveys, an estimated 1,313 humpback whales occur in BC coastal waters in summer (Williams 

and Thomas 2007). About 1,200 individuals were photo-identified in 1989-2004 (DFOC 2005c). In some 

areas of BC, the humpback whale is the most reported baleen whale (Ford et al. 1994). 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-116

Sei Whale. Until recently, no sei whales had been documented off Canada‘s Pacific coast since 

commercial whaling was halted in 1976 (Environment Canada 2006; Williams and Thomas 2007). There 

has, however, been limited survey effort, and sei whales may have been mistaken for fin or minke whales

(Environment Canada 2006). The sei whale population estimate for the N Pacific is approximately 7,000-

13,000 (Tillman 1977). The sei whale has been considered rare in inshore waters of BC as it tends to 

occur off the continental shelf of Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlotte Islands (L-DEO and NSF 

2006a). Historical whaling records and predictive modeling indicate that sei whales fed along Vancouver 

Island during summer (Gregr and Trites 2001; L-DEO and NSF 2006a). Gregr (2002) estimated that no 

sei whales presently inhabit Hecate Strait. However, one sei whale was seen near the southern tip of 

Queen Charlotte Island during 2,400 nm (4,400 km) of systematic small boat surveys conducted in coastal 

waters of BC during summers 2004 and 2005 (Williams and Thomas 2007). 

Fin Whale. Fin whales, although typically associated with offshore waters, were frequently encountered 

by BC whalers for extended periods in the summer and fall in Hecate Strait and in some of the channels 

and inlets on the northern mainland BC coast (Gregr et al. 2000). Fin whales have been sighted 

commonly during summer in the Queen Charlotte Basin, adjacent north-coast mainland inlets, and from 

the tip of Vancouver Island to the southern Queen Charlotte Islands (Gregr and Trites 2001; Charest et al. 

2003; Calambokidis et al. 2003; Williams and Thomas 2007). These sightings encompass the BC QAA. 

Based on historical whaling records, Gregr (2002) estimated that approximately 425 fin whales could 

inhabit Hecate Strait. Based on recent summer surveys during which there were several sightings in the 

area, Williams and Thomas (2007) estimate that 496 fin whales occur in BC coastal waters as a whole 

during summer.

Blue Whale. The blue whale population in BC waters is little known. The rare visual and acoustic 

detections are consistent with the estimate that only approximately 10-50 blue whales presently inhabit 

Hecate Strait based on historical whaling records (Gregr 2002). Two blue whales photo-identified off the 

Queen Charlotte Islands in northern BC in 2003 both matched animals seen off California (Calambokidis 

et al. 2004). Although Williams and Thomas (2007) did not sight any whales during 2,400 nm (4,400 km) 

of systematic small boat surveys conducted in coastal waters of BC during summers 2004 and 2005,

Calambokidis et al. (2009) reported several sightings south of the Queen Charlotte Islands during surveys 

in 2005-2007.

Gray Whale. The E gray whale occurs in the analysis area during the fall. The majority of the 

approximately 17,000 E gray whales pass by the BC coast during their spring and fall migrations to and 

from northern summer feeding grounds and southern winter calving grounds (Table 3.6-1). The periods of 

primary northward and southward migration along the central BC coast are from March to May and from 

November to January, respectively. In general, gray whales are sighted frequently during the spring to fall

period along the entire BC coast including both sides of the Queen Charlotte Islands (L-DEO and NSF 

2006a). The migration route north of Vancouver Island is poorly understood but most gray whales 

probably cross the Queen Charlotte Islands north to Cape St. James, and follow the east and west coasts 

of the Queen Charlotte Islands (Pike 1962), remaining within approximately 3 mi (5 km) of shore. An 

estimated 179 gray whales are known to move freely between N California and southeast Alaska from

April to November (Calambokidis et al. 2002; Calambokidis 2003). There is some evidence that the 

number of gray whales utilizing BC waters during the spring-autumn period, especially cow-calf pairs, is 

increasing (L-DEO and NSF 2006a). However, Williams and Thomas (2007) report very few summer 

sightings, and, for the specific analysis area, data are insufficient (due to low observer effort) to assess the 

spring-autumn distribution and abundance of gray whales. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-117

Minke Whale. Minkes are expected to be common in the analysis area during fall (Table 3.6-4). They 

have never been abundant in BC waters, but are commonly seen in some regions along the coast (L-DEO 

and NSF 2006a). There is little specific information about their distribution in BC waters, but Williams 

and Thomas (2007) reported several sightings and derived a tentative estimate of 388 individuals in BC 

coastal waters. In inshore marine waters of Washington and central California, minke whales are wellstudied and appear to establish home ranges (Dorsey et al. 1990). Minkes appear to occur year-round in 

inland Washington waters (Hoelzel and Stern 2000). This suggests that minke whales may be present 

year-round in BC waters as well.

3.6.3.3 SW Atlantic

Little research has been conducted on mysticetes off the expansive northeast coast of Brazil in the SW 

Atlantic QAA. Based on general distribution information (e.g., Reeves et al. 2002) and limited speciesspecific studies (e.g., Andriolo et al. 2006a, b), seven species and one subspecies of baleen whale are 

known to or may occur at least seasonally in the analysis area. Four of the seven species are listed as 

endangered under the ESA: humpback, sei, fin, and blue whales (Table 3.6-4). The Bryde‘s whale is the 

only mysticete that may occur in the analysis area year-round. The other six baleen whale species are 

presumably seasonal residents during the S hemisphere winter when breeding and calving of S 

hemisphere populations occur (Reeves et al. 2002). 

Humpback Whale. A small number of S hemisphere humpbacks may occur in the SW Atlantic analysis 

area from July through November during the austral winter breeding/calving season; however, the 

analysis area is located approximately 1,550 mi (2,500 km) north of the main breeding aggregations. 

Humpbacks off Brazil generally breed and calf from approximately 4o to 23o S (the analysis area is 

located near 5° N) (Freitas et al. 2004; Zerbini et al. 2004b, 2006; Andriolo et al. 2006a, b); they feed 

during the austral summer in the Antarctic (Moore et al. 1999) and to a lesser extent near South Georgia 

and the South Shetland Islands (Van Blaricom et al. 2005). The total size of the Brazilian breeding 

population is estimated to be approximately 10,160 whales based on line-transect aerial surveys (Andriolo 

et al. 2006b). This stock of humpback whales follows an offshore migration route, roughly southsoutheast from just south of the main wintering area at Abrolhos Bank (approximately 17-18° S) to South 

Georgia (Zerbini et al. 2006). 

Antarctic Minke Whale. The Antarctic minke whale may breed and calve in the SW Atlantic analysis area 

during the austral winter based on its reported general distribution. Although this species is considered a S 

hemisphere species, it is known to cross the equator (Reeves et al. 2002). However, nothing is known 

about its specific distribution or numbers in the analysis area.

Minke, Sei, Fin, Bryde’s, and Blue Whales. The northern range of four mysticete species—the S 

hemisphere minke, sei, fin, and blue whales—includes the tropical waters of the analysis area off 

northeast Brazil from May through November during the austral winter/spring breeding/calving period 

(Reeves et al. 2002). All four species breed in tropical climates and feed at higher S hemisphere latitudes. 

Bryde‘s whale occurs year-round in tropical and subtropical latitudes, and it is likely to be one of the most 

commonly encountered mysticetes based on its general distribution and behavior (Reeves et al. 2002). 

Locations of austral-winter breeding grounds for this species off central-eastern South America are 

uncertain, although it may breed and/or calve in the SW Atlantic analysis area.

3.6.3.4 Mid-Atlantic Ridge

The Mid-Atlantic Ridge QAA is located essentially in the middle of the deep-water ocean at mid-latitude 

near the Trans-Atlantic Geotransect active mound on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (refer to Figure 2-18). Data 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-118

on marine mammal distribution for this remote region are scant. No marine mammals were seen by 

dedicated observers during approximately 620 mi (1,000 km) of observation effort during an NSF-funded 

seismic survey in this region from October to November 2003, including transits to and from the site 

(Holst 2004). However, it has been hypothesized that large baleen whales use the Mid-Atlantic Ridge as a 

migration corridor between low-latitude breeding grounds and high-latitude feeding grounds (Olsen et al. 

2005). The general distribution of six mysticete species overlaps the analysis area. Four of these species 

are listed as endangered under the ESA: humpback, sei, fin, and blue whales (Table 3.6-4). The two 

additional non-ESA-listed species in the area are the minke and Bryde‘s whales. The rare N Atlantic right 

whale has primarily a coastal distribution and is therefore not expected to occur in the analysis area.

Available data are insufficiently detailed to allow meaningful quantitative estimates of species presence 

during a seismic survey in spring, summer, or fall. The limited information suggests that the density of 

mysticetes is low in the region, at least during fall, and is probably associated mainly with whales 

transiting through the area during spring and fall migrations. Low densities may be related to the 

considerable distance from coastlines and shelf-breaks and typically low productivity in deep waters. In 

the oceanic waters of the Atlantic, primary production is relatively low compared to coastal waters 

(Parsons et al. 1977). However, patches of high productivity may occur along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge 

where seamounts are of sufficient topography to be associated with upwelling of nutrients that in turn 

enhance surface chlorophyll, interact with diel migrant zooplankton and consequent patch formation, and 

induct relatively high biomasses of pelagic fish based on general ecological effects associated with 

seamounts (Saltzman and Wishner 1997; Longhurst 2006). Regardless, productivity in the Mid-Atlantic 

QAA is likely lower than in the coastal areas or higher latitudes of the North Atlantic (Parsons et al. 1977; 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2006). High whale density sites located to the north, 

within the Mid-Atlantic ridge, seem to combine favorable topographical features with biologically 

productive waters (Nottestad et al. 2005). Five of the six mysticete species—humpback, minke, sei, fin, 

and blue whales—may use the analysis area in small numbers during spring and fall migration. Summer 

feeding habitat for these species occurs farther north in the Atlantic, and winter breeding habitat 

presumably occurs further south based on available information (e.g., Reeves et al. 2002).

Humpback Whale. Humpback whale migrations between high-latitude summer feeding grounds and lowlatitude winter mating grounds are reasonably well known (Winn and Reichley 1985; Smith et al. 1999). 

Although humpbacks are primarily considered coastal, at least during winter and summer, they traverse 

deep pelagic areas while migrating to and from winter and summer grounds. For example, Bermuda 

(located farther west in deep waters of the North Atlantic) is considered an important area for migrating 

humpbacks. The western North Atlantic population uses Bermuda as a mid-ocean habitat during the 

spring migration where they may feed on the deep-water scattering layer (Stone et al. 1987). Historically, 

humpbacks occurred in Bermuda from February to May, and presently humpback whales mainly occur 

there in April (Stone et al. 1987). It is likely that small numbers of migrating humpback whales may be 

seen in or near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge QAA during the same time of year when they are seen at 

Bermuda.

Minke and Fin Whales. Minke whales occur most often in coastal and shelf areas of the North Atlantic 

but occur in pelagic waters as well; however, migratory patterns are unknown (NAMMCO 2005). Fin 

whales apparently have complex seasonal movements (Gambell 1985a; Jonsgård 1966 in Christensen et 

al. 1992; see Table 3.6-1). In the North Atlantic, they use the shelf edge as a migration route between 

summer feeding areas in high latitudes and southern wintering grounds (Evans 1987). 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-119

Sei Whale. Sei whales are primarily pelagic (Jonsgård 1966; Jonsgård and Darling 1977; Harwood and 

Wilson 2001). However, their current status in the North Atlantic and other areas is uncertain. In 2005, a 

sei whale was satellite tagged and tracked as it migrated north from near the Azores to northern feeding 

grounds. From mid-April to early May 2005, the whale first traveled straight northward then apparently 

started feeding along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge near the Charlie Gibbs Fracture Zone (this fracture zone 

bisects the Mid-Atlantic Ridge near 56°N and extends from approximately 18° to 43°W (in comparison, 

the Mid-Atlantic Ridge QAA is located near 26°N 40°W) (Olsen et al. 2005). Past surveys have shown 

that relatively high densities of sei whales occur in this zone during summer (Olsen et al. 2005). From 

May through June, the sei whale then traveled essentially straight westward to the Labrador Sea, with 

occasional apparent feeding bouts en route. This observation appears to support the theory that baleen 

whales migrate along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (Olsen et al. 2005), and may possibly do so in the analysis 

area as well. 

Bryde’s Whale. In contrast to the other mysticete species, Bryde‘s whales occur year-round in tropical 

pelagic as well as coastal waters, though rarely at latitudes above 35oN or S. In the Atlantic they typically 

inhabit lower-latitude areas with high productivity, such as the Caribbean Sea (Reeves et al. 2002; L-DEO 

and NSF 2003e). However, a small number may feed as well as transit through the analysis area during 

spring, summer, and/or fall. Bryde‘s whales do not undertake the long migrations characteristic of other 

mysticetes, although they may move closer to the equator in winter and toward temperate waters in the 

summer (Best 1975 in Cummings 1985).

3.6.3.5 W India

Data on the current occurrence, distribution, and abundance of mysticetes in the N Indian Ocean 

encompassing the W India QAA are limited. Commercial whaling severely depleted all the large whale 

populations in this region, and subsequently, in 1979, the IWC declared the Indian Ocean north of 55oS 

latitude as a whale sanctuary. A compilation of known research and historical records indicate that six

species potentially occur off W India during the proposed spring or fall study period: humpback, Bryde‘s, 

minke, sei, fin, and blue whales, including the pygmy blue whale subspecies (de Boer et al. 2003; 

Sathasivam 2004; SIO and NSF 2006b). Four are listed as endangered under the ESA (Table 3.6-4). The 

unlisted Bryde‘s and minke whales may also occur off W India, as indicated by broad-scale species 

distribution information and data from the Arabian Sea and Gulf of Oman (Collins et al. 2002; Minton et 

al. 2002; Reeves et al. 2002; Sathasivam 2004; SIO and NSF 2006b). 

At-sea information for mysticetes of the QAA is limited primarily to the humpback, blue, and pygmy blue 

whales. Humpback whales are seen year-round in the Arabian and Red seas, and along with some blue 

whales in the Indian Ocean, do not appear to undertake extensive migrations, probably due to the 

predictable year-round presence of prey (Yochem and Leatherwood 1985; Mikhalev 1997; Sathasivam 

2004; SIO and NSF 2006b). Compared with historical catches, the Antarctic ( ̳true‘) blue subspecies is 

very rare in the Indian Ocean, including in the Arabian Sea and W India analysis area (Sathasivam 2004; 

Branch et al. 2007; SIO and NSF 2006b). In the Indian Ocean, blue whale sighting rates are low everywhere, but highest near Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and south of Madagascar (Branch et al. 2007). The first blue 

whale sighting since the late 1800s was recorded in 1996 with few sightings reported since; eight of these 

whales were seen in the northern equatorial Indian Ocean (Reeves et al. 2002; de Boer et al. 2003; SIO 

and NSF 2006b). Pygmy blue whales are considered more common than the Antarctic subspecies in the 

Indian Ocean (Sathasivam 2004; Branch et al. 2007; SIO and NSF 2006b). Pygmy blue whale 

vocalizations were recorded by Stafford et al. (2005) from two locations in the northern Indian Ocean 

where there are believed to be both resident and migratory populations. In general, blue whales tend to 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-120

avoid oligotrophic central gyres of the Indian Ocean and are more common where high densities of 

phytoplankton occur (Branch et al. 2007). 

Fin whales are considered common in the Indian Ocean as a whole (SIO and NSF 2006b), but 

information from Indian waters is associated mainly with dead and live strandings. At least eight fin 

whale strandings occurred off India from August 1965 to November 1995 (Sathasivam 2004). Some of 

the unidentified rorquals recorded in India also may have been fin whales, and strandings are also known 

from Pakistan and Sri Lanka (Sathasivam 2004; SIO and NSF 2006b). 

3.6.3.6 W Australia

The occurrence and distribution of mysticetes in coastal waters off W Australia is relatively well 

documented, with less known about those in offshore waters. Information comes from historical whaling 

data as well as recent cetacean studies, including those conducted in conjunction with offshore oil and gas 

exploration (e.g., Bannister 1985; Bannister et al. 1996; McCauley et al. 2000a, b; ADEH 2001; Stafford 

et al. 2005). Three of the seven mysticete species that may or are known to migrate through the W 

Australia analysis area during the spring and fall exemplary survey period are listed as endangered under 

the ESA: humpback, sei, and fin whales (Table 3.6-4). The unlisted dwarf minke, Antarctic minke, 

pygmy blue, and Bryde‘s whales may also use the region for migrating and/or feeding during spring and 

fall, although little is known about their numbers (Kasamatsu et al. 1995; Reeves et al. 2002; de Boer et 

al. 2003; Minke Whale Project 2004a). Humpback and Bryde‘s whales are expected to be the most 

common baleen whale species in the analysis area during the exemplary spring or fall survey period based 

on available data (Table 3.6-4). 

Humpback whales commonly migrate northeast through the W Australia analysis area during the austral 

fall on their way to calving/wintering grounds in coastal shallow waters generally east-northeast of the 

analysis area in the Broome/King Sound area. Some individuals overwinter in more southern areas 

including Ningaloo, Shark Bay, Perth, and Cape Leeuwin (McCauley et al. 2000a, b; ADEH 2001; 

Burton 2001; Jenner et al. 2001). During the austral spring, humpbacks again pass through the analysis 

area on their way south to Antarctic summer feeding grounds. The number of humpback whales migrating 

along the W Australian coast was estimated to be approximately 8,200-13,600 animals several years ago, 

and increasing rapidly (Bannister and Hedley 2001). 

The dwarf minke subspecies, Antarctic minke subspecies, sei, fin, Bryde‘s, and pygmy blue whales may 

use the analysis area during fall and spring, although little is known about them in the analysis area 

(ADEH 2001; Reeves et al. 2002; de Boer et al. 2003; Minke Whale Project 2004b). Dwarf minke whales 

were sighted 324-448 nm (600-830 km) offshore of W Australia between 18 and 35°S in late November 

and early December; none were seen in the same area during a repeat survey in late February and March 

(Minke Whale Project 2004b). The only known current blue whale aggregation off W Australia occurs 

much farther south, off southwest Australia (ADEH 2001). However, McCauley and Cato (2003) 

recorded blue whale calls from as far north as Exmouth Gulf during March. Ljungblad et al. (1997) 

recorded pygmy blue whale calls off southwest Australia during December; little is known about this 

subspecies.

3.6.3.7 Marianas

Current published data on baleen whales for the Marianas QAA are scarce, but the U.S. Navy funded a 

systematic baseline survey for cetaceans in this area during winter 2007. Available information suggests 

that six species of mysticetes would potentially occur in this analysis area during the exemplary spring 

seismic survey period (Table 3.6-4) (Reeves et al. 2002; Naval Facilities Engineering Command 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-121

[NAVFAC] Pacific 2007). Four of these, humpback, sei, fin, and blue whales, are listed as endangered 

under the ESA; the minke, Bryde‘s, and Omura‘s whales are unlisted (Table 3.6-4). Use of this tropical 

region during spring coincides with the end of the N hemisphere winter breeding period and the beginning 

of the migration northward to higher latitude feeding grounds. The Bryde‘s whale may also feed there; its 

breeding period is unknown (Reeves et al. 2002). The N Pacific right whale was historically present in the 

northern Bonin Islands located north of the Mariana Islands, but current low population numbers and lack 

of sightings indicate that it is unlikely to occur in the analysis area. In general, existing data are 

inadequate to estimate the abundance of any of these five species in the Marianas analysis area (Table 

3.6-4).

Bryde‘s whales have been heard calling in the western N Pacific and typically occur year-round in 

tropical and/or subtropical waters. Bryde‘s whales are considered the most common baleen whale in the 

Marianas region, typically occurring from May to July and possibly August (Eldredge 2003). They likely 

feed and/or breed in the analysis area. Bryde‘s whales have been sighted near the Marianas during spring

surveys (e.g., NAVFAC Pacific 2007).

Minke whales occur throughout the N Pacific and this species is the most abundant baleen whale 

worldwide; sightings of mothers with calves in tropical waters and acoustic detections of minkes in the 

western N Pacific suggest that they may winter in tropical waters (Reeves et al. 2002; NOAA 2005). 

Thus, small numbers of minkes may use the analysis area in early spring near the end of the breeding 

season. Although no visual records exist of minke whales near the Marianas, minkes were detected 

acoustically during a spring survey in the waters of Guam and the southern CNMI (NAVFAC Pacific 

2007). 

Sei, fin, and blue whale distributions in the western N Pacific are largely unknown, but these species may 

migrate through or breed/calve in the analysis area during spring (Table 3.6-4) (Reeves et al. 2002). Sei 

whale distribution during winter appears to be concentrated near approximately 20° N. Although sei 

whales were generally considered uncommon in the Marianas region, 16 sightings were made during 

spring surveys in the area in 2007 (NAVFAC Pacific 2007). Fin whales migrate in the open ocean but 

breeding areas are uncertain. Recent sightings of blue whales in the western North Pacific are rare; 

however, some are reported to winter near Taiwan, Japan, and Korea, and they have been heard in the 

western N Pacific. No sightings or acoustic detections of fin or blue whales were made near the Marianas 

during spring surveys in 2007 (NAVFAC Pacific 2007).

The western Pacific stock of humpback whales is estimated at 938-1107 (Calambokidis et al. 2008). This 

stock is known to winter and calve in Taiwan and the Mariana, Bonin, Ryukyu, and Ogasawara islands 

(Reeves et al. 2002; Carretta et al. 2005; Calambokidis et al. 2008). In 1988–90, humpbacks were 

commonly sighted from January to May throughout the Ogasawara Archipelago and near the Kerama 

Islands, Okinawa. Humpbacks wintering off the Bonin Islands‘ coast appear to be increasing in number 

and re-occupying habitats used before whaling depleted their numbers in the N Pacific (Yamaguchi et al. 

2005). In spring, humpbacks may be seasonally common in the Marianas at the end of the breeding 

season and during northward migration. At least five sightings of humpback whales from 1978 to 1996 

near Guam, Saipan, or Rota were described in Eldredge (2003). A small number of sightings occurred 

northwest of the Marianas during surveys in February–March 1999–2001 (Shimada and Miyashita 2001). 

Although there were no humpback sightings during the January–April 2007 survey in the waters of Guam 

and the southern Mariana Islands, 11 humpbacks were detected acoustically, in both deep and shallow 

water around and north of Tinian and Saipan (NAVFAC Pacific 2007). In the N Pacific, mothers and 

calves often remain on the breeding grounds into April in the (Smultea 1994; Craig et al. 2002).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-122

3.6.3.8 Sub-Antarctic

The Sub-Antarctic QAA lies within the open ocean in a productive area mid-way between New Zealand 

and southern Chile (refer to Figure 2-18). Few data have been compiled on the presence of marine 

mammals in this remote area during the exemplary survey period during the austral summer. The 

southwest Pacific is thought to support nine mysticete species and two subspecies, five of which are listed 

as endangered under the ESA: S right, humpback, sei, fin, and blue whales (Table 3.6-4). All 11 of these 

species or subspecies may use the Sub-Antarctic analysis area for feeding and/or migration during the 

austral summer.

S Right Whale. Small numbers of feeding S right whales could be present in the analysis area during the 

austral summer. Summer feeding grounds have not been fully characterized for this species, but could 

potentially include the analysis area based on the latitude of known feeding areas in the S hemisphere 

(Reeves et al. 2002). Historic whaling data suggest that this species migrates south past New Zealand 

during the austral spring, arriving in feeding waters near approximately 40°S 140°W by November and 

December (Bannister 2001) (the analysis area is located near approximately 42°S 145°W). Richards 

(2002) noted S right whales moving south and east from the Kermadec Islands beginning in November, 

continuing across 40°S, and reaching 50°S in January. The migration followed the line of the Louisville 

Ridge, where the whales may have fed on copepod and krill populations stimulated by upwelling from the 

ridge (SIO and NSF 2005). 

Pygmy Right Whale. Pygmy right whales are not well described and their feeding, breeding, and 

migration strategies are largely unknown (Reeves et al. 2002). They are known to inhabit coastal and 

pelagic waters (Kemper 2002) in the southern hemisphere between 30°S and 55°S. They are rarely seen at 

sea, but one group (n = 80) was seen in oceanic waters (SIO and NSF 2005). As the reported distribution 

of this subspecies overlaps the Sub-Antarctic analysis area (Reeves et al. 2002), some pygmy right whales 

might also be encountered during a survey there. 

Humpback Whale. Southern hemisphere humpback whales typically feed south of the analysis area near 

60°S during austral summer (December-March) (SIO and NSF 2004, 2005). However, a small number of 

late- or early-migrating whales may pass through the analysis area during early or late austral summer

based on the species‘ typical migration patterns (Reeves et al. 2002). Animals using this region are likely 

part of the Area V stock that breeds in and around French Polynesia, the Cook Islands, and Tonga 

(Chittleborough 1965; Hauser et al. 2000; Garrigue et al. 2002; Olavarría et al. 2003; Gannier 2004). 

Humpbacks that winter off New Caledonia and Tonga are estimated to number only in the few hundreds 

(Baker et al. 1998). 

Blue Whale. Blue whales are the first species of baleen whale to arrive on the Antarctic feeding grounds 

each austral summer, and some probably migrate through the analysis area during early austral summer

(SIO and NSF 2004, 2005). Visual and acoustic surveys conducted by the IWC in Antarctic waters 

recorded 710 blue whale calls in January and 2559 calls in February 2002 (Ljungblad and Stafford 2005). 

Blue whales begin migrating north out of the Antarctic earlier than fin and sei whales, and some likely 

pass through the analysis area again in late austral summer while migrating north to winter breeding 

grounds (SIO and NSF 2004, 2005). 

Fin Whale. Fin whales likely migrate south through the analysis area during early to mid-austral summer, 

arriving on more southern feeding grounds after blue whales. The New Zealand stock summers from 

170°E to 145°W (SIO and NSF 2004, 2005). Fin whales migrate north through the exemplary survey area 

before the end of austral summer toward breeding grounds in and around the Fiji Sea (Gambell 1985a). 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-123

Sei Whale. Sei whales are the last mysticete whales to arrive in the S Ocean during the austral summer 

(SIO and NSF 2004, 2005). Their main summer feeding concentration occurs between 40°S and 50°S 

(Gambell 1985b), putting them well within the analysis area during austral summer. 

Antarctic Minke Whale. These whales begin their southern migration from breeding grounds north of the 

analysis area in November (austral spring), and arrive in Antarctic feeding grounds by early summer 

(January) (Kasamatsu et. al. 1995). A few are probably still migrating south through the analysis area in 

early summer. By February, some begin migrating north and are likely to pass through the analysis area 

again during mid- to-late summer.

Bryde’s, Dwarf Minke, and Pygmy Blue Whales. The Bryde‘s, dwarf minke, and pygmy blue whales 

typically do not migrate as far south as other baleen whales in the S hemisphere (Reeves et al. 2002). 

These species may feed in the analysis area during the exemplary austral summer survey period. 

However, relatively little is known about the abundance or specific distribution of these species: Bryde‘s 

whales, given their general abundance, are likely to be common throughout the analysis area, with denser 

concentrations to the northeast and northwest (Kato 2002). The dwarf minke whale‘s range, although not 

well defined, covers 11°S to 65°S (Reeves et al. 2002), overlapping that of the Antarctic minke and the 

analysis area. Pygmy blue whales have a more northerly distribution than true blue whales and are thus 

more likely to be seen in the analysis area, although their total population size is believed to be low 

(Reeves et al. 2002; SIO and NSF 2005).

3.6.4 Environmental Consequences – General

The following sections provide a synopsis of the potential effects on mysticetes from sounds and 

activities associated with seismic survey operations. In comparison with what is known about seismic 

survey effects on other marine animals, considerable information is available on the effects of airguns on 

a number of mysticete species. For the purpose of this analysis, project effects are assessed at two levels: 

(1) the individual level and (2) the population level. Prior to discussing potential effects, the criteria used 

to assess effects are described. This is followed by a comparison of the overlap between the sound 

frequencies of acoustic sources used in seismic surveys with presumed mysticete hearing sensitivity 

(Section 3.6.1.5 and Table 3.6-2). Acoustic and non-acoustic effects are then described.

3.6.4.1 Criteria and Approach

The criteria used to evaluate and quantify the potential effects on mysticetes were described in detail in 

Section 2.3.3 (see also Appendix B). In this analysis, the received sound levels at which Level B 

behavioral effects and Level A PTS, injury, or mortality could potentially occur as a result of the 

exemplary seismic research operations are based on two approaches (see Section 1.6.3 for the definitions 

of Level A and B effects). The first is to use the traditional sound exposure criteria identified by NMFS 

and applied during past NSF-sponsored cruises. These 'current criteria' use the sound pressure 

measurement unit of dB re 1 μPa (rms) and are referred to as pressure criteria (Table 2-7). These criteria 

were identified by NMFS before there was any specific information about the received levels of 

underwater sound that would cause temporary or permanent hearing impairment in marine mammals. 

However, since that time, new information has become available, including results of the deliberations of 

a noise criteria group, which has developed recommended acoustic injury criteria consistent with current 

scientific knowledge (Southall et al. 2007; see also Section 2.3.3). The second approach is based on these 

more recent data. These 'proposed criteria' are based mainly on cumulative acoustic energy (in SEL units), 

and are referred to herein as the energy criteria. (The noise criteria group also recommends a ―do not 

exceed‖ peak pressure criterion, but, under field conditions, the SEL criterion is the one that would be 

exceeded first and thus would be the operative criterion.) In applying the new energy-based (SEL) 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-124

criteria, both flat (unweighted) and M-weighting (see Section 2.3.3.3) were used. The M-weighting 

approach had the effect of down-weighting sound components at frequencies to which the mammals in 

question are considered less sensitive (Southall et al. 2007). The two approaches, as applied to mysticetes 

and to other groups of marine mammals, are described in more detail in Section 2.3.3 and Appendix B.

Acoustic modeling was then performed for the DAAs to provide a quantitative method of simulating and 

estimating the numbers of mysticetes by species or group that might be exposed to sounds at or above the 

threshold criteria (refer to Section 2.3.3 and Appendix B for detailed descriptions of the acoustic 

modeling approach and methodology). These estimates are based on the best available population 

densities for the analysis areas of interest as well as the modeled received sound levels around the 

operating airguns, taking account of empirical oceanographic, bathymetric, and bottom-property data 

available for each DAA. The modeling work, including both (1) physical acoustic modeling to predict the 

sound field and (2) prediction of numbers of mammals that might be exposed to specified sounds, is 

presented in Appendix B. 

The DAAs and QAAs and their respective assumed seismic surveys are meant to represent a realistic mix 

of locations, seasons, and seismic operations rather than actual planned, site- and season-specific seismic 

surveys (see Chapters 1 and 2). The exposure estimates resulting from modeling conducted for the DAAs 

provide a general indication of the types and numbers of marine mammals that could be exposed to 

various levels of sound during operations with the various airgun array sizes (see Section 1.5). Rather 

than numerical modeling, analysis of the QAAs involves qualitatively estimating the relative numbers of 

mysticetes in the QAAs that could potentially be exposed to seismic survey acoustic sources. The QAAs 

are included to expand upon the representative sample of potential seismic surveys by qualitatively 

considering additional combinations of location, season, and airgun array configuration. 

There have been no direct studies on the hearing capabilities of mysticetes (Section 3.6.1.5 and Table 

3.6-2). Thus, our understanding of mysticete hearing sensitivity is based on their auditory anatomy, the 

sounds to which they are known to respond, and the characteristics of their calls: they are presumed to be 

capable of hearing sounds they produce (but may also hear a wider range of frequencies). The available

information indicates that the mysticete auditory system is sensitive to the predominantly low-frequency 

energy produced by the airguns and the vessels associated with the seismic research surveys as

summarized below. Blue and fin whales, in particular, are presumably capable of hearing very lowfrequency components of airguns and vessels because the sounds that these species produce are of similar 

very low frequency, more so than most other mysticete species. The potential sensitivity of mysticetes to 

the mid- to high-frequency SBPs, the higher frequency MBESs, and pingers is believed to be more 

variable and generally less sensitive among species.

3.6.4.2 Sound Sources and Characteristics

To assess potential effects of project sound sources on mysticetes, it is important to identify any overlap 

in their acoustic characteristics with those of the acoustic sources that would be used during the seismic 

surveys. We assume that mysticetes can detect project sources whose sounds overlap in frequency with 

those produced by mysticetes. In addition, they may hear some sounds at lower or higher frequencies. It is 

also plausible that a mysticete could potentially be harmed by the sound energy (if exposed to high 

enough levels for a sufficient period) even if the sound‘s frequencies are outside the hearing sensitivity 

range of the animal (see Section 3.6.4.3). The degree of overlap between the frequencies produced by the 

airguns, general MBES, SBPs, pingers, and project vessels and (on the other hand) the calls and auditory 

sensitivity of mysticetes is described below (also see Table 3.6-2). 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-125

Mysticetes are considered most sensitive to low-frequency sounds (Richardson et al. 1995a; Southall et al. 

2007). However, the frequency range over which mysticetes as a group are believed to hear sounds is 

approximately 7 Hz to 22 kHz (Table 3.6-2) (Richardson et al. 1995a; Southall et al. 2007). 

The airguns and airgun arrays have dominant frequency components of 2-188 Hz. This frequency range 

broadly overlaps the lower part of the frequency range of mysticete calls (see Table 3.6-2). Airguns also 

produce a small proportion of their sound at mid- and high frequencies, although at progressively lower 

levels with increasing frequency (see Chapter 2 and Appendix E). In general, most of the energy in the 

sound pulses emitted by airgun arrays is at low frequencies, with strongest spectrum levels below 200 Hz, 

considerably lower spectrum levels above 1000 Hz, and smaller amounts of energy emitted up to 

approximately 150 kHz (Goold and Fish 1998; Sodal 1999; Goold and Coates 2006; Potter et al. 2007) 

(Appendix E). These frequencies overlap all frequencies produced by mysticetes. Sounds from the project 

airguns would be high enough to be detected by mysticetes out to tens of miles or more. Furthermore, the 

pulsed sounds associated with seismic exploration have higher peak levels than most other anthropogenic 

sounds to which marine animals are routinely exposed (Richardson et al. 1995a). 

The MBES proposed for the Langseth is the Kongsberg EM122 which operates at frequencies of 

approximately 10.5-13 (usually 12) kHz with a maximum source level of approximately 242 dB re 1 μPam (rms) (Table 2-5). Four other MBESs proposed for other project vessels, the Sunbeam 200 and 

2100/12, and the Krupp-Atlas HydroSweep DS, also operate near this range (12-15.5 kHz), with 

maximum source levels of approximately 234 to 237 dB re 1 μPa-m (rms). These frequency ranges

overlap the known or suspected frequency sensitivity range of all mysticetes. The other two MBESs 

proposed for use on project vessels operate at 30 and 95 kHz. The 30-kHz MBES is very likely outside 

the frequency range audible to any mysticete, and the 95 kHz MBES is far outside the functional hearing 

range (Southall et al. 2007). 

The SBPs associated with the proposed marine seismic activities operate in the MF range of

approximately 2.5–7 kHz with a maximum source output of 204 dB re 1 μPa-m (rms). The frequency 

range of the SBP is within the known or suspected frequency band audible to all mysticete species.

Omnidirectional pingers would also be used during proposed marine seismic surveys (see Chapter 2). A 

total of 32 omnidirectional pingers will be used for multi-streamer 3-D surveys: seven on each streamer 

and one on each source array string. Their peak output is 183 dB re 1 μPa-m at 55-110 kHz, with a 

maximum rate of 3 pings per 10 sec; the transducers are powered by NiCad batteries. Sounds from these 

pingers are well above and outside the known hearing range of mysticetes (maximum 23 kHz) (Table 

3.6-2). In addition, during coring, battery-powered pingers operating at lower frequency will be mounted 

on coring mechanisms as acoustic location beacons. These pingers produce omnidirectional 12-kHz 

signals with a source output of approximately 192 dB re 1 μPa-m with one ping of 0.5, 2, or 10 ms 

duration per second. The source frequency is within the frequency range audible to at least some 

mysticetes (Table 3.6-2).

Ship engines and the vessel hull itself also emit sounds into the marine environment (reviewed in 

Richardson et al. 1995a; NRC 2003a). These broadband sounds have frequencies and amplitudes that 

would allow them to be heard by mysticetes. The source level of vessel sound would be considerably less 

than that of the airguns, MBESs, and SBPs, but vessel sound (unlike those other sources) would be 

emitted continuously (Richardson et al. 1995a). Possible effects of vessel sound on mysticetes are 

variable. Vessel sound can cause behavioral disturbance in at least some individuals and species

(Richardson et al. 1995a). However, the occurrence and nature of responses are variable, depending on 

species, location, whale activity, novelty of the sound, vessel ―behavior‖, and habitat, among many other
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-126

factors (reviewed in Richardson et al. 1995a; Wartzok et al. 2004; see also Appendix E). Further, vessel 

sounds would not be at levels expected to cause anything more than possible localized and temporary 

behavioral changes (Richardson et al. 1995a). In addition, in all oceans of the world, large vessel traffic is 

currently so prevalent that it is commonly considered a usual source of ambient sound (McDonald et al. 

2006). Based on the above, potential effects of vessel sound on mysticetes are considered to be short-term 

(i.e., minutes) and behavioral in nature and are not further discussed in detail in this document (see review 

in Appendix E).

In summary, mysticetes can presumably detect acoustic impulses from airguns and vessel sounds

(Richardson et al. 1995a). The SBPs and coring pingers, and most of the MBESs, would likely be 

detectable by some mysticetes based on presumed mysticete hearing sensitivity. This assumption is based 

only on what is known about their sound production characteristics (Table 3.6-2) and ear structure

(Richardson et al. 1995a; Southall et al. 2007). 

Types of potential effects from the aforementioned sound sources on mysticetes are described below and 

summarized in Table 3.6-5. For more detailed information, refer to Appendix E. In general, the potential 

for adverse effects can be reduced by implementing a mitigation and monitoring program. With effective 

mitigation, the potential for temporary or permanent adverse effects to mysticete populations through

exposure to project sound sources is considered insignificant for all the proposed sound sources. While 

short-term behavioral effects are expected during exemplary seismic survey operations, no adverse effects 

are expected on the viability of any mysticete population. 

3.6.4.3 Acoustic Effects

The following sections discuss the types of potential acoustic effects that may occur to mysticetes 

exposed to seismic sounds, MF- and HF-sonar from echosounders and pingers, and other anthropogenic 

sounds relevant to the proposed action based on the limited available data. Further discussion of these

topics is found in Appendix E.

Masking

Masking is defined as the obscuring of sounds of interest by interfering sounds, generally at similar 

frequencies. Introduced underwater sound will reduce (i.e., mask) the effective communication distance 

of a marine mammal species if the frequency of the source is close to that used as a signal by the marine 

mammal, and if the anthropogenic sound is present for a significant fraction of the time (Richardson et al. 

1995a). If little or no overlap occurs between the introduced sound and the frequencies used by the 

species, communication is not expected to be disrupted. Also, if the introduced sound is present only 

infrequently, communication is not expected to be disrupted much if at all. In general, most energy in 

sound pulses emitted by airgun arrays is at low frequencies. Among marine mammals, baleen whales are 

considered particularly vulnerable to masking by industrial sounds as they use low-frequency sound and 

communicate over great distances (Simmonds et al. 2006). However, the duty cycle of airguns is low. In 

most situations, high-level airgun sound will only be received for a brief period (<1 sec), with these sound 

pulses being separated by at least several seconds of relative silence. A single airgun array might cause 

appreciable masking in only one situation: when propagation conditions are such that sound from each 

airgun pulse reverberates strongly and persists for much or all of the interval up to the next airgun pulse.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-127

Table 3.6-5. Summary of Known and Anticipated Effects of Seismic Surveys on Mysticetes*

Species or 

Groups** Masking Disturbance TTS

Injury

or PTS

Other Physiological

Effects Comments

Balaenidae

and 

Neobalaenid

ae spp. –

Right whale 

(N Atlantic, 

N Pacific),

Pygmy right 

whale,

Bowhead 

whale

N Atlantic right whales shift 

call frequencies in response 

to strong vessel sounds 

(Parks et al. 2007); 

Bowheads heard calling 

between seismic pulses 

(Richardson et al. 1986; 

Greene et al. 1999a, b), but 

call rates are reduced 

(Greene et al. 1999a, b; 

Blackwell et al. 2009a, b; 

Koski et al. 2009; Nations 

2009).

Temporary behavioral changes and/or

avoidance likely upon receipt of airgun 

sounds at levels <160-170 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms)(see text); some balaenopterids 

show little or no displacement during 

seismic operations (Stone 2003; Moulton 

and Miller 2005); Bowheads show strong 

avoidance at received levels of 120-130

dB during migration (Miller et al. 1999; 

Richardson et al. 1999; Manly et al. 

2007); Bowheads more tolerant of 

seismic survey sound during feeding than 

during migration (Richardson et al. 1986; 

Miller et al. 2005; Christi et al. 2009; 

Koski et al. 2009).

Not likely—Balaenidae

and other mysticetes 

typically avoid seismic 

vessels (Richardson et 

al. 1995a); no specific 

data on TTS thresholds 

in mysticetes; auditory 

thresholds of mysticetes 

within their frequency 

band of best hearing 

believed higher (less 

sensitive) than for 

odontocetes at their best 

frequencies (Clark and 

Ellison 2004). TTS 

threshold likely >183 dB 

re (1 μPa)2-sec SEL 

(Southall et al. 2007).

Not likely—

Balaenidae

and other 

mysticetes 

typically 

avoid 

seismic 

vessels 

(Richardson 

et al. 1995a); 

no specific 

data on PTS 

thresholds in 

mysticetes

but likely 

>198 dB re 

(1 μPa)2-sec 

SEL 

(Southall et 

al. 2007).

Auditory impairment or 

other non-auditory 

physical effects potentially 

limited to short distances 

and unlikely—mysticetes 

typically avoid seismic 

vessels (Richardson et al. 

1995a); Right whales 

possibly risk oil ingestion 

if spill, due to restricted 

feeding areas (e.g., bays); 

risk of ship strikes and 

entanglement in seismic 

gear for slow-moving 

species unlikely due to 

slow speed of seismic 

vessels and monitoring 

efforts.

NMFS Level B 

behavioral 

changes likely; 

Level A injury 

not expected 

due to 

behavioral 

avoidance (and 

implementation 

of proposed 

mitigation 

measures). 

Prolonged or 

populationlevel effects not 

likely.

E Pacific 

gray whale

Increase in call rates and 

change in call structure 

noted in response to small 

boat engine noise 

(Dahlheim 1987).

Temporary avoidance, displacement and 

cessation of feeding shown at 3 km from 

source upon receipt of high level sounds 

near 170 dB re 1 μPa (rms) (Malme and 

Miles 1985; Malme et al. 1986, 1988; 

Johnson 2002; Weller et al. 2002, 2006; 

Gailey et al. 2007; Johnson et al. 2007; 

Yazvenko et al. 2007a, b).

See Balaenidae above.

See 

Balaenidae 

above.

Auditory impairment or 

other non-auditory 

physical effects limited to 

short distances and 

unlikely – mysticetes 

typically avoid seismic 

vessels (Richardson et al. 

1995a).

See Balaenidae 

above.

Humpback 

whale

Limited possible effects 

based on other mysticete 

species (see above).

Temporary avoidance by pods with 

females at mean received levels of 140 

dB re 1 μPa (rms), but some males 

approached within 179 dB (McCauley et 

al. 1998); avoidance reaction greater for 

cow-calf pairs than traveling pods 

(McCauley et al. 1998, 2000a). No 

avoidance in some surveys (Malme et al. 

1985; Mobley 2005).

See Balaenidae above.

See 

Balaenidae

above.

See E Pacific gray whale 

above.

See Balaenidae 

above.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-128

Table 3.6-5. Summary of Known and Anticipated Effects of Seismic Surveys on Mysticetes*

Species or 

Groups** Masking Disturbance TTS

Injury

or PTS

Other Physiological

Effects Comments

Minke whale 

Limited possible effects 

based on other mysticete 

species (see above).

Off U.K., all baleen whales (including 

minkes) tended to remain significantly 

further from active airguns than in quiet 

periods (Stone and Tasker 2006). Some 

individuals showed little or no avoidance 

during seismic operations (Stone 2003; 

Moulton and Miller 2005; Moulton et al. 

2005, 2006a, b); individual minkes 

occasionally approached airgun array to 

near 170-180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) 

(MacLean and Haley 2004).

See Balaenidae above.

See 

Balaenidae 

above.

See E Pacific gray whale 

above.

See Balaenidae 

above.

Bryde‘s 

whale,

Sei whale

Limited possible effects 

based on other mysticete 

species (see above).

Temporary avoidance or displacement 

per other mysticete results (e.g., see 

minke and humpback); no data on 

Bryde‘s whales reactions; sei whales less 

likely to remain submerged during 

seismic shooting (Stone 2003). Off U.K., 

all baleen whales (including sei) tended 

to remain significantly further from 

active airguns than during quiet periods 

(Stone and Tasker 2006).

See Balaenidae above.

See 

Balaenidae

above.

See E Pacific gray whale 

above.

See Balaenidae 

above.

Fin whale

Called between seismic 

pulses (McDonald et al. 

1995). Ceased calling 

during pulsed pile-driving 

noise (Borsani et al. 2005). 

Limited possible effects per

other mysticete species (see 

above).

Fin whales less likely to remain 

submerged during seismic shooting 

(Stone 2003); Off U.K., all baleen whales 

(including fins) remained significantly 

further from active airguns than during

quiet periods (Stone and Tasker 2006).

See Balaenidae above.

See 

Balaenidae

above.

See E Pacific gray whale 

above.

See Balaenidae 

above.

Blue whale

Called between seismic 

pulses (McDonald et al. 

1995; Dunn and Hernandez 

2009). Limited possible 

effects per other mysticete 

species (see above).

See minke whale above. Off U.K., all 

baleen whales (including blues) remained 

significantly further from active airguns 

than during quiet periods (Stone and 

Tasker 2006).

See Balaenidae above.

See 

Balaenidae

above.

See E Pacific gray whale 

above.

See Balaenidae 

above.

*See text and Appendix E for summary of documented effects of MBES, SBP, and pingers on mysticetes.

**bold = ESA-listed species.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-129

Studies of the effects of masking of cetacean sounds by anthropogenic noise, particularly seismic sounds, 

are limited and results are variable (summarized in Table 3.6-5 and Appendix E). However, masking of 

marine mammal calls and other natural sounds by pulsed sounds (even from large arrays of airguns) is

expected to be limited. Some whales continue calling in the presence of seismic pulses (reviewed in 

Appendix E). The airgun sounds are pulsed, with quiet periods between pulses, and whale calls often can 

be heard between the seismic pulses (e.g., Richardson et al. 1986; McDonald et al. 1995; Greene et al. 

1999a, b; Nieukirk et al. 2004; Smultea et al. 2004; Holst et al. 2006). Masking effects in general are 

discussed further in Appendix E.

Marine mammal communications would not be masked appreciably by MBES or pinger signals given 

their low duty cycle, the brief period when an individual mammal would potentially be within the MBES

beam, and the relatively low source level of a pinger. Furthermore, in the case of mysticetes, both of these 

signal types are predominantly or entirely at frequencies (>11 kHz) higher than the predominant frequencies 

in mysticete calls, significantly reducing any potential for masking. Similarly, mysticete communications 

would not be masked appreciably by the SBP signals given their downward directionality and the brief period 

when an individual mammal is likely to be within the SBP beam. 

Disturbance

Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle to conspicuous changes in behavior, movement, 

and displacement. Based on NMFS (2001b:9293) and NRC (2005), simple exposure to sound, or brief 

reactions that do not disrupt behavioral patterns in a potentially significant manner, do not constitute 

harassment or ―taking‖ (see Sections 1.6.3 and 1.6.4). In this analysis, we interpret ―potentially 

significant‖ to mean in a manner that might have deleterious effects on the well-being of individual 

marine mammals or their populations. 

Reactions to sound, if any, depend on the species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, 

reproductive state, time of day, and many other factors (Richardson et al. 1995a; Wartzok et al. 2004; 

Southall et al. 2007). If a marine mammal reacts briefly to an underwater sound by changing its behavior 

or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let 

alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important 

feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on the animals could be significant. Given the 

many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts of sound on marine mammals, it is 

common practice to estimate how many mammals would be present within a particular distance of 

industrial activities and exposed to a particular level of industrial sound. This approach likely 

overestimates the numbers of marine mammals that would be affected in some biologically significant

manner. One of the reasons for this is that the selected distances/isopleths are based on limited studies 

indicating that some animals reacted at a particular distance or sound level, whereas the calculation 

assumes that all animals exposed to this level would react in a biologically significant manner (reviewed 

in Appendix E).

The sound criteria used to estimate how many mysticetes might be disturbed to some biologically

significant degree by seismic survey activities are primarily based on observed reactions of humpback, 

gray, and bowhead whales to seismic surveys (see Table 3.6-5 and Appendix E). Information is limited or 

lacking for other mysticete species including N Atlantic and N Pacific right, Bryde‘s, sei, minke, fin, and 

blue whales (see Table 3.6-5). 

Baleen whales generally tend to avoid operating airguns, but avoidance radii are quite variable among 

species, locations, whale activities, oceanographic conditions affecting sound propagation, etc. (reviewed 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-130

in Richardson et al. [1995a] and Appendices B and E). Whales are often reported to show no overt 

reactions to pulses from large arrays of airguns at distances beyond a few kilometers, even though the 

airgun pulses remain well above ambient sound levels out to much longer distances. However, baleen 

whales exposed to high-level sound pulses from airguns often react by deviating from their normal 

migration route and/or interrupting their feeding and moving away (reviewed in Appendix E). Strong 

avoidance reactions by several species of mysticetes to seismic vessels have been observed at ranges up to 

3.2-4.3 nm (6-8 km) and occasionally as far as 10.8-16.2 nm (20-30 km) from the source vessel when 

large arrays of airguns were used (Table 3.6-5 and Appendix E). For migrating gray and bowhead whales, 

the observed changes in behavior appeared to be of little or no biological consequence to the animals. 

They simply avoided the sound source by displacing their migration route to varying degrees, but within 

the natural boundaries of the migration corridors (Table 3.6-5 and Appendix E).

Studies of gray, bowhead, and humpback whales have shown that seismic pulses with received levels of

160-170 dB re 1 Pa (rms) seem to cause obvious avoidance behavior in a substantial portion of the 

animals exposed (Appendix E). In many areas, seismic pulses from large arrays of airguns diminish to 

those received levels at distances ranging from 2.4-7.8 nm (4.5-14.5 km) from the source. A substantial 

proportion of the baleen whales within those distances may show avoidance or other strong disturbance 

reactions to the airgun array. Subtle behavioral changes sometimes become evident at somewhat lower 

received levels, and studies summarized in Appendix E have shown that some baleen whale species

(notably bowhead and humpback whales), at times show strong avoidance at received levels lower than 

160-170 dB re 1 μPa (rms).

Responses of humpback whales to seismic surveys have been studied during migration and on the 

summer feeding grounds, and there has also been discussion of effects on the Brazilian wintering 

grounds. During migration off W Australia, McCauley et al. (1998, 2000a) found localized displacement 

by humpback whales during airgun operations that varied with pod composition, behavior, and received 

sound levels (see Appendix E). These studies used a 16-airgun 2,678-in3seismic array and a single 20-in3

airgun with source level 227 dB re 1 Pa-1·m (peak-peak). Avoidance reactions (course and speed 

changes) began at 2.2-2.7 nm (4-5 km) from the full-scale seismic array for traveling pods, with standoff

distances at 1.6-2.2 nm (3-4 km) at an estimated received level of 157-164 dB re 1 μPa (rms) (McCauley 

et al. 1998, 2000a). More sensitive resting pods (cow-calf) exhibited a stand-off range of 3.8-6.5 nm (7-12 

km) (McCauley et al. 1998, 2000a). Avoidance distances with respect to the single airgun were smaller 

but consistent with the results from the full array in terms of the received sound levels. The mean received 

level for avoidance was 140 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for humpback pods containing females, and the mean 

stand-off range occurred at 143 dB re 1 μPa (rms). Some individual humpback whales, especially males, 

approached to within 328-1,312 ft (100–400 m) of the source, where the maximum received level was 

179 dB re 1 μPa (rms). In summary, the McCauley et al. (1998, 2000a, b) studies show evidence of 

greater avoidance of seismic airgun sounds by pods with females (it was unknown in the study whether 

they were pregnant) than other pods during humpback migration off W Australia. 

Humpback whales on their summer feeding grounds in southeast Alaska did not exhibit persistent 

avoidance when exposed to seismic pulses from a 100-in3airgun (Malme et al. 1985). Some humpbacks 

seemed ―startled‖ at received levels of 150-169 dB re 1 Pa (rms). Malme et al. (1985) concluded that 

there was no clear evidence of avoidance, despite the possibility of subtle effects, at received levels up to 

172 dB re 1 Pa (rms). 

Among wintering humpback whales off Angola (n=52 useable groups), there were no significant 

differences in encounter rates (sightings/hr) when a 24-airgun array (3,147 in3or 5,085 in3) was operating 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-131

vs. silent (Weir 2008). There was also no significant difference in the mean CPA distance of the 

humpback sightings when airguns were on vs. off (1.6 nm [3.0 km] vs. 1.5 nm [2.7 km], respectively). 

Engel et al. (2004) suggested that South Atlantic humpback whales wintering off Brazil may be displaced 

or even strand upon exposure to seismic surveys. However, the evidence for this was circumstantial, 

subject to alternative explanations (International Association of Geophysical Contractors [IAGC] 2004), 

and inconsistent with results from direct studies of humpbacks exposed to seismic surveys in other areas 

and seasons. After allowance for data from subsequent years, there was ―no observable direct correlation‖ 

between strandings and seismic surveys (IWC 2007). 

Responsiveness of bowhead whales to seismic surveys can be quite variable depending on their activity 

(migrating vs. feeding). Bowhead whales migrating west across the Alaskan Beaufort Sea in autumn, in 

particular, are unusually responsive, with substantial avoidance occurring out to distances of 11-16 nm 

(20-30 km) from a medium-sized airgun source at received sound levels of around 120-130 dB re 1 Pa 

(rms) (Miller et al. 1999; Richardson et al. 1999; Manly et al. 2007; see also Appendix E). However, 

bowheads are not as sensitive to seismic sources during the summer feeding season and they typically 

begin to show avoidance reactions at a received level of about 160-170 dB re 1 Pa (rms) (Richardson et 

al. 1986; Ljungblad et al. 1988; Miller et al. 2005; Christie et al. 2009; Koski et al. 2009). There are no 

data on reactions of wintering bowhead whales to seismic surveys.

Reactions of migrating and feeding (but not wintering) gray whales to seismic surveys have been studied. 

In the N Bering Sea, Malme et al. (1986, 1988) estimated, based on small sample sizes, that 50% of E 

Pacific gray whales stopped feeding in response to pulses from a single 100-in3airgun at an average 

received level of 173 dB re 1 Pa (rms). Another 10% interrupted feeding at received levels of 163 dB re 

1 Pa (rms). These findings were generally consistent with studies on larger numbers of gray whales 

migrating off California (Malme et al. 1984; Malme and Miles 1985) and on W Pacific gray whales 

feeding off Sakhalin Island, Russia (Gailey et al. 2007; Johnson 2007; Yazvenko et al. 2007a, b), along 

with a few data on gray whales off British Columbia (Bain and Williams 2006). 

Blue, sei, fin, and minke whales (all of which are members of the genus Balaenoptera) have sometimes 

been seen in areas ensonified by airgun pulses (Stone 2003; MacLean and Haley 2004; Stone and Tasker 

2006), and calls from blue and fin whales have been localized in areas with airgun operations (e.g., 

McDonald et al. 1995; Dunn and Hernandez 2009). At times of good sightability, numbers of rorquals 

seen from seismic vessels off the U.K. during periods when seismic airguns are operating are similar to 

numbers seen when airguns are silent (Stone 2003; Stone and Tasker 2006). However, based on 

observations during 201 seismic surveys off the U.K., all baleen whales (combined, mostly Balaenoptera 

spp.) tended to exhibit localized avoidance, remaining significantly further (on average) from the airguns 

during seismic operations compared with non-seismic periods (Stone and Tasker 2006). Off Nova Scotia, 

Moulton and Miller (2005) found little or no difference in sighting rates and initial sighting distances of 

balaenopterid whales when airguns were operating vs. silent. However, there were indications that these 

whales were more likely to be moving away when seen during airgun operations. Similarly, ship-based 

monitoring studies of blue, fin, sei, and minke whales offshore of Newfoundland found no more than 

small differences in sighting rates and swim directions during seismic vs. non-seismic periods (Moulton 

et al. 2005; 2006 a, b). Minke whales have occasionally been observed to approach active airgun arrays 

where received sound levels were estimated to be near 170-180 dB re 1 μPa (MacLean and Haley 2004).

In the SE Caribbean, the closest CPA of Bryde‘s/unidentified whales to a seismic vessel towing a large 

airgun array (20 Bolt airguns, total volume 6947 in3) tended to be closer during non-seismic periods 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-132

(mean 4,537 ft [1,383 m]) vs. seismic periods (mean 7,185 ft [2,190 m]), although the sample size was 

small (n=9).

Data on short-term reactions (or lack of reactions) by cetaceans to impulsive sounds are not necessarily 

indicative of long-term effects. It is unknown whether impulsive sounds affect reproductive rate or 

distribution and habitat use in subsequent days or years. However, gray whales have continued to migrate 

annually along the west coast of North America with substantial increases in the population over recent 

years (Appendix A in Malme et al. 1984; Angliss and Outlaw 2005), despite intermittent seismic 

exploration and much ship traffic in that area for decades. Similarly, bowhead whales have continued to 

travel to the eastern Beaufort Sea each summer, and their numbers have increased notably despite seismic 

exploration in their summer and autumn range for many years (Richardson et al. 1987; Angliss and Outlaw 

2005). In any event, the brief exposures to sound pulses from the proposed airgun sources are unlikely to 

result in prolonged effects.

Relatively few studies have been conducted on responses of mysticetes to MF and HF echosounders or 

pingers similar to the MBES and SBP echosounders, and pingers proposed for the project (reviewed in 

Appendix E). Available studies indicate that reactions appear to vary by species and circumstance

(Appendix E). Whaling catcher boats reported that baleen whales showed strong avoidance of sonar that 

was sometimes used to track them underwater (Ash 1962; Richardson et al. 1995a). ―Ultrasonic‖ pulses 

emitted by ―whale scarers‖ during whaling operations tended to scare baleen whales to the surface (Reeves 

1992; Richardson et al. 1995a). During exposure to a 21-25 kHz whale-finding sonar with a source level of 

215 dB re 1 μPa-m, gray whales showed slight avoidance behavior at a distance of approximately 656 ft 

(200 m) (Frankel 2005). Humpback whales wintering in Hawaii moved away from 3.3 kHz sonar sounds, 

and increased their swimming speeds and track linearity in response to 3.1- to 3.6-kHz sonar sweeps 

(Maybaum 1990, 1993). No reactions were noted by right, humpback, and fin whales to pingers and sonars 

at and above 36 kHz, although these species often reacted to sounds at frequencies of 15 Hz to 28 kHz 

(Watkins 1986). 

During the proposed marine seismic surveys, the pings from the MBES, SBP, and pingers would be very 

short (<1-64 ms) (Table 2-5). Thus, a given mammal would not receive many of the downward-directed 

MBES or SBP pings as the vessel passes by. Pingers are not directional, but given their lower source levels 

and the approximately 3-sec spacing between pings, a whale would not be exposed long if at all to any highlevel pings. In the case of the MBESs that operate at 30 kHz or higher, their operating frequencies are too 

high to have any effects on mysticete behavior. During a recent low-energy seismic survey from the R/V 

Thompson, the EM300 MBES, which operates at 30 kHz, operated most of the time, and many cetaceans 

were seen by PSVOs from aboard the ship (Ireland et al. 2005). 

Sounds from an SBP are at a somewhat lower level than those from a MBES, and those from the coring 

pingers are even weaker (see Section 2.4.3). Therefore, behavioral responses are not expected unless 

marine mammals are very close to the source. Also, NMFS (2001b) has concluded that momentary 

behavioral reactions ―do not rise to the level of taking‖ (see Sections 1.6.3 and 1.6.4). Thus, brief 

exposure of cetaceans to small numbers of signals from the SBP, MBES, or to pingers on coring 

equipment, would not result in a ―take‖ by harassment as defined above by NMFS (see Chapter 2), even if 

a brief reaction did occur.

Temporary Hearing Impairment

Temporary hearing impairment or TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during 

exposure to a strong or high-level sound (Kryter 1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold 

rises, and a sound must be stronger in order to be heard. At least in terrestrial mammals, TTS can last 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-133

from minutes or hours to (in cases of strong TTS) days. For sound exposures at or somewhat above the 

TTS threshold, hearing sensitivity of both terrestrial and marine mammals recovers rapidly after exposure 

to the sound ends (see Appendix E). However, few data on sound levels and durations necessary to elicit 

mild TTS have been obtained for marine mammals, none have been obtained for mysticetes, and none of 

the published data concern TTS elicited by exposure to multiple pulses of sound (Southall et al. 2007) 

(Appendix E).

There has been no specific documentation that TTS occurs for marine mammals exposed to sequences of 

airgun pulses during operational seismic surveys (Appendix E). NMFS‘s policy regarding exposure of 

marine mammals to high-level sounds has been that cetaceans should not be exposed to impulsive sounds 

180 dB re 1 Pa (rms) (NMFS 2000). This criterion has been used in defining the safety (shut-down) 

radii for cetaceans for previous seismic surveys. However, those sound levels have not been considered to 

be the levels above which TTS might occur. Rather, they were the received levels above which, in the 

view of a panel of bioacoustics specialists convened by NMFS before TTS measurements for marine 

mammals started to become available, one could not be certain that there would be no injurious effects, 

auditory or otherwise, to marine mammals. The 180-dB re 1 μPa (rms) criterion for cetaceans is actually 

probably quite precautionary (i.e., lower than necessary to avoid TTS) at least for delphinids, belugas, and 

similar species as discussed in Appendix E and Southall et al. (2007).

Southall et al. (2007) have recommended new noise exposure criteria for marine mammals that account 

for the now-available scientific data on TTS, the expected offset between the TTS and PTS thresholds, 

differences in the acoustic frequencies to which different marine mammal groups are sensitive, and other 

relevant factors (reviewed in Section 2.3.3.2). The proposed sound exposure threshold for onset of TTS in 

mysticetes from impulse sounds is a cumulative (across pulses) SEL of 183 dB re (1 μPa)2-sec, after 

allowance for frequency weighting issues (Southall et al. 2007). However, direct comparison of the 180 

dB re 1 Pa (rms) (one pulse) criterion vs. the 183 dB SEL (cumulative) criterion is not possible given 

differences in how these units are measured, expressed, etc. (see Appendix B for technical details). For 

preliminary information about this process, and about the anticipated structure of the new criteria for

marine mammals see Wieting (2004), NMFS (2005c), and Southall et al (2007). Detailed 

recommendations for new science-based noise exposure criteria are provided in Southall et al. (2007).

Monitoring and mitigation measures are designed to detect marine mammals occurring near airguns to 

avoid exposing them to sound pulses that might, at least in theory, cause TTS (e.g., NMFS 2004b, 2005b, 

2005f). In addition, many cetaceans show some avoidance of the area where received levels of airgun 

sound are high enough such that TTS could potentially occur (see above and Hildebrand 2005). In those 

cases, the avoidance responses of the animals themselves would reduce or (most likely) eliminate any 

possibility of hearing impairment.

For mysticetes, there are no data, direct or indirect, on levels or properties of sound that are required to 

induce TTS. The frequencies to which baleen whales are most sensitive are lower than those to which 

odontocetes are most sensitive, and natural background noise levels at those low frequencies tend to be 

higher. As a result, auditory thresholds of baleen whales within their frequency band of best hearing are 

believed to be higher (less sensitive) than are those of odontocetes at their best frequencies (Clark and 

Ellison 2004), meaning that baleen whales require sounds to be louder (i.e., higher dB levels) than 

odontocetes in the frequency ranges at which each group hears the best. From this, it is suspected that 

received levels causing TTS onset may also be higher in mysticetes (Southall et al. 2007). However, 

based on preliminary simulation modeling that attempted to allow for various uncertainties in 

assumptions and variability around population means, Gedamke et al. (2008) suggested that some baleen 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-134

whales whose closest point of approach to a seismic vessel is 1 km or more could experience TTS or even 

PTS. Nonetheless, no cases of TTS in mysticetes are expected given three considerations: (1) the low 

abundance of baleen whales in most parts of the exemplary analysis areas, (2) the strong likelihood that 

baleen whales would avoid the approaching airguns (or vessel) before being exposed to levels high 

enough for there to be any possibility of TTS (Gordon et al. 2004; Stone and Tasker 2006; Wilson et al. 

2006), and (3) the mitigation measures that are proposed (see Section 2.4.1.1).

In addition to airguns and airgun arrays, MBESs are proposed for scientific research as echosounders to 

study ocean bottom sediment characteristics, etc. TTS through exposure to the downward-directed MBES

sounds is highly unlikely to occur. Kremser et al. (2005) noted that the probability of a cetacean 

swimming through the area of exposure when an MBES emits a ping is small. The animal would have to 

pass the transducer at close range and be swimming at speeds similar to the vessel in order to be subjected 

to sound levels that could cause TTS (Kremser et al. 2005). Given the maximum source level of 242 dB 

re 1 Pa-m (rms) for the Langseth’s proposed MBES (Table 2-5), the received level for an animal within 

the beam 328 ft (100 m) below the ship would be about 202 dB re 1 Pa (rms), assuming 40 dB of 

spreading loss. Given the MBES‘s narrow beam, only one ping is likely to be received by a given animal. 

The received energy level from a single ping of duration 15 ms would be about 184 dB re 1 Pa2·sec, 

i.e., 202 dB + 10 log (0.015 sec). That is below the TTS threshold for a cetacean exposed to a nonimpulse sound (195 dB re 1 Pa2

· sec) and even further below the anticipated PTS threshold (215 dB re 1 

Pa2· sec) (Southall et al. 2007). Furthermore, auditory thresholds of baleen whales within their 

frequency band of best hearing are believed to be higher (less sensitive) than those of odontocetes at their 

best frequencies (Clark and Ellison 2004).

Source levels of the SBPs, another type of echosounder, are lower (maximum source level 222 dB re 1 

Pa [rms]) than those of the MBES discussed above (Table 2-5). Thus, there is even less likelihood of 

TTS occurring through exposure to SBP sounds, even in an animal that is briefly near the source. The 

SBP is usually operated simultaneously with other higher-power acoustic sources. Many marine 

mammals, particularly mysticetes, move away in response to the approaching higher-power sources or the 

vessel itself before the mammals are close enough for there to be any possibility of effects from the SBP‘s 

less-intense sounds. For any mysticetes that do not avoid the approaching vessel and its various sound 

sources, mitigation measures implemented to minimize effects of other acoustic sources (e.g., airguns) 

would further reduce or eliminate any potential minor temporary effects of the SBP.

Sound levels produced by project pingers (maximum source level about 192 dB re 1 Pa [rms]) are not 

considered high enough to cause TTS even in an animal that is briefly near the source based on the 

recently recommended exposure thresholds presented in Southall et al. (2007) (see also previous 

paragraphs). 

Injury

Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)

When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear (reviewed in Richardson et 

al. 1995a). In some cases, there can be total or partial deafness, whereas in other cases, the animal has an 

impaired ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges. There is no specific evidence that exposure 

to airgun pulses can cause PTS in any marine mammal, even with large airguns arrays (Appendix E). 

However, given the likelihood that some marine mammals close to an airgun array might incur at least 

mild TTS (see Finneran et al. 2002), there has been further speculation about the possibility that some 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-135

individuals occurring very close to airguns might incur PTS (Richardson et al. 1995a:372ff; Gedamke et 

al. 2008). 

In terrestrial mammals, single or occasional occurrences of mild TTS are not indicative of permanent 

auditory damage, but repeated or (in some cases) single exposures to a level well above that causing TTS 

onset might elicit PTS (reviewed in Richardson et al. 1995a and Southall et al. 2007). Relationships 

between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals, but are assumed to be 

similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. PTS might occur at a received sound level at 

least several decibels above that inducing mild TTS if the animal were exposed to high-level sound pulses 

with rapid rise time (see Appendix E). The specific difference between the PTS and TTS thresholds has 

not been measured for marine mammals exposed to any sound type. However, based on data from 

terrestrial mammals, a precautionary assumption is that the PTS threshold for impulse sounds (such as 

airgun pulses as received close to the source) is at least 6 dB higher than the TTS threshold on a peakpressure basis, and probably more than 6 dB (Southall et al. 2007). 

When exposure to impulse sound is measured in SEL units, Southall et al. (2007) estimate that received 

levels would need to exceed the TTS threshold by at least 15 dB for there to be risk of PTS. Thus, for 

cetaceans they estimate that the PTS threshold might be an SEL of about 198 dB re (1 μPa)2-sec. Given 

the higher level of sound necessary to cause PTS as compared with TTS, it is even less likely that PTS 

could occur during a proposed seismic survey. In fact, even the levels immediately adjacent to the airguns 

may not be sufficient to induce PTS, especially because a mammal would not be exposed to more than 

one high-level pulse unless it swam immediately alongside the airgun for a period longer than the interpulse interval. The low-to-moderate levels of TTS that have been induced in captive odontocetes and 

pinnipeds during controlled studies have shown no measurable residual PTS (Kastak et al. 1999; Schlundt 

et al. 2000; Finneran et al. 2002; Nachtigall et al. 2003, 2004). Southall et al. (2007) note that, regardless 

of the SEL, there is concern about the possibility of PTS if a cetacean received one or more pulses with 

peak pressure exceeding 230 dB re 1 μPa (peak).

The possibility of PTS through exposure to MBES or SBP sounds is considered negligible and PTS is not 

expected to occur. Burkhardt et al. (2008) concluded that immediate direct injury was possible only if a 

cetacean dived under the vessel into the immediate vicinity of the transducer. As summarized above for 

TTS, only one such ping is likely to be received by a given animal, given the narrow emitted beam of 

these echosounders combined with the moving vessel. This received signal would be at a level well below 

the anticipated PTS threshold of about 215 dB re (1 μPa)2-sec (Southall et al. 2007). Expected avoidance 

behavior and adequate mitigation and monitoring further minimize the low possibility of PTS. 

Furthermore, PTS (or any injury or pathological effect) has never been demonstrated for any marine 

mammal exposed to echosounders such as the proposed MBESs and SBPs.

PTS via exposure to sounds from the proposed pingers is not anticipated. The source levels for the 

pingers are approximately 183 dB and 192 dB re 1 μPa (rms) and the durations of pings are short. As a 

result, received SEL values both for single pings and for short sequences of pings will be well below the 

threshold at which PTS may occur for non-impulses (approximately 215 dB re (1 μPa)2-sec) (see Section 

2.3.3).

As discussed previously, mysticetes generally avoid the immediate area around operating seismic vessels

(see also Appendix E). Implementation of proposed monitoring and mitigation measures (including visual 

monitoring, PAM, ramp ups, and power downs or shut downs of the airguns when marine mammals are 

seen within the safety radii) will minimize the already low probability of exposure of marine mammals to 

sounds high enough to induce PTS.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-136

Strandings and Mortality

Marine mammals close to underwater detonations of high explosives can be killed or severely injured, and 

the auditory organs are especially susceptible to injury (Ketten et al. 1993; Ketten 1995). However, 

explosives are no longer used for NSF-funded or USGS seismic research; they have been replaced by 

airguns and other non-explosive sources. Airgun pulses are less energetic and have slower rise times, and 

there is no evidence that they can cause serious injury, death, or stranding even in the case of large airgun 

arrays. However, the association of strandings of beaked whales with naval exercises and, in one case, an LDEO seismic survey (Malakoff 2002; Cox et al. 2006), has raised the possibility that beaked whales (an 

odontocete) exposed to high-level pulsed sounds may be especially susceptible to injury and/or behavioral 

reactions that can lead to stranding (see the detailed summary of this topic for odontocetes in Section 3.7.4 

and Appendix E). Hildebrand (2005) reviewed the association of cetacean strandings with high-intensity 

sound events and found that deep-diving odontocetes, primarily beaked whales, were by far the 

predominant (95%) cetaceans associated with these events, with less than 2% being mysticete whales 

(minke).

Seismic pulses and MF sonar sounds are quite different. Sounds produced by airgun arrays are broadband 

with most of the energy below 1 kHz. Typical military MF sonars operate at frequencies of 2-10 kHz, 

generally with a relatively narrow bandwidth at any one time. Thus, it is not appropriate to assume that 

the effects of military sonar on marine mammals are similar to the potential effects of airguns on marine 

mammals. For example, resonance effects (Gentry 2002) and acoustically-mediated bubble-growth (Crum 

et al. 2005) are implausible in the case of exposure to broadband airgun pulses. However, evidence that 

sonar signals can, in special circumstances, lead to physical damage and mortality (Balcomb and Claridge 

2001; NOAA and U.S. Navy 2001; Jepson et al. 2003; Fernández et al. 2004, 2005a, 2005b; Cox et al. 

2006), even if indirectly, suggests that caution is warranted when dealing with exposure of marine 

mammals to any high-intensity pulsed sound.

Proposed MBESs (i.e., echosounders) are also quite different than sonars used for Navy operations. 

Signal duration of the MBESs is very short (0.2 to 20 ms; Table 2-5) relative to the naval sonars (at least 

a few hundred milliseconds, and sometimes longer). Also, at any given location, an individual marine 

mammal would be in the beam of the MBES for much less time given the generally downward orientation 

of the beam and its narrow fore-aft beamwidth. (Navy sonars often use near-horizontally-directed sound.) 

Those factors would all reduce the sound energy received from the MBES rather drastically relative to 

that from the sonars used by the Navy. No strandings or mortalities of marine mammals are predicted due 

to project operation of the MBES or the lower-energy SBPs or pingers.

There is no conclusive evidence of cetacean strandings as a result of exposure to seismic surveys. 

Speculation concerning a possible link between seismic surveys and strandings of humpback whales in 

Brazil (Engel et al. 2004) was not well founded (IAGC 2004; IWC 2007). Based on available data, no 

strandings or injuries of baleen whales are anticipated during the proposed marine seismic surveys with 

implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures.

Other Physiological Effects

Theoretically, non-auditory physiological effects or injuries are possible in marine mammals close to 

high-level underwater acoustic sources. These effects might include stress, neurological effects, bubble 

formation, resonance, and other types of organ or tissue damage (Cox et al. 2006; Southall et al. 2007) 

(Appendix E). It is possible that some marine mammal species (e.g., beaked whales) may be especially 

susceptible to injury and/or stranding when exposed to high-level pulsed sounds. However, as 

summarized below, there is no definitive evidence that any of these effects occur even for marine 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-137

mammals in close proximity to large airgun arrays. Even if gas and fat embolisms can at times occur 

during exposure of beaked whales to MF sonar, there is no evidence that that type of effect occurs in baleen 

whales exposed to airgun sounds. Given the brief duration of exposure (i.e., seconds) of any marine 

mammal to high-level seismic sounds, the intermittent nature of airgun sounds, and implementation of 

monitoring and mitigation measures, it is unlikely that these effects would occur during the proposed 

seismic survey activities.

In general, little is known about the potential for seismic survey sounds to cause auditory impairment or other 

physical effects in marine mammals. Available data suggest that such effects, if they occur at all, would 

probably be limited to unusual situations when animals might be exposed at close range for unusually long 

periods and probably to projects involving large airgun arrays. Examples might include situations where the 

sound is strongly channeled with less-than-normal propagation loss, or when dispersal of the animals is 

constrained by shorelines, shallows, etc. Airgun pulses, because of their brevity and intermittence, are less 

likely to trigger resonance or bubble formation than are more prolonged sounds. The available data do not 

allow identification of a specific exposure level above which such effects can be expected (Southall et al. 

2007), or any meaningful quantitative predictions of the numbers (if any) of marine mammals that might be 

affected in those ways. Most mysticetes show behavioral avoidance of seismic vessels and are considered 

especially unlikely to incur auditory impairment or other physical effects from acoustic sources associated with 

seismic surveys. In addition, mitigation measures including shut downs of the airguns if a marine mammal 

occurred within a given distance from the vessel would reduce or eliminate any potential impacts.

3.6.4.4 Other Potential Effects

Entanglement

Entanglements occur when marine mammals become wrapped around cables, lines, nets, or other objects 

suspended in the water column. During seismic operations, numerous cables, lines, and other objects 

primarily associated with the airgun array and hydrophone streamers will be towed behind the survey ship 

near the water‘s surface. Personnel on seismic vessels have reported that sea turtles (number unspecified) 

became fatally entrapped between gaps in tail-buoys associated with industrial seismic vessel gear off 

West Africa in 2003 (Weir 2007). However, we are not aware of any cases of entanglement of mysticetes 

in seismic survey equipment. No incidents of entanglement of marine mammals with seismic survey gear 

have been documented in over 54,000 nm (100,000 km) of previous NSF-funded seismic surveys when 

PSVOs were aboard (e.g., Smultea and Holst 2003; Haley and Koski 2004; Holst 2004; Smultea et al. 

2004; Holst et al. 2005a; Haley and Ireland 2006; SIO and NSF 2006b; Hauser et al. 2008; Holst and 

Smultea 2008). 

However, incidents of entanglement by marine mammals, including mysticetes, in fishing gear are well 

known. Heyning and Lewis (1990) noted that gray whales were the most frequently entangled species 

(94% of records) in southern California. Most of the entangled gray whales were three years of age or 

younger (<33 ft [10 m] in length), and many of the live entanglements were released alive. However, 

entanglement in fishing gear often leads to mortality of baleen whales, and it is unknown whether 

entanglement has any long-term effects on live-released whales (Moore and Clarke 2002). 

Towing of hydrophone streamers or other equipment is not expected to significantly interfere with whale 

movements, including migration. Whales could swim below such equipment as it is towed near the 

surface. Although entanglement with the streamer is theoretically possible, it has not been documented 

during tens of thousands of miles of NSF-sponsored seismic cruises (see above) or, to our knowledge, 

during hundreds of thousands of miles of industrial seismic cruises. However, the R/V Langseth would 

tow multiple streamers several km or more in length during some surveys. Thus, the apparent low risk of 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-138

entanglement could be slightly greater for such surveys than during past NSF-sponsored cruises that 

towed fewer streamers.

Ingestion

In the highly unlikely event of an oil or fuel spill from a seismic vessel, marine mammals could ingest oil 

with water or contaminated food, or oil could be absorbed through the respiratory tract. Mysticete species 

like the humpback and right whales that feed in confined areas (e.g., bays) may be at greater risk of 

ingesting oil (Würsig 1990). Some ingested oil could be voided in vomit or feces but some would likely 

be absorbed and could cause toxic effects (Geraci 1990). When returned to clean water, contaminated 

animals can expel this internal oil through urine or feces (Engelhardt 1978, 1982). Cetaceans exposed to 

an oil spill are unlikely to ingest enough oil to cause serious internal damage (Geraci and St. Aubin 1980,

1982). 

Cetaceans may also inhale vapors from volatile fractions of oil from a spill. The most likely effects of 

inhalation of these vapors would be irritation of respiratory membranes and absorption of hydrocarbons 

into the bloodstream (Geraci 1990). Stressed individuals that could not escape a contaminated area would 

be most at risk due to the duration of exposure. 

In mysticetes, crude oil could coat the baleen and reduce filtration efficiency (Braithwaite et al. 1983). 

However, in one study, the filtration efficiency of baleen did not change when experimentally fouled with 

oil (St. Aubin et al. 1984), and most adherent oil was removed within 30 min after fouling (Geraci and St. 

Aubin 1985). The effects of oiling of baleen on feeding efficiency appear to be only minor (Geraci 1990). 

Ship Strikes

The risk of collision of seismic vessels or towed/deployed equipment with marine mammals exists but is 

extremely unlikely. This is based on the relatively slow operating speed (typically 4-5 kt or 7-9 km/h) of 

the vessel during seismic operations, and the generally straight-line movement of the seismic vessel. 

Although a seismic vessel would travel faster during transits to and from seismic survey sites 

(approximately 10 kt or 18 km/h), movement would be predominantly in a straight line, with typically 

gradual changes in orientation. Theoretically, this should make the vessel tracks more predictable for 

whales than vessels engaged in erratic changes in headings and speeds, thereby allowing time for whales 

to move out of the vessel‘s path. However, there is some indication that some whales do not move out of 

the way of vessels on a consistent heading (see next paragraph). In addition, studies indicate that vessels 

traveling at higher speeds than those typical of the proposed seismic vessels are more likely to collide 

with whales (Laist et al. 2001; Jensen and Silber 2003). The presence of trained on-board observers to 

alert ship crew of nearby cetaceans significantly minimizes the risk of ship strikes and other equipment 

collisions with whales. A general background on collisions between vessels, equipment and marine 

mammals is presented below.

Collisions between ships and marine mammals occur in many parts of the world, particularly with baleen 

whales (Laist et al. 2001; Moore and Clarke 2002; Jensen and Silber 2003; Van Waerebeek et al. 2006; 

Knowlton and Brown 2007). Vessel operators attempt to avoid colliding with marine mammals. In 

addition to injury or death of the animal, such collisions can result in damage to the vessel. Many species 

of baleen whales tend to show avoidance in response to vessels (reviewed in Richardson et al. 1995a; 

Macleod et al. 2006). However, avoidance does not always prevent collisions, injury, and mortality of 

whales, especially for the slower-swimming species such as right whales (reviewed in Richardson et al. 

1995a; Jensen and Silber 2003; Knowlton and Brown 2007). Migrating gray whales appear more 

susceptible to vessel collisions than other whale species (Laist et al. 2001). In the North Atlantic, 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-139

endangered right whales are also known to be highly susceptible to vessel collisions, experiencing 

significant mortality and damage from collisions (Laist et al. 2001; Jensen and Silber 2003; Knowlton and 

Brown 2007). Shipping has been restricted in some areas of the Northwest Atlantic, such as the Bay of 

Fundy, during times when right whales congregate there. Off the east coast of the U.S., NMFS has 

recommended vessel routes and vessel speed reductions to reduce the number of collisions. Collisions 

have also been reported for other species of mysticetes, including humpback, fin, and minke whales 

(Barlow et al. 1994; Richardson et al. 1995a; Laist et al. 2001; Jensen and Silber 2003; Van Waerebeek et 

al. 2006; Knowlton and Brown 2007). 

Although most whales try to avoid ships, a close approach and potentially a collision can occur when a

slow-swimming whale attempts to flee ahead of a faster moving vessel (Richardson et al. 1985, 1995a). 

The likelihood of collisions increases during darkness and poor weather conditions, particularly fog, 

thunderstorms, and high seas. Special care is needed to minimize the chance of collisions during poor 

visibility. It also appears likely that most impacts are not reported. For example, large vessels may be 

unaware that an impact has occurred. Often, impacts are only realized after-the-fact if the whale remains 

caught on the front of the ship when the vessel enters port. 

There is also the potential for collision between whales and seismic gear including lines and cables towed 

or deployed from seismic vessels (e.g., hydrophone streamers, buoys, coring equipment). Such collisions 

have not been reported during previous seismic vessel activities (see also Entanglement above). 

In summary, the risk of collision of seismic vessels or towed/deployed equipment with marine mammals 

exists but is extremely unlikely given the operating characteristics of the seismic vessels during proposed 

seismic surveys and transit to and from the area of proposed operations. 

Other Activities

The proposed seismic research surveys could include other activities such as coring, dredging, sediment 

sampling, and the deployment of OBS/Hs (see Chapter 2). These operations are typically small-scale (i.e., 

very localized, transitory, and small in physical dimensions) and related directly to academic geophysical 

research goals involving scientific sampling. There has never been a related adverse impact in over 

54,000 nm (100,000 km) of previous NSF-funded seismic surveys (e.g., Smultea and Holst 2003; Haley 

and Koski 2004; Holst 2004; Smultea et al. 2004; Holst et al. 2005a; Haley and Ireland 2006; Hauser et 

al. 2008; Holst and Smultea 2008). Potential direct effects include temporary localized disturbance or 

displacement from associated sounds and/or physical movement/actions of the operations (the potential 

for sound-related effects and collisions was discussed previously). Potential indirect effects to mysticetes 

consist of very localized and transitory/short-term disturbance of bottom habitat and associated prey in 

shallow-water areas as a result of coring, dredging, sediment sampling, and (minimally) deployment of 

ocean-bottom hydrophones. Mitigation and monitoring, including dedicated watches for marine mammals 

and avoidance of sensitive habitats and/or periods for ESA-listed species, minimize the potential for 

adverse effects. 

3.6.5 Environmental Consequences – Alternative A and Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)

Alternatives A and B consist of a combination of monitoring and mitigation measures developed in 

consultation with NMFS designed to minimize the potential effects of NSF-funded or USGS seismic 

survey activities on marine mammals (reviewed in Chapter 2). These measures have been implemented 

during previous NSF-funded academic seismic cruises (Table 2-1) in accordance with the individual 

IHAs issued by NMFS for each such cruise. For the purposes of analysis in this PEIS, the mitigation (i.e., 

shut-down and power-down) radii that would be implemented under Alternative A were predicted
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-140

separately for the five DAAs, allowing for the planned airgun configuration and expected site- and 

season-specific environmental conditions. Under Alternative B, there would be a proposed 100-m MZ for 

low-energy sources, but for the purposes of this PEIS, low-energy sources were modeled and the resulting 

MZs were found to be less than the proposed low-energy source 100-m MZ under Alternative B. These 

mitigation radii are the distances where the received levels of airgun sounds at each site are expected to 

match the current (rms) pressure criteria (see Appendix B for further details). For the eight QAAs, safety 

radii were not modeled for this analysis, although site-specific safety radii would be modeled for an actual 

survey, were it proposed in the future. For this analysis, potential effects in the QAAs were evaluated 

based on their similarities with the five acoustically modeled DAAs (Table 2-7) and the general review of 

seismic effects. 

The primary monitoring and mitigation measures for all of the exemplary seismic surveys considered 

herein are briefly listed below and described fully in Chapter 2. 

 Pre-planning of each cruise to identify seasonal periods with the least potential for impacts and 

the smallest airgun array that could be used and still meet the geophysical scientific objectives.

 Employing trained and experienced PSVOs approved by NMFS.

 Minimum of one observer maintaining a visual watch for marine mammals during all daytime 

airgun operations.

 Two observers maintaining a visual watch for marine mammals from 30 min before the start of 

ramp ups through the duration of the ramp ups (and when possible at other times) during the day 

and at night.

 PAM via towed hydrophones during both day and night (when practicable) in shallow-water 

areas where large airgun arrays are to be operated and/or the full mitigation radius is not visible 

(to be determined prior to each cruise in consultation with NMFS).

 Power downs (or if necessary shut downs) when marine mammals or sea turtles are detected in or 

about to enter designated mitigation zones identified specifically for each airgun array at each 

analysis area (Table 2-11). During a shut down or power down, the airguns would be shut down 

or powered down for 30 min following the last sighting of a mysticete.

On a site-specific basis, additional mitigation and monitoring measures may be implemented. These 

measures would be determined in coordination with NMFS based on the best available, site-specific 

information on marine mammals in a selected seismic survey area. Measures could also be adapted based 

on information obtained in-situ during a seismic cruise, particularly in previously undescribed areas. Such 

measures could include:

 avoiding or remaining a minimum distance from certain areas considered important to mysticetes 

(e.g., breeding, feeding, migration, etc.) whose use coincides with the season of the survey;

 implementing other site-specific mitigation measures on an adaptive mitigation approach based 

on data obtained during the cruise, in coordination with NMFS;

 adjusting mitigation radii based on any new data that may become available after completion of 

this PEIS. For example, NSF is aware that NMFS is developing new sound-exposure guidelines 

for marine mammals that have not yet been approved for use (Southall et al. 2007). NSF will be 

prepared to revise its procedures for estimating numbers of marine mammals that might be 

―taken‖ (per the ESA and MMPA) via sound exposure, mitigation radii, etc., as may be required 

at some future date by the new guidelines.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-141

The following analysis of the environmental consequences of Alternative A and Alternative B on 

mysticetes assumes that the above and other monitoring and mitigation measures described in Chapter 2 

would be implemented. The MBESs, SBPs, and pingers are not expected to significantly affect mysticetes 

given the lower acoustic exposures relative to airguns and other factors summarized in Sections 3.6.1.5, 

3.6.4, and 3.6.5.

3.6.5.1 Acoustic Effects

This section summarizes the various types and levels of potential acoustic effects on mysticetes in the 

analysis areas anticipated to occur during the exemplary seismic cruises. Factors influencing the estimated 

level of potential acoustic effects of the seismic surveys on mysticetes include: 

 The predicted occurrence and densities of mysticetes at each site during the exemplary seismic 

survey period based on available information and data.

 The number, volumes and depths of the airguns to be used, and the area-specific environmental 

factors that influence acoustic propagation.

 For DAAs, the estimated distances at which received levels of airgun sounds are predicted to 

equal the three SEL criteria applied for mysticetes (Table 2-8).

 For DAAs, both flat (unweighted) and M-weighting approaches were utilized and are presented in 

Appendix B. However, Table 3.6-6 presents the exposures based on flat-weighted calculations. 

M-weighting accounts for the high sensitivity of mysticetes (as compared with other groups of 

marine mammals) to low frequencies; all mysticetes belong to the LF hearing group.

 The numbers and corresponding percent of regional populations of mysticetes estimated to be 

exposed to the modeled received sound levels specific to each DAA. 

The factors listed above interact to result in differing site-specific estimates of the number of individual 

mysticetes that could potentially be exposed to sound levels equal to or greater than the selected acoustic 

threshold criteria levels (see Appendix B). Table 3.6-6 summarizes estimated numbers of mysticetes 

potentially exposed to the relevant levels of sound, and corresponding percentages of regional populations

that might be impacted by proposed seismic survey activities within the DAAs under Alternative A (see 

also Appendix B). Numbers of mysticete exposures are presented based on the exposure criteria discussed 

in Section 2.3.3 and listed in Table 2-8.

NMFS had not, at the time of writing of this document, officially identified or implemented any energybased criteria; however, energy-based criteria may be adopted by NMFS in the future (Appendix E). The 

Ae columns in Table 3.6-6 summarize numbers of mysticetes that might be exposed to cumulative energy 

levels exceeding the SEL criterion proposed by Southall et al. (2007) for mysticetes, i.e., 198 dB re 

(1 μPa)2·s. No energy-based Level B criteria have been proposed (Southall et al. 2007), and this PEIS

does not attempt to apply cumulative energy criteria to estimate Level B take. Modeled numerical 

estimates of exposure are considered precautionary (likely overestimated) because they do not account for 

individual whales that are expected to avoid the sounds. The AIM model assumes baseline ―undisturbed‖ 

distribution and movement of animals whether or not airgun sounds are being emitted. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-142

Table 3.6-6. Estimated Number of Level A and B Exposures (Individuals) of Mysticetes to Seismic Survey Sound with 

Implementation of Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) in the DAAs Based on Modeling Results

NW Atlantic

(N Atlantic pop)(a)

Caribbean

(N Atlantic pop)(a)

S California

(N Pacific pop)(a)

W Gulf of Alaska

(N Pacific pop)(a)

Galapagos Ridge

(S Hemisphere pop)(a)

Exposure

Criterion(b)

Exposure

Criterion(b)

Exposure

Criterion(b)

Exposure

Criterion(b)

Exposure

Criterion(b)

Species Bp Ap Ae Bp Ap Ae Bp Ap Ae Bp Ap Ae Bp Ap Ae

N Atlantic 

right whale 

0.2

0.07 0.0 0.0 - - - - - - - - - - - -

N Pacific 

right whale - - - - - - - - -

0.3

0.08 0.0 0.0 - - -

Bowhead whale - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E Pacific gray whale - - - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 150.7

0.8

12.5

0.07 0.0 - - -

Humpback whale 0.7

<0.01 0.0 0.0 0.3<0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 186.2<3.1

19.1

0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Minke whale 

(Common & Antarctic) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5<0.01 0.0 0.0 46.40.2

3.0

0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bryde‘s &

Eden‘s whales(c) - - -

1.4

<1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - -

16.8

0.1

0.6

<0.01 0.0

Sei whale 0.1

<0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Fin whale 1.3

<0.01 0.0 0.0 0.2<0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 161.9<1.2

14.3

0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Blue whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9

<0.02 0.0 0.0

(a)Population estimates from Table 3.6-1 are combined for E and W areas of the respective oceans (note: % of impacted N Pacific right whales would be higher if 

based on eastern population only). Where a range of population estimates is available, the lowest is used, thus maximizing the estimated percent of population 

that might be exposed. 

- = not present; italics = estimated percent of regional population impacted; bold = ESA-listed species.

(b)Exposure Criteria (flat weighted): Bp = NMFS Level B harassment -- pressure units (rms), corresponding to exposure to >160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) received 

sound level above which behavioral changes expected to occur. Ap = NMFS Level A harassment – pressure units (rms), corresponding to exposure to > 180 

dB re 1 μPa (rms) received sound level above which the potential for injury was suspected at the time this criterion was implemented by NMFS. Ae = Level A 

– cumulative energy (SEL) – corresponding to Level A criterion applied in this analysis to identify the level above which there is potential for injury (e.g., 

PTS), based on limited empirical results from a few small odontocete species (Southall et al. 2007). See also Appendix B. For the purpose of analysis, for nonlisted species, only predicted exposures >0.5 animal as presented in Appendix B, Tables B-13 – B-17 are considered an actual exposure. For ESA-listed 

species, only predicted exposures >0.05 animal as presented in Appendix B, Tables B-13 – B-17 are considered an actual exposure. 

(c)N Atlantic population data unavailable for Bryde‘s whale, so % shown is an estimate; ETP population size was used for the Galapagos Ridge, as population 

estimates for the S Hemisphere are not available. Includes the newly discovered Eden‘s whale.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-143

Table 2-11 shows the estimated mitigation radii under Alternatives A and B for the exemplary seismic 

surveys that are assumed to occur in the five DAAs. As discussed elsewhere, the mitigation distances

around the airguns vary with number and volume of airgun(s) and arrays, water depth, sound velocity 

profile, bottom type, etc. (Appendix B). In general, for the small airguns and arrays (e.g., two GI guns, 

two pairs GI guns), the estimated mitigation radii for mysticetes at all water depths are typically smaller 

than the radii for larger airgun arrays. Conversely, the modeled mitigation radii for the largest airgun 

arrays (e.g., 36 airguns) are considerably larger. For example, in the exemplary DAAs, regardless of 

water depth and other factors (e.g., M-weighting), the modeled mitigation radii for the small 

airguns/arrays range from 0-210 ft (0-64 m) compared to 250-4,390 ft (76-1,338 m) for large arrays 

(Table 2-11). 

In addition to the type of airgun array used, it is clear from Appendix B (Tables B-7 – B-12) that water 

depth strongly influences the mitigation radii. Any given received sound level occurs farther from the 

airgun arrays in shallow and intermediate waters (<3,281 ft [1,000 m]) compared to deep water (>3,281 ft 

[1,000 m]) for reasons discussed in Appendix B. Additionally, applying M-weighting diminishes the 

contribution of frequency components of the seismic sounds for which a given cetacean group is less 

sensitive, and instead focuses on frequencies within their best hearing range (Appendix B). In general, 

these factors, combined with the anticipated density of mysticetes in each analysis area, determine the 

estimated number of exposures of individual mysticetes in each DAA. 

Potential acoustic effects are discussed under the following subsections: masking, disturbance, TTS, 

injury including PTS, other physiological effects, and other potential effects. Most of this discussion 

focuses on disturbance (i.e., Level B behavioral effects) since this is the primary type of effect 

anticipated. Detailed discussion of Level B effects, including numerical modeling results, is presented in

the Disturbance subsection. Potential Level A effects based on pressure and cumulative energy criteria

are described in the Injury subsection.

Masking

The degree of potential masking in a seismic survey area depends among other things on the strength of 

the sound source used, propagation conditions, the frequencies of the potentially masked sounds relative 

to the predominant airgun frequencies, and the density of animals of concern. Therefore, exemplary 

surveys in the BC Coast and N Atlantic/Iceland QAAs – which may use large 36-airgun arrays and could 

commonly encounter ESA-listed mysticete species – have greater potential for masking than surveys in 

other analysis areas. Although ESA-listed mysticetes could also be common in the NW Atlantic, 

W Australia, W India, and Sub-Antarctic analysis areas, exemplary surveys in these locations would use

small airgun sources (<7 airguns) with less potential for masking. Nonetheless, masking attributable to an 

NSF-sponsored seismic survey is expected to be limited and short-term for all mysticete species in 

Section 3.6.4.3. It is expected that implementation of Alternative A or B would not result in significant 

impacts to mysticete individuals or populations due to masking (Table 3.6-5).

Disturbance

Disturbance would be the primary type of effect resulting from the proposed seismic surveys under 

Alternative A (Tables 3.6-5 and 3.6-6). With the proposed mitigation and monitoring, disturbance is 

expected to be limited to short-term behavioral changes and localized avoidance by individual mysticetes 

responding to airgun sound. Short-term behavioral changes are likely for many of the individual

mysticetes in the areas ensonified to the Level B criterion sound level of >160 dB re 1 μPa (rms), and in 

some cases for animals exposed to lower received levels (Table 3.6-5). These effects may occur in any of 

the exemplary analysis areas where a given mysticete species occurs (Tables 3.6-3 and 3.6-4). However, 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-144

there would be no significant impacts to mysticetes at the population level due to disturbance. The 

percentages of the regional populations estimated to be exposed (under Alternative A or B) to airgun 

sounds at levels equaling or exceeding Level B disturbance criteria are presented below and in Table 3.6-

6 (Bp columns) based on population estimates for the ocean basin of interest. 

Level B Exposure Estimates for ESA-listed Mysticetes

This section focuses on ESA-listed species (those shown in boldface in Table 3.6-6) at the ocean-basin 

population level. It concentrates on areas where the highest numbers of mysticetes are predicted to be 

exposed to sufficient airgun sound for there to be Level B exposure, and discusses the reasons for 

differences among DAAs in the potential number of Level B exposures. Again, these are conservative 

exposure estimates because the modeling does not account for individual mysticetes that are expected to 

move away from actual seismic survey sounds. Analyses are based on the DAA modeling results 

presented in Table 3.6-6 and Appendix B, and similarities between the DAAs and QAAs as summarized 

in Table 2-7. Each species is addressed as an ocean-basin population, since overall significance of effects 

is assessed at the population level. Potential effects are also discussed based on DAAs and QAAs. The 

potential for Level A (rms) exposures is discussed below under Injury. 

Right Whale. Two species of right whales are considered in this analysis: the N Pacific and the N Atlantic 

(Table 3.6-1). Under Alternative A or B, <1 individual N Pacific right whale would potentially experience 

Level B exposures in the W Gulf of Alaska DAA. This is considered an insignificant amount of 

behavioral exposure affecting 0.08% of the N Pacific population (Table 3.6-6). N Pacific right whales are 

not expected to occur in any of the QAAs. In the NW Atlantic DAA, modeling indicates that <1 N 

Atlantic right whale would potentially experience Level B exposures, and only in shallow water. This is 

considered an insignificant amount of Level B behavioral exposure affecting 0.07% of the N Atlantic 

population (Table 3.6-6). The only other analysis area where N Atlantic right whales could occur—and 

only rarely—is the N Atlantic/Iceland QAA (Table 3.6-4). Although an exemplary large array was 

modeled for the N Atlantic/Iceland QAA, no impacts are expected on N Atlantic right whales because 

they are highly unlikely to occur there (see Section 3.6.3.1). Furthermore, assuming similar responses to 

those documented for the one balaenid species whose reactions to seismic surveys have been studied (the 

bowhead whale), right whales are expected to avoid seismic survey sounds, in some cases at received 

levels lower than the Level B criterion (160 dB re 1 μParme); however, potential avoidance is not 

considered in the modeling. Therefore, short-term behavioral effects are anticipated for <1 N Atlantic and 

<1 N Pacific right whale with implementation of Alternative A or B within the DAAs and QAAs. This 

would not significantly impact or adversely affect these populations, notwithstanding their highly 

endangered status (Table 3.6-6). 

In conclusion, no effects on the annual rates of recruitment or survival of right whale stocks are expected 

as a result of the estimated incidents of Level B harassment. Under the ESA, implementation of 

Alternative A or B (Preferred Alternative) may affect and is likely to adversely affect North Atlantic right 

whales and North Pacific right whales in the NW Atlantic and W Gulf of Alaska DAAs, respectively. In 

accordance with the MMPA and section 7 of the ESA, Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) requires

consultation with and authorization from NMFS regarding exposures to right whales. If and when a 

specific NSF-funded survey or a survey to be conducted by USGS is proposed for the area in the future, 

site-specific consultations with NMFS would occur as well as any other tiered supporting environmental

documentation.

Humpback Whale. Three regional populations of humpback whales are considered in this analysis based 

on their occurrence within all the DAAs and QAAs: the N Atlantic, N Pacific, and S hemisphere 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-145

populations (Table 3.6-1). However, humpbacks are considered common in only 5 of these 13 analysis 

areas during the season of the exemplary survey as described below (Tables 3.6-3 and 3.6-4). 

In the two DAAs where the N Atlantic population of humpbacks potentially occurs, acoustic modeling 

estimates that no significant impacts would occur on humpbacks as a result of the exemplary seismic 

surveys: a maximum of <1 humpback was predicted to experience Level B behavioral exposures in each 

of the Caribbean and NW Atlantic DAAs, representing insignificant portions (<0.01%) of these regional 

populations (Table 3.6-6). 

Humpbacks are considered common in only one of the two QAAs in the N Atlantic: the Iceland/NW 

Atlantic QAA where an exemplary large airgun array was considered. Because modeling was not 

conducted for the QAAs, the anticipated potential level of exposure of humpbacks was qualitatively 

estimated by comparison with modeled results from DAA(s) with similar species occurrence and/or 

acoustic environments (in this case, the W Gulf of Alaska DAA). Both exemplary surveys involved all 

water depth categories, cold water, and similar SSP vs. depth (Table 2-7). However, the airgun array 

assumed for the N Atlantic/Iceland QAA is larger (36 vs. 18 airguns) and the sound channel near 328-ft 

(100-m) depth is considerably weaker than in the W Gulf of Alaska DAA. Other factors being similar, the 

higher number of airguns in the QAA might lead to larger effects, but the weaker sound channel might 

lead to reduced effects. Overall, given the numbers of humpbacks, a small number (relative to population 

size) of Level B behavioral exposures of humpback whales potentially similar to that estimated for the W 

Gulf of Alaska DAA could occur within the N Atlantic/Iceland QAA (see Table 3.6-6).

In the two N Pacific DAAs where humpbacks occur, modeling indicates that humpbacks in the 

S California DAA would not be exposed to sound levels exceeding the Level B criterion (Table 3.6-6 and 

Appendix B, Table B-16). This is based primarily on their expected zero densities in the shallowintermediate-depth waters during the exemplary late spring/early summer survey along with the small 

airgun array size (Table 2-7). In contrast, modeling for the W Gulf of Alaska DAA indicates that 186 

humpbacks could experience Level B behavioral exposures (155 whales in shallow water and 31 whales 

in deep water) during the exemplary seismic cruise, representing <3.1% of the regional N Pacific 

population (Table 3.6-6 and Appendix B, Table B-22). No serious injury or mortality of humpback 

whales is reasonably foreseeable. No adverse effects on the annual rates of recruitment or survival of 

humpback whale stocks are expected as a result of the estimated incidents of Level B harassment. Under 

the ESA, implementation of Alternative A or B may affect and is likely to adversely affect humpback

whales in the W Gulf of Alaska DAA. In accordance with the MMPA and section 7 of the ESA, 

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) requires consultation with and authorization from NMFS regarding 

exposures to humpback whales. If and when a specific NSF-funded survey or a survey to be conducted by 

USGS is proposed for the area in the future, site-specific consultations with NMFS would occur as well 

as any other tiered supporting environmental documentation.

Humpbacks are considered common in the two N Pacific QAAs where they occur: the BC Coast and 

Marianas (Table 3.6-4). Acoustic conditions, in terms of SSP, are quite different in the BC Coast QAA 

from those in any of the DAA sites (Appendix B). The BC Coast QAA has shallow to intermediate water 

depths (<656 ft [<200 m]) and has no sound channel that could trap sound and reduce transmission loss. 

In contrast, at the W Gulf of Alaska and S California DAA sites, distinct sound channels occur near the 

water surface and trap sound (Appendix B Sections 6.4 and 6.5). However, at the BC Coast site, 

endangered humpbacks are common, and the exemplary array is large and would be operated in relatively 

shallow water. Thus, the potential for Level B exposures at the BC Coast QAA could be similar to the W 

Gulf of Alaska DAA site (see above). The Marianas QAA is considered most similar to the Galapagos 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-146

Ridge (deep water) and Caribbean (shallow water) DAAs in terms of acoustic conditions (Table 2-7). 

Although very little is known about humpbacks in the Marianas (Section 3.6.3), their potential relative 

numbers would be considerably reduced during spring when the exemplary survey is proposed, as most N 

Pacific humpbacks have departed for more northern feeding grounds by spring (Section 3.6.3). Based on 

the available data, a small number of humpbacks could experience Level B exposures from the exemplary 

seismic survey during spring in the Marianas QAA. Potential effects on humpbacks at the Marianas QAA 

could be reduced by delaying a survey until later in spring, when more humpbacks are expected to have 

departed the winter breeding grounds.

Within the one DAA and four QAAs in the S hemisphere, humpbacks are considered common in only the 

W Australia QAA (Tables 3.6-3 and 3.6-4). Modeling was conducted only for the one DAA, Galapagos 

Ridge, where no humpbacks would be exposed to seismic survey sounds given their expected zero 

densities at the time of the exemplary survey (Table 3.6-6 and Appendix B, Table B-20). The W Australia 

QAA has dissimilar acoustic properties to all of the five DAAs (Table 2-7 and Appendix B, Section 6.5). 

The W Australia QAA has a sound speed vs. depth profile that decreases slightly with water depth and 

has no sound channel; thus, the relatively shallow environment favors refraction of sound toward the 

bottom (Appendix B). This information, combined with the exemplary small airgun array proposed for 

the W Australia QAA, suggests that potential exposures to seismic survey sounds would be limited to a 

small number of Level B behavioral exposures. Furthermore, humpbacks are expected to show some 

avoidance of seismic sounds based on studies off W Australia and elsewhere (Section 3.6.4 and Table 

3.6-5). 

Sei Whale. Sei whales are considered rare within all five of the DAAs (Table 3.6-3 and Appendix B, 

Annex 4). The exemplary seismic survey activities are expected to have no effects on sei whales in any of 

the DAAs (Tables 3.6-3, 3.6-6, and 3.6-8). In the NW Atlantic DAA, the density of sei whales is 

estimated at <0.0001/km2(Appendix B, Table A4-3). Potential effects are possible here only in shallow 

water and are considered insignificant; <1 sei whale is predicted to receive a Level B behavioral exposure

(Table 3.6-6). No serious injury or mortality of sei whales is reasonably foreseeable. No adverse effects 

on the annual rates of recruitment or survival of sei whale stocks are expected as a result of the estimated 

incidents of Level B harassment. Under the ESA, implementation of Alternative A or B may affect but is 

not likely to adversely affect sei whales in the NW Atlantic DAA. In accordance with the MMPA and 

section 7 of the ESA, Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) requires consultation with and authorization 

from NMFS regarding exposures to sei whales. If and when a specific NSF-funded survey or a survey to 

be conducted by USGS is proposed for the area in the future, site-specific consultations with NMFS 

would occur as well as any other tiered supporting environmental documentation.

Within the eight QAAs, sei whales are rare in six QAAs but possibly common in the Sub-Antarctic QAA 

and uncommon in the N Atlantic/Iceland QAA. Sei whales would be feeding in both of the latter two 

areas during summer when the survey is assumed to occur. The populations in those areas are separate 

(Tables 3.6-1 and 3.6-4). In the Sub-Antarctic DAA a proposed small seismic airgun array would be used 

only in deep water. Potential acoustic impacts would be low and limited to Level B behavioral exposures. 

In the N Atlantic/Iceland QAA, an exemplary large airgun array is proposed for use in shallow to deep 

waters (Table 2-7). The acoustic conditions at this QAA somewhat resemble the W Gulf of Alaska DAA; 

however, the proposed airgun array to be used in the N Atlantic/Iceland QAA is larger (36 vs. 18 airguns) 

and the sound channel near the 328-ft (100-m) depth is considerably weaker than in the W Gulf of Alaska 

DAA (Table 2-7 and Appendix B, Sections 6.4 and 6.5). Overall, a small number of Level B behavioral 

exposures could occur among sei whales within the Sub-Antarctic and N Atlantic/Iceland QAAs with no 

significant impacts to sei whale individuals or populations.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-147

Fin Whale. Among the five DAAs, the fin whale is most likely to occur only in the NW Atlantic and W 

Gulf of Alaska while feeding (Table 3.6-3). Two different populations of fin whales occur in these areas. 

In the NW Atlantic, an estimated 1.3 fin whales in shallow water would potentially experience Level B 

behavioral exposures, representing <0.01% of this population (Table 3.6-6). In contrast, in the W Gulf of 

Alaska DAA, it is estimated 162 fin whales could experience Level B behavioral exposures (123 whales 

in shallow water and 39 whales in deep water), representing <1.2% of the regional N Pacific population 

(Table 3.6-6). No serious injury or mortality of fin whales is reasonably foreseeable. No adverse effects 

on the annual rates of recruitment or survival of fin whale stocks are expected as a result of the estimated 

incidents of Level B harassment. Under the ESA, implementation of Alternative A or B may affect and is 

likely to adversely affect fin whales in the NW Atlantic and W Gulf of Alaska DAAs. In accordance with 

the MMPA and section 7 of the ESA, Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) requires consultation with and 

authorization from NMFS regarding exposures to fin whales. If and when a specific NSF-funded survey 

or a survey to be conducted by USGS is proposed for the area in the future, site-specific consultations 

with NMFS would occur as well as any other tiered supporting environmental documentation.

Fin whales are known to occur in four of the eight QAAs, but are considered potentially common in only 

the N Atlantic/Iceland QAA (Tables 3.6-1 and 3.6-4). Fin whales would be feeding in this QAA during 

summer, and predicted effects would be similar to those described above for the humpback and sei whales

in the N Atlantic/Iceland QAA. Thus, potential exposure to the proposed seismic survey activities would 

likely be limited to a small number (relative to population size) of short-term Level B behavioral 

exposures similar to the W Gulf of Alaska DAA (see Table 3.6-6), and no significant population-level 

effects are expected. 

Blue Whale. The blue whale is considered rare in the five DAAs, with very low densities in the five 

DAAs (Tables 3.6-1 and 3.6-3, and Appendix B, Tables A4-3 and A4-6). Blue whales in the five DAAs 

belong to three regional populations in the N Atlantic, N Pacific, and S Hemisphere, and include three 

subspecies (Section 3.6.2 and Tables 3.6-1 and 3.6-3). In total, <1 blue whale is estimated to potentially 

experience a Level B behavioral exposure in deep water at the Galapagos Ridge DAA, during the 

exemplary winter/austral summer survey period, representing <0.02% of the estimated S Hemisphere 

population or <0.07% of the estimated ETP population (Table 3.6-6 and Appendix B, Table B-20). No 

serious injury or mortality of blue whales is reasonably foreseeable. No adverse effects on the annual 

rates of recruitment or survival of blue whale stocks are expected as a result of the estimated incidents of 

Level B harassment. Under the ESA, implementation of Alternative A or B may affect and is likely to 

adversely affect blue whales in the Galapagos Ridge DAA. In accordance with the MMPA and section 7 

of the ESA, Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) requires consultation with and authorization from 

NMFS regarding exposures to blue whales. If and when a specific NSF-funded survey or a survey to be 

conducted by USGS is proposed for the area in the future, site-specific consultations with NMFS would 

occur as well as any other tiered supporting environmental documentation.

Blue whales may occur in all eight of the QAAs where they belong to four regional populations: 

N Atlantic, N Pacific, Indian Ocean, and S Hemisphere (Tables 3.6-1 and 3.6-4). However, they are 

considered potentially common only in the N Atlantic/Iceland QAA at the time of an exemplary summer 

seismic survey; they would be feeding there (Tables 3.6-1 and 3.6-4). Predicted effects here would be 

similar to those described above for the humpback and fin whales in the N Atlantic/Iceland QAA (Table 

3.6-6). Thus, potential impacts from proposed seismic survey activities under Alternative A or B would 

likely be limited to a small number of Level B behavioral exposures, and those exposures are not 

anticipated to have significant population-level effects. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-148

Level B Exposure Estimates for Non-ESA Listed Mysticete Species

Six non-ESA listed species of mysticetes occur in the DAAs or QAAs: the E Pacific gray whale, minke 

whale (including common and Antarctic species and one subspecies), two species of Bryde‘s whale, and 

the pygmy right whale (Tables 3.6-1, 3.6-3, and 3.6-4). Because very little is known about the recently 

discovered new species of Bryde‘s whale (Eden‘s whale, see Section 3.6.1), the two species are treated 

simply as one species – Bryde‘s whale. 

Gray Whale. Under Alternative A, individual gray whales belonging to the E North Pacific population 

would likely be exposed to exemplary seismic survey activities in one DAA (W Gulf of Alaska) and one 

QAA (BC Coast). As the expected density of gray whales at the time of the exemplary surveys is 0 within

the S California modeling site, and the S California airgun array would be small, gray whales would not 

be exposed in these analysis areas (Tables A4-2 and A4-5). In the W Gulf of Alaska DAA, modeling 

indicates that 151 gray whales could experience Level B behavioral exposures (116 whales in shallow 

water and 35 in deep water), representing 0.8% of the N Pacific population (Tables 3.6-6 and Appendix 

B, Table B-22). In the BC Coast QAA, a small number of gray whales could experience Level B 

behavioral exposures in response to the large exemplary airgun array (Table 2-7). This is based on the 

shallow waters and the shared similarities in acoustic properties with the shallow waters at the Caribbean 

DAA. No significant population-level effects are anticipated. No serious injury or mortality of gray 

whales is reasonably foreseeable. No adverse effects on the annual rates of recruitment or survival of gray 

whale stocks are expected as a result of the estimated incidents of Level B harassment. In accordance with 

the MMPA, Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) requires authorization from NMFS regarding exposures 

to gray whales in the W Gulf of Alaska DAA. If and when a specific NSF-funded survey or a survey to be 

conducted by USGS is proposed for the area in the future, site-specific consultations with NMFS would 

occur as well as any other tiered supporting environmental documentation.

Minke, Antarctic Minke, and Subspecies. For the purposes of modeling, all minkes were combined into 

one group (Appendix B). The minke whale is the most ubiquitous of the mysticete species, potentially 

occurring in four of the five DAAs and all eight of the QAAs, representing three regional populations: N 

Atlantic, N Pacific, and S Hemisphere (Tables 3.6-1, 3.6-3, and 3.6-4). However, the expected density of 

minkes is zero or nearly zero in all DAAs except the W Gulf of Alaska (density 0.0111/km2) (see 

Appendix B, Annex 4). At the W Gulf of Alaska DAA, modeling indicates that 46 minkes could 

experience Level B behavioral exposures (37 in shallow water and 9 in deep water), representing 0.2% of 

the N Pacific population (Table 3.6-6). At the S California DAA, modeling indicates that <1 minke could 

experience Level B behavioral exposures, representing <0.01% of the N Pacific population (Table 3.6-6). 

No serious injury or mortality of mink whales is reasonably foreseeable. No adverse effects on the annual 

rates of recruitment or survival of minke whale stocks are expected as a result of the estimated incidents 

of Level B harassment. In accordance with the MMPA, Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) requires

authorization from NMFS regarding exposures to minke whales in the S California and W Gulf of Alaska 

DAAs. If and when a specific NSF-funded survey or a survey to be conducted by USGS is proposed for 

the area in the future, site-specific consultations with NMFS would occur as well as any other tiered 

supporting environmental documentation.

The two QAAs where minkes are considered potentially common are the N Atlantic (Iceland) and N 

Pacific (BC Coast) regional populations (Tables 3.6-1 and 3.6-4). At both of these QAAs, a small number 

of minkes could experience Level B behavioral exposures as described previously for minkes in the W 

Gulf of Alaska DAA and for fin whales at the N Atlantic/Iceland QAA. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-149

Pygmy Right Whale. The pygmy right whale only occurs in the S Hemisphere where it is considered 

potentially uncommon to common only in the Sub-Antarctic QAA; no reliable population estimates are 

available for this species. Given the small size of the proposed airgun array and its operation only in deep 

water, as well as some acoustic similarities with the S California DAA (Table 2-7), a small number of 

pygmy right whales could experience Level B behavioral exposures at the Sub-Antarctic QAA. Overall, 

no significant impacts on pygmy right whales are expected at the population level with implementation of 

Alternative A. 

Bryde’s Whale. Based on DAA modeling results, a very small number of Bryde‘s whales would 

experience Level B behavioral exposures in the Caribbean and Galapagos DAAs, representing two 

separate populations in the N Atlantic and ETP, respectively. Approximately 1 Bryde‘s whale is predicted

to experience a Level B behavioral exposure in the Caribbean DAA and 17 Bryde‘s whales within the 

Galapagos Ridge DAA, representing <1% and 0.1% of the respective regional populations in these 

separate ocean basins (Table 3.6-6). No significant population-level effects are predicted for this species 

as a result of the proposed action. No serious injury or mortality of Bryde‘s whales is reasonably 

foreseeable. No adverse effects on the annual rates of recruitment or survival of Bryde‘s whale stocks are 

expected as a result of the estimated incidents of Level B harassment. In accordance with the MMPA, 

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) requires authorization from NMFS regarding exposures to Bryde‘s 

whales in the Caribbean and Galapagos Ridge DAAs. If and when a specific NSF-funded survey or a 

survey to be conducted by USGS is proposed for the area in the future, site-specific consultations with 

NMFS would occur as well as any other tiered supporting environmental documentation.

Bryde‘s whales are potentially common in five of the eight QAAs, representing populations from the N 

Pacific (Marianas QAA) and S Hemisphere (SW Atlantic, W Australia, W India, Sub-Antarctic QAAs) 

(Tables 3.6-1 and 3.6-4). In the Marianas QAA, a low number of Level B exposures may occur. This 

assessment is based on similarities between the Marianas QAA and the Galapagos and Caribbean DAAs, 

including use of a large airgun array (Table 2-7). Similarly, among Bryde‘s whales in the S Hemisphere, 

the number of Level B exposures would be low. This is based on applying the same assessment approach 

as above since large airgun arrays are similarly proposed for the SW Atlantic and W India QAAs. 

Potential Level B exposures would be lower within the W Australia and Sub-Antarctic QAAs given the 

use of a small airgun array and similarities with the S California DAA. 

Temporary Hearing Impairment or TTS

Temporary hearing impairment or TTS as a result of implementing Alternative A is unlikely to occur, as 

described previously in Section 3.6.4.3. The only mysticetes that could incur TTS would be those that 

approach close to the operating airguns. Based on available studies, most mysticetes are expected to avoid 

close approaches to the seismic vessel where exposure to sound levels could potentially cause TTS (Table 

3.6-5 and Appendix E). Furthermore, implementation of mitigation and monitoring measures under 

Alternative A or B, including ramp ups, power downs and shut downs, would further reduce the potential 

for TTS. The real-time monitoring necessary for effectively implementing power downs and shut downs 

is most effective at the close distances where TTS is a concern. Furthermore, TTS is (by definition) a 

temporary phenomenon that is very unlikely to have long-term consequences for the individual(s) 

involved. In summary, no significant impacts to individual or populations of mysticetes are expected to 

occur under Alternative A or B (Preferred Alternative) as a result of potential TTS: mysticetes are 

expected to avoid close approaches to operating sources.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-150

Injury

Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)

Implementation of Alternative A within the exemplary DAAs is not anticipated to result in Level A 

exposures or PTS in mysticetes as described in Section 3.6.4.3 and Appendix E. As previously discussed 

for TTS, mysticetes are expected to avoid exposure to sound levels that could potentially cause PTS 

(Table 3.6-5 and Section 3.6.4.3). Furthermore, avoidance would likely begin well before mysticetes are 

within the NMFS-designated 180-dB re 1 μPa (rms) isopleth around an approaching seismic research 

vessel, and well before reaching the Level A cumulative exposure criterion applied in this analysis. 

Although modeling results simulate that a small number of Level A (rms) exposures of ESA-listed 

mysticetes could potentially occur in the W Gulf of Alaska DAA (19 humpback and 14 fin whales; Ap

columns in Table 3.6-6), the model does not allow for the likelihood that exposed mysticetes would show 

avoidance of the airgun source, as most are expected to do during an actual seismic survey. No mysticetes 

are predicted to experience Level A exposures based on the cumulative energy exposure criterion, which 

is currently considered a more realistic estimate of the level above which injury to mysticetes might 

occur, allowing for recent research (Southall et al. 2007) (see Section 3.2, Ae columns of Table 3.6-6, and 

below). 

Potential exposure of mysticetes at or near the current 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) criterion identified by 

NMFS for potential Level A effects is not expected to cause adverse effects. Recent research indicates 

that the 180-dB criterion for cetaceans appears to be lower than necessary to avoid TTS (a type of 

Level B exposure), let alone PTS (Southall et al. 2007) (see Appendix B). The minimum sound exposure

necessary to cause PTS is higher than that inducing barely-detectable TTS (Appendix E). The level 

associated with the onset of TTS is considered a precautionary estimate of the level below which there is 

no danger of permanent damage (Southall et al. 2007). 

The model simulates the possibility of Level A exposures of two ESA-listed species in the W Gulf of 

Alaska DAA when the 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) criterion is applied, but no such exposures when the energybased criterion is applied. Further site-specific consultation with NMFS would be conducted were an 

actual seismic survey proposed at this site or in an area with similar acoustic conditions, airgun 

configuration, and/or densities of mysticetes (e.g., NW Atlantic/Iceland, BC Coast, Sub-Antarctic QAAs). 

A supplemental or tiered project-specific EA would likely be prepared for a proposed project where 

seismic activities would occur in the same areas and seasons as concentrations of ESA-listed mysticetes.

If determined to be necessary, the potential for Level A effects could be further reduced by 

implementation of additional mitigation and monitoring (which could be considered either in a separate, 

site-specific NEPA document or during the MMPA authorization process) or by modifying the cruise 

characteristics such as reducing the airgun source level (i.e., smaller airgun array).

Overall, no Level A exposures including PTS would be expected to occur to mysticetes during the 

exemplary seismic survey activities for the aforementioned reasons. Therefore, no long-term or 

significant impacts to individual mysticetes or mysticete populations would be expected as a result of 

Level A exposures with implementation of Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred Alternative).

Strandings and Mortality

No injury, strandings, or mortalities of mysticetes exposed to seismic or other project sounds are expected 

under Alternative A as discussed in Section 3.6.4 and above. This is based on their expected avoidance 

behavior combined with mitigation and monitoring measures designed to minimize potential impacts. As 

indicated earlier, injuries to marine mammals are not known to occur near airgun arrays. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-151

Other Physiological Effects

Other types of physiological effects on mysticetes (e.g., stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, or

other types of organ or tissue damage) are considered unlikely to occur based on available data. No such

physiological effects have been demonstrated in mysticetes exposed to seismic sounds, although related 

studies are lacking for mysticetes (see Section 3.6.4.4).

3.6.5.2 Other Potential Effects

Entanglement, Ingestion, and Ship Strikes

Under Alternatives A and B, non-acoustic effects from entanglement, ingestion, ship strikes, collisions 

with towed/deployed equipment, and other potential ancillary project activities (e.g., coring, dredging, 

etc.) are unlikely with the mitigation and monitoring proposed under Alternative A (see Section 3.6.4.4). 

The relatively slow speeds and generally linear paths of seismic vessels also minimize the possibility of 

ship strikes and collisions with towed/deployed equipment. An oil or fuel spill is considered highly 

unlikely to occur during the proposed seismic surveys. Each research vessel used for NSF-funded marine 

seismic surveys has a spill prevention plan or similar document outlining procedures and policies to 

prevent a fuel or oil spill and to address such spills in the highly unlikely instance that one did occur. 

None of the equipment proposed for in-water use during the seismic surveys is considered potentially 

ingestible by a marine mammal due to its size and composition. In addition, there has never been a 

recorded oil/fuel spill, ship strike, or entanglement of any marine mammal in the survey equipment during

more than 54,000 nm (100,000 km) of previous NSF-funded seismic surveys where PSVOs have been 

present (e.g., Smultea and Holst 2003; Haley and Koski 2004; Smultea et al. 2004; Holst et al. 2005a; 

Haley and Ireland 2006; Hauser et al. 2008; Holst and Smultea 2008; refer to Table 2-1). We also are not 

aware of any documented/reported collisions of cetaceans with seismic vessels or equipment during other 

marine seismic surveys. Visual monitoring procedures further reduce the risk of entanglement or ship 

strike because observers watch for any marine mammals and sea turtles near the vessel and equipment. 

Therefore, entanglement and ship strikes are considered unlikely. 

In summary, it is expected that the proposed seismic survey activities under Alternatives A and B within 

the exemplary analysis areas would have no significant impact on individual mysticetes or mysticete

populations and would not adversely affect ESA-listed species due to entanglement with seismic gear, 

ingestion of toxic or other materials, and ship strikes.

3.6.6 Environmental Consequences – Alternative C (No-Action Alternative)

Under the No-Action Alternative, NSF-funded and USGS marine seismic research surveys using various 

acoustic sources (e.g., airguns, MBES, SBPs, and pingers) would not occur. Therefore, baseline 

conditions would remain unchanged and there would be no impacts to mysticetes with implementation of 

Alternative C.

3.6.7 Summary of Environmental Consequences – Mysticetes

The potential impacts on mysticetes with implementation of Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred 

Alternative) are summarized in Tables 3.6-7 and 3.6-8. With implementation of the proposed monitoring 

and mitigation measures, unavoidable impacts to mysticetes under Alternative A or B are expected to be 

limited to short-term behavioral disturbance and short-term localized avoidance of the area near the active 

airguns. This is expected to have negligible short- and long-term impacts on individual mysticetes, their 

habitats, and regional populations within the exemplary analysis areas. However, because airgun 

operations are likely to result in localized avoidance by some ESA-listed mysticetes in some analysis 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-152

areas, implementation of Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) may affect, and is likely 

to adversely affect such species, as indicated in Table 3.6-7.

Operation of MBESs, SBPs, and pingers is not likely to impact mysticetes. The intermittent and narrow 

downward-directed nature of the MBES and SBP acoustic sources would result in no more than one or 

two brief ping exposures of any individual mysticete given the movement and speed of the vessel; such 

brief exposure to this sound is not expected to cause injury or PTS based on results of limited studies of 

some odontocete species (reviewed in Appendix E). The streamer and core-mounted pingers are also 

highly unlikely to affect mysticetes given their intermittent nature, short-term and transitory use from a 

moving vessel, relatively low source levels, brief signal durations, and in the case of ancillary core 

sampling, their relatively infrequent use. 

In the W Gulf of Alaska DAA, modeling estimates that a small number of Level A (rms) exposures could 

occur under Alternative A or B despite proposed mitigation and monitoring (Table 3.6-5). However, such 

effects are highly unlikely to occur during an actual seismic survey because the model does not account 

for behavioral avoidance of source sounds. Based on empirical studies, mysticetes are expected to avoid 

exposure to seismic sounds levels >180 dB re 1 μPa (rms), and these avoidance behaviors typically begin 

at lower received sound levels (reviewed in Section 3.6.4, Table 3.6-5, and Appendix E). Furthermore, 

modeling indicates that no Level A exposures of mysticetes would occur under Alternative A or B based 

on the more realistic cumulative energy exposure criterion. However, because the modeled potential 

Level A (rms) exposures would be of concern and involve ESA-listed species (see Tables 3.6-6 and 

3.6-7), further site-specific consultation with NMFS would occur. 

Overall, the primary anticipated impacts to mysticetes with implementation of Alternative A or B are:

 Small numbers of mysticetes are modeled or would be expected to experience Level B behavioral 

disturbance in all of the DAAs and potentially all eight of the QAAs. However, this is not expected 

to result in any long term or significant consequences to disturbed individuals or their populations.

The S California DAA is the only site where mysticetes are not likely to be disturbed by the 

proposed seismic survey activities. This is due primarily to the near-zero estimated mysticete 

densities at the season (late spring/early summer) of the exemplary survey, the proposed small 

airgun array, and the acoustic characteristics of the S California DAA.

 Modeling predicts that, under Alternative A and Alternative B (Preferred Alternative), a small 

number of Level A exposures could occur in the W Gulf of Alaska DAA based on the current 180 

dB re 1 μPa (rms) NMFS criterion, despite proposed mitigation and monitoring. However, no or 

insignificant (<0.019 whales) Level A exposures are expected to occur based on the more realistic 

cumulative energy exposure criterion. Cumulative energy (SEL) is now considered a more 

appropriate metric for assessing potential exposure of mysticetes to pulsed underwater sounds (see 

Section 3.2 and Appendix E). Furthermore, Level A effects are highly unlikely to occur during a 

seismic survey, as mysticetes are expected to avoid exposure to seismic sound levels that could 

actually result in Level A exposures.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-153

Table 3.6-7. Summary of Potential Impacts to Mysticetes with Implementation of Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) in 

the DAAs

DAA Whale Species(a) Alternative A or B(a)

NW

Atlantic

N Atlantic right, Humpback,

Minke, Sei, Fin

Limited to insignificant number of short-term Level B behavioral effects in shallow water. Likely to adversely affect ESA-listed 

species or their populations and consultation with NMFS required.

Caribbean

Humpback, Fin Limited to insignificant number of short-term Level B behavioral effects in shallow water. Likely to adversely affect ESA-listed 

humpback and fin whales and consultation with NMFS required.

Minke, Sei, Blue Effects highly unlikely given expected 0 density

(b). Not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species.

Bryde‘s Limited to small number of short-term Level B behavioral exposures. 

S

California

N Pacific right, Bryde‘s, Sei, 

Fin, Blue, E Pacific gray,

Humpback

Effects highly unlikely given expected 0 densities.(b)

Minke Limited to insignificant number of short-term Level B behavioral exposures.

W Gulf

of Alaska

N Pacific right Limited to small number of short-term Level B behavioral exposures and likely to adversely affect right whales; consultation with

NMFS required. 

E Pacific gray, Minke Small number of Level B behavioral changes likely; Level A effects possible but highly unlikely--whales expected to avoid such 

exposure. No modeled Level A (SEL) cumulative energy exposure. 

Humpback, Fin

Limited to short-term Level B behavioral exposures. Likely to adversely affect ESA-listed humpback and fin whales and consultation 

with NMFS required. Level A effects possible but highly unlikely--whales expected to avoid such exposure. No Level A (SEL) 

cumulative energy exposure predicted. No effects expected at population level. However, given species‘ ESA status, common 

occurrence, and modeled small number of Level A (rms) exposures, further site-specific consultation with NMFS and tiered EA/OEA 

to be prepared when a seismic survey is definitively proposed in the future.

Sei, Blue Effects highly unlikely given expected 0 density

(b)

.

Galapagos

Ridge

Humpback, Minke Effects highly unlikely given expected 0 density

(b)

.

Bryde‘s Small number of Level B behavioral changes likely primarily in deep water; insignificant number(b) of Level A (rms) exposures. No 

modeled Level A (SEL) cumulative energy exposure. Level A exposures highly unlikely as whales expected to avoid such exposure. 

Sei, Fin Effects highly unlikely given expected 0 density

(b)

.

Blue Limited to small number of short-term Level B behavioral exposures and likely to adversely affect blue whales; consultation with 

NMFS required. 

(a)No effects expected at population level for any species; see text, Tables 3.6-6 and 3.6-7 and Appendix B, Tables B-14 – B-25 for modeled numbers of exposures and percent of population exposed to Level 

A and B sound criteria. Insignificant number = >0.0 / <1.0 individual exposed representing <1% of estimated regional population size. Small number =>0.0 / <3.1% of estimated regional population size 

exposed. See Tables 3.6-6 and 3.6-7 and footnote (a). bold = ESA-listed species.

(b) See Appendix B, Annex 4 Tables A4-1 – A4-6 for estimated densities in the DAAs based on best available data.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-154

Table 3.6-8. Summary of Potential Impacts to Mysticetes with Implementation of Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

in the QAAs

QAA Whale Species* Alternative A or B*

BC Coast

N Pacific right Effects highly unlikely—species not expected to occur.

E Pacific gray, Minke Small number of Level B behavioral exposures likely; Level A exposures highly unlikely--whales expected to avoid such exposure (see 

Table 3.6-5). 

Humpback 

Not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species or their populations. Small number of Level B behavioral changes likely; Level A 

effects highly unlikely--whales expected to avoid such exposure (see Table 3.6-5). No effects expected at population level. However, 

given species‘ ESA status, common occurrence, large array, shallow water and some similarities with W Gulf of Alaska DAA, further 

site-specific consultation with NMFS likely to be conducted were an actual seismic survey proposed here.

Sei whale Not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species. Level B behavioral effects possible but unlikely; Level A effects highly unlikely as 

species rare and expected to avoid such exposure (see Table 3.6-5).

Fin, Blue Small number of Level B behavioral effects possible; Level A effects highly unlikely--species uncommon and expected to avoid such 

exposure (see Table 3.6-5).

Mid-Atlantic

Ridge

Humpback, Fin Not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species. Small number of Level B behavioral effects possible; Level A effects highly unlikely-

-species uncommon and expected to avoid such exposure (see Table 3.6-5).

Minke See humpback above.

Sei, Bryde‘s, Blue Not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species. Level B behavioral effects possible but unlikely; Level A effects highly unlikely--

species rare and expected to avoid such exposure (see Table 3.6-5).

Marianas

Humpback 

Small number of Level B behavioral changes likely; Level A effects highly unlikely--whales expected to avoid such exposure (see 

Table 3.6-5). No effects expected at population level. However, given species‘ ESA status, common occurrence, large array, and some 

shallow water, further site-specific consultation with NMFS likely to be conducted were an actual seismic survey proposed here.

Minke, Blue Not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species. Level B behavioral effects possible but unlikely; Level A effects highly unlikely—

species uncommon to rare and expected to avoid such exposure (see Table 3.6-5).

Bryde‘s, Omura‘s Small number of Level B behavioral changes likely; Level A effects highly unlikely--whales expected to avoid such exposure (see 

Table 3.6-5). 

Sei, Fin Not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species. Small number of Level B behavioral effects possible; Level A effects highly unlikely

– whales expected to avoid such exposure (see Table 3.6-5).

Sub-Antarctic

Southern right, 

Pygmy right, 

Humpback,

Antarctic minke, 

Dwarf minke 

Fin, Blue, Pygmy 

blue 

Not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species. Small number of Level B behavioral effects possible; Level A effects highly unlikely-

- species rare or uncommon, small array in deep water, and whales expected to avoid such exposure (see Table 3.6-5).

Sei, Bryde‘s Not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species. Small number of Level B behavioral changes likely; Level A effects highly unlikely--

small array in deep water and whales expected to avoid such exposure (see Table 3.6-5).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-155

Table 3.6-8. Summary of Potential Impacts to Mysticetes with Implementation of Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

in the QAAs

QAA Whale Species* Alternative A or B*

N Atlantic/

Iceland

N Atlantic right Not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species. Level B behavioral effects possible; Level A effects highly unlikely--species rare and 

whales expected to avoid such exposure (see Table 3.6-5).

Humpback, Sei, Fin, 

Blue 

Not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species. Small number of Level B behavioral changes likely; Level A effects highly unlikely--

whales expected to avoid such exposure (see Table 3.6-5). No effects expected at population level. Given species‘ ESA status, 

uncommon to common occurrence, large array, some shallow water, and some similarities with W Gulf of Alaska DAA, further sitespecific consultation with NMFS to be conducted were an actual seismic survey proposed here.

Minke Small number of Level B behavioral changes likely; Level A effects highly unlikely--whales expected to avoid such exposure (see 

Table 3.6-5).

SW Atlantic

Humpback Not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species. Level B behavioral effects possible but unlikely; Level A effects highly unlikely—

species rare and expected to avoid such exposure (see Table 3.6-5).

Minke, Antarctic 

minke, Sei, Fin, 

Blue, Pygmy blue 

Not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species. Small number of Level B behavioral changes possible; Level A effects highly 

unlikely--whales expected to avoid such exposure (see Table 3.6-5). Little known about these species in this area. 

Bryde‘s Small number of Level B behavioral changes likely; Level A effects highly unlikely--whales expected to avoid such exposure (see 

Table 3.6-5).

W India

Humpback,

Blue, Pygmy blue 

Not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species. Small number of Level B behavioral changes possible; Level A effects highly 

unlikely--species rare to uncommon and expected to avoid such exposure (see Table 3.6-5).

Minke, Dwarf minke, 

Sei, Fin 

Not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species. Small number of Level B behavioral changes possible; Level A effects highly 

unlikely--whales expected to avoid such exposure (see Table 3.6-5). Little known about these species in this area. 

Bryde‘s Small number of Level B behavioral changes likely; Level A effects highly unlikely--whales expected to avoid such exposure (see 

Table 3.6-5).

W Australia

Humpback, Bryde‘s Not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species. Small number of Level B behavioral changes likely; Level A effects highly unlikely--

whales expected to avoid such exposure (see Table 3.6-5). 

Minke, Antarctic 

minke, Dwarf minke, 

Sei, Fin, Pygmy blue 

Not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species. Small number of Level B behavioral changes possible; Level A effects highly 

unlikely--whales expected to avoid such exposure (see Table 3.6-5). Little known about these species in this area.

*No effects expected at population level for any species (see text). Bold = ESA-listed species.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-156

3.7 MARINE MAMMALS – CETACEANS: ODONTOCETES

3.7.1 Overview of Odontocete Groups

Of approximately 66 species of odontocetes(1)occurring in marine waters worldwide (Rice 1998; Reeves 

et al. 2002), 58 may occur in the 13 analysis areas during the season(s) of the exemplary seismic studies 

(Table 3.7-1). The status, global population estimates, general ecology, general distribution and migratory 

movements, and ecological considerations of these species are summarized in Table 3.7-1 and discussed 

below. Known hearing and call characteristics of odontocetes are also discussed.

3.7.1.1 Taxonomic Groups of Odontocetes

Under the taxonomic order Cetacea there are two suborders: the odontocetes, or toothed whales and 

dolphins, and the mysticetes, or baleen whales (Section 3.6). Odontocetes have teeth and use HF 

echolocation to navigate and find food. Odontocetes are divided into six taxonomic families: sperm 

whales (3 species), beaked whales (approximately 20 species), river dolphins (4 species), the monodonts 

(2 species), ocean dolphins (approximately 34 species), and porpoises (6 species). Odontocetes are a 

diverse group in distribution, habitat use, acoustic repertoire, and behavior, among other factors. They 

primarily occur in marine waters, though some have adapted to an estuarine existence (e.g., the Tucuxi 

dolphin, Irrawaddy dolphin, and finless porpoise) and four species occur strictly in fresh water.

(2)

Many odontocetes–particularly beaked whales, various other deep-diving whales, and some porpoises–

avoid vessels and are not easily seen at the surface (e.g., Richardson et al. 1995a; Barlow and Gisiner 

2006). As a result, data on their habits, population, and distribution are limited. In addition, most of these 

inconspicuous species were never hunted commercially; thus, whaling-based data on distribution and 

population are lacking. In contrast, many dolphins spend considerable time near the surface in large 

groups, commonly interact with vessels, and often suffer fatalities in conflict with fishing operations. As a 

result, dolphin species of the genera Stenella, Delphinus, and Tursiops have been the subject of more 

research, and population sizes are better known for them than for most of the more cryptic or solitary 

species of odontocetes. Sperm whales, although they dive deeply and for extended periods, are also fairly 

well known from historic whaling records and numerous recent studies. 

3.7.1.2 Distribution and Movements

Odontocetes are widely distributed and occur in all major oceans (Table 3.7-1). They are highly mobile 

and often move seasonally for food and breeding (Reeves et al. 2002). Many species remain year-round in 

tropical and subtropical areas, including the Fraser‘s dolphin, pantropical spotted dolphin, and pygmy 

killer whale (Reeves et al. 2002; Jefferson et al. 2008). Some are year-round residents in colder waters, 

with relatively small seasonal migrations (e.g., harbor porpoise) (Culik 2004). Others are more 

cosmopolitan, including the killer whale, sperm whale, and Cuvier‘s beaked whale. Some toothed whales 

undertake extensive seasonal migrations. For example, adult male sperm whales travel to high latitudes 

for summer feeding and back toward the equator for winter breeding (Reeves et al. 2002; Jefferson et al. 

2008).

 

1 The exact number of odontocete species in the world is uncertain, given the increasing use of genetics to revise taxonomy and

identify new species (Reeves et al. 2002). Recently described and confirmed odontocete species, including Perrin‘s beaked 

whale, Arabian common dolphin, and Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin, are considered herein. 

2 Three species of river dolphin are entirely excluded from this section because they occur exclusively in freshwater and thus 

would not occur in marine habitats addressed in this EIS/OEIS. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-157

Table 3.7-1. Summary of the Status, Global Population Size, General Habitat, and General Distribution and Movement of Odontocetes 

Potentially Occurring within the Analysis Areas*

Species

Status(a)

ESA/MMPA

IUCN/CITES)

U.S.

MMPA Stock(a)

Global

Population

Size(a)

General Ecology

and Prey

General Distribution/

Migratory Movements

Sperm whale E/SS

VU/I

N Atlantic,

N Pacific,

CA/OR/WA

500,000-2 million

Atlantic 13,190,

NE Pacific 39,200,

S Hemisphere 26,053

Deep water, especially along 

continental slope.

Cosmopolitan, near-worldwide, 

most abundant in warm tropical 

waters.

Pygmy and dwarf

sperm whales

-/-

DD/II

CA/OR/WA,

W N Atlantic

Global population NA; 

ETP 11,200,

US Atlantic 695

Continental shelf edge, deep 

water. Cosmopolitan in warm waters.

Baird‘s beaked whale -/-

DD/I

Alaska,

CA/OR/WA NA Pelagic deep water; feed primarily on squid.

Pacific Ocean north of 35o N, 

Bering Sea, Sea of Okhotsk.

Arnoux‘s beaked whale -/-

DD/I na NA Pelagic deep water; feed primarily on squid. S oceans from 34oS to ice edge.

Shepherd‘s beaked 

whale

-/-

DD/II na NA Pelagic deep water; feed primarily on squid.

Thought to be circumpolar in cold 

temperate waters of S hemisphere.

Cuvier‘s beaked whale -/-

LC/II

Alaska,

CA/OR/WA

W N Atlantic

Global population NA;

US Pacific1884, Hawaii 

12,728, ETP 90,725, 

US Atlantic 3,196

Pelagic deep water; feed 

primarily on squid. Worldwide, except polar waters.

Longman‘s beaked 

whale

-/-

DD/II na NA Pelagic deep water. Tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean waters.

Hector‘s beaked whale -/-

DD/II na NA Pelagic deep water; feed primarily on squid. All oceans in S hemisphere.

True‘s beaked whale -/-

DD/II na NA

Pelagic deep water, 

occasionally coastal; feed 

primarily on squid.

N Atlantic Ocean, 30o N-50o N.

Gervais‘ beaked whale -/-

DD/II W N Atlantic Global population NA Pelagic deep water; feed primarily on squid.

Tropical and warmer temperate 

Atlantic.

Sowerby‘s beaked 

whale

-/-

DD/II na NA

Pelagic deep water of 

continental shelf edge and 

slopes; feed primarily on squid.

N temperate to sub-polar north 

Atlantic.

Gray‘s beaked whale -/-

DD/II na NA

Pelagic deep water; feed 

primarily on squid.

Circumpolar temperate waters of 

the S hemisphere.

Pygmy beaked whale -/-

DD/II na NA Pelagic mid- to deep waters; feed primarily on squid. Tropical oceans, 15o S-25o N.

Andrew‘s beaked 

whale

-/-

DD/II na NA Pelagic deep water; feed primarily on squid.

Circumpolar in temperate waters 

of S hemisphere.

Spade-toothed whale -/-

DD/II na NA Pelagic deep water; feed primarily on squid.

Known from only three stranding 

records from temperate S Pacific.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-158

Table 3.7-1. Summary of the Status, Global Population Size, General Habitat, and General Distribution and Movement of Odontocetes 

Potentially Occurring within the Analysis Areas*

Species

Status(a)

ESA/MMPA

IUCN/CITES)

U.S.

MMPA Stock(a)

Global

Population

Size(a)

General Ecology

and Prey

General Distribution/

Migratory Movements

Hubb‘s beaked whale -/-

DD/II na NA Pelagic deep water; feed primarily on squid.

Cold temperate waters of the N 

Pacific.

Gingko-toothed beaked 

whale

-/-

DD/II na NA Pelagic deep water; feed primarily on squid.

Temperate and cooler tropical 

waters of the Pacific and Indian 

oceans.

Stejneger‘s beaked 

whale

-/-

DD/II na NA Pelagic deep water; feed primarily on squid.

Endemic to cold waters of North 

Pacific, Sea of Japan, and Bering 

Sea.

Strap-toothed whale -/-

DD/II na NA Pelagic deep water; feed primarily on squid.

Circumpolar temperate and 

subantarctic waters of S 

hemisphere.

Blainville‘s beaked 

whale

-/-

DD/II

CA/OR/WA,

W N Atlantic

Global population NA;

ETP 32,678 (all Mesoplodon

sp.)

Pelagic deep water; feed 

primarily on squid.

Tropical and warmer temperate 

waters worldwide.

Perrin‘s beaked whale -/-

DD/II na NA Pelagic deep water; feed primarily on squid.

No information; strandings known 

from California.

Northern bottlenose 

whale

-/-

DD/I na NA Pelagic deep water; known to forage in submarine canyons.

Subarctic north Atlantic to Nova 

Scotia; distribution possibly 

linked to that of squid of genus 

Gonatus.

Southern bottlenose 

whale

-/-

LC/I na NA Pelagic deep water; feed primarily on squid.

S oceans from 30o S to ice edge; 

summers in Antarctic waters, 

winter in more temperate areas.

Killer whale E (S Residents)/ -

DD/II

E N Pacific, Alaska, N 

Resident Offshore, 

Transient, S Resident, 

GoA & Aleutian Isl.

Transient Offshore, W 

Coast Transient, W N 

Atlantic

Thousands to tens of 

thousands;

S Residents in BC and WA 

↓;

Atlantic 6,600, ETP 8,500

Three distinct ecotypes: 

residents, transients, & 

offshore groups; occur from 

open ocean waters to estuaries 

and fjords.

Cosmopolitan; found from 

tropical oceans to pack ice in both 

hemispheres.

False killer whale -/-

DD/II na

Tens of thousands;

ETP 40,000

Deep offshore waters; feed on 

fish and squid, occasionally 

other marine mammals.

Tropical to temperate oceans 

worldwide.

Pygmy killer whale -/-

DD/II W N Atlantic Hundreds of thousands;ETP 38,900

Deep water; feed on fish and 

squid, possibly other dolphins. Pantropical.

Melon-headed whale -/-

LC/II W N Atlantic Tens of thousands;ETP 45,400

Pelagic or around oceanic 

islands; feed on squid, fish and 

shrimp.

Pantropical, 20o N-20o S; sightings 

in temperate areas likely 

associated with warm currents.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-159

Table 3.7-1. Summary of the Status, Global Population Size, General Habitat, and General Distribution and Movement of Odontocetes 

Potentially Occurring within the Analysis Areas*

Species

Status(a)

ESA/MMPA

IUCN/CITES)

U.S.

MMPA Stock(a)

Global

Population

Size(a)

General Ecology

and Prey

General Distribution/

Migratory Movements

Long-finned pilot 

whale

-/-

DD/II W N Atlantic Millions Pelagic; feed on squid and some fish.

Mid-latitude waters of the N 

Atlantic and S hemisphere.

Short-finned pilot 

whale

-/-

DD/II

CA/OR/WA,

W N Atlantic

Tens of thousands;

ETP 160,200

Pelagic; feed on squid and 

some fish. Circumglobal 40o S-50o N.

Risso‘s dolphin -/-

LC/II

CA/OR/WA,

W N Atlantic

Hundreds of thousands;

US Pacific 16,066; US 

Atlantic 29,110; ETP 

175,800

Pelagic over steep slopes, 

seamounts, and escarpments; 

feed primarily on squid.

Tropical and mid-temperate 

waters worldwide, approx. 55o S–

60o N.

Short-beaked common 

dolphin

-/-

LC/II

CA/OR/WA,

W N Atlantic

Millions; US Pacific 

449,846; ETP 3,093,300; 

US Atlantic 120,743

Feed on small epipelagic 

schooling fish, squid.

Tropical and temperate oceans, 

worldwide.

Long-beaked common 

dolphin

-/-

DD/II California >25,000 Feed on small epipelagic schooling fish, squid.

Nearshore tropical and warm 

temperate waters of some oceans.

Fraser‘s dolphin -/-

LC/II W N Atlantic

Hundreds of thousands;

ETP 289,300,

US Atlantic 726

Occur in waters >1000 m deep; 

feed on squid, shrimp, and 

mesopelagic fish.

Tropical oceans worldwide, 

occasional presence in temperate 

waters during El Niño events.

Indo-Pacific humpback 

dolphin

-/-

NT/I

na A few thousand

Coastal and estuarine waters; 

feed on fish and benthic 

invertebrates.

Coastline of the Indian Ocean, 

southern China, Borneo, northern 

and eastern Australia.

Bottlenose dolphin -/SS

LC/II

California Coastal,

CA/OR/WA Offshore, 

W N Atlantic Coastal & 

Offshore

Millions;

US Pacific 5065;

US Atlantic >185,000;

ETP 243,500

Two types: one inhabits 

continental shelf and upper 

slope <1000 m deep; the other 

deep oceanic waters; feed on a 

variety of fish.

Worldwide in temperate and 

tropical waters excluding Indian 

Ocean.

Indo-Pacific bottlenose 

dolphin

-/-

DD/II na NA Coastal and shelf waters; diet unknown.

Entire rim of Indian Ocean from 

western Pacific to the Red Sea and 

Persian Gulf.

Pantropical spotted 

dolphin

-/-

LC/II W N Atlantic Millions;ETP 2,059,100

Deeper waters; feed 

nocturnally on vertically 

migrating prey.

Tropical oceans worldwide.

Atlantic spotted 

dolphin

-/-

DD/II W N Atlantic Millions;US Atlantic 50,978

Continental shelf waters 

<250 m deep; feed on flying 

fish & other epipelagic species.

Tropical and warm temperate 

waters of the western north 

Atlantic.

Spinner dolphin -/-

DD/II W N Atlantic approx. 2 million;ETP 1,651,100

Pelagic & near oceanic islands; 

feed nocturnally on 

mesopelagic fish and squid.

Pantropical at 30o-40o N and 20o30oS.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-160

Table 3.7-1. Summary of the Status, Global Population Size, General Habitat, and General Distribution and Movement of Odontocetes 

Potentially Occurring within the Analysis Areas*

Species

Status(a)

ESA/MMPA

IUCN/CITES)

U.S.

MMPA Stock(a)

Global

Population

Size(a)

General Ecology

and Prey

General Distribution/

Migratory Movements

Clymene dolphin -/-

DD/II W N Atlantic Thousands

Linked to sea surface temperatures of 22.8o to 29.1oC at 

depths ranging 700 to 

>3000 m; feed on small 

mesopelagic fish and squid.

Tropical and warm Atlantic 

waters.

Striped dolphin -/-

LC/II

CA/OR/WA,

W N Atlantic

Hundreds of thousands;

US Pacific 13,934; 

ETP 1,918,000;

US Atlantic 94,462

Pelagic edge of continental 

shelf, occasionally coastal; 

feed on small fish and 

cephalopods.

Worldwide tropical and temperate 

waters.

White-beaked dolphin -/-

LC/II W N Atlantic Tens of thousands

Continental shelf waters, 

especially along shelf edge; 

prey - variety of fish & inverts.

Subarctic north Atlantic Ocean, 

often to edge of pack ice.

Atlantic white-sided 

dolphin

-/-

LC/II W N Atlantic Tens to hundreds of thousands

Continental shelf, slope, and 

canyons; feed on squid and 

schooling fish.

Temperate and subarctic north 

Atlantic.

Pacific white-sided 

dolphin

-/-

LC/II

N Pacific, 

CA/OR/WA

approx. 1 million;

US Pacific 59,274

Continental margins, 

occasionally enter inshore 

passages; feed on squid and 

schooling fish.

Temperate North Pacific Ocean.

Dusky dolphin -/-

DD/II na NA

Occur in coastal and 

continental shelf waters 

<200 m deep; feed on squid 

and schooling fish.

Discontinuous in southern Pacific

Ocean; usually cooler waters but 

found as far north as 11o S along 

coast of Peru.

Peale‘s dolphin -/-

DD/II na NA

Shallow coastal waters, 

frequently very close to shore; 

feed on shrimp, squid, and fish; 

have been observed foraging 

among kelp beds.

Argentinean and Chilean coasts 

south of 40o S.

Hourglass dolphin -/-

LC/II na Hundreds of thousands Pelagic frequently sighted among fin whales.

Throughout southern hemisphere 

south of 45o S.

Rough-toothed dolphin -/-

LC/II W N Atlantic Global NA;Hawaii 19,904; ETP 145,900

Deep offshore waters; feed on 

fish and cephalopods.

Worldwide tropical, subtropical, 

and warm temperate waters.

Northern right whale

dolphin

-/-

LC/II CA/OR/WA Hundreds of thousands; US Pacific 20,362

Shelf and slope waters up to 

and >2000m; feed at night on 

vertically migrating prey.

Cooler temperate and subarctic 

northern Pacific waters, 30o-50o N.

Southern right whale

dolphin

-/-

DD/II na NA Primarily offshore but occasionally coastal.

Between subtropical and Antarctic 

convergences in S hemisphere.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-161

Table 3.7-1. Summary of the Status, Global Population Size, General Habitat, and General Distribution and Movement of Odontocetes 

Potentially Occurring within the Analysis Areas*

Species

Status(a)

ESA/MMPA

IUCN/CITES)

U.S.

MMPA Stock(a)

Global

Population

Size(a)

General Ecology

and Prey

General Distribution/

Migratory Movements

Tucuxi -/-

DD/I na NA

Coastal, estuarine and riverine 

waters; feed on pelagic and 

demersal fish.

Amazon–Orinoco River system, 

coastal waters from Columbia to 

southern Brazil.

Irawaddy dolphin -/-

VU/I na >1000 Mangrove wetlands, estuarine, shallow coastal waters.

Discontinuous in Eastern Indian 

Ocean, coasts of southeast Asia, 

India, Indonesia; those off N 

Australia proposed as new 

species.

(b)

Finless porpoise

-/-

VU worldwide,

E in China/I

na Thousands

Coastal and estuarine waters; 

feed on a wide variety of fish 

and invertebrates.

Tropical Asia, central Japan to 

Java and the Persian Gulf.

Harbor porpoise -/SOC

LC/II

Gulf of Alaska, 

SE Alaska,

Gulf of Maine/Bay of 

Fundy

Thousands;

US Pacific 78,000; 

Alaska 125,000;

W N Atlantic 89,054

Shallow coastal and shelf 

waters; feed on small 

schooling fish.

Arctic to temperate northern 

Atlantic and Pacific, small 

remnant population in the Black 

Sea.

Spectacled porpoise -/-

DD/II na

NA but rare throughout 

range.

Deep oceanic waters. Circumpolar in colder temperate 

to Antarctic waters.

Burmeister‘s porpoise -/-

DD/II na NA Coastal waters normally <100 m deep but up to 1000 m.

Cape Horn to N Peru.

Dall‘s porpoise -/-

LC/II

Alaska, 

CA/OR/WA

Hundreds of thousands to 

millions;

US Pacific 99,517;

Alaska 83,400

Inshore to deep oceanic waters; 

feed on squid and small fish.

N Pacific and adjacent seas, 20o65o N.

Notes: *Excludes five marine odontocete species of limited distribution that do not occur in any of the 13 analysis areas: Commerson‘s dolphin (Cephalorhynchus commersonii), Chilean 

dolphin (C. eutropia), Heaviside‘s dolphin (C. heavisidii), Hector‘s dolphin (C. hectori), vaquita (Phocoena sinus), along with all three species of river (freshwater) dolphins 

(Ganges and Indus river dolphins [Platanista gangetica], Amazon River dolphin [Inia geoffrensis], and Franciscana or La Plata River dolphin [Pontoporia blainvillei]). 

(a)E = endangered; CR = Critically Endangered; DD = Data Deficient; EN = Endangered; LC = Least Concern; na = not applicable; NA - Data not available or species status was 

not assessed. NT = Near Threatened; SS = Strategic Stock; VU = Vulnerable; I = Appendix I – includes species threatened with extinction that are or may be affected by trade; II 

= Appendix II – includes species that are not presently threatened with extinction, but may become so if their trade is not regulated. - = no status listing; 

(b)A new species of dolphin, the Australian snubfin dolphin, has recently been proposed off the north coast of Australia; these dolphins have previously been considered Irawaddy 

dolphins (Beasley et al. 2005). For the purposes of this analysis, the two are combined under Irawaddy dolphin.

Sources: Ridgway and Harrison 1989; Wade and Gerrodette 1993; Bannister et al. 1996; Koski et al. 1998; Reeves et al. 2002; Whitehead 2002; L-DEO and NSF 2003a, b, c, d, e; Mullin 

and Fulling 2003; Wade et al. 2003; L-DEO and NSF 2004 a, b, c, d; NMFS 2005b; SIO and NSF 2004, 2005; May–Collado et al. 2005; Navy 2007; Barlow et al. 2006; L-DEO 

and NSF 2006a, b; NOAA Fisheries 2010; UNEP 2006; UTA and NSF 2006; Waring et al. 2006, 2009; Angliss and Outlaw 2007; Carretta et al. 2007, 2009; Angliss and Allen

2009; CITES 2010; IUCN 2010.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-162

Many studies show correlations between cetacean densities and physical variables that influence 

distribution and abundance of prey (e.g., bottom relief, water depth, water temperature, water-mass 

boundaries) (Sutcliffe and Brodie 1977; Reeves and Whitehead 1997; Hooker 1999). Numerous 

odontocetes, such as Atlantic white-sided dolphin, Pacific white-sided dolphin, and hourglass dolphin, 

feed at high latitudes in summer, exploiting biologically productive areas (Reeves et al. 2002; Jefferson et 

al. 2008). 

Calving and/or breeding can occur year-round throughout the range of some odontocetes. Others exhibit 

specific breeding/calving periods and/or locations. In general, species that occur in colder waters tend to 

calve in warmer months while those in tropical waters year-round show less seasonality (e.g., Stenella

dolphins). Although most odontocetes breed and calve primarily in spring and summer (e.g., killer whale 

and beluga whale), some species do calve in fall and winter (e.g., tucuxi dolphin and pygmy sperm whale)

(Reeves et al. 2002). For some species data on reproduction are scarce or absent (e.g., most beaked 

whales, Risso‘s dolphin, Fraser‘s dolphin, and rough-toothed dolphin) (Reeves et al. 2002; Jefferson et al. 

2008). 

3.7.1.3 Important Ecological Considerations

Important ecological considerations for odontocetes with respect to activities considered in the analysis 

for this PEIS are (1) the location, duration, and timing of calving and breeding; (2) the locations of 

important feeding and migration areas; (3) the duration and depths of foraging dives; and (4) the 

sensitivity of some species to the low-frequency and other sound from seismic survey activities, as it 

potentially affects an animal‘s ability to interact with its environment and meet its biological needs. Items 

(1) and (2) were discussed briefly above and are further summarized in Tables 3.10-3 and 3.10-4 relative 

to each analysis area. For this analysis, particular attention is given to those odontocetes that undertake 

deep, prolonged foraging dives. These habits may potentially result in longer exposure to higher-energy 

sounds associated with seismic research activities.

Depths and durations of foraging dives by odontocetes vary with species, age class, time of day, and the 

depths at which prey occurs. Odontocetes that feed on squid generally make the deepest dives. Such 

species routinely dive to at least several hundred meters for up to about 1 hr at the extreme (Reeves et al. 

2002; U.S. Navy 2007). About 60% of the odontocete species addressed here are considered deep (>3,280

ft [1,000 m]) divers. These include the sperm, dwarf and pygmy sperm, beaked, pilot, false killer, and 

melon-headed whales, and many dolphins (Table 3.7-1). For example, the sperm whales can dive to 6,300 

ft (1,920 m) or more for periods of over 1 hr; however, most foraging dives occur at 1,000–2,600 ft (300-

800 m) for 30-45 min. During a foraging dive, sperm whales typically travel about 1.9 mi (3 km) 

horizontally and 0.3 mi (0.5 km) vertically (Whitehead 2002). 

A few odontocetes considered here feed in shallow (<328 ft [100 m]) waters, usually coastal, including 

the Tucuxi dolphin, Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin, Peale‘s dolphin, and harbor porpoise (Table 3.7-1). 

However, the foraging range of many other odontocetes includes intermediate water depths of 328-3,280 

ft (100-1,000 m). Such odontocetes prey on epipelagic species (e.g. flying fish) or mesopelagic fishes, 

squid, or invertebrates (e.g., dusky, common bottlenose, and Atlantic spotted dolphins; killer whale; 

beluga whale; and some beaked whales). Some feed largely nocturnally on vertically migrating prey, 

associated with the deep scattering layer, which move closer to the water surface during darkness (e.g., 

spinner and northern right whale dolphins). Underwater topographic features are often associated with 

concentrations of pelagic prey and thus odontocete habitats include seamounts, escarpments, canyons, 

slope areas, and oceanic islands.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-163

Threats to odontocetes include commercial fishing, entanglement, oil spills, organic pollutants, food 

availability, pollution, harvesting by humans, habitat degradation, and increasing underwater noise among 

others. Among odontocetes, sperm whales in particular were heavily exploited by commercial whaling 

industries over the last two centuries. Although the IWC issued a ban on all commercial whaling in 1985, 

the sperm whale is still considered endangered. Many small odontocetes are currently hunted in various 

coastal waters of the world, including belugas in U.S. waters (Alaska).

3.7.1.4 Special-Status Species

Of the 58 odontocete species considered in this PEIS, the only ESA-listed species are the sperm whale 

(endangered) and the Southern Resident Population of killer whales listed as endangered in Washington 

State, U.S. (Table 3.7-1). Although the sperm whale is officially considered endangered under the ESA, it 

is cosmopolitan and relatively numerous, and it is not biologically endangered. Two other marine 

odontocetes, the vaquita or Gulf of California harbor porpoise and Cook Inlet population of beluga 

whales, that are listed under the ESA do not occur in the analysis areas, and thus are excluded from 

further discussion. 

All marine mammals are protected by U.S. federal law under the MMPA. Some species or populations (or 

stocks) receive special attention under the MMPA due to concern about population numbers or trends. 

Two odontocete species in this analysis are considered as MMPA Species of Concern or ―Strategic 

Stocks‖. Strategic stocks are defined as ―those that are suffering depletion from human causes, in excess 

of the potential biological removal level (or, natural mortality), which are likely to face listing under the 

ESA of 1973, based on scientific information, or are already listed as a Threatened, Endangered or 

Depleted species under the ESA‖ (MMC 2003). The two MMPA Species of Concern addressed herein are 

all killer whale populations and the Gulf of Maine stock of harbor porpoises (Table 3.7-1).

Beaked whales, although protected under the MMPA in the same manner as other marine mammal 

species, do not have special status under U.S. law. However, there is increasing recognition that they can 

be unusually sensitive to some forms of underwater sound, and it is becoming increasingly common to 

give special consideration to beaked whales when planning or conducting activities producing high-level

underwater sound (reviewed in Appendix E).

All toothed whales except the Arabian common dolphin have IUCN status and CITES status (Table 

3.7-1). Only one odontocete population listed in Table 3.7-1 is considered Endangered by the IUCN: the 

China population of the finless porpoise. Three species are listed by the IUCN as Vulnerable (finless 

porpoise [worldwide], sperm whale, and Irawaddy dolphin), 1 species is Near Threatened (Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphin), 17 species are considered Least Concern, and 35 species are listed as Data Deficient. 

3.7.1.5 Acoustic Capabilities

Odontocetes rely on underwater sound to communicate and gain information about their surroundings. In 

addition to communication sounds, odontocetes use HF echolocation while foraging and presumably 

while navigating and orienting (Au 1993; Richardson et al. 1995a; Au et al. 2000; Reeves et al. 2002). 

The hearing abilities and sound production characteristics of some odontocete species have been studied 

in detail (summarized in Table 3.7-2) (Richardson et al. 1995a; Au et al. 2000; U.S. Navy 2007; Southall 

et al. 2007). Available data on odontocete hearing come from a limited number of species and, for almost 

all of those, from very few (often only 1 or 2) individuals. The results from the bottlenose dolphin, where 

hearing by numerous individuals has been studied, show considerable variability in the hearing abilities of 

different individuals (Houser and Finneran 2006), as also occurs in humans and other terrestrial 

mammals.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-164

Table 3.7-2. Summary of Underwater Hearing and Sound Production Characteristics of Odontocetes 

Potentially Occurring within the Analysis Areas

Sound Production(a) Hearing

Species or Group

Frequency

Range

(kHz)

Dominant

Frequencies

(kHz)

Source Level

(dB re 1 μPa-m)

Frequency

Range

(kHz)

Threshold at

Best Sensitivity

(dB re 1 μPa)

Sperm whale <0.1-30 2-4, 10-16 202, 236 2.5-60 -

Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales 60-200 120-130 - 90-150 -

Cuvier‘s beaked whale 13-17 - - - -

Baird‘s beaked whale 12-134 23-24.6,

35-45

- - -

Arnoux‘s beaked whale 1-8.7 - - - -

Bottlenose whales (Hyperoodon spp.) 0.5-26+ 3-16 - - -

Beaked whales (Mesoplodon spp.) 0.380 0.3-2 200-220 5-90 -

Beluga 0.1-150

0.1–16,

40-60,

100-120

206-225 0.04-150 42

at 11-100 kHz(c)

Narwhal 0.3-18 0.3-10 - - -

Dolphins (Cephalorhynchus spp.) 0.32-150

0.8-2,

4-4.5,

116-134

160-163 - -

Rough-toothed dolphin 0.1-200 2-14,

4-7, 25 - - -

Humpbacked dolphins (Sousa spp.) 1.2–16+ - - - -

Tucuxi 3.6-23.9 7.1-18.5 - <4-135(a) 50 at 85 kHz(a)

Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) 0.05-150

0.3-14.5,

25-30,

95-130

125-173

228 0.15-135 42–52at 15 kHz(c)

Dolphins (Stenella spp.) 0.06–160 5-60, 40-50,

130-40 210, 223 0.5-160 42 at 64 kHz(b, c)

Common dolphins (Delphinus spp.) 0.2-150 0.5-18

30-60 143-180 <5–150 53 at 65 kHz(d)

Fraser‘s dolphin 4.3-40 - - - -

Dolphins (Lagenorhynchus spp.) 0.06-325

0.3-5, 4-15,

6.9-19.2, 

60-80

80-219 0.5-135

0.1-140(e) 64 kHz(e)

Right whale dolphins (Lissodelphis

spp.) 1-<40 1.8-3

170 - -

Risso‘s dolphin 0.1-65 2-5, 65 216 1.5-100 63.6–74.3

at 4-80 kHz(c)

Melon-headed whale 8-40 8-12, 20-40 155-165 - -

False killer whale 4-130

4.7-6.1,

25-30,

100-130

228 <1-115 39-49 at 17 kHz

70 at 5 kHz(c)

Killer whale 0.08-85 1-20 105-160 <0.5-120 35 at 15-42 kHz(c)

Pilot whales (Globicephala spp.) 0.28-100 2-14, 30-60 180 - -

Porpoises (Phocoena spp.) 0.04-150

0.04-0.6,

1.4-2.5,

110-150

177 0.1-140 55 at approx. 30 

kHz(c)

Dall‘s porpoise 0.04-160 0.04-12

120-130 175 - -

Notes: (a) Sauerland and Dehnhardt 1998; hearing threshold directly measured.

(b) Kastelein et al. 2003; hearing threshold directly measured for striped dolphin. 

(c) Richardson et al. 1995a; hearing thresholds directly measured for beluga, killer whale, harbor porpoise, bottlenose dolphin, false killer whale, 

Risso‘s dolphin, and Stenella dolphins.

(d) U.S. Navy 2005; hearing threshold directly measured.

(e) Tremel et al. 1998; hearing threshold measured based on behavioral/psychophysical response studies of Pacific white-sided dolphin.

Sources: Richardson et al. 1995a; Sauerland and Dehnhardt 1998; Au et al. 2000; Kastelein et al. 2003; Johnson et al. 2004; U.S. Navy 2007; Zimmer 

et al. 2005; Cook et al. 2006; Southall et al. 2007; Finneran et al. 2009.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-165

Optimum hearing among odontocetes is likely within the frequency range of vocalizations emitted, but

hearing may extend beyond this frequency range since other environmental sounds may also be important 

(Richardson et al. 1995a; Ketten 2004; Southall et al. 2007). Studies to date indicate that small- to 

moderate-sized odontocetes have relatively poor hearing sensitivity at frequencies <1 kHz, but extremely 

good sensitivity at, and above, several kHz. Hearing sensitivity of several species has been determined as 

a function of frequency (e.g., Richardson et al. 1995a; Ketten 2004). In comparison, there are very few 

data on the absolute hearing thresholds of most of the larger, deep-diving toothed whales, such as the 

sperm and beaked whales. However, Cook et al. (2006) report that a stranded juvenile Gervais‘ beaked 

whale showed evoked potentials from 5 to 80 kHz, with the best sensitivity at 80 kHz (Table 3.7-2). An 

adult Gervais‘ beaked whale had a similar upper cutoff frequency (80-90 kHz; Finneran et al. 2009).

The hearing systems of small toothed whales are almost certainly less sensitive to low-frequency sounds 

than are the ears of the mysticetes (summarized in Section 3.7.1.5). Odontocetes are generally believed to 

be less sensitive to the low frequencies that contribute most of the energy in sound pulses from airgun 

arrays. However, most odontocetes appear to be highly sensitive to mid- and high-frequencies (e.g., 3-100 

kHz), at which various sonar systems operate (Table 3.7-2).

Odontocetes occurring in the analysis areas were categorized into MF and HF functional hearing groups 

based on similarities in their hearing capabilities and physiology (see Section 2.3.3 and Appendix B for 

more details). The MF group, collectively, is believed to have functional hearing from about 150 Hz to 

160 kHz, although individual species may not have quite so broad a range (Southall et al. 2007). This MF

functional hearing group is further subdivided into 15 genus or species groupings as identified in the AIM

procedures applied to this analysis: sperm whale; Kogia; beaked whales; narwhal, orca; blackfish; and 

Risso‘s, common, Fraser‘s, bottlenose, Stenella, Lagenorhynchus, Steno, Lissodelphis, and shallow-water 

dolphins (see Section 3.5.3.3 and Appendix B). The HF group, with functional hearing from about 200 Hz 

to 180 kHz, contains only one subgroup addressed in these analyses – porpoises. In this analysis, dwarf 

and pygmy sperm whales are treated as MF odontocetes, following common practice until very recently

(Southall et al. 2007).

3.7.2 Affected Environment: Detailed Analysis Areas (DAAs)

This section summarizes the region-specific occurrence of odontocetes within the five DAAs for which 

acoustic modeling was conducted. Discussion is limited to those species present during the season(s) of 

the exemplary marine seismic surveys (Table 3.7-3). Discussion is focused on species considered most 

relevant based on special status (e.g., ESA), deep-diving habits, and those that are expected to be most 

abundant/common. 

3.7.2.1 NW Atlantic

A broad body of research and data exist for the occurrence and distribution of odontocetes in the NW 

Atlantic. Marine mammals are regularly assessed (e.g., via NOAA Stock Assessments) within the U.S. 

Atlantic EEZ using aerial and shipboard sighting surveys combined with historical sightings and records 

of strandings and incidental fisheries bycatch (e.g., Waring et al. 2006). Additionally, opportunistic 

sightings, radio- and satellite-tagging programs, academic research, and other miscellaneous projects 

(e.g., U.S. Navy 2005; Palka 2006) contribute data here. 

Nineteen odontocete species may occur in the NW Atlantic DAA during summer (Table 3.7-3). Those 

most relevant to the exemplary seismic study are sperm whales, dwarf and pygmy sperm whales, shortfinned pilot whales, long-finned pilot whales, short-beaked common dolphins, common bottlenose 

dolphins, Atlantic spotted dolphins, pantropical spotted dolphins, striped dolphins, Atlantic white-sided 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-166

dolphins, white-beaked dolphins, and harbor porpoises. Dolphins (common, bottlenose, Atlantic spotted, 

and striped) are most likely to be encountered during the analysis period. The only species with special 

status is the ESA-listed endangered sperm whale (Tables 3.7-1 and 3.7-3). Several species of beaked 

whales occur in the area at least occasionally; they are of concern because of potential sensitivity to 

anthropogenic sounds. 

Table 3.7-3. Potential Occurrence of Odontocetes within the DAAs during the Period of Proposed 

Exemplary Seismic Surveys

Species

NW Atlantic

(N Sum)*a

Caribbean

(N Spr or Sum)*b

S Calif.

(N Spr or

Sum)*d

W Gulf

of Alaska

(N Sum)*e,f

Galapagos

(S Sum)*g

Sperm whale F c F c BF r F r F u

Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales F u [2] BF r [2] F r [2] - BF c [2]

Beaked whales (2 Berardius spp.) - - B? F r [1] F u [1] -

Cuvier‘s beaked whale F r B? F r B? F r F u B? F u

Longman‘s beaked whale - - - - B? F r

Beaked whales (14 Mesoplodon spp.) F r [4] B? F r [2] B? F r [5] F r [1] B? F u [3]

Beluga - - - F r -

Narwhal - - - - -

Killer whale - BF r BF u BF u BF r

False killer whale - B? F r B? F r - B? F u

Pygmy killer whale - BF r - - B? F u

Melon-headed whale - B? F r - - B? F u

Pilot whales (2 Globicephala spp.) B? F r [2] B? F c [1] BF r [1] F r [1] B? F u c [1]

Risso‘s dolphin F r? B? F?r BF r F r? B? F u

Common dolphins (3 Delphinus spp.) F a [approx. 1] BF a [1] BFM a [2] - B? F c [1]

Fraser‘s dolphin - B? F r - - B? F u

Bottlenose dolphins (2 Tursiops spp.) BF a [1] BF a [1] BF r [1] - BF r [1]

Dolphins (5 Stenella spp.) F a [3] BF a [5] B? F r [3] - B? F a [3]

Dolphins (6 Lagenorhynchus spp.) BF r? [2] - BFM a [1] B? F u [1] -

Rough-toothed dolphin - B? F u? B? F r - B? F c

Right whale dolphins (2 Lissodelphis spp.) - - BFM a [1] - -

Porpoises (3 Phocoena spp.) BF r [1] - BF r [1] BF c [1] -

Dall‘s porpoise - - BF a B? F a -

Notes: *[ ] = number of species found in the specific analysis area; (Season) = N or S hemisphere season during which the exemplary seismic 

cruise would occur within the analysis area; B = known to breed or calve within the area/season; F = known to feed within the 

area/season; M = known to migrate through the area/season; ? = unknown/possible; a = Abundant: the species is expected to be 

encountered during a single visit to the area and the number of individuals encountered during an average visit may be as many as 

hundreds or more; c = common: the species is expected to be encountered once or more during 2-3 visits to the area during the relevant 

season, and the number of individuals encountered during an average visit is unlikely to be more than a few 10s; u = uncommon: the 

species is expected to be encountered at most a few times a year during the relevant season, assuming many visits to the area; r = rare: 

the species is not expected to be encountered more than once in several years during the relevant season,; na = reliable data not available 

or uncertain or species status was not assessed; - = species does not occur there. 

Sources: Reeves et al. 2002; Culik 2004; Angliss and Outlaw 2005; Carretta et al. 2006, 2008; Waring et al. 2006, 2009; Angliss and Allen 

2009; also see footnotes.

(a)U.S. Navy 2005; (b)L-DEO and NSF 2003e; (d)Koski et al. 1998; (e)L-DEO and NSF 2004c; (f)L-DEO and NSF 2004d; 

(g)L-DEO and NSF 2003a.

Sperm whales summer in the Mid-Atlantic Bight off the Eastern U.S. coast from Virginia to 

Massachusetts (Reeves et al. 2002; Palka 2006). Female/juvenile groups inhabit temperate and tropical 

waters and rarely move as far north as the Canadian EEZ. Males have a wider range, including the 

Hudson Strait in Canada (Reeves and Whitehead 1997; Whitehead 2003). Groups commonly consist of 

20-40 animals including adult females, their calves, and juveniles (Waring et al. 2006). They feed on 

squid through the summer months, foraging mainly near the ocean bottom; they move to more southern 

temperate and tropical latitudes for the winter (Reeves et. al 2002; Waring et al. 2005b). The sperm whale 

population off the eastern U.S. coast is estimated at 4,800 animals, although estimates may be low due to 

undercounting because of their lengthy dives (Waring et al. 2006). 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-167

Beaked whale natural history is poorly known worldwide and many existing data are from strandings. 

From 1992 to 2003, a total of 77 beaked whales are known to have stranded along the U.S. Atlantic coast; 

causes included fishery interaction, pollution, illness, and unknown origins. Beaked whales are deep 

divers and feed primarily on deep-diving squid (Table 3.7-1). Sightings occur mostly along the shelf edge 

and in deeper oceanic waters. Recent surveys conducted for the U.S. NOAA western North Atlantic Stock 

Assessment (Waring et al. 2006) suggest beaked whales are most abundant in the Gulf Stream and warmcore ring features. Unidentified beaked whales have been recorded during aerial and vessel surveys in the 

area during the summer (Palka 2006). 

Specific identification of beaked whale species at sea is difficult. The total number of beaked whales of 

all species off the northern U.S. Atlantic coast has been estimated at approximately 2,840 (Palka 2006). 

Cuvier‘s beaked whale is the species for which most is known. It has been sighted in late spring or 

summer along the shelf edge in the Mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. coast. Most sightings of Mesoplodon 

beaked whales were also recorded in late spring and summer. True‘s and Blainville‘s beaked whales have 

been recorded from Nova Scotia to Florida and the Bahamas. Gervais‘ beaked whale is the most common 

species in stranding records from the U.S. Atlantic coast (Cape Cod Bay to Florida); however, this species 

is thought to be more oceanic than some other mesoplodonts (Angliss and Outlaw 2005). Sowerby‘s 

beaked whales are included in the population estimate for beaked whales but occur primarily to the north 

of the analysis area. 

Bottlenose dolphins in the NW Atlantic consist of at least five genetically distinct stocks distributed from 

southern Long Island, New York to central Florida (NMFS 2001a; McLellan et al. 2003). Eight 

management units have been established in this region. There are two morphotypes: coastal and offshore 

(Waring et al. 2006). The coastal morphotype seems to be restricted to waters <82 ft (25 m) deep north of 

Cape Hatteras (35°N) (Kenney 1990). The northern coastal stock of bottlenose dolphins is considered 

depleted under the MMPA. The offshore morphotype inhabits deeper offshore waters of the NW Atlantic 

and is thus more likely in the DAA. The summer abundance figure for the 2004 survey region 

encompassing the DAA is approximately 2,942 offshore bottlenose dolphins (Palka 2006).

3.7.2.2 Caribbean

Occurrence and distribution data for odontocetes in the SE Caribbean are limited. The most extensive 

cetacean surveys in the greater Caribbean were conducted in winter by Swartz et al. (2001, 2003). 

Smultea et al. (2004) report on visual and acoustic monitoring in the specific DAA in spring 2003 during 

an NSF-sponsored marine seismic cruise. The most abundant species were long-beaked common dolphin, 

common bottlenose dolphin, and Atlantic spotted dolphin. Data from the larger Caribbean Sea include the 

presence of 21 odontocetes during spring or summer. Those most relevant to the exemplary Caribbean 

DAA are dwarf and pygmy sperm whales, two Mesoplodon species, short-finned pilot whale, long-beaked 

common dolphin, common bottlenose dolphin, and five Stenella species (Table 3.7-3). One ESA-listed 

species, the sperm whale, is present. Other odontocetes include various beaked whales. Based on 

combined results of available studies (Smultea et al. 2004; Kannada and Romero 2005), the most 

common species are likely to be the short-finned pilot whale and the common, bottlenose, pantropical 

spotted, Atlantic spotted, and spinner dolphins.

All three deep-diving sperm whale species occur in the DAA. The sperm whale is most likely to be 

encountered (Table 3.7-3). Adults, juveniles, and calves are most common during summer throughout the 

Caribbean Sea (Watkins et al 1985; Romero et al 2001). However, their deep-diving habits reduce the 

likelihood of detection. Watkins et al (1999, 2002) found that sperm whale dives averaged 3,248 ft (990 

m) deep and 44 min long, and were interspersed with surface activity for rest or social interactions. Dives 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-168

are associated with foraging for squid below the deep scattering layer (Wahlberg 2002). The mean size of 

sperm whale groups is fewer than four individuals (Roden and Mullin 2000). Pygmy and dwarf sperm 

whales are less frequently reported than sperm whales but are still common throughout the Caribbean Sea. 

They are thought to reside there year-round. Both species are poorly known, but the Caribbean Sea seems 

to be a breeding and calving area (Cardona-Maldanado and Mignucci-Giannoni 1999). Pygmy sperm 

whales mate and calve from fall through spring; less is known about the breeding and calving season for 

the dwarf sperm whale (Reeves et al. 2002). Differentiation of dwarf and pygmy sperm whales is difficult 

at sea, so sightings of either species are usually categorized as Kogia species.

Several other deep-diving odontocetes occur in the Caribbean Sea and may potentially occur within the 

DAA. Three species of beaked whale inhabit the Caribbean Sea year-round, although observations are 

rare. Much of the current knowledge about distribution comes from strandings. Cuvier‘s beaked whale is 

likely the most common odontocete, yet records in and around the analysis area are few. Gervais‘ beaked 

whales are more commonly seen than Blainville‘s beaked whales and records indicate that they are more 

abundant in winter (Debrot and Barros 1992). Blainville‘s beaked whales are the least abundant, but

present throughout the year. They inhabit coastal waters more than other beaked whales. Other deepdiving odontocete species in the SE Caribbean are the rough-toothed dolphin, common bottlenose dolphin 

(offshore populations), Risso‘s dolphin, melon-headed whale, and pygmy and false killer whales. 

3.7.2.3 S California

Many years of marine mammal surveys by ship and aircraft document numerous odontocete species off 

the S California coast (e.g., Barlow and Gerrodette 1996; Forney and Barlow 1998; Koski et al. 1998; 

Barlow and Taylor 2001; Calambokidis et al. 2002, Barlow 2003; Carretta et al. 2006). Twenty-three 

species of odontocetes are expected to occur in the S California DAA during spring or summer. Those 

most relevant are sperm whale, dwarf and pygmy sperm whales, Baird‘s beaked whale, five Mesoplodon

species, short-finned pilot whale, short- and long-beaked common dolphins, bottlenose dolphin, striped

dolphin, spinner dolphin, pantropical spotted dolphin, Pacific white-sided dolphin, and harbor porpoise 

(Table 3.7-3). The sperm whale is the only ESA-listed odontocete in the DAA (Table 3.7-1). The 

California stocks of the short-finned pilot and sperm whales are considered ―Strategic‖ under the MMPA, 

meaning that human impacts may influence the sustainability of these populations. Populations of 

odontocetes in offshore California waters have increased in the last 12 years, except for the short-finned 

pilot whale and harbor porpoise populations, which have decreased (Barlow 1994, 1995; Forney et al. 

1995). 

Sperm whales are present year-round in offshore waters. They are more abundant in fall and winter and 

rare in spring (Koski et al. 1998; Carretta et al. 2006). Based on ship surveys conducted in 2001 and 2005 

by Barlow and Forney (2007) and Forney (2007), respectively, the most recent and precise estimate of 

abundance of the California-Oregon-Washington stock of sperm whales is 2,853 animals (Carretta et al. 

2008). This estimate is corrected for diving animals not seen during the surveys. 

Beaked whales are also important in the DAA. Carretta et al. (2006) summarize abundance estimates for 

beaked whales off California-Oregon-Washington for 1996-2001. However, these are considered 

underestimates. Cuvier‘s beaked whales are distributed offshore throughout the year, with an estimate of 

1,121. Baird‘s beaked whales are thought to move into continental slope waters from late spring to 

autumn (Barlow et al. 1997) with a population estimate of 152. Mesoplodont beaked whales (including 

Hubb‘s, Hector‘s, ginkgo-toothed, Blainville‘s and Stejneger‘s) are known primarily from strandings and 

a few sightings, and thus, seasonal abundance and distribution of these species are difficult to establish. 

The population estimate for the Mesoplodont group is 645. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-169

Dolphins are the most abundant odontocete species off S California during spring and summer (Table 

3.7-3). Most abundant is the common dolphin (short-beaked and long-beaked dolphins combined), 

followed by the Pacific white-sided dolphin (Koski et al. 1998). Approximately 230,000 common 

dolphins may be present in spring, decreasing to approximately 150,000 in summer as they disperse 

northward (Carretta et al. 2006). Pacific white-sided dolphins are also more abundant in spring (23,000-

28,000), also moving north during summer, leaving only about 1,000 individuals in the region (Koski et 

al. 1998). The three Stenella species (i.e., striped, spinner, and pantropical spotted dolphins) are rare.

3.7.2.4 W Gulf of Alaska

Few studies have been published on abundance and distribution of odontocetes in the W Gulf of Alaska. 

Eleven species are expected during summer (Table 3.7-3). Those most relevant are the sperm whale; 

Baird‘s, Cuvier‘s, and Stejneger‘s beaked whales; beluga, killer, and short-finned pilot whales; Pacific 

white-sided and Risso‘s dolphins; and Dall‘s and harbor porpoises. The most commonly sighted 

odontocete species in the W Gulf of Alaska are generally Dall‘s porpoise and killer whale (Angliss and 

Outlaw 2005; MacLean and Koski 2005). 

The sperm whale is the only ESA-listed odontocete in the DAA (Table 3.7-1). Sperm whales occur as far 

north as Cape Navarin (62oN) and the Pribilof Islands (Omura 1955). Adult males are more common in 

these higher-latitude waters. Females and juveniles are found mostly in temperate and tropical regions. 

Breeding occurs in temperate/tropical waters from January-August (Rice 1989), peaking in April-June 

(Best et al. 1984). Males feed during summer in the Gulf of Alaska, around the Aleutian Islands, and in 

the Bering Sea, although abundance is unknown (Angliss and Outlaw 2005). Most information regarding 

sperm whales in the Gulf of Alaska comes from fishermen and reports from observers aboard commercial 

fishing vessels (e.g., Dahlheim 1988; Hill et al. 1999). Interactions occur most often in the southeast Gulf 

of Alaska, east of Kodiak Island. Available data show few or no sightings in the DAA (Moore 2001; 

Wade et al. 2003; Barlow 2004a, b; Ireland et al. 2005; Sinclair et al. 2005). Zerbini et al. (2004a) 

estimated the abundance of sperm whales in the northern Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands at 159. 

Three species of beaked whales are expected in the W Gulf of Alaska: Baird‘s, Cuvier‘s, and Stejneger‘s 

(Table 3.7-3). Baird‘s beaked whales have been sighted numerous times in the mid-Gulf of Alaska, 

Aleutian Islands, and southern Bering Sea (Kasuya and Ohsumi 1984; Wade et al. 2003; Sinclair et al. 

2005). The Bering Sea/eastern North Pacific population is considered a distinct stock (Balcomb 1989; 

Reyes 1991). However, reliable abundance estimates are unavailable. Feeding is near the continental 

slope at depths of 3,281–9,843 ft (1,000–3,000 m). Cuvier‘s beaked whales are widely distributed from 

60°N to 50°S, but mostly in deep (>3,280 ft or 1,000 m) warmer waters (>10°C). They range into the 

Aleutian Islands (Rice 1986, 1998) but abundance estimates are unavailable and the species is rare this far 

north. Mesoplodonts have been seen recently in the region, but there have been no confirmed sightings of 

Stejneger‘s beaked whale since 1986 (Wade et al. 2003; Barlow 2004b). 

Dall's porpoise are common and widespread from the Aleutians throughout the Gulf of Alaska, including 

the W Gulf of Alaska analysis area (Forney and Brownell 1996; Moore et al. 2002; Wade et al. 2003; 

Angliss and Outlaw 2005; Ireland et al. 2005; MacLean and Koski 2005). 

Killer whales occur worldwide, but are most common at higher latitudes. They inhabit almost all coastal 

waters of Alaska (L-DEO and NSF 2004c). Based on appearance, feeding habits, vocalizations, social 

structure, and distribution and movement patterns, there are three types or populations of killer whales: 

residents, transients, and offshore animals. Genetic analyses indicate that these three populations rarely, if 

ever, interbreed. The resident and transient populations have also been divided into different 

subpopulations based mainly on genetic analyses and distribution; not enough is known about the 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-170

offshore whales to divide them into subpopulations. A transient and resident population or stock are 

expected to potentially occur within the W Gulf of Alaska DAA: Eastern North Pacific Gulf of Alaska, 

Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea Transients and Eastern North Pacific Alaska Residents. It is estimated 

that 1,337 transient and resident killer whales potentially occur in the N Gulf of Alaska and waters of the 

Aleutian Islands (Allen and Angliss 2010).

3.7.2.5 Galapagos Ridge

Information about odontocetes in the Galapagos Ridge DAA during austral summer is scarce. Odontocete 

data comes from extensive surveys in the ETP during the austral winter and spring (Polacheck 1987; 

Wade and Gerrodette 1993; Ferguson and Barlow 2001; Smultea and Holst 2003). Twenty-one

odontocete species potentially occur in the DAA (Table 3.7-3). Those most relevant are sperm whale,

dwarf and pygmy sperm whales, five beaked whale species, short-finned pilot whale, short-beaked 

common dolphin, common bottlenose dolphin, and three Stenella species. The most common species 

within the DAA are expected to be the pantropical spotted, striped, and short-beaked common dolphins. 

The beaked whale species are considered rare in the region. 

Northern hemisphere sperm whales likely breed in the DAA during the austral summer (Table 3.7-1 and 

3.7-3). Long-term studies indicate that N hemisphere males migrate south to breed near the equator and 

the Galapagos Islands in January to August, with peak breeding from April to June (Rice 1989). Southern

hemisphere sperm whales breed from July to March, with peak breeding from September to December; S 

hemisphere males feed in sub-Antarctic waters during the austral summer. A population of approximately

200 sperm whales inhabits the Galapagos Islands region to the northeast; the number of sperm whales 

potentially within the DAA is unknown. An estimate for the overall ETP is 26,053 (Whitehead 2002). 

Polacheck (1987) noted that sperm whales seemed most abundant in nearshore (but relatively deep) 

waters. Sperm whales are generally distributed over large areas that have high secondary productivity and 

steep underwater topography (Jaquet and Whitehead 1996).

The five species of beaked whales with distributions encompassing the DAA are Cuvier‘s, Longman‘s, 

pygmy, ginkgo-toothed, and Blainville‘s (Table 3.7-3). Approximately 20,000 Cuvier‘s beaked whales

are estimated in the ETP (Wade and Gerrodette 1993). They prefer deep water (3,280 ft [1,000 m]) and

dive for 20–40 min. Little is known about their reproductive behavior. Longman‘s beaked whale has been 

confused with the tropical bottlenose whale; thus, some sightings are likely misidentified, making 

abundance difficult to estimate (Reeves et al. 2002). They are thought to reside in the ETP year-round. 

The pygmy beaked whale is thought to occur between 15°S and 25°N. The ginkgo-toothed beaked whale 

is known only from strandings, including the Galapagos Islands. Blainville‘s beaked whales have been 

sighted in offshore and nearshore areas of South and Central America (Pitman et al. 1987; Pitman and 

Lynn 2001), although generally in deep waters (Davis et al. 1998). They do not appear to migrate.

The Stenella dolphin species plus the short-beaked common dolphin are the most abundant odontocetes in 

the ETP (Polacheck 1987; Wade and Gerrodette 1993; Ferguson and Barlow 2001). The striped dolphin 

breeds mainly during the austral summer (Boyd et al. 1999), coinciding with the exemplary analysis 

season (Table 3.7-3). The pantropical spotted dolphin feeds here during the austral summer, but its 

reproductive peak is spring and fall (Barlow 1984), though calving occurs year round (Reeves et al. 

2002). The short-beaked common dolphin calves all year in the Costa Rica Dome area near 9°N 90°W, 

northeast of the DAA (Danil and Chivers 2005). 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-171

3.7.3 Affected Environment: Qualitative Analysis Areas (QAAs)

This section summarizes the occurrence and habits of odontocetes in the eight QAAs. These summaries 

generally address broader regions than the five DAAs. Fewer data are available on abundance of 

odontocetes for some QAAs as compared to most DAAs. Discussion is limited to species within each 

region during the season that an exemplary marine seismic survey is proposed (Table 3.7-4). Discussion 

focuses on species with special status (e.g., ESA listed), those that are most abundant, beaked whales, and 

other deep divers. 

3.7.3.1 N Atlantic/Iceland

N Atlantic cetaceans are well-documented through aerial and ship-based surveys, as well as modern 

whaling cruises, commercial whale-watch cruises, strandings, fisheries bycatch records, and other sources 

(e.g., Larsen 1995; Cawardine 1998; NAMMCO 2005; Vikingsson et al. 2004). Thirteen odontocetes 

potentially occur in the QAA during summer (Table 3.7-4). Those most relevant include: sperm whale, 

beaked whales, long-finned pilot whale, short-beaked common dolphin, common bottlenose dolphin, 

striped dolphin, Atlantic white-sided and white-beaked dolphins, and harbor porpoise. The sperm whale is 

the only species with ESA status (endangered; Table 3.7-1). The IUCN lists two species, the sperm whale 

and harbor porpoise, as Vulnerable. The most common odontocetes are the northern bottlenose whale, 

killer whale, long-finned pilot whale, Atlantic white-sided dolphin, white-beaked dolphin, and harbor 

porpoise. 

Sperm whales near Iceland are exclusively males. Females and juveniles reside year-round in lower 

latitudes. All sperm whales harvested off Iceland from 1948 to 1982 were males. Off Iceland, they feed 

on deep-water fish, rays, sharks, cod, redfish, monkfish, and lumpfish in addition to squid (Cawardine

1998). Gunnlaugsson and Sigurjónsson (1990) estimated 1,542 sperm whales for Icelandic, Faroese, and 

adjacent waters. Mean school sizes in the Norwegian Sea are one or two (Christensen et al. 1992). 

The N bottlenose whale is the only common beaked whale near Iceland. Approximately 3,142 individuals 

are estimated near Iceland, with approximately 40,000 in the eastern North Atlantic overall (Culik 2004). 

This species feeds off Iceland during summer (Table 3.7-4). Unlike most other beaked whales, N 

bottlenose whales often approach boats and sources of unusual noises.

Five additional odontocete species are common or abundant near Iceland (Table 3.7-4). Harbor porpoise 

are common in coastal areas. In summer, they often occur within a couple of miles from shore. They can 

be difficult to sight as they tend to avoid boats and are inconspicuous when they surface. They breed and 

calve in spring and summer. The Iceland population is estimated at 25,000–27,000 (Cawardine 1998). An 

estimated population of 6,600 killer whales feed in Iceland and Faroese waters during summer (Culik 

2004). They are most common in late summer and early fall, hunting shoals of herring, but are present 

year-round (Cawardine 1998). Long-finned pilot whales are also common near Iceland. Their peak 

breeding season is summer, with most calves born in late summer (Cawardine 1998). The population 

estimate for long-finned pilot whales in the eastern North Atlantic is 778,000 individuals. Atlantic whitesided and white-beaked dolphins are the most abundant odontocetes in the QAA (Cawardine 1998). Both 

breed and calve in summer (Culik 2004). Atlantic white-sided dolphins are common in deeper waters. 

Iceland is near the northern extreme for Atlantic white-sided dolphins. Population estimates for the N and 

W of Scotland are 6,317 Atlantic white-sided dolphins, and they are the most abundant species there. 

White-beaked dolphins are thought to number a few thousand in Icelandic waters (Culik 2004) and tend 

to be more coastal than white-sided dolphins (Cawardine 1998).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-172

Table 3.7-4. Potential Occurrence of Odontocetes within the QAAs during the Period of Proposed Exemplary Seismic Surveys

Species*

N Atlantic/

Iceland

(N Sum)*a,b

BC

Coast

(N Fall)*c

SW

Atlantic

(Any)*

d,e

Mid-Atlantic

Ridge

(N Spr, Sum

or Fall)*f

W Australia

(S Spr or

Fall)*

W India

(N Early Spr

or, Late Fall)*g

Marianas

(N Spr)*

SubAntarctic

(S Sum)*h

Sperm whale F u BF u BF na F c - BF c BF c BF c

Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales - F r [2] BF na [2] F r [2] F r [2] BF c [2] B? F na [2] F c [2]

Beaked whales (2 Berardius spp.) - F r [1] BF na [1] F na [1] - - - F u [1]

Shepherd‘s beaked whale - - - - B? F r - - F u

Cuvier‘s beaked whale F r F r B? F na F r B? F r B? F r B? F u F c

Longman‘s beaked whale - - - - B? F r+ B? F? na B? F na -

Beaked whales (14 Mesoplodon spp.) F r [2] F r [1] BF na [1] F r [3] B? F r [3] B? F c [2] B? F na [2] B? F r-u-c [7]

Bottlenose whales (2 Hyperoodon spp.) F c [1] - - - B? F r[1] BF na [1] - F c

Killer whale F c BF c B? F na F r B? F u BF r F c

False killer whale - F r B?F? na F r B? F u BF u B? F u F c

Pygmy killer whale - - BF na F r F r F u F u F c

Melon-headed whale - - BF na F r BF c B? F r F c -

Pilot whales (2 Globicephala spp.) F c [1] F r [1] BF na [1] F c [2] BF u [2] BF c [1] F c [1] F c [2]

Irrawaddy (=snubfin) dolphin - - - - BF u BF na - -

Risso‘s dolphin - F r B? F na B? F u? - BF a B? F na F u

Common dolphins (3 Delphinus spp.) F r [1] - BF na [1] F c [1] BF c [1] BF a [approx. 2] - F r [1]

Fraser‘s dolphin - - B? F na F r B? F r B? F r B? F na -

Indo-Pacific humpbacked dolphin - - - - BF u BF na - -

Tucuxi - - F r - - - - -

Bottlenose dolphins (2 Tursiops spp.) F r [1] - BF c [1] F u [1] BF a [2] BF a [2] BF c [2] B? F c [1]

Dolphins (5 Stenella spp.) F r [1] - BF c [5] F u-c [4] BF na [3] BF a [3] BFM a [3] F c [3]

Dolphins (6 Lagenorhynchus spp.) F a [2] F c [1] - BFr? [1] - - - F u [1]

Rough-toothed dolphin - - B? F na F r B? F u B? F c B? F r -

Right whale dolphins (2 Lissodelphis spp.) - F r [1] - - - - F na

Finless porpoise - - - - - BF na - -

Porpoises (3 Phocoena spp.) F c [1] F c [1] - - - - - B? F r [1]

Dall‘s porpoise - F c - - - - - -

Notes: *[ ] = number of species from this genus found in the specific analysis area; some are approximations as some were identified only to genus in some analysis areas; (Season) = N or S hemisphere 

season during which the exemplary seismic cruise would occur within the analysis area; B = known to breed or calve within the area/season; F = known to feed within the area/season; M = 

known to migrate through the area/season; ? = unknown / possible; a = abundant: the species is expected to be encountered during a single visit to the area and the number of individuals 

encountered during an average visit may be as many as hundreds or more; c = common: the species is expected to be encountered once or more during 2-3 visits to the area during the relevant 

season, and the number of individuals encountered during an average visit is unlikely to be more than a few 10s; u = uncommon: the species is expected to be encountered at most a few times a 

year during the relevant season assuming many visits to the area; r = rare: the species is not expected to be encountered more than once in several years during the relevant season; na = reliable 

data not available or uncertain or species status was not assessed; - = species does not occur; + = tropical bottlenose whale has been reclassified as Longman‘s beaked whale (Pitman et al. 1999).

Sources: Reeves et al. 2002; Culik 2004; Ross 2006; also see following footnotes:

(a) UAF and NSF 2005; UTA and NSF 2006; (b) Cawardine 1998; (c) L-DEO and NSF 2006a; (d) UNEP 2006; (e) L-DEO and NSF 2003g; (f) L-DEO and NSF 2003c; (g) Ballance and Pitman 

1998; (h) SIO and NSF 2004.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-173

3.7.3.2 BC Coast

Occurrence and distributions of odontocetes in western Canadian coastal waters, including the BC Coast 

QAA, are well known (Williams and Thomas 2007). Data sources include aerial, acoustic, and ship-based 

(including photo-identification) surveys as well as opportunistic and historical whaling records 

(summarized in L-DEO and NSF 2006a; Williams and Thomas 2007). Fourteen species of odontocetes 

are expected during a fall seismic survey. Those most relevant during the exemplary fall BC Coast survey 

are the sperm whale, dwarf and pygmy sperm whales, beaked whales (Cuvier‘s, Baird‘s, and Stejneger‘s), 

Pacific white-sided dolphin, Dall‘s porpoise, and harbor porpoise (Table 3.7-4). Only four species are 

common in the QAA: Pacific white-sided dolphin, killer whale, Dall‘s porpoise, and harbor porpoise. 

Recent abundance estimates for odontocetes are available for only the latter four species based on 

systematic sighting surveys conducted during summer in coastal BC waters (Williams and Thomas 2007).

The latter survey encompasses the BC Coast QAA. The S Resident population of killer whales in 

Washington State (not part of the QAA) were recently listed as endangered under the ESA (Table 3.7-1). 

The Canadian government considers the N Resident and transient killer whale populations, both of which 

occur in the QAA, to be Threatened. The three beaked whale species are rare in the area. Ten of the 14 

odontocetes are IUCN-listed as Vulnerable, Conservation Dependent, or Data Deficient.

Male sperm whales may occur in the QAA in small numbers during the fall, but their distribution and 

abundance are unknown. Before the whaling era, sperm whales commonly occurred off BC; currently 

they are only occasionally observed there, primarily in spring and summer (L-DEO and NSF 2006a). 

They may breed in BC waters in spring (April–May) and calve there during summer (July–August; Gregr 

et al. 2000). Male sperm whales have larger ranges than females (Reeves and Whitehead 1997) and have 

most often been associated with the shelf break; females are more uniformly distributed throughout 

deeper waters. During the whaling era, females were not recorded north of Vancouver Island, whereas 

males were observed in deep water off the Queen Charlotte Islands (L-DEO and NSF 2006a). Sperm 

whales feed primarily on squid, but also octopus and deep-water fish (Flinn et al. 2002). Highly suitable 

habitat for sperm whales is along the continental slope and a large area off the northwest coast of 

Vancouver Island (Gregr and Trites 2001). 

Cuvier‘s, Stejneger‘s, and Baird‘s beaked whales are believed to be sparingly present in the QAA during 

fall. Specific distributions and abundances are unknown, but all are rare in nearshore waters where the 

exemplary survey would occur. Cuvier‘s beaked whales inhabit deep waters near the 3,215-ft (1,000-m) 

bathymetric contour (Houston 1991). Available information on Stejneger‘s beaked whales comes 

primarily from strandings and a few sightings. Baird‘s beaked whales use continental slope waters during 

summer and autumn when water temperatures are highest (Kasuya 1986). They are also observed where 

deep water approaches the coast (Jefferson et al. 1993). Historically, Baird‘s beaked whales were most 

frequently seen off the west coast of Vancouver Island from May through October, with a peak in August 

(Balcomb 1989).

Killer whales occur in three ecotypes or populations off the BC Coast: resident, transient, and offshore. 

The populations most likely in the QAA are the N Resident and transient populations; however, S 

Residents or offshore killer whales could be present (L-DEO and NSF 2006a). Resident killer whales 

inhabit small ranges in summer and autumn, following seasonal salmon runs (Heimlich-Boran 1988; 

Heimlich 1994; Baird 2001). Transient populations regularly move through the ranges of resident 

populations. Calving appears to occur year-round, peaking from October to March. Resident populations 

have decreased by as much as 20% in the last decade and appear particularly vulnerable to vessel traffic 

and declines in salmon. The N Resident population consisted of 201 individuals in 2001 (L-DEO and 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-174

NSF 2006a). Based on recent summer surveys during which there were several sightings in the BC Coast 

QAA, Williams and Thomas (2007) estimate that 161 (95% CI 45-574) killer whales occur in BC coastal 

waters as a whole during summer. They were most frequently seen in Queen Charlotte Basin, Johnstone 

Strait, and adjacent north and central-coast mainland inlets. However, the abundance estimate for killer 

whales was 0 in the sub-survey area near and within the BC QAA consisting of the mainland BC inlets 

(Williams and Thomas 2007).

Transient whales feed on marine mammals, sea turtles, and fish (Baird and Dill 1995; Ford et al. 1998; 

Baird and Whitehead 2000; Saulitis et al. 2000). The transient population of BC and S Alaska is 218 

whales. Killer whales face risks from pollution, and the transient population has high organochlorine 

concentrations (NMFS 2006d). 

The three other common odontocetes in BC coastal waters are the Pacific white-sided dolphin, harbor 

porpoise, and Dall‘s porpoise (Table 3.7-4). Large pods of Pacific white-sided dolphins are seen off the 

BC coast in the spring and summer, most commonly in Queen Charlotte Basin but also in Johnstone Strait 

and sometimes in the southern straits (Williams and Thomas 2007). They can be coastal in cooler months, 

moving offshore when waters warm. Williams and Thomas (2007) recently estimated that 25,900 (95% 

CI 12,900-52,100) white-sided dolphins occur in BC coastal waters during summer. However, the 

abundance estimate for Pacific white-sided dolphins was 0 in the sub-survey area near and within the BC 

QAA consisting of the mainland BC inlets. 

Harbor porpoises occur year-round in the BC coastal water region where the most recent population 

estimate is 9,120 (95% CI 4,210-19,760) (Williams and Thomas 2007). In the sub-survey area near and 

within the BC QAA consisting of the mainland BC inlets, the abundance estimate for harbor porpoises is 

1,140 (95% CI 29-44,989). They occur commonly throughout coastal BC, with the highest numbers in the 

southern straits followed by the inland straits and Queen Charlotte Basin (Williams and Thomas 2007). 

Dall‘s porpoises use both nearshore and offshore areas of BC and appear to be resident all year. The most 

recent summer population estimate for BC coastal waters is 4,910 (95% CI 2,700-8,940) Dall‘s porpoises 

(Williams and Thomas 2007). In the sub-survey area near and within the BC QAA consisting of the 

mainland BC inlets, the abundance estimate for Dall‘s porpoises is 69 (95% CI 1-2825). They occur most 

commonly in offshore waters of Queen Charlotte Basin and occasionally in the southern straits, with 

relatively infrequent sightings in the mainland inlets (Williams and Thomas 2007). Breeding and calving 

occur among Dall‘s porpoises in summer (June to September).

3.7.3.3 SW Atlantic

Distribution and population data for odontocetes are sparse in the SW Atlantic QAA off the coast of 

Brazil. Nineteen species are potentially present (Reeves et al. 2002; Culik 2004). Those most relevant are 

sperm whale, dwarf and pygmy sperm whales, beaked whales (Cuvier‘s, Baird‘s, and Blainville‘s), shortfinned pilot whale, long-beaked common dolphin, common bottlenose dolphin, and five Stenella species 

(Table 3.7-4). 

Population data are insufficient for most species in the QAA. Based on data from other tropical locations, 

the most common dolphins are likely to be six species of the genera Stenella or Tursiops. Atlantic spotted 

dolphin was the most common cetacean seen during fisheries operations off southern Brazil (Marcatto et 

al. 2005). Moreno et al. (2005) confirmed the presence of Atlantic spotted dolphins off both southern 

(21°–36°S) and northern Brazil (north of 6°S), pantropical spotted dolphins mainly off northeastern South 

America, Clymene and spinner dolphins as far south as 30°S, and striped dolphins primarily off southern 

Brazil and Argentina.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-175

The sperm whale occurs in the SW Atlantic QAA throughout the year. In general, sperm whales occur in 

deep waters and along continental slopes (Rice 1989). Females and juveniles use smaller ranges than 

males and remain in tropical and temperate latitudes year-round. Mature and subadult males migrate to 

sub-Antarctic waters during the austral summer to feed. 

3.7.3.4 Mid-Atlantic Ridge

Quantitative data on odontocete abundance and distribution are scarce for the remote Mid-Atlantic Ridge 

QAA. General distribution information, historical whaling data, and a few recent studies provide an 

indication of species present (Reeves et al. 2002; L-DEO and NSF 2003c; Doksæter et al. 2005; Nøttestad 

et al. 2005; Skov et al. 2005; Waring et al. 2005a). Twenty-four odontocete species may occur during a 

spring, summer, or fall survey in the QAA. If present, they would likely be feeding (Table 3.7-4). Those 

species considered most relevant are sperm whale, dwarf and pygmy sperm whales, Baird‘s and Cuvier‘s 

beaked whales, three Mesoplodon species, short- and long-finned pilot whales, short-beaked common 

dolphin, common bottlenose dolphin, and four Stenella species (Table 3.7-4). 

Historical whaling data indicate that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge was important cetacean habitat (Waring et al. 

2006). Recent studies suggest that cetaceans along the Mid-Atlantic ridge concentrate near underwater 

topographic features (e.g., seamounts, hydrothermal activity, rough bottom topography) where their prey 

concentrate due to upwelling or retention (Doksæter et al. 2005; Nøttestad et al. 2005; Skov et al. 2005; 

Waring et al. 2005a). However, an NSF-funded seismic survey in October–November 2003 in the QAA

detected no marine mammals, either in the survey area or during transits (Holst 2004). Because the QAA

is characterized by deep water (4,921–14,764 ft [1,500-4,500 m]) and is not near land, odontocetes 

inhabiting deep, temperate waters are most likely, but generally in low densities. Such species include the 

sperm, dwarf sperm, Cuvier‘s beaked, True‘s beaked, false killer, and short-finned pilot whales; shortbeaked common, pantropical spotted, spinner, striped, and Risso‘s dolphins; and possibly the Atlantic 

white-sided dolphin (Doksæter et al. 2005; Nøttestad et al. 2005; Waring et al. 2005a) (Table 3.7-4). Of 

these, the most likely to be sighted are sperm and pilot whales, and short-beaked common and striped 

dolphins (Waring et al. 2005a; Table 3.7-4). Waring at el. (2005) found pilot whales mainly in colder 

waters along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, with common and striped dolphins further south. Doksæter et al. 

(2005) reported that dolphin group sizes appeared to increase at night along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

Sperm whales are likely to be foraging or possibly migrating in the Mid-Atlantic QAA during spring, 

summer, or fall (Table 3.7-4). Waring et al. (2005a) reported that sperm whales were the second-most 

common species (n = 50 groups) seen during summer 2004 surveys along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, with 

the highest concentration north of the Charlie Gibbs Fracture Zone. Nøttestad et al. (2005) reported sperm 

whales most commonly along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge in waters <6,560 ft (2,000 m) deep, often at the 

surface above seamount peaks, where concentrations of cephalopods were higher.

3.7.3.5 W Australia

Considerable survey work has been conducted on marine mammals in northwest Australian coastal 

waters. Most such work has occurred in the Kimberley, NW Shelf, and Shark Bay regions, and in oceanic 

waters between the NW Shelf and Cocos Island. Studies have also been done in the southwest region of 

Australia (summarized in de Boer et al. 2003; Ross 2006). A wide range of water depths (i.e., shallow 

coastal to pelagic) and a wide variety of marine habitats occur within the W Australia QAA (e.g., 

numerous reefs, islands, seamounts). This habitat diversity supports the estimated 26 odontocetes during 

the exemplary austral spring or fall analysis period (Table 3.7-4). 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-176

Species most relevant are sperm whale, dwarf and pygmy sperm whales, beaked whales, short- and longfinned pilot whales, short-beaked common dolphin, Indo-Pacific bottlenose and common bottlenose 

dolphins, and three Stenella species (Table 3.7-4). The sperm whale is the only odontocete that is ESA 

listed (endangered) (Table 3.7-1). The Australian government has identified the Irrawaddy, Indo-Pacific 

humpbacked, and spinner dolphins as Priority Species because of concern for their conservation status. In 

particular, spinner dolphin populations experienced large losses (n = 4,900) between 1981 and 1985 in the 

Taiwanese gill-net fishery. The most common odontocete is the Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin. 

The Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin is the most numerous species along Australian shores (Hale et al.

2000). Aerial surveys over Shark Bay, in northwest Australia, estimated 2,000–3,000 Indo-Pacific 

bottlenose dolphins (Preen et al. 1997). The common bottlenose dolphin occurs in deeper, offshore waters 

(Ross 2006). 

Little is known about the beaked whales off W Australia, although they constitute about one-third of all 

small cetacean species in the Australian region (Ross 2006). Elsewhere, beaked whales tend to inhabit 

shelf-edge habitats associated with underwater canyons (Waring et al. 2001). The species most likely to 

occur along the northwest Australian coast are Shepherd‘s, Cuvier‘s, True‘s, ginkgo-toothed, and 

Blainville‘s beaked whales.

The sperm whale has been recorded all around Australia, although there are no current population 

estimates or trends. However, most sperm whales have been recorded off southwestern Australia, and few 

would be likely to occur in the more northern QAA during the seasons analyzed. During austral summer, 

sperm whales move southward from Australia to feed, with a corresponding northward migration to breed 

and calve in the austral winter. Mating occurs from September to December and calving from November 

to March in temperate and tropical waters (Bannister et al. 1996).

3.7.3.6 W India

The northwestern Indian Ocean contains numerous odontocetes, but their distribution and abundance have 

been little studied. The Arabian Sea experiences upwellings of cool water in boreal summer that cause an 

influx of nutrients, contributing to extremely high primary productivity. The southwestern monsoon 

current flows from the Arabian Sea along India and into the Bay of Bengal, exchanging water between the 

two basins (de Boer et al. 2002). Small odontocetes are the most common species in the Arabian Sea, 

with larger odontocetes less frequent. The Indian Ocean north of 55°S latitude was declared a whale 

sanctuary by the IWC in 1979 in order to protect large whales from commercial whaling (de Boer et al. 

2003). Previous commercial whaling depleted sperm whale stocks in the Indian Ocean. 

Twenty-six species of odontocetes have ranges that include the W India QAA and may be present during 

spring or fall (Table 3.7-4). Species most relevant are sperm whale, dwarf and pygmy sperm whales,

beaked whales (Longman‘s, Cuvier‘s, ginkgo-toothed, and Blainville‘s), short-finned pilot whale,

Arabian common and undifferentiated common dolphins, Indo-Pacific and common bottlenose dolphins,

and pantropical spotted, spinner, and striped dolphins (Table 3.7-4). 

Much of the recent information on odontocetes in the QAA comes from a 1995 research survey in the 

western tropical Indian Ocean (Ballance and Pitman 1998), from Baldwin et al. (1998), and from a 

compilation reported in de Boer et al. (2003). The sperm whale was the most frequently sighted cetacean 

group, along with Tursiops spp., striped dolphin, Delphinus spp., and Risso‘s dolphin. Although relatively 

fewer groups of spinner dolphins were seen, these groups consisted of more individuals than other groups 

of cetaceans (Ballance and Pitman 1998). The most frequently encountered species in Omani coastal 

waters, west of the QAA were Delphinus spp., Tursiops spp., the Indopacific humpback dolphin, and the 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-177

spinner dolphin (Baldwin et al. 1998). Sperm whales are year-round breeding residents in the Arabian Sea 

(Gallagher 1991; Baldwin 1995). During the 1996 survey by Ballance and Pitman (1998), sperm whales 

were widespread, with 86 sightings of 240 individuals. Mesoplodon spp. (26 sightings) were also seen; 

most sightings were thought to be ginkgo-toothed beaked whales. Other breeding residents include the 

Arabian common dolphin, common dolphin, Indopacific humpback dolphin, finless porpoise, Risso‘s 

dolphin, false killer whale, pantropical spotted dolphin, spinner dolphin, and Tursiops spp. (de Boer 2002) 

(Table 3.7-4). Of these, the Indopacific humpback dolphin and finless porpoise prefer nearshore, shallow 

waters <2 mi (3.2 km) from shore. Finless porpoises utilize fresh and saltwater habitats. Calving has been

reported in spring and fall months for common dolphins (Culik 2004) with no seasonality reported for 

false killer whales. Pantropical and spinner dolphins seem to breed year-round with peaks in the spring 

and fall (Reeves 2002).

3.7.3.7 Marianas

Current published data on odontocetes for the Marianas QAA are scarce, although the U.S. Navy funded a 

systematic baseline survey for cetaceans in this area during winter 2007. Nineteen species of odontocetes 

may use the QAA during spring. Species most relevant are sperm whale, dwarf and pygmy sperm whales,

beaked whales (Cuvier‘s, Longman‘s, ginkgo-toothed, and Blainville‘s), short-finned pilot whale, IndoPacific and common bottlenose dolphins, and pantropical spotted, spinner, and striped dolphins (Table 

3.7-4). The Stenella species are expected to be the most abundant odontocete species, based on surveys 

elsewhere at low-latitudes (e.g., Wade and Gerrodette 1993; Balance and Pitman 1998; Ferguson and 

Barlow 2001; Reeves et al. 2002). Pantropical spotted and striped dolphins, as well as the false killer 

whale, were the most frequently encountered delphinid species during spring surveys in the southern 

Marianas in 2007 (NAVFAC Pacific 2007). Regardless of ocean, the three Stenella species comprise 62–

82% of all individuals for all cetaceans (Ballance and Pitman 1998). 

Sperm whales occur throughout the N Pacific and males migrate seasonally as mentioned previously (see 

Table 3.7-1). In winter, N hemisphere sperm whales are typically south of 40°N (Gosho et al. 1984) and 

occur in the QAA during spring. Sperm whales migrate long distances in the Pacific, as shown from data 

from past commercial whaling; these data revealed a great deal of movement between Alaska waters and 

the western North Pacific (Japan and the Bonin Islands) (Carretta et al. 2006). The sperm whale was 

the most frequently sighted cetacean (21 sightings) during the January–April 2007 survey off the 

southern Marianas; they were observed in waters ~800 to 10,000 m deep (NAVFAC Pacific 2007). The 

population estimate for Guam and the Marianas is estimated at 705 sperm whales (NAVFAC Pacific

2007).

Cuvier‘s beaked whales likely occur in the QAA in small numbers. They are widely distributed through 

temperate and tropical waters of the North Pacific (Reeves et al. 2002). There are local populations off 

Japan and year-round populations off Hawaii (Ross 2006). They are considered common near oceanic 

islands (Culik 2004). Specific data about other beaked whales and other deep-diving species in this QAA

are unavailable, but these species will be mainly distributed in slope and deep-water areas, based on 

habitats known elsewhere.

Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins were recently reported to occur in the Bonin Islands just northwest of the 

analysis area (Mori et al. 2005). A total of 963 dolphins were sighted throughout the year 1.2–25 mi (2-40 

km) from shore; some identified individuals seemed to be year-round residents. Given the proximity of 

the latter location, it is inferred that Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins might be distributed year-round in 

the coastal waters of the analysis area; however, none were seen during spring surveys in the area in 2007 

(NAVFAC Pacific 2007).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-178

3.7.3.8 Sub-Antarctic

The Sub-Antarctic QAA lies in one of the least-described regions of the ocean. Still, it is the most 

uniform and seasonally stable region of the open oceans, with an enhanced biomass of chlorophyll that 

supports a relatively high biomass of small fish and squid, and concentrations of large pelagic fish 

(NMFS 2005b). Information on odontocete species in the Sub-Antarctic QAA during the austral summer 

is extrapolated from research studies conducted in other locations including the Antarctic (Branch and 

Butterworth 2001), Hawaii (Carretta et al. 2004, 2006), ETP (Ferguson and Barlow 2001; Wade and

Gerrodette 1993), and French Polynesia (Gannier 2002). The southwest Pacific Ocean is thought to 

support approximately 31 species of odontocetes. The sperm whale is the only ESA-listed odontocete. 

Species most relevant to this analysis are sperm whale, dwarf and pygmy sperm whales, beaked whales, 

short- and long-finned pilot whales, short-beaked common dolphin, common bottlenose dolphin, three 

Stenella species, hourglass dolphin, and spectacled porpoise (Table 3.7-4). 

Sperm whales, consisting of solitary males and mixed sex/age classes, are likely to occur in the QAA

based on their distribution in the S Ocean during the austral summer. Young calves could also be present 

during summer. A single group of four sperm whales was sighted in February 2005 during an NSFfunded SIO academic seismic survey in the southwest Pacific Ocean (SIO and NSF 2004). Female and 

immature sperm whales generally occur at tropical and temperate latitudes of 50o N–50o S, while solitary 

adult males are found to 75o N and 75o S (Reeves and Whitehead 1997). Home ranges of individual 

females span distances of up to 620 mi (1,000 km) (Best 1979; Dufault and Whitehead 1995); however, 

some females travel several thousand miles across large parts of an ocean basin (Kasuya and Miyashita 

1988). Sperm whales generally occur in waters >590 ft (180 m) deep; waters in the QAA are >3,280 ft 

(1,000 m) deep. 

Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales are likely common in the QAA based on their general distribution in the 

S Ocean (Reeves et al. 2002) (Tables 3.7-1 and 3.7-4). However, they are rarely sighted at sea due to 

avoidance of vessels, inconspicuous surfacing, and logging (lying still at the water surface) behaviors. 

Their distribution in the S Ocean is mostly known from strandings. The dwarf sperm whale is the most 

frequently stranded cetacean species in New Zealand, with 19 strandings of 23 individuals from April 

1988 to March 1989 (Cawthorn 1990). 

More species of beaked whales occur in the Sub-Antarctic QAA than any of the other areas evaluated in 

this PEIS. Ten species are expected including Arnoux‘s, Cuvier‘s, Shepherd‘s, Andrew‘s, Blainville‘s, 

ginkgo-toothed, Gray‘s, Hector‘s, strap-toothed, and spade-toothed (Table 3.7-4). Arnoux‘s beaked 

whales feed primarily on deep-water bottom fish (Kasuya 2002). They have been sighted in waters near 

New Zealand and Antarctica and to the south of the QAA during January-March (Balcomb 1989). 

Cuvier‘s and Blainville‘s beaked whales have been recently sighted near French Polynesia and the Cook 

Islands (South Pacific Whale Research Consortium 2004). Shepherd‘s beaked whale and the Mesoplodon

species are known primarily from strandings (Pitman 2002). Most mesoplodonts are thought to be rare, 

with the exception of Gray‘s beaked whales, strap-toothed whales, and Blainville‘s beaked whales, which 

appear to be widespread and fairly common based on stranding records (Table 3.7-4; Pitman 2002). 

3.7.4 Environmental Consequences – General

The following sections provide a synopsis of the potential effects on odontocetes from sounds and 

activities associated with seismic survey operations. In comparison with seismic survey effects on 

mysticetes, limited studies have been published on odontocete reactions to airguns and research-type 

echosounders and pingers, particularly of the type proposed for use during NSF-funded or USGS seismic 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-179

surveys. For the purpose of this analysis, project effects are assessed at the individual level and the 

population level. Prior to discussing potential effects, the criteria and approach used to assess effects are 

described. This is followed by a comparison of the overlap between the sound frequencies of acoustic 

sources used in seismic surveys with presumed and documented odontocete hearing sensitivity (Section 

3.7.1.5 and Table 3.7-2). 

3.7.4.1 Criteria and Approach

The criteria and approach used to evaluate and quantify the potential project effects on odontocetes are 

the same as those applied to mysticetes (see Table 2.9 and Sections 2.3.3.2 and 3.7.4.1). However, for the 

Level A potential injury criteria based on cumulative energy, different M-weighting (see Section 2.3.3.3) 

was used to down-weight sound components to which the MF and HF odontocetes hearing groups are 

considered less sensitive (Southall et al. 2007). 

Our understanding of odontocete hearing sensitivity is based on limited auditory studies, knowledge of 

their auditory anatomy, the sounds to which they are known to respond, and the characteristics of their 

calls: they are presumed to be capable of hearing sounds they produce. In addition, odontocetes may hear 

some sounds at lower or higher frequencies. It is also plausible that an odontocete could be harmed by the 

sound energy (if exposed to high enough levels for a sufficient period) even if the sound‘s frequencies are 

outside the hearing sensitivity range of the animal. Direct measurements of the hearing capabilities of a 

few small- to moderate-sized odontocete species have been done, including bottlenose dolphins, beluga 

whales, harbor porpoises, and several other species (reviewed in Section 3.7.1.5, Table 3.7-2 and 

Appendix E). Results indicate that these species have relatively poor hearing sensitivity at frequencies 

below 1 kHz, but extremely good sensitivity at and above several kHz (Section 3.7.1.5) (Richardson et al. 

1995a; Miller et al. 2005; Southall et al. 2007). 

3.7.4.2 Sound Sources and Characteristics

To assess potential effects of project sound sources on odontocetes, it is important to identify any overlap 

in their acoustic characteristics with those of the acoustic sources that would be used during the seismic 

surveys. For this analysis, all the odontocete species addressed except the HF porpoises belong to the MF 

hearing group. This follows common practice until very recently when Kogia was reclassified into the HF 

group by Southall et al. (2007), suggesting that impacts of predominantly low-frequency airgun sound on 

Kogia will be slightly less than predicted here. Collectively, the MF odontocetes are believed to have 

functional hearing from about 150 Hz to 160 kHz, although individual species may not have quite so 

broad a range (Southall et al. 2007). The HF hearing group (i.e., porpoises) has functional hearing from 

about 200 Hz to 180 kHz. The degree of overlap between the frequencies produced by the airguns, 

MBESs, SBPs, pingers, and project vessels and (on the other hand) the calls and auditory sensitivity of 

odontocetes is described below (also see Table 3.7-2).

The proposed airguns and airgun arrays have dominant frequency components of 2-188 Hz (Tables 2-3 

and 2-4). This frequency range somewhat overlaps the lower part of the frequency range of odontocete 

calls and/or functional hearing (full range about 150 Hz to 180 kHz) (see Table 3.7-2). Airguns also 

produce a small proportion of their sound at mid- and high frequencies, although at progressively lower 

levels with increasing frequency (see Chapter 2 and Appendix E). These frequencies overlap most, if not 

all, frequencies produced by odontocetes. Sounds from the project‘s larger airgun configurations would, 

in regions with efficient sound propagation, be high enough to be detected by some odontocetes out to 

tens of miles or more (Richardson et al. 1995a; Richardson and Würsig 1997). The pulsed sounds 

associated with seismic exploration have higher peak levels than most other anthropogenic sounds to 

which marine animals are routinely exposed (Richardson et al. 1995a). In summary, airgun sounds are 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-180

audible to odontocetes, although their sensitivity is considered poor at the low frequencies that dominate 

airgun and airgun array sounds. 

Odontocetes are presumably more sensitive to the mid- to high frequencies produced by the MBESs, 

SBPs, and pingers than to the dominant low frequencies produced by the airguns and vessel. The MBESs

proposed for the Langseth is the Kongsberg EM122 which operates in the range of approximately 10.5-13 

(usually 12) kHz with a maximum source level of approximately 242 dB re 1 μPa-m (rms) (Table 2-5). 

Four other MBESs proposed for other project vessels, the Sunbeam 200 and 2100/12, and the KruppAtlas HydroSweep DS, also operate near this frequency range (12-15.5 kHz), with maximum source 

levels of about 234 to 237 dB re 1 μPa-m (rms) (Table 2-5). These frequency ranges overlap the known or 

suspected frequency sensitivity range of all odontocetes and are within or near the range of greatest

sensitivity of many odontocetes (Table 3.7-2). The other two MBESs proposed for use operate at 30 and 

95 kHz (Table 2-5). The 30-kHz MBES is likely audible to all the odontocetes. The 95 kHz MBES is

within the known or suspected frequency range of many odontocetes species and may be within the range 

of them all (Southall et al. 2007) (Table 3.7-2). In summary, sounds from all the MBESs would be readily 

audible to most and possibly all odontocetes when animals are within the narrow angular extent of the 

intermittent sound beam. 

The SBPs associated with the proposed seismic activities operate in the MF range of approximately 3.5 

kHz with a maximum source output of 222 dB re 1 μPa-m (rms). The frequency range of the SBPs is 

within the known or suspected frequency band audible to all odontocete species (Table 3.7-2). 

Omnidirectional pingers would also be used during proposed seismic surveys (see Section 2.4.3). A total 

of 32 omnidirectional pingers will be used for multi-streamer 3-D surveys: 7 on each streamer and 1 on 

each source array string. Their peak output is 183 dB re 1 μPa-m at 55-110 kHz, with a maximum rate of 

3 pings per 10 sec; the transducers are powered by NiCad batteries. Sounds from these pingers overlap the 

known or suspected frequency sensitivity range of all odontocetes (Table 3.7-2). In addition, during 

scientific coring, battery-powered pingers that operate at lower frequency will be mounted on coring 

mechanisms as acoustic location beacons. These pingers produce omnidirectional 12-kHz signals with a 

source output of approximately 192 dB re 1 μPa-m with one ping of 0.5, 2, or 10 ms duration per second. 

This 12-kHz frequency overlaps the known or suspected frequency sensitivity range of all odontocetes 

and is within or near the range of greatest sensitivity for many odontocetes for which such data are 

available (Table 3.7-2).

Ship engines and the vessel hull itself emit broadband sounds at frequencies and amplitudes that would 

allow them to be heard by odontocetes (Table 3.7-2). The source level of vessel sound would be 

considerably less than that of the airguns, MBESs, and SBPs, but vessel sound (unlike those other 

sources) would be emitted continuously (Richardson et al. 1995a). 

In summary, airgun and vessel sounds are audible to odontocetes, although odontocetes are considered 

less sensitive to the predominant low frequencies produced by these sound sources. Sound frequencies 

produced by the MBES, SBPs, and pingers overlap the range of most sensitive hearing of many 

odontocetes, and all odontocetes can presumably hear these sounds based on what is known about their 

hearing, sound production, and ear structure (Table 3.7-2) (Richardson et al. 1995a; Southall et al. 2007). 

Types of potential effects from the aforementioned sound sources on odontocetes are described below and 

summarized in Table 3.7-5. For more detailed information refer to Appendix E. In general, the potential 

for adverse effects from exposure to the project sound sources can be reduced by implementing a 

mitigation and monitoring program. With effective mitigation, no significant effects are anticipated to 

odontocetes on a population and ocean-region scale through exposure to project sound sources. While 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-181

short-term exposures are expected during exemplary seismic survey operations, no adverse effects are

expected on the viability of any odontocete population. 

3.7.4.3 Acoustic Effects

The following sections discuss the types of potential acoustic effects that may occur to odontocetes 

exposed to sounds similar to those proposed for the project, including airgun pulses, MF and HF 

echosounder signals, and other anthropogenic sounds based on the limited available data. Further 

discussion of these topics can be found in Appendix E.

Masking

Odontocetes are considered less sensitive to masking by low-frequency sounds than are mysticetes

(Richardson et al. 1995a; Southall et al. 2007). The low frequencies that dominate seismic survey sounds

generally do not fall within the most sensitive hearing ranges of odontocetes, whereas they do with 

mysticetes (see Table 3.7-2 and Appendix E). Masking of odontocete calls and other natural sounds by 

pulsed sounds (even from large arrays of airguns) is expected to be limited. The duty cycle of airguns is 

low. In most situations, high-level airgun sound will only be emitted and thus potentially received for a 

brief period (approximately 0.1 sec), with these sound pulses being separated by typically 20 or 240 sec 

(see Section 2.4.3.1). Studies indicate that of the odontocetes studied, most continue calling in the 

presence of seismic surveys and can often can be heard between the seismic pulses (Smultea et al. 2004; 

Holst et al. 2005a, 2005b, 2006) (reviewed in Appendix E). There has been one report that sperm whales 

ceased calling when exposed to pulses from a very distant seismic ship, though at other times sperm 

whales were heard calling between these pulses (Bowles et al. 1994). More recent studies report that 

sperm whales continued to call in the presence of seismic pulses (Madsen et al. 2002; Tyack et al. 2003; 

Smultea et al. 2004; Holst et al. 2006; Jochens et al. 2008). Some of these differences may be related to 

the degree of habituation of the animals to seismic sounds. Delphinids are also commonly heard calling 

while airguns are operating (e.g., Gordon et al. 2004; Smultea et al. 2004; Holst et al. 2005a, b; Potter et 

al. 2007; Hauser et al. 2008). 

As with baleen whales, odontocete communications will not be masked appreciably by MBES, SBP, or 

pinger signals given their low duty cycles, the brief period (i.e., seconds) when an individual mammal 

would potentially be within the downward-directed MBES or SBP beam from a transiting vessel, and the 

relatively low source level of a pinger. 

Sound from the vessel itself also has masking potential for marine mammals. From the ocean-level 

perspective, vessels are the greatest contributors to overall noise in the sea, producing broadband sound 

that overlaps the known hearing and sound production ranges of odontocetes (Richardson et al. 1995a). 

Masking by intense ship sound has been shown or hypothesized to adversely affect behavior of some 

odontocetes. Lee et al. (2005) observed negative responses by rough-toothed dolphins to heavy engine 

sound from large boats. Aguilar de Soto et al. (2006) theorized that ship sound could reduce maximum 

sonar detection and maximum communication ranges of Cuvier‘s beaked whales by 43% and 18%, 

respectively; they hypothesized that this could effectively reduce foraging ability by up to 50%. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-182

Table 3.7-5. Summary of Known and Anticipated General Effects of Seismic Survey Sounds on Odontocetes*

Species or

Groups of Concern Masking Disturbance TTS

Injury

or PTS

Other

Physiological

Effects Comments

Sperm whale

Heard calling between 

seismic pulses (Madsen et 

al. 2002; Tyack et al. 2003; 

Smultea et al. 2004; Holst et 

al. 2006; Jochens et al. 

2008).

Variable reactions to 

seismic, but mostly 

tolerant and possible 

disruption of foraging 

(Mate et al. 1994; 

Madsen et al. 2002; 

Stone 2003; Stone and 

Tasker 2006; Jochens 

et al. 2008).

Unlikely. Brief, mild 

TTS estimated to 

occur at received

level of single 

seismic pulse (with 

no frequency 

weighting) of 

approx. 186 dB re 1 

Pa2·s (Finneran et 

al. 2002). Equivalent 

Mmf -weighted SEL 

value 183 dB 

(Southall et al.2008). 

Likely avoidance of 

seismic vessels 

before TTS. 

Unlikely. PTS 

threshold likely 

approx. 198 dB 

re 1 μPa2-s SEL 

(Southall et al. 

2007). Likely 

avoidance of 

seismic vessels 

before PTS.

Unlikely.

Studies show variability in 

reactions to seismic vessels; 

short-term Level B exposures 

likely; potential injury not 

expected due to behavioral 

avoidance. 

Kogia spp.– pygmy sperm 

& dwarf sperm whale Unknown.

Disturbance unlikely 

as tend to avoid 

vessels (Richardson et 

al. 1995a; Würsig et 

al. 1998).

See above. See above. See above. See above.

Beaked whales –

Berardius spp., 

Hyperoodon spp., 

Mesoplodon spp., Ziphius

spp., Shepherd‘s beaked 

whale, Longman‘s beaked 

whale

Theoretically, vessel sound 

may reduce maximum sonar 

detection and 

communication range in 

Cuvier‘s beaked whales 

(Aguilar de Soto et al. 

2006). N bottlenose whale 

clicks heard between 

seismic pulses (Gosselin and 

Lawson 2004; Laurinolli 

and Cochrane 2005; Simard 

et al. 2005).

Reactions mostly 

undocumented, likely 

to show strong 

avoidance based on 

documented vessel 

avoidance and 

associated increase in 

dive depth (Kasuya 

1986; Würsig et al. 

1998), except for N 

bottlenose whale 

(Reeves et al. 1993; 

Hooker et al. 2001).

See above. See above.

One Cuvier‘s stranding 

event coincident with 

R/V Ewing seismic in 

Gulf of California but 

no evidence of 

cause/effect (Hogarth 

2002; Yoder 2002).

Strandings and mortality 

associated with effects of MF 

military sonar but seismic 

pulse characteristics are very 

different from this sonar. 

Effects of airguns, MBES, and 

SBP uncertain and unproven. 

Beaked whales more difficult 

to monitor and mitigate for 

due to their deep-diving, 

vessel-avoidance behaviors

(Barlow and Gisiner 2006); 

short-term Level B exposures 

likely; injury not expected due 

to behavioral avoidance and 

no documented injuries from

airguns. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-183

Table 3.7-5. Summary of Known and Anticipated General Effects of Seismic Survey Sounds on Odontocetes*

Species or

Groups of Concern Masking Disturbance TTS

Injury

or PTS

Other

Physiological

Effects Comments

Beluga

Change in calls in response 

to strong sounds (Lesage et 

al. 1999).

Temporary avoidance 

or displacement can 

occur at 20 km of 

operating airgun array 

(Miller et al. 2005; 

Harris et al. 2007).

See sperm whale 

above.

See sperm whale 

above.

Neural-immune 

changes in captive 

belugas in response to 

non-impulse sound 

exposure of up to 228 

dB re 1 μPa (rms) were 

minimal and returned 

to normal within 24 hr 

(Romano et al. 2004).

Short-term Level B exposures 

likely; injury not expected due 

to behavioral avoidance.

Narwhal Unlikely. Unknown, but likely. See sperm whale 

above.

See sperm whale 

above.

See sperm whale 

above. See above.

Orca - Killer whale

(S Resident)

Change in calls in response 

to vessel sounds (Foote et al. 

2004; Ashe and Williams 

2006 in Dolman and 

Simmonds 2006).

Temporary avoidance 

or displacement likely; 

appear more tolerant 

of seismic in deep 

water (Stone 2003; 

Gordon et al. 2004).

See above. See above. See above. See above.

Blackfish – false killer 

whale, pygmy killer 

whale, melon-headed 

whale, Globicephala spp.

Heard calling between 

seismic pulses (Hauser et al. 

2008).

Temporary avoidance 

or displacement 

possible; however, 

short-finned pilot 

whales showed little 

reaction to seismic 

surveys (Stone 2003; 

Gordon et al. 2004); 

false killer whales 

approached active 

seismic vessel within 

<250 m (Holst et al. 

2005b); captive false 

killer whales showed 

no obvious reaction to 

single noise pulses 

with a received level 

of approx. 185 dB re 

1 Pa (rms) 

(Akamatsu et al. 

1993).

See above. Brief 

TTS possible if 

remain close to 

seismic vessel/bow 

ride below surface 

during airgun 

operation.

See above. See above. See above.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-184

Table 3.7-5. Summary of Known and Anticipated General Effects of Seismic Survey Sounds on Odontocetes*

Species or

Groups of Concern Masking Disturbance TTS

Injury

or PTS

Other

Physiological

Effects Comments

Risso‘s dolphin

Unidentified small 

delphinids heard calling 

between seismic pulses 

(Holst et al. 2005b), 

including possible Risso‘s 

dolphins (Smultea et al. 

2004).

Small odontocetes 

show limited 

avoidance of <1 km 

(Goold 1996a; Stone 

2003; Stone and 

Tasker 2006; Gordon 

et al. 2004); delphinid 

densities are typically 

lower during seismic 

vs. non-seismic 

periods when large 

arrays are used (Holst 

et al. 2006; Richardson 

et al. 2009).

See above. See above. See above.

Reactions to large airgun 

arrays seem to be confined to 

smaller radius than often

observed for mysticetes; a 

more appropriate threshold for 

onset of disturbance for 

delphinids and Dall‘s porpoise 

is considered to be 170 dB re 

1 μPa (rms) (L-DEO and NSF 

2003); also see beluga above.

Common dolphinsDelphinus spp.

Heard calling between 

seismic pulses (Smultea et 

al. 2004); increase in mean 

calling frequency during 

seismic operations 

(Wakefield 2001).

See above. See above. See above. See above. See above.

Fraser‘s dolphin See above. See above. See above. See above. See above. See above.

Bottlenose dolphin -

Tursiops spp.

Unidentified small 

delphinids heard calling 

between seismic pulses 

(Holst et al. 2005b), 

including possible 

bottlenose dolphins 

(Smultea et al. 2004)

See Risso‘s dolphin 

above; multiple 

individuals approached 

active seismic vessels 

to <15 m (Smultea et 

al. 2004; Holst et al. 

2005b).

See above. See above.

See above; auditory 

impairment or other 

non-auditory physical 

effects limited to short 

distances.

See above.

Stenella spp.

Heard calling between 

seismic pulses (Smultea et 

al. 2004).

See Risso‘s dolphin 

above; multiple 

individuals approached 

active seismic vessels 

to <5 m and some bow

rode (Haley and Koski 

2004; Holst et al. 

2005b; Smultea et al. 

2004).

See above. See above. See above. See above.

Lagenorhynchus spp. Unlikely See Risso‘s dolphin 

above. See above. See above. See above. See above.

Steno - Rough-toothed 

dolphin See Fraser‘s dolphin above. See Risso‘s dolphin above. See above. See above. See above. See above.

Lissodelphis spp. Unlikely. Unknown. See above. See above. See above. See above.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-185

Table 3.7-5. Summary of Known and Anticipated General Effects of Seismic Survey Sounds on Odontocetes*

Species or

Groups of Concern Masking Disturbance TTS

Injury

or PTS

Other

Physiological

Effects Comments

Porpoises - Phocoena spp.

Harbor porpoises were silent 

or left area during pulsed 

pile-driving sound 

(Tougaard et al. 2005).

Avoidance reported at 

<145 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms) at >70 km (Bain 

and Williams 2006).

See above; threshold 

may be lower in 

harbor porpoises 

(Lucke et al. 2009).

See above; 

threshold may be 

lower in harbor 

porpoises (Lucke 

et al. 2009).

See above. See beluga above.

Dall‘s porpoise Unlikely.

Limited avoidance 

(Calambokidis and 

Osmek 1998); 

individuals approached 

active seismic vessels 

to <15 m and bow rode 

(MacLean and Koski 

2005); more tolerant of 

seismic surveys and 

vessel traffic than 

harbor porpoise 

(MacLean and Koski 

2005; Bain and 

Williams 2006).

See above. See above. See above.

A more appropriate threshold 

for onset of disturbance for 

Dall‘s porpoise is considered 

to be 170 dB re 1 μPa (rms) 

(L-DEO and NSF 2006a); also 

see beluga above.

Shallow water dolphins -

Finless porpoise, Irrawady 

dolphin, Tucuxi and 

humpback dolphin

Unknown. Unknown. See above. See above. See above. See beluga above.

*See text and Appendix E for review of effects on odontocetes from MF and HF sonar as relevant to proposed MBES, SBPs, and pingers. bold = ESA listed.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-186

Van Parijs and Corkeron (2001 in MMS 2006a) reported that vessel presence can affect the acoustic 

behavior of dolphins, particularly mother/calf pairs, which showed an increased rate of vocalization 

(perhaps in an attempt to maintain group cohesion) when vessels were present. Foote et al. (2004) 

reported that in the presence of whale watch boat traffic, killer whales extended the duration of their calls 

presumably to compensate for increasing anthropogenic sound once it reached a critical level. In 

summary, temporary localized masking of odontocete calls by project vessel sound is possible. However, 

potential effects are considered insignificant since the dominant low-frequency components of vessel 

sounds do not overlap dominant frequencies produced by odontocetes and vessels would be transient. 

Masking effects in general are discussed further in Appendix E.

Disturbance

Little systematic information is available about reactions of odontocetes to sound pulses. Some examples 

are provided below and in Table 3.7-5 with a full review and references provided in Appendix E. 

However, a series of systematic studies on sperm whales exposed to airgun sound have been done (e.g., 

Gordon et al. 2006; Madsen et al. 2006; Winsor and Mate 2006; Jochens et al. 2008; Miller et al. 2009). 

Information about responses of various odontocetes to seismic surveys based on monitoring studies is 

also increasing (Stone 2003; Smultea et al. 2004; Moulton and Miller 2005; Bain and Williams 2006; 

Holst et al. 2006; Stone and Tasker 2006; Potter et al. 2007; Weir 2008; Richardson et al. 2009).

Delphinids show some limited avoidance of seismic vessels operating large airgun arrays (Appendix E). 

Small odontocetes sometimes move away or maintain a greater distance from the vessel when a large 

array of airguns is operating vs. when it is silent (e.g., Goold 1996a, b, c; Calambokidis and Osmek 1998; 

Stone 2003; Holst et al. 2006; Stone and Tasker 2006; Weir 2008; Richardson et al. 2009). In most cases,

the avoidance radii for delphinids appear to be small, on the order of 0.6 mile (1 km) or less (see Table 

3.7-2 and Appendix E). The beluga may be a species that (at least at times) shows long-distance 

avoidance of seismic vessels (Miller et al. 2005; Harris et al. 2007). Aerial surveys during seismic 

operations in the southeastern Beaufort Sea recorded much lower sighting rates of beluga whales within 

6-12 mi (10–20 km) of an active seismic vessel (Miller et al. 2005); these results were consistent with the 

low number of beluga sightings reported by observers aboard the seismic vessel, suggesting that some 

belugas might be avoiding the seismic operations at distances of 6-12 mi (10–20 km) (Miller et al. 2005). 

Nonetheless, seismic operators and marine mammal observers sometimes see dolphins, porpoises, and 

other small toothed whales near operating airgun arrays. Some dolphins and porpoises may be attracted to 

the seismic vessel and/or floats, as they sometimes ride the bow wave of the vessel even when airguns are 

firing (e.g., Haley and Koski 2004; Smultea et al. 2004; Holst et al. 2005b; MacLean and Koski 2005)

(Table 3.7-5).

Results for porpoises, which are HF specialists, appear to vary by species. Dall‘s porpoises seem 

relatively tolerant of airgun operations (MacLean and Koski 2005; Bain and Williams 2006; Hauser and 

Holst 2009), whereas the limited available data suggest that harbor porpoises show stronger avoidance 

(Stone 2003; Bain and Williams 2006). Studies off British Columbia and Washington using large airgun 

arrays showed that the harbor porpoise appeared to be affected by the lowest level of sound whereas

another HF specialist, the Dall‘s porpoise, appeared less sensitive (Bain and Williams 2006). This 

apparent difference in responsiveness of these two porpoise species is consistent with their relative 

responsiveness to boat traffic in general (Richardson et al. 1995a).

Most studies of sperm whales exposed to airgun sounds indicate that this species shows considerable 

tolerance of airgun pulses. In most cases, the whales do not show strong avoidance (i.e., they do not leave 

the area) and they continue to call (see Appendix E for review). However, controlled exposure 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-187

experiments in the Gulf of Mexico indicate that foraging effort is apparently somewhat reduced upon 

exposure to airgun pulses from a seismic vessel operating in the area, and there may be a delay in diving 

to foraging depth (Jochens et al. 2008; Miller et al. 2009; Tyack 2009). 

There are few specific data on the behavioral reactions of beaked whales to seismic surveys. Most beaked 

whales tend to avoid approaching vessels of other types (Würsig et al. 1998). They may also dive for an 

extended period when approached by a vessel (Kasuya 1986). Thus, it is likely that beaked whales would 

also show avoidance of an approaching seismic vessel, regardless of whether or not airguns are operating. 

However, visual and acoustic studies indicated that some northern bottlenose whales remained in the 

general area and continued to produce high-frequency clicks when exposed to sounds from distant seismic 

surveys (Gosselin and Lawson 2004; Laurinolli and Cochrane 2005; Simard et al. 2005).

Overall, odontocete reactions to large arrays of airguns are variable and, at least for delphinids and some 

porpoises, seem to be confined to a shorter distance than has been observed for mysticetes (see Tables 

3.6-5 vs. 3.7-5 and Appendix E). A 170 dB re 1 μPa disturbance criterion (rather than 160 dB) is 

considered appropriate for delphinids, which tend to be less responsive to LF anthropogenic sounds than 

are many other cetaceans (see Appendix E). However, other data suggest that some odontocete species 

with poor LF hearing may be more sensitive than previously thought. This may be the case under certain 

environmental conditions, when the output from seismic airguns includes energy at higher frequencies 

(DeRuiter et al. 2005; Goold and Coates 2006; Tyack et al. 2006; Potter et al. 2007). Also, where 

odontocetes are encountered in channels and inlets that are sufficiently narrow so as to be strongly 

ensonified across their width, the received levels may exceed the threshold for the onset of disturbance. If 

animals are unable to swim far enough to the side of the trackline, disturbance could be more severe, and 

they might be driven ahead of the ship, increasing the scale of geographic displacement (Bain and 

Williams 2006).

As for the presence of the vessel itself, some odontocetes are expected to respond behaviorally though 

responses are anticipated to be variable. The occurrence and nature of responses vary with species, 

location, animal activity, novelty of the sound, vessel ―behavior‖, and habitat, among many others 

(reviewed in Richardson et al. 1995a; Wartzok et al. 2004; see also Appendix E). Some species, 

especially delphinids, commonly approach vessels while others, including most beaked whales, avoid 

approaching vessels (Würsig et al. 1998). Others appear to show no reaction to a passing vessel

(Richardson et al. 1995a; Würsig et al. 1998). All three species of sperm whales have shown avoidance 

reactions to standard vessels not emitting airgun sounds (Richardson et al. 1995a; Würsig et al. 1998), and 

thus are likely to avoid a seismic survey vessel whether the airguns are active or inactive. In all oceans of 

the world, large vessel traffic is currently so prevalent that it is commonly considered a usual source of 

ambient sound (McDonald et al. 2006). Project vessel sounds would not be at levels expected to cause 

anything more than possible localized and temporary behavioral changes (Richardson et al. 1995a). 

Routine vessel sounds are not expected to result in significant negative effects on individuals or at the 

population level (see review in Richardson et al. [1995a] and Appendix E).

Behavioral reactions of free-ranging odontocetes to echosounders such as the proposed MBESs and 

SBPs, and to pingers, appear to vary by species and circumstance. Gerrodette and Pettis (2005) assessed 

odontocete reactions to an echosounder and an ADCP operated from oceanographic vessels in the ETP 

during 1998-2000. Results indicated that when the echosounder and ADCP were on, spotted and spinner 

dolphins were detected slightly more often and beaked whales less often during visual surveys 

(Gerrodette and Pettis 2005). Whalers were judicious in their use of sonar when following sperm whales 

because it tended to make them scatter (Richardson et al. 1995a). In response to MF pingers, some sperm 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-188

whales stopped emitting pulses (Watkins and Schevill 1975). In contrast, sperm whales usually continued 

calling and did not appear to otherwise react to continual pulsing from a 12-kHz echosounder (Backus 

and Schevill 1966; Watkins 1977). Various dolphin and porpoise species have been seen bowriding while 

the MBES, SBP, and airguns were operating during NSF-sponsored L-DEO seismic surveys (Smultea et 

al. 2004; MacLean and Koski 2005). Captive bottlenose dolphins and a beluga exhibited changes in 

behavior when exposed to 1-sec tonal signals at frequencies similar to those that would be emitted by the 

MBES and to shorter broadband pulsed signals. Behavioral changes typically involved what appeared to 

be deliberate attempts to avoid the sound exposure (Schlundt et al. 2000; Finneran et al. 2002; Finneran 

and Schlundt 2004). The relevance of those data to free-ranging odontocetes is uncertain, and in any case, 

the test sounds were quite different in duration or bandwidth as compared with those from a MBES. The 

signals from SBPs are somewhat weaker than those from the MBES. 

In summary, short-term and localized behavioral disturbance of some odontocetes is expected in response 

to seismic airgun operations. Disturbance of odontocetes due to operation of the MBESs and SBPs is also 

possible; however, exposure of individual odontocetes is likely brief in duration (<1 sec; 1 or at most 2 

pings) given that these devices are located on a moving seismic vessel and the pings are intermittent and 

directed downward. The proposed pingers operate at sound levels expected to cause no more than 

localized behavioral changes for animals close to these battery-powered sound sources. Pinger sound 

levels drop quickly with increasing distance from the source through attenuation given their MF and HF 

characteristics and their relatively low source levels (see Appendix B). None of the aforementioned 

effects are considered significant for odontocetes at the population level.

Temporary Hearing Impairment

TTS is possible when marine mammals are exposed to high-level sounds (Southall et al. 2007). However, 

there has been no specific documentation that TTS occurs in free-ranging marine mammals exposed to 

sequences of airgun pulses during operational seismic surveys (for a full discussion of TTS see Appendix 

E). Also, TTS is (by definition) a temporary phenomenon, and does not constitute injury (Southall et al. 

2007). 

A few captive studies of odontocetes have reported on sound levels eliciting TTS (reviewed in Southall et 

al. 2007; Appendix B and Table 3.7-5). Given available data, the received energy level of a single seismic 

pulse (with no frequency weighting) might need to be approximately 186 dB re 1 Pa2·sec (i.e., 186 dB 

SEL or 221-226 dB peak-peak) in order to produce brief, mild TTS (Finneran et al. 2002) (Table 2-8).

After allowance for frequency content, this is equivalent to a TTS threshold of about 183 dB re 1 μPa2·sec 

(Southall et al. 2007). Exposure to several strong seismic pulses that each have received levels near 175-

180 dB SEL (190 dB rms) might result in cumulative exposure of 183 dB SEL re 1 μPa2·sec and thus 

slight TTS in a small odontocete assuming the TTS threshold is (to a first approximation) a function of 

the total received pulse energy; however, this  ̳equal-energy‘ concept is an oversimplification. Seismic 

pulses with received energy levels 175-180 dB SEL (190 dB rms) are expected to be restricted to radii 

no more than 860 ft (262 m) around the airguns (Table 2-11). The specific radius would depend on the 

depth of the water, the array size, the tow depth of the airgun array (30 vs. 39 ft [9 vs. 12 m]) and other 

factors (Appendix B). For an odontocete closer to the surface, the maximum radius with 175-180 dB 

SEL or 190 dB rms would be smaller than the same isopleth at depth, given pressure release effect at the 

water‘s surface (Greene and Richardson 1988; Richardson et al. 1995a) (see Appendix E).

The above TTS information for odontocetes is derived from studies on the bottlenose dolphin and beluga. 

For the one harbor porpoise tested, the received level of airgun sound that elicited onset of TTS was 

lower; based on the measurements at 4 kHz, TTS occurred upon exposure to one airgun pulse with 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-189

received level of approximately 200 dB re 1 μPapk-pk or an SEL of 164.3 dB re 1 μPa2·s (Lucke et al. 

2009). If these results from a single animal are representative, it is inappropriate to assume that onset of 

TTS occurs at similar received levels in all odontocetes (Southall et al. 2007). Some cetaceans may incur 

TTS at lower sound exposures than are necessary to elicit TTS in the beluga or bottlenose dolphin.

NMFS (1995, 2000) concluded that cetaceans should not be exposed to pulsed underwater sound at 

received levels 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms). That criterion has been used in defining the safety (shut-down) 

radii for previous NSF-sponsored seismic surveys and, for comparative purposes, was also considered in 

this analysis. More recent data imply that TTS is unlikely to occur unless odontocetes are exposed to 

airgun pulses greater than 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) (see above). Southall et al. (2007) have recommended

new noise exposure criteria for marine mammals that account for the now-available scientific data on 

TTS, the expected offset between the TTS and PTS thresholds, differences in the acoustic frequencies to 

which different marine mammal groups are sensitive, and other relevant factors (reviewed in Section 

2.3.3.2). NMFS is considering adoption of new criteria (NMFS 2005c).

With a large airgun array, TTS is most likely in any odontocetes that linger near the airguns where sound 

levels are highest (Appendix B) and where received energy level would accumulate with duration of 

exposure. However, while bow-riding, odontocetes are at or above the surface, where sound pulses are 

weaker given the pressure-release effect at the surface. Nevertheless, bow-riding animals generally dive 

below the surface intermittently. If they did so while wake-riding near airguns, they would be exposed to 

high-level sound pulses, possibly repeatedly. Even if some cetaceans did incur TTS through exposure to 

airgun sounds, this would very likely be mild, temporary, and reversible. All TTS experiments done to 

date with marine mammals show that TTS disappears over time (see Appendix E). 

The project MBESs, SBPs, and pingers are not expected to induce TTS. See mysticete Sections 3.7.4.3 

TTS and PTS for further assessment based on operating characteristics of the project MBES, SBPs, and 

pingers. 

Some odontocetes show avoidance of the area where received levels of airgun sound are high enough 

such that TTS could potentially occur (see above and Table 3.7-5). In those cases, the avoidance 

responses of the animals themselves reduce or (most likely) eliminate any possibility of TTS. If some 

odontocetes did experience temporary hearing impairment, the TTS effects would (by definition) be fully 

recoverable, most likely within minutes.

Injury

Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)

There are no measurements available to determine the sound exposure necessary to cause PTS in any 

marine mammal exposed to any type of sound but the general principles are assumed to be similar to 

those in humans and other terrestrial mammals (see Mysticetes Section 3.7.3.4 and Appendix E). The 

low-to-moderate levels of TTS that have been induced in captive odontocetes during controlled studies 

have shown no measurable residual PTS (Schlundt et al. 2000; Finneran et al. 2002; Nachtigall et al. 

2003, 2004). However, Southall et al. (2007) note that, regardless of the SEL, there is concern about the 

possibility of PTS if a cetacean received one or more pulses with peak pressure exceeding 230 dB re 1 

μPa. 

When exposure is measured in SEL units, Southall et al. (2007) estimate that received levels would need 

to exceed the TTS threshold by at least 15 dB for there to be risk of PTS. Thus, for cetaceans they 

estimate that the PTS threshold for impulse sound might be an SEL of about 198 dB re (1 μPa)2·sec. 

Given the higher level of sound necessary to cause PTS as compared with TTS, it is even less likely that 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-190

PTS could occur through exposure to airgun sounds. In fact, even the levels immediately adjacent to the 

airguns may not be sufficient to induce PTS, especially because a mammal would be exposed to no more 

than one high-level pulse unless it swam immediately alongside the airgun for a period longer than the 

inter-pulse interval. Even for delphinids that may bowride active seismic vessels, PTS is unlikely to occur 

given surface release effects and other factors (see mysticete Section 3.7.4.3 PTS).

The possibility of PTS through exposure to MBES or SBP sounds is considered negligible and PTS via 

exposure to pingers is not anticipated. As discussed previously, many odontocetes avoid the immediate 

area around operating seismic vessels (e.g., Hildebrand 2005) (see Table 3.7-5 and Appendix E). 

Implementation of planned monitoring and mitigation measures, including visual (and, where warranted, 

acoustic) monitoring, ramp ups, and power downs or shut downs of the airguns when marine mammals 

are seen within the safety radii, will minimize the already-low probability of exposure of marine 

mammals to sounds high enough to induce PTS.

Strandings and Mortality

The association of strandings of beaked whales with naval exercises and, in one case, an L-DEO seismic 

survey, has raised the possibility that beaked whales exposed to strong sounds may be especially 

susceptible to injury and/or behavioral reactions that can lead to stranding (e.g., Hildebrand 2005; 

Southall et al. 2007) (reviewed in Appendix E). Hildebrand (2005) reviewed the association of cetacean 

strandings with high-intensity sound events and found that most of the afflicted species were deep-diving 

odontocetes. Cuvier‘s beaked whales comprised 81% of all stranded animals, while other beaked whales, 

including Gervais‘ beaked whale, Blainville‘s beaked whale and N Atlantic bottlenose whale accounted

for 14%; other cetaceans, including striped dolphin, pygmy sperm whale, and Balaenoptera

acutorostrata, comprised the remaining 5% (Hildebrand 2005). 

Characteristics of seismic pulses are quite different from the MF sonar signals used by the military that 

have been associated with beaked whale strandings (see Mysticetes section 3.7.4.3). There is no 

conclusive evidence that cetacean strandings result from exposure to seismic surveys. In September 2002, 

there was a stranding of two Cuvier‘s beaked whales in the Gulf of California, Mexico, when the R/V 

Ewing was operating a 20-airgun, 8,490-in3airgun array in the general area. The link between the 

stranding and the seismic surveys was inconclusive and not based on any physical evidence (Hogarth 

2002; Yoder 2002). Nonetheless, that plus the incidents involving beaked whale strandings near naval 

exercises suggest a need for caution in conducting seismic surveys in areas occupied by beaked whales. 

Mitigation and monitoring are considered cautionary measures and can be site-specifically modified in 

areas of high concern before an actual proposed survey in consultation with NMFS if warranted (e.g., 

where beaked whales are considered likely to occur). Based on available data, no strandings or mortality

of beaked whales are anticipated during the proposed seismic study given the proposed monitoring and 

mitigation measures, the airgun operating characteristics (pulsed and intermittent), and the lack of 

substantiated evidence that seismic operations cause cetacean strandings.

Other Physiological Effects

Until recently, it was assumed that diving marine mammals are not subject to the bends or air embolisms. 

However, recent studies have found associations between military MF sonar activity and beaked whale 

strandings with acute and chronic tissue damage that may (in some cases) have resulted from formation of 

in vivo gas bubbles (reviewed in Appendix E). There has been speculation that gas and fat embolisms may 

occur if deep-diving odontocetes ascend unusually quickly when exposed to aversive sounds, or if sound in 

the environment causes the destabilization of existing bubble nuclei within body tissues (Potter 2004; 

Arbelo et al. 2005; Fernández et al. 2005a, b; Jepson et al. 2005b; Cox et al. 2006). Even if gas and fat 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-191

embolisms can at times occur during exposure of beaked whales to MF Navy sonar, there is no evidence 

that this type of effect occurs in odontocetes exposed to airgun sounds or to echosounders or pingers of the 

types proposed for the NSF-funded seismic surveys. Given the expected brevity of exposure of any 

odontocete to high-level project sounds from a transiting seismic vessel, the intermittent nature and low 

duty cycle of airgun sounds, and implementation of monitoring and mitigation measures, these other 

physiological effects are considered unlikely to occur during the proposed seismic surveys.

Based on evidence from terrestrial mammals and humans, sound is also a potential source of stress, with 

potential to disrupt communication, navigational ability and social patterns (Richardson et al. 1995a); 

however, no information is available on the effect of sound on the long-term well-being or reproductive 

success of odontocetes (Fair and Becker 2000; Hildebrand 2005; Wright et al. 2007a, b). Such effects, if 

they occur at all, would be mainly associated with chronic noise exposure, which is not characteristic of a 

seismic survey. 

3.7.4.4 Other Potential Effects

Refer to Section 3.7.4.4 for general information on entanglement, ingestion, ship strikes, and other 

ancillary project activities as related to cetaceans.

3.7.5 Environmental Consequences – Alternative A and Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)

Alternatives A and B consist of a combination of monitoring and mitigation measures developed in 

consultation with NMFS designed to minimize the potential effects of NSF-funded or USGS seismic 

survey operations on marine mammals (Sections 2.4.1 and 3.7.5). The measures for odontocetes are the 

same as those for mysticetes except that different M-weighted Level A and Level B exposure radii were 

used for odontocetes because of their different sensitivities to various sound frequencies (see Section 

2.3.3 and Table 2-11). In addition, odontocetes are subdivided into two hearing groups (MF and HF) 

whereas all mysticetes are considered to be in one group (LF). The flat (unweighted) measures were also 

calculated.

3.7.5.1 Acoustic Effects

This section summarizes the various types and levels of potential acoustic effects on odontocetes in the 

analysis areas resulting from the seismic surveys under Alternative A or B. Table 2-11 shows the 

estimated mitigation radii for the exemplary seismic surveys that are assumed to occur in the five DAAs. 

Estimated exposures based on unweighted and M-weighting and percent of regional populations 

potentially impacted by proposed seismic survey activities within the DAAs under Alternative A and 

Alternative B are presented in Table 3.7-6 and in Appendix B Tables. After applying M-weighting, 

numbers of odontocete exposures are presented based on the discussion of exposure criteria in Section 

2.3.3 and listed in Table 2-8. Modeled numerical estimates of exposure are considered precautionary

(likely overestimated) because they do not account for individual whales that are expected to avoid the 

sounds. AIM assumes baseline ―undisturbed‖ distribution and movement of animals whether or not 

airgun sounds are being emitted. 

Masking

The potential for masking is considered minimal for odontocetes during the proposed seismic surveys, 

particularly for the HF-specialist porpoises. In general, although the potential for masking is low, 

proposed surveys with large airgun arrays in areas where densities of odontocetes are relatively high have 

greater potential for masking than surveys in other analysis areas where densities are low and/or a small 

array would be used. Regardless, masking attributable to an NSF-sponsored seismic survey is expected to 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-192

be limited and transitory for all odontocete species in Section 3.7.4.3. While masking may affect 

individual odontocetes in the short term, it is expected that implementation of Alternative A or B would 

not result in significant impacts to odontocete populations due to masking (Table 3.7-5).

Disturbance

Disturbance would be the primary type of effect resulting from the proposed seismic surveys under 

Alternative A (Tables 3.7-5 and 3.7-6). With the proposed mitigation and monitoring, disturbance is 

expected to be limited to short-term behavioral changes and localized avoidance by individual 

odontocetes responding to airgun sound. Short-term behavioral changes are likely for many of the 

individual odontocetes in the areas ensonified to the Level B criterion sound level of ≥160 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms). However, the >170 dB re 1 μPa (rms) sound criterion may be a better indicator of the received 

level at which odontocetes are likely to display behavioral changes based on available studies of 

odontocetes (e.g., L-DEO and NSF 2003f, h; Table 3.7-5; Appendix E). These effects may occur in any of 

the exemplary analysis areas where a given odontocete species occurs (Tables 3.7-3 and 3.7-4). However, 

no significant disturbance-related impacts to odontocetes are anticipated at the population level. The 

percentages of the regional populations estimated to be exposed (under Alternative A or B) to airgun 

sounds at levels equaling or exceeding Level B disturbance criteria are presented below and in Table 

3.7-6 (Bp columns) based on population estimates for the ocean basin of interest. 

Level B Exposure Estimates for ESA-listed Odontocetes

The sperm whale is the only ESA-listed odontocete occurring in any of the exemplary analysis areas. The 

estimated exposure predictions for sperm whales under Alternative A are described below based on the 

three mitigation criteria. These are precautionary exposure estimates because the modeling does not 

account for individual sperm whales that are expected to move away from actual seismic survey sounds. 

Discussion is organized by ocean-basin populations as done for mysticetes, since assessment of 

significance of effects of the exemplary seismic surveys is focused at the population level. Analyses are 

based on the DAA modeling results presented in Table 3.7-6 and Appendix B. The potential for Level A 

(rms) exposures is discussed below under Injury. 

Three regional populations of sperm whales are considered herein based on their occurrence within four 

of the five DAAs and seven of the eight QAAs: the N Atlantic, N Pacific and S hemisphere populations 

(Tables 3.7-1, 3.7-3 and 3.7-4). Sperm whales are considered common in two DAAs and four QAAs 

during the season of the proposed seismic survey (Tables 3.7-3 and 3.7-4). Although there are subpopulations within these areas, the degree of reproductive intermixing is generally not well known. 

DAAs. Under Alternative A, approximately 16 sperm whales are predicted to experience Level B 

exposures within the NW Atlantic (14) and Caribbean (2) DAAs. These numbers represent approximately

0.1% of the N Atlantic population within the NW Atlantic DAA and <0.01% within the Caribbean DAA 

(Table 3.7-6). In the NW Atlantic DAA, sperm whales are expected to be common during the proposed 

summer survey period, but at relatively low densities (Table 3.7-3). In the Caribbean DAA, sperm whales 

are also expected to be relatively common during the proposed late spring/summer survey period 

although, again, at low densities. Implementation of Alternative A would affect, but would not adversely 

affect regional populations of sperm whales within the NW Atlantic or Caribbean DAAs. 

Sperm whales are expected to be rare in the W Gulf of Alaska DAA during the summer season of the 

proposed survey (Table 3.7-4), occurring there at very low densities. Only Level B exposures of <3 

individuals are predicted based on modeling, representing <0.01% of the N Pacific sperm whale 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-193

population (Table 3.7-6). Implementation of Alternative A would affect, but would not adversely affect 

regional populations of sperm whales within the W Gulf of Alaska DAA. 

In the Galapagos DAA, sperm whales are considered potentially common during the proposed S 

hemisphere summer survey (Table 3.7-3). Modeling results predict the Level B exposure of <1 whale, 

representing 0.01% of the S hemisphere sperm whale population. Implementation of Alternative A would 

affect, but would not adversely affect regional populations of sperm whales within the Galapagos DAA. 

In conclusion, no serious injury or mortality of sperm whales is reasonably foreseeable. No adverse 

effects on the annual rates of recruitment or survival of sperm whale stocks are expected as a result of the 

estimated incidents of Level B harassment. Under the ESA, implementation of Alternative A or 

Alternative B may affect and is likely to adversely affect sperm whales in the NW Atlantic, Caribbean, W 

Gulf of Alaska, and Galapagos Ridge DAAs. In accordance with the MMPA and section 7 of the ESA, 

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) requires consultation with NMFS regarding potential Level B 

exposures to sperm whales within the exemplary DAAs. If and when a specific NSF-funded survey or a 

survey to be conducted by USGS is proposed for the area in the future, site-specific consultations with 

NMFS would occur as well as any other tiered supporting environmental documentation.

QAAs. Because acoustic modeling was not conducted for the QAAs, the anticipated potential level of 

exposure of sperm whales was estimated qualitatively by comparison with modeled results from DAA(s)

with similar species occurrence and/or acoustic environments. Sperm whales are considered common in 

four QAAs: Mid-Atlantic Ridge, Marianas, W India, and Sub-Antarctic (Table 3.7-4). The deep-channel, 

large array, and species abundance in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge QAA are considered most similar to the 

Caribbean DAA for the purpose of qualitative analysis (Table 2-7). Thus, exposure of sperm whales to 

seismic surveys is expected to be limited to a similarly small number (<3) of short-term Level B

exposures for the Mid-Atlantic Ridge QAA. The acoustic conditions of the Marianas QAA are considered 

most similar to the Galapagos (deep water) and Caribbean (shallow water) DAAs (Table 2-7). Thus,

similarly small numbers (<3 sperm whales) of Level B exposures could occur in the Marianas QAA. The 

W India QAA is also most similar to the Galapagos DAA deep-water site and the shallow-water portion 

of the Caribbean DAA site (Table 2-7). Modeling for these areas predicts small numbers (<3 sperm 

whales) of short-term Level B exposures. The Sub-Antarctic QAA has no good comparative DAA site, 

although its sound speed and profile are similar to the S California DAA (Table 2-7). Sperm whale 

abundance is uncertain in the SW Atlantic QAA (Table 3.7-1). Assuming that sperm whales are common 

there, the number of potential Level B exposures would be small (<3 individuals) and similar in number 

to the Galapagos and Caribbean DAAs given the acoustic similarities to the latter two DAAs.

Sperm whales are considered uncommon in the N Atlantic/Iceland QAA (Table 3.7-4). This QAA is most 

similar to the W Gulf of Alaska DAA. Both exemplary surveys involve all water depth categories, cold 

water, and similar SSP vs. depth (Table 2-7). However, the airgun array assumed for the N 

Atlantic/Iceland QAA is larger (36 vs. 18 airguns) and the sound channel near 328-ft (100-m) depth is 

considerably weaker than in the W Gulf of Alaska DAA. Other factors being similar, the higher number 

of airguns in the QAA might lead to larger effects, but the weaker sound channel might lead to reduced 

effects. Overall, given the combination of factors, a small number (<3 individuals) of Level B exposures 

of this species, potentially similar to that estimated for the W Gulf of Alaska DAA, could occur within the 

N Atlantic/Iceland QAA (see Table 3.7-6).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-194

Table 3.7-6. Estimated Number of Level A and Level B Exposures (Individuals) of Odontocetes to Seismic Survey Sound with 

Implementation of Alternative A and Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) in the DAAs Based on Modeling Results

NW Atlantic

(N Atlantic pop)(a)

Caribbean

(N Atlantic pop)(a)

S California

(N Pacific pop)(a)

W Gulf of Alaska

(N Pacific pop)(a)

Galapagos

(ETP pop)(a)

Exposure

Criterion(b)

Exposure

Criterion(b)

Exposure

Criterion(b)

Exposure

Criterion(b)

Exposure

Criterion(b)

Species(c) Bp Ap Ae Bp Ap Ae Bp Ap Ae Bp Ap Ae Bp Ap Ae

Sperm whale 14.0

0.1

0.3

<0.01 0.0 2.40.02 0.0 0.0 - - -

2.9

<0.01 0.0 0.0 0.4<0.01 0.0 0.0

Beaked whales(d) 3.1

<0.09 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.9<0.05

0.5

<0.01 0.0 2.2<0.01 0.0 0.0

Common dolphin(e) 402.4

<0.2

8.0

<0.01

0.0 26.6

<0.01

3.0

<0.01 0.0 270.4<0.06 0.0 0.0 - - -

2.9

<0.01 0.0 0.0

Bottlenose dolphin(f) 137.0

<0.1

2.1

<0.01

0.0 47.1

<0.04

2.0

<0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - -

10.1

<0.01 0.0 0.0

Stenella sp.

(g) 307.7

<2.6 0.0 0.0 141.2<1.2

13.4

<0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - -

641.2

<0.04

18.5

<0.01 0.0

Other MF odontocetes(h) 7.9

<0.7 0.0 0.0 25.5<0.5

1.1

<0.03 0.0 13.1<0.02

3.2

<0.01

0.0 23.2

<0.1 0.0 0.0 72<0.2 0.0 0.0

HF Porpoises(i) 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - -

13.5

<0.01 0.0 0.0 738.4<0.4

10

<0.01 0.0 - - -

Notes: - = not present; italics = estimated percentage of regional population impacted; bold = ESA-listed species.

(a) Population estimates from Table 3.7-1. When a range of population estimates is available, the lowest is used, thus maximizing the estimated percent of population that might be 

exposed.

(b) Exposure Criteria (flat weighted): Bp = NMFS Level B harassment criterion -- pressure units (rms), corresponding to exposure to >160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) received sound level 

above which behavioral changes expected to occur. Ap = NMFS Level A criterion – pressure units (rms), corresponding to exposure to >180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) received sound 

level above which the potential for injury was suspected at the time this criterion was implemented by NMFS. Ae = Level A – cumulative energy (SEL) corresponding to Level 

A criterion of > 198 dB re 1 μPa2∙ sec applied in this analysis to identify the level above which there is potential for injury (e.g., PTS), based on limited empirical results from a 

few small odontocete species (Southall et al. 2007). See also Appendix B. For the purpose of analysis, for non-listed species, only predicted exposures >0.5 animal as presented 

in Appendix B, Tables B-13 – B-17 are considered an actual exposure. For ESA-listed species, only predicted exposures >0.05 animal as presented in Appendix B, Tables B-13 –

B-17 are considered an actual exposure. 

(c) All odontocetes in this table are considered MF hearing specialists with presumed or documented functional hearing from 150 Hz to 160 kHz, except for the harbor and Dall‘s 

porpoise which are considered HF hearing specialists whose functional hearing abilities range from 200 Hz to 180 kHz (Miller et al. 2005).

(d) Includes the following species of beaked whales: Baird‘s, Cuvier‘s, Longman‘s, True‘s, Gervais‘, Sowerby‘s, pygmy, Hubb‘s, ginko-toothed, Stejneger‘s, Blainville‘s, and 

northern bottlenose (see Table 3.7-1).

(e) Includes short-beaked, long-beaked, and Arabian common dolphins (see Tables 3.7-1 and 3.7-3).

(f) Includes only the common bottlenose dolphin as the Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin does not occur in the DAAs (see Tables 3.7-1 and 3.7-3).

(g) Includes pantropical spotted, Atlantic spotted, spinner, clymene, and striped dolphins (see Tables 3.7-1 and 3.7-3).

(h) Includes the following 18 MF odontocete species: pygmy and dwarf sperm whales (i.e., Kogia sp.), beluga, narwhal, killer whale, false killer whale, pygmy killer whale, melonheaded whale, long- and short-finned pilot whales, Risso‘s dolphin, Fraser‘s dolphin, white-beaked dolphin, Atlantic and Pacific white-sided dolphins, rough-toothed dolphin, 

northern right whale dolphin, and Tucuxi dolphin (see Tables 3.7-1 and 3.7-3). Kogia has recently been re-classified as HF (Southall et al. 2007) but was considered MF when 

the acoustic modeling was done. Thus, actual numbers of Kogia affected would be somewhat less than predicted here.

(i) Numbers here only include Dall‘s and harbor porpoises, as all other porpoises may occur only in the QAAs (see Tables 3.7-1 and 3.7-3).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-195

Sperm whales are considered uncommon at the BC Coast QAA during the exemplary summer survey 

period (Table 3.7-4). The BC Coast QAA has shallow to intermediate water depths (<656 ft [<200 m]) 

and has no sound channel that could trap sound and reduce transmission loss. Acoustic conditions, in 

terms of SSP, are quite different from those in any of the DAAs (Table 2-7). However, among the DAAs, 

the W Gulf of Alaska site has the closest resemblance to the BC Coast QAA. Based on the latter, Level B 

exposures could be similar to the W Gulf of Alaska site (see above) and would thus be limited to a small 

number (<3 sperm whales) of behavioral changes. 

In summary, based on acoustic modeling predictions for the DAAs and a qualitative analysis of the 

QAAs, no significant effects are expected to regional populations of sperm whales with implementation 

of Alternative A or B within the QAAs. No serious injury or mortality of sperm whales is reasonably 

foreseeable and no adverse effects on the annual rates of recruitment or survival of sperm whale stocks

are expected as a result of the estimated incidents of Level B harassment. Under the ESA, implementation 

of Alternative A or B may affect and is likely to adversely affect sperm whales in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, 

N Atlantic/Iceland, SW Atlantic, Marianas, BC Coast, W India, and Sub-Antarctic QAAs. In accordance 

with the MMPA and section 7 of the ESA, Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) requires consultation 

with NMFS regarding potential Level B exposures to sperm whales within the exemplary QAAs. If and 

when a specific NSF-funded survey or a survey to be conducted by USGS is proposed for the area in the 

future, site-specific consultations with NMFS would occur as well as any other tiered supporting 

environmental documentation.

Level B Exposure Estimates for Non-ESA Odontocetes

DAAs. Under Alternatives A and B, small numbers of behavioral changes are predicted for some 

individual odontocetes, not listed under the ESA, at all five of the DAAs (Table 3.7-6). Although the 

highest predicted numbers (up to approximately 600 individuals) of Level B exposures occur among a 

few porpoise and delphinid species, these species also have some of the highest densities and population

sizes of all cetaceans in the analysis areas; some of these populations number in the tens to hundreds of 

thousands (Table 3.7-1). Thus, the proportions of the regional populations of delphinids and porpoises 

predicted to experience Level B exposures still represent relatively small numbers (<2.1% and <0.4%, 

respectively). Beaked whale densities are considerably smaller in the DAAs, so beaked whales would be 

affected in smaller overall numbers; temporary disturbance impacts to individual beaked whales under 

Alternatives A and B are predicted to be <0.09% of each regional population (Tables 3.7-1 and 3.7-6). 

Tables listing predicted exposures by species and estimated densities of species in each of the DAAs can 

be found in Appendix B. 

In summary, implementation of Alternative A or B is expected to result in small numbers of Level B

exposures of non-ESA listed MF and HF odontocetes within all of the DAAs (Table 3.7-6). No serious 

injury or mortality of odontocetes is reasonably foreseeable. No adverse effects on the annual rates of 

recruitment or survival of odontocete stocks are expected as a result of the estimated incidents of Level B 

exposures. In accordance with the MMPA, Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) requires consultation 

with NMFS regarding potential Level B exposures to odontocetes within the NW Atlantic, Caribbean, S 

California, W Gulf of Alaska, and Galapagos DAAs. If and when a specific NSF-funded survey or a 

survey to be conducted by USGS is proposed for the area in the future, site-specific consultations with 

NMFS would occur as well as any other tiered supporting environmental documentation.

QAAs. As with the DAAs, the most abundant populations at the eight QAAs are generally MF dolphins or 

HF porpoises (Table 3.7-4). Among the eight QAAs, the N Atlantic/Iceland, W Australia, W India, and 

Marianas QAAs are expected to have the highest potential for Level B exposures of odontocetes. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-196

Dolphins are considered common to abundant within those QAAs; the most abundant of the dolphins are 

Lagenorhynchus, Stenella, and bottlenose dolphins. In the N Atlantic/Iceland and BC QAAs, two HF 

porpoises also occur at relatively high densities. Thus, the QAAs with the highest levels of potential 

Level B exposures would likely be those with relatively high densities of delphinids and/or porpoises 

combined with a large array of airguns operating in shallow water. Except for the W Australia QAA 

where a small airgun array is proposed, a large array is modeled in all other QAAs; four of the five 

aforementioned QAAs encompass shallow to deep water, while the BC QAA encompasses only shallow 

water (Table 2-7). 

The W Australia QAA has dissimilar acoustic properties to all of the five DAAs (Table 2-7 and Appendix 

B). The W Australia QAA has a sound speed vs. depth profile that decreases slightly with water depth and 

has no sound channel; thus, the relatively shallow environment favors refraction of sound toward the 

bottom (Appendix B). This information, combined with the small airgun array assumed for the W 

Australia QAA, suggests that potential seismic exposures would be limited to a small number of 

odontocetes, primarily bottlenose dolphins. Furthermore, some odontocetes are expected to show 

avoidance of seismic sounds (Section 3.7.4, Table 3.7-5, Appendix E). Effects at the other four QAAs,

where non-ESA listed odontocetes are considered common to abundant (see above paragraph and Table 

3.7-4), would likely be similar to effects in shallow waters of the Caribbean DAA and/or deep waters of

the Galapagos Ridge DAA. Overall, populations of the most abundant species are estimated to be in the 

millions worldwide and in the tens to hundreds of thousands regionally (Table 3.7-1). Thus, Level B 

exposures resulting from the exemplary seismic surveys are expected to represent a small proportion of 

the overall populations (Table 3.7-6).

In summary, based on acoustic modeling predictions for the DAAs and a qualitative analysis of the 

QAAs, no significant effects are expected to regional populations of non-ESA listed MF and HF 

odontocetes with implementation of Alternative A or B within the QAAs. No serious injury or mortality 

of odontocetes is reasonably foreseeable and no adverse effects on the annual rates of recruitment or 

survival of non-ESA listed odontocete stocks are expected as a result of the estimated incidents of Level 

B exposures. In accordance with the MMPA, Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) requires consultation 

with NMFS regarding potential Level B exposures to odontocetes within the exemplary QAAs. If and 

when a specific NSF-funded survey or a survey to be conducted by USGS is proposed for the area in the 

future, site-specific consultations with NMFS would occur as well as any other tiered supporting 

environmental documentation.

Temporary Hearing Impairment or TTS

Temporary hearing impairment or TTS as a result of implementing Alternative A or B is unlikely to 

occur, as described previously in Section 3.7.4.3. The only odontocetes that could incur TTS would be 

those that approach close to airguns at depth. Based on available studies, many odontocetes are expected 

to avoid close approaches to the seismic vessel where exposure to sound levels could potentially cause 

TTS (see Table 3.7-5 and Appendix E). Furthermore, implementation of mitigation and monitoring 

measures under Alternatives A and B, including ramp ups, power downs and shut downs, would reduce 

the potential for TTS, and in particular would reduce the potential for strong and longer-lasting TTS. The 

real-time monitoring necessary for effectively implementing power downs and shut downs is most 

effective at the close distances where stronger and longer lasting TTS might occur. Furthermore, TTS is 

(by definition) a temporary phenomenon that is very unlikely to have long-term consequences for the 

individual(s) involved (Southall et al. 2007). No significant impacts to populations of odontocetes are 

expected to occur under Alternative A or B as a result of potential TTS.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-197

Injury

Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)

DAAs. Implementation of Alternative A or B within the exemplary DAAs is not anticipated to result in 

Level A exposures or PTS in odontocetes as described in Section 3.7.4.3 and Appendix E. As previously 

discussed for TTS, odontocetes are expected to avoid exposure to sound levels that could potentially 

cause PTS (Table 3.7-5 and Section 3.7.4.3). Furthermore, avoidance would likely begin well before

odontocetes are within the NMFS-designated 180-dB re 1 μPa (rms) isopleth around an approaching 

seismic research vessel, and well before reaching the Level A cumulative exposure criterion applied in 

this analysis. Modeling results suggest that a small number of odontocetes could potentially receive ≥180 

dB re 1 μPa (rms) in all the DAAs (Table 3.7-6, Ap columns). However, the model does not allow for the 

likelihood that exposed odontocetes would show avoidance of the airgun source, as most are expected to 

do during an actual seismic survey. These modeled exposures exceeding the ―old‖ Level A rms pressure 

criterion account for <0.01% of each regional odontocete population, including resident populations and 

the ESA-listed sperm whale (Table 3.7-6). Furthermore, no odontocetes are predicted to be exposed to 

sound equaling or exceeding the cumulative energy exposure criterion for injury (198 dB re 1 μPa2· sec). 

The latter is currently considered a more realistic estimate of the exposure level above which injury to 

odontocetes might occur, allowing for recent research (Southall et al. 2007) (see Ae columns of Table 3.7-

6, and below).

Potential exposure of odontocetes at or near the current 180-dB re 1 μPa (rms) criterion identified by 

NMFS for potential Level A effects is not expected to cause adverse effects. Recent research indicates 

that the 180-dB criterion for cetaceans appears to be lower than necessary to avoid TTS (a type of level B 

exposure), let alone PTS, at least for delphinids and other small odontocetes (Southall et al. 2007; see 

Appendix B). The minimum sound exposure necessary to cause PTS is higher than that inducing barelydetectable TTS (Appendix E). The level associated with the onset of TTS is considered a precautionary 

estimate of the level below which there is no danger of permanent damage (Richardson et al. 1995a; 

Southall et al. 2007). 

Some delphinid species are attracted to vessels to bow ride; however, studies indicate that small 

odontocetes maintain a greater distance while airguns are operating than when they are silent (Gould 

1996a, b, c; Calambokidis and Osmeck 1998; Stone 2003; Holst et al. 2006; Stone and Tasker 2006; Weir 

2008; Richardson et al. 2009; see Appendix E). Dolphins and porpoises have sometimes approached the 

bow and occasionally the stern of the R/V Ewing while airguns were operating during previous NSFsponsored seismic surveys. These observed approaches have resulted in immediate shut downs or power 

downs of the airguns, depending on the size of the array and the corresponding 180-dB re 1 μPa (rms) 

radius (Smultea et al. 2004; Holst et al. 2005b; MacLean and Koski 2005). In general, animals that 

approach to bow ride normally should be visible during the daytime and, if inside the mitigation zone, 

would trigger a shutdown of the airguns. These individuals were at or near the water surface where the 

air-water interface results in considerably reduced sound levels (Richardson et al. 1995a). With 

implementation of proposed mitigation and monitoring measures under Alternatives A and B, combined 

with an expected tendency for many odontocetes to avoid close approaches to an operating airgun array, 

Level A exposures are highly unlikely and not expected to occur for any odontocete species in the

analysis areas. 

The only simulated possibility of Level A exposure of an ESA-listed species is in the NW Atlantic DAA 

where <1 sperm whale exposure is predicted when the 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) criterion is applied; 

however, no such exposures are predicted when the more meaningful energy-based criterion is applied 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-198

(Table 3.7-6). A similar pattern occurs for non-listed small odontocetes in the NW Atlantic, Caribbean, 

and Galapagos DAAs, including common, bottlenose and Stenella sp. dolphins as well as HF porpoises 

(Table 3.7-6). 

No serious injury or mortality of any odontocete species is reasonably foreseeable. No adverse effects on 

the annual rates of recruitment or survival of odontocete stocks are expected as a result of the estimated 

incidents of Level A exposures. Under the ESA, implementation of Alternative A is likely to adversely 

affect sperm whales in the NW Atlantic DAA. In accordance with the MMPA and section 7 of the ESA, 

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) requires consultation with NMFS regarding Level A exposures to 

sperm whales and other odontocetes (Table 3.7-6). If and when a specific NSF-funded survey or a survey 

to be conducted by USGS is proposed for the area in the future, site-specific consultations with NMFS 

would occur as well as any other tiered supporting environmental documentation.

QAAs. None of the QAAs is considered a close match to the NW Atlantic DAA where <1 ESA-listed 

sperm whale exposure is predicted when the Level A 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) criterion is applied; no such 

exposures are predicted when the energy-based criterion is applied (see above and Table 3.7-7). Australia 

is the only QAA with any resemblance to conditions at the NW Atlantic DAA (Table 2-7). Regardless, no 

actual Level A exposure of odontocetes is expected in the QAAs. This assessment is based on no modeled 

Level A cumulative energy exposures in the DAAs, relatively few Level A (rms) exposures, and factors 

described earlier (i.e., behavioral avoidance, etc.). PTS injury is highly unlikely and not expected to occur 

to sperm whales within the QAAs with implementation of Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred 

Alternative). 

PTS is not expected to occur to non-listed odontocetes in the QAAs during an actual seismic survey for 

the same reasons as described for the DAAs (see paragraph above and Appendix E). If the same modeling 

were applied to the QAAs, results in terms of numbers of exposures would likely be similar given the 

shared acoustic characteristics, etc. (Table 2-7). Thus, cumulative energy (SEL) exposures are not expected to exceed the Level-A criterion of 198 dB re 1 μPa2

·sec. Modeling of the QAAs would also likely 

show small numbers of Level A (rms) exposures for the most abundant species. Examples include

shallow-water areas with proposed large airgun arrays such as the N Atlantic/Iceland, BC Coast, and 

possibly the W India DAAs. Based on Table 2-7 and DAA modeling results, additional site-specific 

monitoring and mitigation may be required in these DAAs were an actual large-source survey proposed. 

Additional monitoring could also be required in QAAs where the occurrence and abundance of odontocetes has not yet been studied in detail (e.g., the Marianas and SW Atlantic QAAs). Level A (rms) 

modeled exposures are less likely where small airgun arrays are operated (especially in deep waters) and

where odontocete densities are expected to be relatively low (e.g., W Australia, Marianas, Sub-Antarctic)

(Table 3.7-4). 

In summary, among the eight QAAs, PTS is highly unlikely to occur among odontocetes under 

Alternative A or Alternative B. This is based on combined available information, including no expected 

Level A cumulative energy (SEL) exposures, as described in Section 3.7.4.3 (Table 3.7-6). 

Implementation of proposed mitigation and monitoring measures under Alternatives A and B, along with 

expected avoidance of close approaches to the seismic array by most odontocetes, are expected to result 

in no Level A (PTS or injury) exposures to individual odontocetes.

Strandings and Mortality

No injury, strandings, or mortalities of odontocetes exposed to seismic (or other project) sounds are 

expected under Alternative A or B, as discussed in Section 3.7.4 and above. This is based on the expected 

avoidance behavior of some individuals, combined with mitigation and monitoring measures designed to 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-199

minimize potential impacts. As indicated earlier for mysticetes, injurious impacts to marine mammals 

have not been proven to occur near airgun arrays; a seismic cruise in the Gulf of California that was 

suspected to be related to a stranding of two beaked whales was not confirmed to have a connection to 

those strandings (see Appendix E). 

Other Physiological Effects

Under Alternatives A and B, no other physiological effects on odontocetes are expected as a result of 

proposed seismic activities as described in Section 3.7.4.

3.7.5.2 Other Potential Effects

Under Alternatives A and B, the potential for non-acoustic types of effects (entanglement, ingestion, and 

ship strikes) are considered insignificant as described in Section 3.7.4.4. Many odontocetes tend to avoid 

approaching seismic vessels. Visual monitoring procedures reduce the risk of entanglement or ship strike 

because, during daylight, observers watch for any marine mammals or sea turtles near the vessel and 

equipment. Furthermore, there is no history of entanglement of marine mammals in gear towed by NSFfunded seismic vessels. Entanglement, ingestion of toxic or other materials, and ship strikes are very 

unlikely for either ESA-listed odontocete species (i.e., sperm whales) or for other odontocetes. It is 

expected that the proposed seismic survey activities under Alternative A within the analysis areas would 

have no significant impact on odontocete populations. 

3.7.6 Environmental Consequences – Alternative C (No-Action Alternative)

Under the No-Action Alternative, NSF-funded and USGS marine seismic research surveys using various 

acoustic sources (e.g., airguns, MBESs, SBPs, and pingers) would not occur. Therefore, baseline 

conditions would remain unchanged and there would be no impacts to odontocetes with implementation 

of Alternative C.

3.7.7 Summary of Environmental Consequences – Odontocetes

The potential impacts on odontocetes with implementation of Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred 

Alternative) are summarized in Tables 3.7-7 and 3.7-8. With the planned monitoring and mitigation 

measures, impacts to odontocetes under Alternatives A and B are expected to be limited to behavioral 

disturbance and localized avoidance in the area near the active airguns. This is expected to have 

negligible short- and long-term impacts on individual odontocetes, their habitats, and regional populations 

within the exemplary analysis areas. However, because airgun operations are likely to result in localized 

behavioral avoidance by some ESA-listed sperm whales in some analysis areas, the proposed seismic 

surveys may affect and are likely to adversely affect this species. Nonetheless, no significant effects to 

sperm whale populations are anticipated.

Operation of MBESs, SBPs, and pingers is not likely to impact odontocetes. The intermittent and narrow 

downward-directed nature of the MBES and SBP acoustic sources would result in no more than one or 

two brief ping exposures of any individual odontocete, given the movement and speed of the vessel; such 

brief exposure to this sound is not expected to cause injury or PTS based on results of limited studies of 

some odontocete species (reviewed in Appendix E). The streamer and core-mounted pingers are also 

highly unlikely to affect odontocetes given their intermittent nature, their short-term and transitory use 

from a moving vessel, their relatively low source levels, their brief ping durations, and in the case of 

ancillary core sampling their relatively infrequent use. 

Modeling estimates that a small number of Level A (rms) exposures could occur under Alternative A in 

some analysis areas despite proposed mitigation and monitoring. However, such exposures are considered 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-200

unlikely to occur during an actual seismic survey because the model does not account for behavioral 

avoidance of source sounds. Studies indicate that many odontocetes are expected to avoid exposure to 

seismic sound levels >180 dB re 1 μPa (rms). These avoidance behaviors typically begin at lower 

received sound levels (reviewed in Section 3.7.4.3 and Table 3.7-5). Moreover, modeling indicates that no 

Level A exposures of odontocetes would occur under Alternative A and Alternative B based on the more 

realistic cumulative energy (SEL) exposure criterion (Tables 3.7-6 and 3.7-7 and Appendix E). 

Overall, the primary anticipated impacts to odontocetes with implementation of Alternative A or 

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) are:

 Small numbers of odontocetes are modeled or would be expected to experience Level B 

exposures at all five DAAs and potentially all eight QAAs. These numbers represent <1.0% of 

regional populations of most species. The exception is Stenella spp. in the NW Atlantic and 

Caribbean DAAs where up to approximately 2.7% of the regional population could experience 

Level B behavioral disturbance.

 In general, modeling results indicate that large airgun arrays operating in shallow water where 

odontocetes are common to abundant would cause the highest numbers of short-term Level B

exposures. 

 Modeling suggests that no cumulative energy exposures of odontocetes to >198 dB re 1 μPa2·sec

(SEL), the Level A criterion used in this analysis, would occur in any of the analysis areas. 

 Small numbers of individuals representing approximately <0.1% of regional populations of some 

odontocetes are predicted to be exposed to the NMFS Level A criterion of >180 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms). Predicted Level A exposures would be similar for the two alternatives except for a few 

individuals of common to abundant delphinid species at the NW Atlantic and W Gulf of Alaska 

DAAs. 

 No TTS and no potential injury (e.g., PTS) are expected to occur during the exemplary seismic 

surveys. Many odontocetes are expected to avoid exposure to seismic sound levels that could 

potentially cause these effects. The model used for analyses does not account for this expected 

behavioral avoidance and thus is precautionary.

In summary, implementation of Alternative A or B is likely to result in minor short-term and localized

behavioral disturbance of small numbers of individual odontocetes. These temporary effects are not

anticipated to result in any long-term or population-level effects on odontocete populations. The numbers 

of individual odontocetes modeled or estimated to be exposed to the current NMFS Level B criterion of 

>160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) during the exemplary surveys would be small in relation to regional population 

sizes. No TTS and no PTS or other potential injury of odontocetes is anticipated during an actual seismic 

survey under Alternative A or B with proposed mitigation and monitoring measures. No short- or longterm significant impacts are expected on odontocete populations or their habitats, including ESA-listed 

sperm whales, as a result of implementation of Alternative A or B. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-201

Table 3.7-7. Summary of Potential Impacts to Odontocetes with Implementation of Alternative A or B in the DAAs

DAA Species Alternative A or B

NW Atlantic

Sperm whale 

Small number(a) of short-term Level B exposures. Negligible(b) NMFS Level A (rms) exposures primarily in 

shallow water. No modeled Level A (SEL) cumulative energy exposures. No Level A exposures expected in actual 

seismic survey due to proposed mitigation and monitoring measures and behavioral avoidance, but analysis model 

does not account for avoidance. Further site-specific consultation with NMFS would be required for actual seismic 

survey due to ESA status.

Beaked whales Small number(a) short-term Level B exposures in shallow water. 

Common, bottlenose, 

and Stenellid dolphins

Small number(a) short-term Level B exposures primarily in shallow water. Small number(a) Level A (rms) 

exposures of common & bottlenose dolphins in shallow water. No modeled Level A (SEL) cumulative energy 

exposures. No Level A exposures expected in actual seismic survey due to proposed mitigation measures and

behavioral avoidance but analysis model does not account for avoidance.

Other MF

odontocetes

Small number(a) short-term Level B exposures. No modeled Level A exposures.

HF porpoises Effects highly unlikely given expected zero densities. No modeled Level A or B exposures.

Caribbean

Sperm whale Small number(a) short-term Level B exposures. No modeled Level A exposures.

Beaked whales Effects highly unlikely given expected zero densities. No modeled Level A or B exposures.

Common , bottlenose, 

and Stenellid dolphins

Small number

(a) short-term Level B exposures primarily in shallow water. Small number Level A (rms) exposures 

of primarily Atlantic spotted dolphins in shallow water. No modeled Level A (SEL) cumulative energy exposures. 

No Level A exposures expected in actual seismic survey due to proposed mitigation measures and behavioral 

avoidance but analysis model does not account for avoidance (see Table 3.7-5). 

Other MF odontocetes Small number(a) short-term Level B exposures of mostly pilot whales primarily in shallow water. No Level A 

exposure modeled or expected due to proposed mitigation measures and behavioral avoidance.

S California

Beaked whales See above.

Common dolphins Small number(a) short-term Level B exposures in shallow water. No Level A exposures modeled or expected due to 

proposed mitigation measures and behavioral avoidance. 

Other MF odontocetes

Small number(a) short-term Level B exposures and modeled Level A (rms) exposures of only Pacific white-sided 

dolphins in shallow water. No modeled Level A (SEL) cumulative energy exposures. No Level A exposures 

expected in actual seismic survey due to proposed mitigation measures and behavioral avoidance but analysis 

model does not account avoidance. 

HF porpoises Small number(a) short-term Level B exposures of only Dall‘s porpoises in shallow water. No Level A exposures 

modeled or expected due to proposed mitigation measures and behavioral avoidance. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-202

Table 3.7-7. Summary of Potential Impacts to Odontocetes with Implementation of Alternative A or B in the DAAs

DAA Species Alternative A or B

W Gulf of

Alaska

Sperm whale Small number(a) short-term Level B exposures. No Level A exposures modeled or expected due to proposed

mitigation measures and behavioral avoidance. 

Beaked whales See sperm whale above.

Other MF odontocetes Small number(a) Level B behavioral effects of killer whales and Pacific white-sided dolphins primarily in shallow 

water. No Level A exposures modeled or expected due to planned mitigation measures and behavioral avoidance. 

HF porpoises

Small number(a) short-term Level B exposures and small number modeled Level A (rms) exposures of primarily 

Dall‘s porpoises in shallow water. No modeled Level A (SEL) cumulative energy exposures. No Level A 

exposures expected in actual seismic survey due to proposed mitigation measures and behavioral avoidance but 

analysis model does not account for avoidance.

Galapagos

Sperm whale See sperm whale above.

Beaked whales See sperm whale above

Common, bottlenose, 

and Stenellid dolphins

Small number(a) short-term Level B exposures. Small number modeled Level A (rms) exposures of only stenellid 

dolphins in shallow water. No modeled Level A (SEL) cumulative energy exposures. No Level A exposures 

expected in actual seismic survey due to proposed mitigation measures and behavioral avoidance but analysis 

model does not account for avoidance.

Other MF odontocetes See sperm whale above.

Notes:

 (a) Small number = <2.1% of estimated regional population size exposed. See Tables 3.7-6 and 3.7-7.

(b) Negligible number: for non-listed species = 0.5 - <1.0 individual exposed representing <1.0% of estimated regional population size; for ESA-listed species = 0.05 –

<0.5 individual exposed representing <0.01% of estimated regional population size. See Tables 3.7-6 and 3.7-7.

Table 3.7-8. Summary of Potential Impacts to Odontocetes with Implementation of Alternative A or B in the QAAs

QAA Species Alternative A or B

BC Coast Sperm whale, beaked whales, other MF odontocetes, HF porpoises

Small number(b) short-term Level B exposures likely. No 

Level A exposures expected in actual seismic survey due to 

planned mitigation measures and behavioral avoidance (see 

Table 3.7-5). 

Mid-Atlantic Ridge Sperm whale, beaked whales, other MF odontocetes See above.

Marianas Sperm whale, beaked whales, other MF odontocetes See above.

Sub-Antarctic Sperm whale, beaked whales, other MF odontocetes, HF porpoises See above.

N Atlantic/Iceland Sperm whale, beaked whales, other MF odontocetes, HF porpoises See above.

SW Atlantic Sperm whale, beaked whales, other MF odontocetes, HF porpoises See above.

W India Sperm whale, beaked whales, other MF odontocetes See above.

W Australia Sperm whale, beaked whales, other MF odontocetes See above.

Notes: bold = ESA-listed species

(a) For the purpose of analysis, for non-listed species, only predicted exposures >0.5 animal as presented in Appendix Tables B-14 – B-25 are considered an actual 

exposure. For ESA-listed species, only predicted exposures >0.05 animal as presented in Appendix Tables B-14 – B-25 are considered an actual exposure. 

(b) Small number = <2-3% of estimated regional population size. See Tables 3.7-6 and 3.7-7.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-203

3.8 MARINE MAMMALS – PINNIPEDS

3.8.1 Overview of Pinniped Groups

Pinnipeds are seals, sea lions, and walruses. Of the approximately 31 species of pinnipeds occurring in 

marine waters worldwide (Rice 1998), 14 species may occur in one or more of the 13 analysis areas 

during the season(s) of the exemplary seismic studies. The status, global population estimates, general 

ecology, distribution and migratory movements of these 14 species are summarized in Table 3.8-1 and 

discussed below. Ecological considerations, known hearing, and call characteristics of pinnipeds are also 

discussed.

3.8.1.1 Taxonomic Groups of Pinnipeds

Pinnipeds are classified into three taxonomic groups or families: Odobenidae (the walrus), Phocidae (the 

―true‖ or earless seals), and Otariidae (the ―eared‖ seals). The walrus lacks external ear flaps but has 

foreflippers similar to those of the fur seals and sea lions. Its hindflippers resemble those of phocids but 

can be rotated underneath the body to walk on ice or land. The three subspecies of walrus occur only in 

polar and sub-polar waters. The Phocidae or phocids lack external ear flaps. They cannot use their 

hindflippers to walk, but use their foreflippers to pull themselves along. Of the 16 species of phocids 

occurring in marine waters worldwide, 6 species may potentially occur in 7 of the 13 analysis areas. The 

Otariidae or otariids include the sea lions and fur seals and are known as eared seals because they have 

external ear flaps. They can also walk on land using their fore- and hindflippers. Of the 14 species of 

otariids occurring worldwide, 7 species potentially occur in 5 of the 13 analysis areas.

3.8.1.2 Distribution and Movements

Pinnipeds are widely distributed through all major oceans (Table 3.8-1). Many pinnipeds undertake 

seasonal migrations between breeding/pupping grounds and feeding areas, often at higher latitude (e.g., 

the N fur seal, elephant seals, California sea lion, and walrus) (Reeves et al. 2002; Jefferson et al. 2008; 

Table 3.8-1). Walruses and some phocids migrate with the seasonally-changing location of pack ice. 

However, some pinniped species remain year-round in a general region. Ice-breeding phocids tend to be 

solitary or form dispersed breeding aggregations. In contrast, other phocids, many otariids, and the walrus 

aggregate in large groups to breed, pup, or molt (e.g., the elephant seals, Steller sea lion, California sea 

lion). Most pinnipeds have a coastal distribution, but some occur further offshore, including foraging N 

fur seals and Steller sea lions. Elephant seals and some other pinnipeds are pelagic much of the year.

3.8.1.3 Important Ecological Considerations

The primary ecological considerations for pinnipeds relative to the exemplary seismic surveys are (1) 

locations and periods of breeding and pupping, particularly on offshore ice and islands within the analysis 

areas, (2) locations of important haul-outs and feeding areas, and (3) depths and durations of foraging 

dives. Breeding and pupping periods that overlap the exemplary seismic periods analyzed in this PEIS are 

discussed by analysis area in Sections 3.8.2 and 3.8.3. The following discussion provides a brief summary 

of the dive trends exhibited by pinnipeds. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-204

Table 3.8-1. Summary of the Status, Population Trends, Global Population Size, General Ecology, and General Distribution & Movement 

of Pinnipeds Potentially Occurring within the Analysis Areas

Species

Status*

(1-4)

ESA/MMPA

IUCN/CITES

US 

MMPA

Stock*

(1)

Global Population

Size(2, 5-7)

General Ecology

& Prey (5-13)

General Distribution

Migratory Movements(5-13)

Phocids (True or Earless Seals)

Harbor seal -/-

LC/-

W.N. 

Atlantic; 

Gulf of 

Alaska; 

CA/OR/WA

>500,000 Coastal waters; prey – fish and cephalopods.

Coastal areas of N Pacific and N 

Atlantic; seasonal migrants south to 

New England, New York, and New 

Jersey.

Gray seal -/-

LC/-

W.N. 

Atlantic approx. 300,000 Coastal; prey – herring, demersal and benthic fish, and cephalopods.

Northern N Atlantic Ocean. 

Harp seal -/-

LC/-

W.N. 

Atlantic 6 million

Pack ice; prey – polar and arctic cod in 

summer; capelin, herring, and krill during 

migration in spring & fall.

Arctic & N Atlantic Ocean; migrate N to 

feed during summer, return S with 

advancing ice.

Hooded seal -/-

VU/-

W.N. 

Atlantic approx. 650,000

Associated with sea ice, shelf areas, maybe 

deep oceanic waters in autumn and winter; 

prey – small schooling fish, krill.

Central and W N Atlantic Ocean; 

breeding in Gulf of St. Lawrence, E 

Newfoundland, Davis Strait, and Jan 

Mayen Island.

S elephant seal -/-

LC/II NA approx. 600,000

Oceanic islands, coastal to pelagic during 

foraging; prey – deepwater, pelagic fish and 

squid.

Breeding on oceanic islands in 

subantarctic regions and S Argentina; 

during non-breeding season, some 

migrate S to forage near Antarctica and 

haul out there. 

N elephant seal -/-

LC/-

Calif. 

breeding 

stock

approx. 115,000

Coastal to pelagic during foraging and 

migrating; prey – mesopelagic fish and 

squid, skates, rays, sharks, and rockfish.

NE Pacific; large breeding colonies at 

Channel Islands off S Calif., smaller 

colonies off central Calif., and W Baja 

Calif.; breed in winter, migrate N to 

forage in the central and NE Pacific (as 

far N as Alaska).

Leopard seal -/-

LC/-

NA approx. 200,000

Pack and landfast ice, pelagic during 

foraging; prey – seals, penguins, fish, squid, 

and krill.

S Ocean around Antarctica; migrate N 

during winter.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-205

Table 3.8-1. Summary of the Status, Population Trends, Global Population Size, General Ecology, and General Distribution & Movement 

of Pinnipeds Potentially Occurring within the Analysis Areas

Species

Status*

(1-4)

ESA/MMPA

IUCN/CITES

US 

MMPA

Stock*

(1)

Global Population

Size(2, 5-7)

General Ecology

& Prey (5-13)

General Distribution

Migratory Movements(5-13)

Otariids (Eared Seals)

Antarctic fur seal -/-

LC/II NA 1.5-4 million

Oceanic islands, coastal to pelagic during 

foraging; prey – krill in summer, pelagic and 

deepwater lanternfish and squid in fall and 

winter, some males eat penguins.

Breeding colonies on oceanic islands in 

subantarctic and near Antarctica (95% 

of pop. breeds on South Georgia); 

during non-breeding season, some 

migrate S to forage near Antarctica and 

haul out there.

Subantarctic fur 

seal

-/-

LC/II NA >310,000 Oceanic islands, pelagic during foraging; prey – mostly lanternfish.

Subantarctic breeding colonies in S 

Atlantic, S Indian, and S Pacific Oceans; 

most breed on temperate islands of 

Gough in S Atlantic and Amsterdam in 

Indian Ocean.

Guadalupe fur 

seal

T/SS

NT/I Mexico approx. 7408 Coastal, shelf, pelagic during foraging; prey – pelagic squid, mackerel, and lanternfish.

NE Pacific off Calif. and Baja Calif.; 

breed almost exclusively on Guadalupe 

Island, Mexico, but also on San Benito 

Island. 

N fur seal -/SS

VU/II E.N. Pacific 1.2-4 million888,120

Pelagic, offshore; prey – nearshore and 

pelagic fish and squid.

Temperate areas; N Pacific Ocean, 

Bering Sea, and Sea of Okhotsk; 

primary breeding colonies are at the 

Pribilof and Commander Islands; in fall, 

males remain in Bering Sea, females 

migrate and feed in central N Pacific 

and along Calif. coast.

N fur seal -/-

VU/II

San Miguel 

Island 7,784 Pelagic, offshore; prey – nearshore and pelagic fish and squid.

Temperate region; N Pacific Ocean; one 

breeding colony on San Miguel Island, 

Calif.; may occur there year-round.

California sea 

lion

-/-

LC/-

U.S. approx. 240,000

Coastal, shelf; prey – in particular northern 

anchovy, squid, sardines, Pacific and jack 

mackerel, and rockfish.

Temperate region; N Pacific Ocean; 

breed at Channel Islands, Calif. and Baja 

Calif. including Guadalupe Island.

Steller sea lion E, CH/SS

E/-

W U.S. stock 34,779 W U.S. stock

Coastal, shelf; prey – walleye Pollock; males 

may consume N fur seal pups, harbor and 

ringed seals, sea otters.

Temperate regions, N Pacific Ocean and 

S Bering Sea; W stock includes animals 

west of 144oW, along the Aleutian 

Islands. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-206

Table 3.8-1. Summary of the Status, Population Trends, Global Population Size, General Ecology, and General Distribution & Movement 

of Pinnipeds Potentially Occurring within the Analysis Areas

Species

Status*

(1-4)

ESA/MMPA

IUCN/CITES

US 

MMPA

Stock*

(1)

Global Population

Size(2, 5-7)

General Ecology

& Prey (5-13)

General Distribution

Migratory Movements(5-13)

Steller sea lion T, CH/SS

E/-

E U.S. stock 31,028 E U.S. stock

Coastal, shelf; prey – walleye Pollock, 

herring, rockfish, cod, squid, and octopus; 

males may take harbor seals and otters.

Temperate regions, NE Pacific Ocean; E 

stock includes animals east of 144oW. 

Australian sea 

lion

-/-

E/-

NA 10,000-12,000 Offshore islands and coastal; prey – fish, 

small sharks, cephalopods, and penguins.

Temperate, S Australia; largest colonies 

on offshore island in eastern S Australia.

Notes: *CH = critical habitat; E = endangered; LC = least concern, NT = near threatened; SS = Strategic Stock; T = threatened; VU = vulnerable; - = not listed; NA = reliable data 

not available or uncertain, species status was not assessed, or not applicable.

Sources: (1)NOAA Fisheries 2010; (2)Carretta et al. 2008; Angliss and Allen 2009; Waring et al. 2009; (3)IUCN 2010; (4)CITES 2010; (5)Seal Conservation Society 2006; (6)Reeves et 

al. 1992, 2002; (7)U.S. Navy 2007; (8) L-DEO and NSF 2004a; (9)Koski et al. 1998; (10)L-DEO and NSF 2003b; (11)L-DEO and NSF 2006a; (12)UAF and NSF 2005; (13)LDEO and NSF 2004d.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-207

Nearly all pinnipeds consume prey for which they must dive. Depths and durations of dives are 

considered an important ecological consideration with respect to the proposed project because they may 

affect the proportion and period of potential exposure time of pinnipeds to underwater sounds. Depths and 

durations of foraging dives by pinnipeds vary with species and age class and are related to the depths at 

which the prey is found. Pinnipeds generally consume a variety of fish, squid, and other prey (Table 

3.8-1). However, some pinnipeds, such as leopard seals, may also eat birds (e.g., penguins) and other 

marine mammals. While many pinnipeds forage near the water surface, others make deep and prolonged 

foraging dives of hundreds of meters. Elephant seals are the deepest-diving pinnipeds. They routinely 

dive to depths of 1,312-1,640 ft (400–500 m) (DeLong and Stewart 1991; Hindell et al. 1991; Stewart and 

Huber 1993) for an average period of approximately 23 min (Le Boeuf et al. 1986, 1989; DeLong and 

Stewart 1991). Maximum dive depths reported for elephant seals exceed 4,920 ft (1,500 m), with the 

longest dive of 77 min (DeLong and Stewart 1991; Stewart and Huber 1993). Other relatively deep-diving 

pinniped species include the Weddell and hooded seals (Elsner 1999; U.S. Navy 2007). In contrast, other 

species typically dive to much shallower depths. Unlike cetaceans, pinnipeds are primarily solitary 

hunters and feeding aggregations are uncommon. Pinnipeds tend to be more generalist feeders and

typically do not have specialized feeding areas.

3.8.1.4 Special-Status Species

The Guadalupe fur seal is listed as threatened and the W and E U.S. stocks of the Steller sea lion are listed 

as endangered and threatened, respectively, under the ESA (Table 3.8-1). The N and Guadalupe fur seals 

are listed as vulnerable by the IUCN (NOAA Fisheries 2006b).

3.8.1.5 Acoustic Capabilities

The known hearing and sound production characteristics of pinnipeds are summarized in Table 3.8-2. 

Pinnipeds produce both in-air and underwater sounds. Some phocid seals produce high-level underwater 

sounds, whereas others produce faint and infrequent sounds (Richardson et al. 1995a). These underwater 

sounds mainly appear to be associated with mating, mother-pup interactions, and territoriality. The 

frequencies of pinniped calls range from 90 Hz to 16 kHz, although pinniped clicks can include higher 

frequency components (Table 3.8-2). Otariids use in-air vocalizations to defend territories, attract 

females, and maintain the mother-pup bond, while underwater calls are mainly used to establish 

dominance. For example, California sea lions produce underwater barks at <2 kHz; airborne sounds are at 

<8 kHz. 

Underwater audiograms are available for several species of phocids and otariids (Richardson et al. 1995a; 

Kastelein et al. 2002). Compared to odontocetes, pinnipeds tend to have their most sensitive hearing at 

lower frequencies, lower high-frequency cutoffs (i.e., the maximum frequencies they are capable of 

hearing are lower), better auditory sensitivity at low frequencies, and poorer sensitivity at their most 

sensitive frequencies (Richardson et al. 1995a). Below 30–50 kHz, the hearing thresholds of most 

pinniped species that have been tested are essentially flat down to about 1 kHz, and range between 60 and 

85 dB re 1 μPa (Table 3.8-2). Measurements for harbor seals indicate that, below 1 kHz, their thresholds 

deteriorate gradually with decreasing frequency (Kastelein et al. 2009). For otariids, the high-frequency 

cutoff is lower than in most phocids, and sensitivity at low frequencies (e.g., 100 Hz) is poorer than for 

phocids (harbor or elephant seal) (Richardson et al. 1995a). 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-208

Table 3.8-2. Summary of Underwater Hearing and Sound Production Characteristics of Pinnipeds

Potentially Occurring within the Analysis Areas

Sound Production* Hearing**

Species

Frequency

Range

(kHz)

Dominant

Frequencies

(kHz)

Source Level

(dB re 1 μPa-m)

Overall

Frequency

Range of

Hearing

(kHz)

Threshold at

Frequency of

Best Sensitivity

(dB re 1 μPa)

Harbor seal Clicks: 8-150

Other: <0.1-4

Clicks: 12-40

Roar: 0.4-0.8

Growl: <0.1-0.25

Creak: 0.7-2

- <1-180 60-85

Gray seal

Clicks, hiss: 0-40

Calls: 0.1-5

Knocks: to 16

Calls: 0.1-3

Knocks: to 10 - 20-25 -

Harp seal

Clicks: 30-120

Other:

<0.1 to >16

Other: 0.1-3

Clicks: 131-164

Other: 130-140 0.75-100 60-80

Hooded seal Clicks: 30-120

Buzz: to 6

Clicks: 93

Grunt: 0.2-0.4

Snort: 0.1-1

Buzz: 1.2

- 3-60 -

S elephant seal Drumming: 0.1-0.8

Continuous: 0.1-2.5

Drumming: 0.35

Continuous: 0.41 135 - -

N elephant seal 0.2-6 0.7-2.5 - <1-55 58 (at 6.4 kHz)

Leopard seal Ultrasonic: to 164

Other: <0.04-7

Ultrasonic: 50-60 Low - -

Antarctic

fur seal - - - - -

Subantarctic

fur seal 0.35 to 6.5 - - - -

Guadalupe

fur seal - - - - -

N fur seal - - - 0.5-40 60 (at 4-28 kHz)

California

sea lion

Barks <8 

Whinny: <1-3 

Buzz: <1-4 

Barks <3.5

Buzz <1 

Clicks: 0.5-4

-

0.75-64 80 (at 2-16 kHz)

Steller

sea lion Female: 0.03-3 Female: 0.15-1

- Male: <0.5 to >32

Female: <4 to >32

Male: 77 (at 1 kHz)

Female: 73 (at 25 kHz)

Australian

sea lion - - - - -

Notes: - = Not available/unknown. 

Sources: *Richardson et al. 1995a; Wartzok and Ketten 1999; Sanvito and Galimberti 2000a, b; Campbell et al. 2002; Charrier et al. 

2002, 2003; U.S. Navy 2007.

**Richardson et al. 1995a; Kastak and Schusterman 1999; Kastelein et al. 2005, 2009; U.S. Navy 2007.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-209

Pinnipeds occurring in the analysis areas are all members of the same functional hearing group: 

pinnipeds in water (see Section 2.3.3.3 and Appendix B for more details). Functional hearing for 

pinnipeds in water is considered to range from 75 Hz to 75 kHz (Southall et al. 2007), although some 

individual species–especially the otariids–do not have that broad an auditory range (Richardson et al. 

1995a). 

3.8.2 Affected Environment: Detailed Analysis Areas (DAAs)

This section summarizes the region-specific occurrence of pinnipeds within the five DAAs for which 

acoustic modeling was conducted. Discussion is limited to those species present during the season(s) of 

the exemplary marine seismic surveys (Table 3.8-3). Discussion is focused on species with special status 

(e.g., ESA) and those that are expected to be most abundant/common. No species of pinniped are 

expected within the Galapagos Ridge DAA.

Table 3.8-3. Potential Occurrence of Pinnipeds within the DAAs during the Period of Proposed 

Exemplary Seismic Surveys

Species*

NW Atlantic

(N Sum)*(a-c)

Caribbean

(N Spr or Sum)*d

S California

(N Spr or Sum)*(e, f)

W Gulf of Alaska

(N Sum)*(e, g)

Harbor seal F u - B F a FB? c

Gray seal F u - - -

Harp seal F? r - - -

Hooded seal F? r r - -

N elephant seal - - F a F r

Guadalupe fur seal - - F u -

Northern fur seal - - B c F?M c

California sea lion - - B a F? r

Steller sea lion - - B? r B a

Notes: *bold = ESA-listed species. (Season) = N hemisphere season during which the exemplary seismic cruise would occur 

within the analysis area; Sum = summer, Spr = spring, Win = winter. B = known to breed or calve within the area; F = 

known to feed within the area; M = known to migrate through the area; ? = unknown / possible; a = abundant - the 

species is expected to be encountered during a single visit to the area and the number of individuals encountered during 

an average visit may be as many as hundreds or more; c = common: the species is expected to be encountered once or 

more during 2-3 visits to the area and the number of individuals encountered during an average visit is unlikely to be 

more than a few 10s; u = uncommon: the species is expected to be encountered at most a few times a year assuming 

many visits to the area during the relevant season; r = rare: the species is not expected to be encountered more than 

once in several years during the relevant season; - = species does not occur there. 

Sources: Reeves et al. 2002; also see following:

(a) U.S. Navy 2005; (b) L-DEO and NSF 2003c; (c) Waring et al. 2006; (d) L-DEO and NSF 2003e; Smultea et al. 2004; 

(e) Koski et al. 1998; (f) Carretta et al. 2005; (g) L-DEO and NSF 2004d.

3.8.2.1 NW Atlantic

Two species, the harbor and gray seals, are likely to occur in the NW Atlantic DAA during the summer 

exemplary seismic survey period. However, because the analysis area is located at the southern limit of 

their range, they are considered uncommon there (Table 3.8-3). 

Gray seals could occur in the analysis area in small numbers during summer; however, their frequency of 

occurrence at that time of year would be low (U.S. Navy 2005). Gray seals in the western Atlantic breed 

from December to February on Sable Island, Nova Scotia, and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. They also 

range south to the northeastern U.S., with known strandings as far south as North Carolina (Hammill et al. 

1998; Waring et al. 2006). Adult gray seals have also been observed to haul out in New York waters 

(Hoover et al. 1999), and there have been sightings and strandings in Long Island Sound. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-210

Harbor seals typically occur south of Maine from late September through late May (U.S. Navy 2005), and 

have been known to overwinter in New Jersey (Slocum et al. 1999). Small numbers of harbor seals may 

occur in the DAA in summer. 

Harp seals and hooded seals could occur in the analysis area in summer on rare occasion only as 

extralimital strays. These two species breed in eastern Canadian waters in late winter/spring, and most 

migrate north from there for the summer. However, a few have been documented from stranding data in 

northeastern U.S. waters (U.S. Navy 2005). 

3.8.2.2 Caribbean

No pinnipeds are known to currently occur regularly in the Caribbean. However, vagrant hooded seals 

have been sighted there in the past (Mignucci Giannoni and Odell 2001), but hooded seals would be rare 

in the DAA. The Caribbean or West Indian monk seal, formerly a resident of this DAA, is extinct (Adam 

and Garcia 2003).

3.8.2.3 S California

Five pinniped species are likely to occur in the S California DAA during the exemplary spring or summer 

analysis period (Table 3.8-3). These include harbor seal, N elephant seal, Guadalupe fur seal, N fur seal, 

and California sea lion. The Guadalupe fur seal is listed under the ESA as threatened. The occurrence of 

threatened Steller sea lions would be rare in the DAA, as they typically breed and pup north of California; 

thus, they are not discussed further (Table 3.8-3). 

Foraging Guadalupe fur seals could occur in the analysis area in small numbers from spring through 

approximately mid-summer (Table 3.8-3). By late summer, some individuals travel north to the Channel 

Islands. However, their whereabouts from fall to spring are mostly unknown. The ESA-listed threatened 

Guadalupe fur seal breeds almost exclusively on Guadalupe Island off Baja California. However, in 1997, 

a second rookery was discovered at San Benito Island (Maravilla-Chavez and Lowry 1999), and a pup 

was born at San Miguel Island, California (Melin and DeLong 1999). The population is now recovering 

from being exploited in the past and is estimated to be growing at approximately 14% per year (Gallo 

1994). 

Northern fur seals are common in the analysis area during spring and early summer (Table 3.8-3). 

However, Bonnell et al. (1992) noted they are 5–6 times more abundant in offshore waters than over the 

shelf or slope. A small percentage of N fur seals (recognized as a separate stock) breed in the summer at 

San Miguel Island off S California and occur there year-round. However, the great majority of the N fur 

seals breed and pup off Alaska (Table 3.8-1). After reproduction, adult females and pups from the Pribilof 

Islands migrate to offshore waters of Oregon and California (Kajimura 1984) and spend the next 7–8 

months feeding at sea (Roppel 1984). 

Harbor seal, California sea lion, and N elephant seal are not ESA-listed and are the most abundant 

pinniped species in the DAA. The harbor seal breeds and pups in the analysis area during spring, while 

the California sea lion breeds and pups in the area during spring and summer. Feeding N elephant seals 

are abundant in the S California DAA during spring and summer; they breed in winter (Table 3.8-3). 

3.8.2.4 W Gulf of Alaska

Three pinniped species are expected to be encountered frequently in the W Gulf of Alaska, particularly in 

coastal areas and near islands. These are the harbor seal, N fur seal, and Steller sea lion (Table 3.8-3). Of 

these, the harbor seal and Steller sea lion are hunted by native peoples in that area. Harbor seals 

commonly feed and may breed in the analysis area. The western U.S. stock of Steller sea lions (occurring 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-211

west of 144oW, including waters of this analysis area) is listed as endangered under the ESA and Critical 

Habitat has been designated in the Gulf of Alaska. The N fur seal is listed as vulnerable by IUCN and as a 

Strategic Stock under the MMPA. Another two species potentially occur in the analysis area, but their 

occurrence is considered rare: N elephant seal and California sea lion. Because neither is likely to occur 

in the analysis area, they are not further discussed here; however, their general ecology is summarized in 

Table 3.8-1. The remaining discussion for the W Gulf of Alaska DAA focuses on the Steller sea lion and 

N fur seal. 

The western U.S. stock of Steller sea lions has been declining since the mid-1970s; however, the causes 

of the decline are unknown. A number of hypotheses have been proposed for this decline, including food 

stress, direct human interaction, indirect effects from human activities, natural climatic variation, and 

long-term shifts due to past human activities (see summary in NRC 2003b; Springer et al. 2003). The 

western U.S. stock of Steller sea lions includes animals west of Cape Suckling, Alaska (144oW), 

including the analysis area. Critical habitat for Steller sea lions was designated in 1993 and 1994 and 

includes 66 specific sites (26 rookeries and 40 haulouts) in Alaska; 4 rookeries and 5 haulouts are located 

in or adjacent to the analysis area (NMFS 1993, 1994b, 2006b). In addition, Critical Habitat at the 

Shelikof Strait Foraging Area occurs along the northeastern edge of the analysis area. Critical habitat 

includes land 3,000 ft (0.9 km) inshore from the baseline or basepoint of each major rookery and major 

haulout in Alaska. It also includes waters 3,000 ft (0.9 km) seaward in state- and federally-managed 

waters from every major rookery and haulout east of 144oW, and 20 nm (37 km) seaward from every 

major rookery and haulout west of 144oW. In addition, ―no approach‖ zones have been identified wherein 

no vessel may approach within 3 nm (5.6 km) of listed rookeries. Breeding adults occupy rookeries from 

late May to early July, but disperse thereafter (NMFS 1992). 

Most N fur seals breed from June to September on the Pribilof and Bogoslof islands in the Bering Sea. 

Although the Pribilof Islands have always had the greatest number of fur seals, numbers are now 

declining there and increasing on Bogoslof Island (NMFS 2004a). Pups travel through the Aleutian passes 

and spend the first 2 years at sea before returning to their islands of origin. When not on rookery islands, 

N fur seals are primarily pelagic. Northern fur seals are considered most likely to occur in the analysis 

area during late summer when they frequently forage in offshore areas (Table 3.8-3). 

3.8.2.5 Galapagos Ridge

No pinnipeds are known to occur in the Galapagos Ridge DAA, although there is a remote possibility that 

a Galápagos sea lion or fur seal could potentially occur within the analysis area. General information on 

these species is summarized in Table 3.8-1.

3.8.3 Affected Environment: Qualitative Analysis Areas (QAAs)

This section summarizes the known region-specific occurrence of pinnipeds within the eight QAAs. In 

general, these summaries address broader analysis areas than considered above for the DAAs for which 

acoustic modeling was conducted. Fewer data are available on distribution, occurrence, and particularly 

abundance of pinnipeds for some of the QAAs as compared to most of the DAAs. As done for the DAAs, 

discussion herein is limited to those species occurring within each region during the season when a 

marine seismic survey would potentially occur (Table 3.8-4). The following discussion focuses on species 

with special status (e.g., ESA, IUCN, etc.) and those that are expected to be most abundant/common.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-212

Table 3.8-4. Potential Occurrence of Pinnipeds within the QAAs during the Period of Proposed Exemplary 

Seismic Surveys

Species*

N

Atlantic/

Iceland

(N Sum)*

BC

Coast

(N Fall)*a

SW

Atlantic

(Any)*

Mid-Atlantic

Ridge

(N Spr, Sum

or Fall)*b

W

Australia

(S Spr

or Fall)*

W

India

(N Spr

or Fall)*

Mariana

Islands

(N Spr)*

SubAntarctic

(S Sum)*c

Harbor seal F a F a - - - - - -

Gray seal F a - - - - - - -

Hooded seal F c - - - - - - -

S elephant seal - - - - - - - F r

N elephant seal - F u - - - - - -

Leopard seal - - - - - - - F r

Northern fur seal - F u - - - - - -

California sea lion - F u - - - - - -

Steller sea lion - F a - - - - - -

Australian sea lion - - - - sp F? r - - -

Antarctic fur seal - - - - - - - F r

Subantarctic fur seal - - - - - - - F r

Notes: *bold = ESA-listed species. (Season) = N hemisphere season or S hemisphere season during which the exemplary seismic cruise would 

occur within the analysis area; sp = spring, F = known to feed within the area, a = abundant, c= common, u = uncommon, r = rare, - = 

does not occur.

Sources: Reeves et al. 2002; see also following footnotes:

a L-DEO and NSF 2006a.

b

L-DEO and NSF 2003c; Holst 2004.

c Bannister et al. 1996.

3.8.3.1 N Atlantic/Iceland

Three species of seals potentially occur in the analysis area off the S coast of Iceland during the 

exemplary summer analysis period: hooded, gray, and harbor seal (Table 3.8-4). None of these seals is 

listed as threatened or endangered under ESA. Seals are hunted in Iceland. 

Harbor seals are considered abundant foragers in coastal habitats off Iceland during the summer. The peak 

in pupping occurs in mid-June (Härkönen and Heide-Jørgensen 1990). Harbor seals forage inshore, 

usually <27 nm (<50 km) from their haul-out sites (Thompson 1993); however, some seals have been 

shown to forage 27–54 nm (50–100 km) from shore (Bjørge et al. 1995). 

Gray seals occur around Iceland, Norway, and the British Isles and are considered abundant foragers in 

the analysis area (Table 3.8-4). Gray seal colonies form on rocky islands or mainland beaches. Near 

Iceland, pups are born from September through November (Reeves et al. 2002). 

Hooded seals commonly occur in the QAA from June-August where they rest and molt on pack ice and 

forage in open water along the ice edge. Breeding seals aggregate elsewhere in the North Atlantic to breed 

and pup on ice from mid-March to early April (Table 3.8-1). Hooded seals are considered deep divers and 

typically forage repeatedly at depths of 330-1,980 ft (100-600 m) but also up to 3,300 ft (1,000 m); they 

often remain underwater for over 50 min (Gale Group 2006).

3.8.3.2 BC Coast

Five pinniped species feed off the BC coast during fall and could potentially occur in the analysis area 

(Table 3.8-4). Two of these species (harbor seal and Steller sea lion) are seen frequently in the area, 

whereas another three species (N elephant seal, N fur seal, and California sea lion) are expected to be 

uncommon there (Bigg 1985; Olesiuk 1999; Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada 

[COSEWIC] 2003). However, marine foraging ranges are poorly understood. The eastern U.S. stock of 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-213

Steller sea lions occurring in this area is listed as threatened under the ESA and as endangered by the 

IUCN. The N fur seal is listed as vulnerable by IUCN and as a Strategic Stock under the MMPA.

Steller sea lions commonly feed off BC during the fall, and traditional summer breeding and pupping sites 

are located in the analysis area. During June and July, Steller sea lions gather at rookeries to give birth 

and breed. In BC, major rookeries are situated at Cape St. James, North Danger Rocks, and on the Scott 

Islands. Some adults and juveniles are also found on sites known as year-round haulouts during the 

breeding season. In late summer and autumn, individuals on rookeries disperse along the coast to 

numerous wintering sites. Similar to the western population of Steller sea lions, Critical Habitat has been 

designated in SE Alaska for the eastern population and the same buffers and guidelines apply (refer to W 

Gulf of Alaska DAA discussion). However, the BC Coast QAA lies approximately 200 mi (322 km) 

south of the closest designated Steller sea lion Critical Habitat.

It is possible that N fur seals could be present in the analysis area during a fall seismic survey, though the 

numbers present are expected to be low. The E Pacific stock of N fur seals ranges from the Pribilof and 

Bogoslof islands in the Bering Sea (summer range) to the Channel Islands in southern California during 

winter. When not on rookery islands, N fur seals are primarily pelagic but occasionally haul-out on rocky 

shorelines. Adult males are thought to remain in the North Pacific, whereas adult females and some 

juveniles migrate southward as far as California, passing through BC waters in early winter and returning 

northward in late spring. Off the Canadian west coast, females and subadult males typically occur off the 

continental shelf during winter (Bigg 1990). 

Harbor seals are abundant in the analysis area and forage there during fall (Table 3.8-4). Harbor seals 

inhabit estuarine and coastal waters, hauling out on rocks, reefs, and beaches. From May to June, female 

harbor seals give birth to a single pup while hauled out on shore. When molting, which occurs from lateJune to October, seals spend the majority of the time hauled out on shore. During late autumn and winter, 

seals can forage at sea continuously for several weeks to regain weight lost during the mating and molting 

seasons.

3.8.3.3 W Australia

One species of pinniped, the Australian sea lion, may occur in the W Australia QAA (Table 3.8-4). This 

species is not listed by the ESA, IUCN, or CITES. The breeding range of the Australian sea lion extends 

from central W Australia (south of the analysis area) southward and eastward along the south coast of 

Australia. The largest colonies occur on offshore islands in eastern S Australia. The breeding season is 

highly variable among colonies; however, most pups are born from January to October, and most births 

occur in June. When animals are not breeding, they range more widely along the W Australia coast. Nonbreeding individuals have been sighted as far north as Shark Bay (Reeves et al. 2002), located just south 

of the analysis area. Occurrence of this species in the analysis area would be rare.

3.8.3.4 Sub-Antarctic

Four pinniped species could potentially occur in the Sub-Antarctic QAA during the exemplary austral

summer (= N winter) analysis period (Table 3.8-4). These include the S elephant seal, leopard seal, and 

subantarctic and Antarctic fur seals. The range of the crabeater seal is to the far south of the analysis area, 

so its occurrence there would be extremely rare. Therefore, this species was not included in Table 3.8-4 

and is not discussed.

The Antarctic fur seal could potentially occur in the analysis area, although its occurrence there would be 

rare. Breeding colonies occur on oceanic islands in the subantarctic and near Antarctica. Most (95%) of 

the population breeds on South Georgia Island. Pups are born from mid-November to late December. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-214

During the non-breeding season, some Antarctic fur seals migrate south to forage near Antarctica. 

However, the distribution of most individuals during winter is unknown (Reeves et al. 2002). 

It is possible that a subantarctic fur seal could occur in the analysis area, although this would be 

considered rare (Table 3.8-4). Breeding colonies occur in the South Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific sectors 

of the S Ocean. Most breed on the temperate islands of Gough in the South Atlantic and Amsterdam in 

the Indian Ocean. Pups are born in November and December (Reeves et al. 2002). During the nonbreeding season, some seals may forage farther north. 

It is also possible that a S elephant seal could occur in the analysis area, although this would also be rare. 

Southern elephant seals breed on oceanic islands in subantarctic regions and southern Argentina. Pups are 

born in September and October (Reeves et al. 2002). During the non-breeding season, some migrate south 

to forage near Antarctica, but others may forage farther north. 

The leopard seal rarely occurs in the analysis area (Table 3.8-4). The leopard seal distribution extends 

around Antarctica. However, in the austral winter, these seals migrate north to forage. 

3.8.4 Environmental Consequences – General

The following sections provide a synopsis of available information on the potential effects of sound 

associated with seismic surveys on pinnipeds. Few studies on the reactions of pinnipeds to airguns or 

echosounders have been published, and the biological significance of any effects and potential effects at 

the population scale are largely unknown. Criteria used to assess effects are first described, followed by a 

comparison of the overlap between the sound frequencies of acoustic sources used in seismic surveys 

with what is known about pinniped in-water hearing sensitivity (Table 3.8-2 and Section 3.8.1.5).

3.8.4.1 Criteria and Approach

The criteria used to evaluate and quantify the potential impacts on pinnipeds were described in detail in 

Section 2.3.3 (see also Appendix B). However, when evaluating the potential for Level A effects (injury) 

based on cumulative energy, the Mpw-weighting function, as appropriate for pinnipeds in water (see 

Section 2.3.3.3), was used. This down-weights low (and extremely high) frequency sound components to 

which pinnipeds listening in water are less sensitive. The functional hearing range for pinnipeds in water

is considered to extend from 75 Hz to 75 kHz (Southall et al. 2007), although some individual 

species―especially the eared seals―do not have that broad an auditory range (Richardson et al. 1995a). 

See Section 3.8.1.5 and Table 3.8-2 for a summary of what is known regarding pinniped hearing.

3.8.4.2 Sound Sources and Characteristics

Pinnipeds have best hearing sensitivity, and produce most of their sounds, at frequencies higher than 

those predominantly produced by airguns. Most of the energy in the sound pulses emitted by airgun 

arrays is at low frequencies, with strongest spectrum levels below 200 Hz, considerably lower spectrum 

levels above 1000 Hz, and small amounts of energy emitted up to approximately 150 kHz (Goold and 

Fish 1998; Sodal 1999; Goold and Coates 2006; Potter et al. 2007) (Appendix E). The predominant 

frequencies of airgun sound are below the frequencies most important to pinnipeds, but the two frequency 

ranges overlap, and some pinnipeds exhibit limited avoidance behavior to seismic operations. This is 

discussed further below in Section 3.8.4.3, Acoustic Effects. 

The MBES proposed for the Langseth is the Kongsberg EM122 which operates in the range of 

approximately 10.5–13 (usually 12) kHz with a maximum source level of approximately 242 dB re 1 μPam (rms) (Table 2-5). Four other MBESs proposed for other project vessels, also operate near this range 

(12–15.5 kHz), with maximum source levels of approximately 234 to 237 dB re 1 μPa-m (rms) (Table 2-
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-215

5). Another proposed MBES operates at 30-kHz (Table 2-5). These frequency ranges overlap the 

documented frequency sensitivity range of pinnipeds (approximately 75 Hz to 75 kHz, considering all 

species as a group; Southall et al. 2007). Another proposed MBES operates at 95 kHz, and is thus very 

likely outside the frequency range audible to pinnipeds. 

The SBPs associated with the proposed marine seismic activities operate in the MF range of

approximately 3.5 kHz with a maximum source output of 222 dB re 1 μPa-m (rms). The frequency range 

of the SBPs is within the frequency band audible to pinnipeds.

Omnidirectional pingers would also be used during proposed marine seismic surveys as described in 

Chapter 2 and Section 3.7.4.2. The peak output of the omnidirectional pingers used for multi-streamer 3-

D surveys is 183 dB re 1 μPa-m at 55–110 kHz, with a maximum rate of 3 pings per 10 sec. Sounds from 

these pingers are within the upper part of the known hearing range of pinnipeds (maximum approximately

75 kHz; Southall et al. 2007) (Table 3.8-2). Those pingers are more likely to be heard by hair seals than 

by eared seals, given the generally lower limit of hearing in the latter two groups (Richardson et al. 1995; 

Kastak and Schusterman 1998; Table 3.8-2). In addition, the battery-powered coring pingers produce 

omnidirectional 12-kHz signals with a source output of approximately 192 dB re 1 μPa-m with one ping

of 0.5, 2, or 10 ms duration per second. This source frequency is within the frequency range audible to 

pinnipeds (Table 3.8-2).

Ship engines and the vessel hull itself emit broadband sounds with frequencies and amplitudes that would 

allow them to be heard by pinnipeds. The source level of vessel sound would be considerably less than 

that of the airguns, MBESs, and SBPs, but vessel sound (unlike those other sources) would be emitted 

continuously (Richardson et al. 1995a). 

In summary, airgun and vessel sounds are audible to pinnipeds, although pinnipeds are considered less 

sensitive to the predominant low frequencies produced by these sound sources than they are to mid- to 

high-frequency sounds. Sound frequencies produced by the SBPs, pingers, and all but one of the planned 

MBESs overlap the range of pinniped hearing; thus pinnipeds can presumably hear these sounds if 

sufficiently close.

Types of effects that the aforementioned sound sources could potentially have on pinnipeds are described 

below and summarized in Table 3.8-5. For more detailed information refer to Appendix E. In general, the 

potential for adverse effects from exposure to the project sound sources can be reduced by implementing 

a mitigation and monitoring program. With effective mitigation, no significant effects are anticipated to 

pinnipeds on a population scale through exposure to project sound sources. While short-term behavioral 

effects and possibly some instances of temporary hearing impairment are expected during exemplary 

seismic survey operations, no adverse effects are expected on the viability of any pinniped population. 

3.8.4.3 Acoustic Effects

The following sections discuss the types of potential acoustic effects that may occur to pinnipeds exposed 

to sounds similar to those proposed for the project, including airgun pulses, MF and HF echosounder 

signals, and other anthropogenic sounds relevant to the project based on the limited available data. 

Further discussion of these topics can be found in Appendix E.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-216

Table 3.8-5. Summary of Known and Anticipated General Effects of Airgun Sounds on Pinnipeds*

Species or Group Masking Disturbance

Temporary Hearing

Impairment or TTS Injury or PTS

Other

Physiological Effects Comments

ESA-LISTED

Steller sea lion

W U.S. stock (E)

No data – non-existent 

or negligible shortterm effects expected.

No data – some shortterm changes in 

behavior and/or 

localized avoidance 

possible based on 

other pinniped species 

(see non-ESA Listed 

below).

No data – may avoid 

sounds before TTS 

occurs. TTS thresholds in California 

sea lion are higher 

(less sensitive) than 

for the harbor seal.

No data – highly 

unlikely to occur;

expected to avoid 

sounds before PTS 

occurs.

No data – no effects 

expected.

Disturbance 

impacts expected 

to be similar to 

those for nonESA listed 

species.

Steller sea lion

E U.S. stock (T) Same as above. No data – see above. No data – see above. No data – see above. No data – no effects expected. Same as above.

Guadalupe fur

seal (T) Same as above. No data – see above.

No data – see above.

TTS thresholds in N 

fur seal are higher 

(less sensitive) than 

for harbor seal.

No data – see above. No data – no effects 

expected. Same as above.

NON-ESA LISTED

(17 species/

subspecies

Few data – expected 

to hear sounds well in 

noisy environments.(1)

Non-existent or 

negligible short-term 

effects expected.

Usually tolerant; some 

show changes in 

behavior and/or shortterm, localized 

avoidance.(2-6)

Has not been 

demonstrated for 

brief pulses as 

produced by 

airguns.(7) See 

above. TTS threshold for pulsed sound 

estimated to be ≥171 

dB re 1 μPa2-s in 

harbor seal; higher 

in N elephant seal or 

N fur seal (Southall 

et al. 2007).

†

Has not been 

demonstrated. See 

above. PTS threshold for pulsed sound 

estimated to be ≥186 

dB re 1 μPa2-s in 

harbor seal; higher in 

N elephant seal or N 

fur seal (Southall et 

al. 2007).

†

No data – no effects 

expected.

Some short-term 

behavioral 

changes and/or 

localized 

avoidance.

Notes: *See text and Appendix E for review of effects on pinnipeds from echosounders as relevant to the proposed MBESs, SBPs, and pingers. E = endangered, T = threatened.

Sources: (1)Southall et al. 2000; (2)Arnold 1996; (3)Calambokidis and Osmek 1998; (4)Harris et al. 2001; (5)Moulton and Lawson 2002; (6)Miller et al. 2005; (7)Finneran et al. 2003.

†Estimated TTS and PTS thresholds are for the harbor seal, and are Mpa-weighted SEL values cumulated across a sequence of received pulses. Corresponding values for northern 

fur seal and California sea lion are expected to be higher given the higher TTS thresholds in those species as compared to the harbor seal (Southall et al. 2007).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-217

Masking

Masking of pinniped calls by pulsed sounds, such as those from airguns, is expected to be limited given 

the intermittent nature of the pulses. In addition, the low frequencies that dominate seismic survey sounds 

generally do not fall within the most sensitive hearing ranges of pinnipeds. Although some pinnipeds are 

expected to hear the airgun sounds, this does not necessarily mean that those sounds will have any 

appreciable masking effects. Several species of pinnipeds, including harp and bearded seals, have been 

shown to produce distinct calls to reduce masking by one another‘s calls (e.g., Watkins and Schevill 

1979; Terhune 1994, 1999; Serrano and Terhune 2001, 2002). 

Masking effects due to MBES, SBP, or pinger signals are expected to be minimal or non-existent given 

their low duty cycles, the brief period when an individual mammal would potentially be within the 

downward-directed MBES or SBP beam from a transiting vessel, and the relatively low source level of a 

pinger. Masking effects in general are discussed further in Appendix E.

Disturbance

Few studies have been published on the reactions of pinnipeds to sounds from open-water seismic 

exploration (for review, see Richardson et al. 1995a). However, pinnipeds have been observed during a 

number of seismic monitoring studies (Table 3.8-5). Visual monitoring from seismic vessels has shown 

only slight (if any) avoidance of airguns by pinnipeds, and only slight (if any) changes in behavior (see 

Appendix E). Ringed seals frequently do not avoid the area within a few hundred meters of operating 

airgun arrays (Harris et al. 2001; Moulton and Lawson 2002; Miller et al. 2005). However, telemetry 

work suggests that avoidance and other behavioral reactions by two other species of seals exposed to 

small airgun sources may at times be stronger than evident to date from visual studies of pinniped 

reactions to airguns (Thompson et al. 1998). Reiser et al. (2009) noted reduced sighting rates of phocid 

seals during seismic vs. non-seismic periods. Even if reactions of any pinnipeds that might be 

encountered in the present analysis areas are as strong as those evident in the telemetry study, reactions 

are expected to be confined to relatively small distances and durations, with no anticipated long-term 

effects on pinniped individuals or populations. 

As for delphinids, a 170-dB re 1 μPa (rms) disturbance criterion is considered a more realistic and 

appropriate criterion above which some pinnipeds are likely to react behaviorally to airgun sounds. 

However, for the purposes of analysis, a 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) potential disturbance criterion was used 

based on current NMFS exposure criteria (Table 2-8).

There are currently no data on the potential disturbance effects of echosounders, such as MBESs and 

SBPs, on pinnipeds (see Appendix E). Based on observed pinniped responses to other types of sounds, 

and the likely brevity of exposure to these sound sources, pinniped reactions are expected to be limited to 

startle or otherwise brief responses of no lasting consequence to the animals. The signals from the SBP 

are somewhat weaker than those from the MBES. Therefore, behavioral responses are not expected unless 

marine mammals are very close to the source. NMFS (2001b) has concluded that momentary behavioral 

reactions ―do not rise to the level of taking‖. Thus, brief exposure of pinnipeds to small numbers of 

signals from the MBES or SBP would not result in a ―take‖ by harassment as defined by NMFS and the 

ESA (see Chapter 1).

Temporary Hearing Impairment or TTS

TTS is possible when marine mammals are exposed to high-level sounds (Southall et al. 2007). Studies of 

TTS in pinnipeds showed varying results dependent on duration and received levels of sound (Kastak et 

al. 1999; Schusterman et al. 2000; Finneran et al. 2003). TTS thresholds associated with exposure to brief 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-218

pulses (single or multiple) of underwater sound have not been measured in pinnipeds. Evidence from 

prolonged exposures suggests that some pinnipeds, e.g., the harbor seal, may incur TTS at somewhat 

lower received levels than do small odontocetes exposed for similar durations (Kastak et al. 1999, 2005; 

Ketten et al. 2001; Southall et al. 2007). However, TTS onset in the California sea lion and northern 

elephant seal may occur at a similar sound exposure level as in odontocetes (Kastak et al. 2005).

For the past several years, NMFS policy regarding exposure of marine mammals to high-level sounds is 

that pinnipeds should not be exposed to impulsive sounds 190 dB re 1 Pa (rms) (NMFS 2000) (see 

Section 3.2). That criterion has been used in defining the safety (shut-down) radii for previous NSFsponsored seismic surveys and, for comparative purposes, was also considered in this analysis. Currently 

available data imply that, for a harbor seal exposed to a sequence of airgun pulses, TTS onset may occur 

upon exposure to a peak pressure of approximately 212 dB re 1 Pa (peak) or to an SEL, accumulated 

across successive pulses, of approximately 171 dB re 1 μPa2· s (Southall et al. 2007). NMFS is 

considering adoption of these new criteria (NMFS 2005c). It is assumed that the TTS threshold for 

California sea lions or northern elephant seals exposed to high-level airgun pulses would be higher than

that for the harbor seal, given their higher TTS thresholds (as compared to the harbor seal) upon exposure 

to longer-duration non-impulse sound (Kastak et al. 2005).

The project MBESs, SBPs, and pingers are not expected to induce TTS. See mysticete Sections 3.7.4.3

TTS and PTS for further assessment based on operating characteristics of these sound sources.

Injury

Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)

There is no evidence that exposure to airgun pulses (even from large airgun arrays) or echosounders can cause 

PTS in any marine mammal. However, given the possibility that mammals close to an airgun array might incur 

TTS, there has been further speculation about the possibility that some individuals occurring very close to 

airguns might incur PTS. Southall et al. (2007) note that, regardless of the SEL, there is concern about the 

possibility of PTS if a pinniped received one or more pulses with peak pressure exceeding 218 dB re 1 

μPa (peak). When exposure is measured in SEL units, Southall et al. (2007) estimate that received levels 

would need to exceed the TTS threshold by at least 15 dB for there to be risk of PTS. Thus, for pinnipeds 

in water they estimate that the PTS threshold might be an SEL of about 186 dB re (1 μPa)2· s, at least for 

the harbor seal. Given the higher level of sound necessary to cause PTS as compared with TTS, it is less 

likely that PTS could occur through exposure to airgun sounds. Also, given the significantly higher TTS 

thresholds in northern fur seals and California sea lions than in harbor seals, PTS thresholds in those other 

species are expected to be higher than in the harbor seal. 

Strandings and Mortality

No mortalities or strandings of pinnipeds have been linked to acoustic sources that would be used during 

the proposed seismic surveys (see Section 3.8.4 and Appendix E). Based on that, and the proposed

mitigation and monitoring measures designed to minimize potential impacts, no strandings or mortality of 

pinnipeds are expected during the proposed marine seismic surveys within the exemplary analysis areas.

Other Physiological Effects

Non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that might, in theory, occur in marine mammals exposed to 

high-level underwater sound include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, and other types of

organ or tissue damage (Cox et al. 2006; Southall et al. 2007; see Appendix E). To date, there have been 

no studies on the potential physiological effects of airgun or echosounder sounds on pinnipeds. Marine 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-219

mammals that show behavioral avoidance of seismic vessels, including some pinnipeds, are especially unlikely 

to incur auditory impairment or other physiological effects.

3.8.4.4 Other Potential Effects

Entanglement

Entanglements occur when cables, lines, nets, or other objects suspended in the water column become 

wrapped around marine mammals. Incidents of entanglement of pinnipeds in fishing gear and other 

marine debris are well known (Arnould and Croxall 1995; Hanni and Pyle 2002; Page et al. 2004). 

Northern fur seals have been particularly susceptible to entanglement. In some years, over 50,000 fur 

seals in Alaskan waters were killed from entanglement in fishing nets and strapping bands. So great was 

the mortality of northern fur seals, that their population was deemed directly threatened by entanglement; 

because their population was in decline, any mortality was considered unsustainable (NRC 1995). Many 

of the entanglements of pinnipeds with fishing gear are presumably a result of attraction of pinnipeds to 

fish concentrations.

During seismic operations, numerous cables, lines, and other objects primarily associated with the airgun 

array and hydrophone streamers will be towed behind the survey ship near the water‘s surface. No cases 

of entanglement of pinnipeds or other marine mammals with this gear have been documented during 

previous NSF-sponsored seismic surveys. The tendency of marine mammals to avoid approaching 

seismic vessels (in contrast with their tendency to congregate around fishing vessels) presumably reduces 

the risk of entanglement.

Ingestion of/Coating by Oil

In the highly unlikely event of an oil/fuel spill associated with the planned program, pinnipeds could be 

coated with oil, could ingest oil with water or contaminated food, or could absorb oil components through 

the respiratory tract (Geraci and Smith 1976; Engelhardt et al. 1977; Geraci and St Aubin 1990). Oil can 

destroy the insulating qualities of hair or fur, resulting in hypothermia. Thus, pinnipeds that depend on fur 

rather than a thick layer of fat for insulation, such as fur seals and newborn pups, are most sensitive to 

oiling. Heavy oiling may also cause a decrease in mobility, and the animal may be unable to swim or 

forage. For example, the flippers of young harp and gray seal pups have been shown to become impeded 

by a heavy coating of oil, becoming stuck to their sides, resulting in the drowning of the gray seal pups

(Davis and Anderson 1976; Sergeant 1991). 

If oil is ingested, some of it would be voided in vomit or feces or metabolized at rates that prevent 

significant bioaccumulation (Neff 1985), but some would be absorbed and could cause toxic effects 

(Geraci 1990). These effects may include minor kidney, liver, and brain lesions (Geraci and Smith 1976; 

Spraker et al. 1994). When returned to clean water, contaminated animals can expel this internal oil 

through urine or feces (Engelhardt 1978, 1982, 1985). Seals exposed to an oil spill are unlikely to ingest 

enough oil to cause serious internal damage (Geraci and St. Aubin 1980, 1982), and in most cases effects 

are likely to be reversible (Spraker et al. 1994). 

Seals are also at risk from hydrocarbons and other chemicals that evaporate from spills (Geraci 1990).

Seals generally keep their nostrils close to the water surface when breathing, so they are likely to inhale 

vapors if they surface in a contaminated area. Grey seals that presumably inhaled volatile hydrocarbons 

from the Braer oil spill exhibited a discharge of nasal mucous, but no causal relationship with the oil was 

determined (Hall et al. 1996). Laboratory studies of ringed seals indicate that the inhalation of 

hydrocarbons may cause more serious effects like kidney and liver damage (St. Aubin 1990), although

exposure conditions were much higher than would be expected in a natural setting. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-220

Ship Strikes

Pinnipeds can probably move quickly enough to avoid collisions with ships. However, when feeding, 

pinnipeds may be distracted and thus inattentive to vessels. Fur seals are attracted to fishing vessels to 

feed, and some are killed by propellers (Richardson et al. 1995a). Sea lions and seals have also been seen 

with wounds and disfigurements caused by the propellers of powerboats. Between 1996 and 2000, two 

northern elephant seals were known to have been struck and killed due to ship strikes off California 

(Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary 2006). 

The risk of collision with marine mammals exists but is extremely unlikely due to the slow operating 

speed of 4–5 kt (7.4–9.3 km/h) of the seismic vessel. 

3.8.5 Environmental Consequences – Alternative A and Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)

Alternatives A and B consist of a combination of monitoring and mitigation measures developed in 

consultation with NMFS and designed to minimize the potential effects of academic seismic operations 

on marine mammals (Sections 2.6.1 and 3.7.5). The measures for pinnipeds are similar to those for 

mysticetes except that different M-weighted Level A and Level B exposure radii are used for pinnipeds 

because of their different sensitivities to various sound frequencies (see Section 2.3.3 and Table 2-8). The 

flat (unweighted) measures were also calculated.

3.8.5.1 Acoustic Effects

This section summarizes the various types and levels of potential acoustic effects on pinnipeds in the 

analysis areas anticipated to occur during the seismic surveys under Alternatives A and B. Table 2-8

shows the estimated mitigation radii under Alternative A for the exemplary seismic surveys that are 

assumed to occur in the five DAAs. Estimated exposures and percent of regional populations potentially 

impacted by proposed seismic survey activities within the DAAs under the proposed action alternatives

are presented in Table 3.8-6 and in Appendix B. Both before and after applying M-weighting appropriate 

for pinnipeds ―in-water‖, the numbers of pinniped exposures are presented based on the discussion of 

exposure criteria in Section 2.3.3 and listed in Table 2-8. Predicted estimates of exposure are considered 

precautionary (likely overestimated) because they do not account for individual pinnipeds that may avoid 

the sounds. The AIM model assumes baseline ―undisturbed‖ distribution and movement of animals 

whether or not airgun sounds are being emitted. 

Masking

Masking attributable to NSF-sponsored seismic surveys is expected to be limited and short-term for all 

pinniped species in all areas considered: airgun sounds are intermittent with a low duty cycle, and much 

of the airgun sound energy is outside the frequency range of best hearing by pinnipeds. The degree of 

potential masking depends on the strength of the sound source used, propagation conditions, and the 

frequencies of the potentially masked sounds relative to the predominant airgun frequencies. Therefore, 

the proposed surveys in the W Gulf of Alaska and off the BC Coast with large airgun arrays, where ESAlisted Steller sea lions may be encountered, could potentially have a greater masking impact than surveys 

in other areas with smaller sound sources and similar numbers of ESA-listed pinnipeds. Although 

threatened Steller sea lions and Guadalupe fur seals may occur at the exemplary S California site, this 

survey is assumed to employ a small airgun source and would be expected to have fewer potential 

impacts. Thus, masking is not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed pinnipeds, and no significant effects 

are expected to pinniped populations.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-221

Disturbance

Disturbance would be the primary type of effect resulting from the seismic surveys under Alternative A or 

B (Table 3.8-5). Disturbance-related impacts, although variable, likely depend on the strength of the 

sound source and water depth in the survey area as well as other acoustic properties. In general, largesource surveys in shallow water with high concentrations of pinnipeds would have potentially a greater 

overall impact than those in deep water, because the zone of influence is expected to be larger in shallow 

water. For example, the surveys in the W Gulf of Alaska and off the BC Coast, where the ESA-listed

Steller sea lion occurs, could potentially have a greater impact on ESA-listed species than smaller-source 

surveys in other areas where ESA-listed species occur. However, potential effects of small-source surveys 

where ESA-listed species and/or high densities of pinnipeds occur are also of concern (e.g., S California 

DAA). 

Although the degree of impact would vary among analysis areas, potential disturbance impacts are 

expected to be short-term and limited to small numbers of individuals for all pinniped species in all 

analysis areas where they occur, especially given the mitigation measures such as immediate power- or 

shut-downs and ramp-ups. Because small numbers of ESA-listed Steller sea lions may be disturbed as 

described below, the ESA determination is ―may affect, likely to adversely affect‖ for this species. 

However, disturbance of relatively small numbers of both ESA-listed and non-listed individual pinnipeds 

during the proposed seismic survey activities is not expected to result in significant impacts to pinniped 

populations. 

Level B Exposure Estimates for ESA-listed Pinnipeds

This section focuses on ESA-listed species at the ocean-basin population level. It concentrates on areas 

where the highest numbers of pinnipeds are predicted to be exposed to sufficient airgun sound for there to 

be Level B exposure, and discusses the reasons for differences among DAAs and QAAs in the potential 

number of exposures. DAA analyses are based on modeling results summarized in Table 3.8-6 and 

Appendix B; QAA analyses are based on similarities between the DAAs and QAAs as summarized in 

Table 2-7. Modeled exposure estimates are precautionary, because the model does not account for 

individual pinnipeds that are expected to move away from the seismic survey sounds (based on available 

studies to date as summarized in Section 3.8.4.3). 

Only two ESA-listed pinniped species (Guadalupe fur seal and Steller sea lion) are likely to occur in the 

13 analysis areas, and those two species are expected to occur in only two DAAs and one QAA, as 

described below (Tables 3.8-3 and 3.8-4). 

Guadalupe fur seal. The Guadalupe fur seal may rarely occur in the S California DAA (Table 3.8-1). 

Under Alternatives A and B, no Guadalupe fur seals are expected to be affected by the proposed seismic 

surveys within this DAA because they are highly unlikely to occur there (density = 0.0 seals/km2; 

Appendix B, Annex 4 – Table A4-5). Therefore, the proposed action would have no effect on Guadalupe 

fur seal individuals or populations.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-222

Table 3.8-6. Estimated Number of Level A and Level B Exposures (Individuals) of Pinnipeds to Seismic Survey Sound with 

Implementation of Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) in the DAAs, Based on Modeling Results

S California DAA(a)– N Pacific population W Gulf of Alaska DAA(a)– N Pacific population

Exposure Criterion(b) Exposure Criterion(b)

Species Bp Ap Ae Bp Ap Ae

Harbor seal 38.5

<0.01 0.0 0.0 174.90.6

2.8

<0.01

1.4

<0.01

N elephant seal 137.1

0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Guadalupe fur seal 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - -

N fur seal 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0

<0.01 0.0 0.0

California sea lion 2,371.6

0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Steller sea lion 0.0 0.0 0.0 109.4

0.7

0.9

<0.01

0.4

<0.01

(a)Pinnipeds are not expected to occur or their densities are expected to be very low or zero at the three remaining DAAs: Caribbean, Galapagos Ridge, and NW Atlantic; thus no exposures to sound 

associated with those exemplary seismic survey activities are anticipated to occur (see Tables 3.8-1, 3.8-3, and 3.8-4; and Appendix B, Annex 4). Population estimates are from Table 3.8-1. Where 

a range of population estimates is available, the lowest is used, thus precautionarily maximizing the estimated percent of population that might be exposed. - = not present; italics = estimated 

percent of regional population impacted; bold = ESA-listed species.

(b)Exposure Criteria (flat weighted): Bp = Level B harassment -- pressure units (rms), corresponding to exposure to >160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) received sound level above which NMFS assumes that 

behavioral changes may occur. Ap = Level A harassment – pressure units (rms), corresponding to exposure to >190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) received sound level above which the potential for injury was 

suspected at the time this criterion was implemented by NMFS. Ae = Level A harassment – cumulative energy (SEL), corresponding to exposure to >186 dB re 1 μPa2· s, applied in this analysis to 

identify the level above which there is potential for injury (e.g., PTS), based on limited empirical results from a few pinniped species plus various assumptions (Southall et al. 2007). See also 

Section 3.2 and Appendix B.

For non-listed species, only predicted exposures of >0.5 animal, as presented in Appendix B, Tables B-13 – B-17, are considered to be actual exposures. For ESA-listed species, only predicted 

exposures of >0.05 animals, as presented in Appendix B, Tables B-13 – B-17, are considered to be actual exposures.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-223

Steller sea lion. Two Steller sea lion populations may occur within the analysis areas: W and E U.S. 

stocks (Table 3.8-1). Steller sea lions could occur in two DAAs (S California and W Gulf of Alaska) and 

one QAA (BC Coast) (Tables 3.8-3 and 3.8-4). Under Alternatives A and B, the E stock of Steller sea 

lions are not likely to be affected by the proposed seismic surveys in the S California DAA due to their 

extremely low density (0.0 seals/km2) in the area. In the W Gulf of Alaska DAA, modeling data indicate 

that approximately 109 Steller sea lions of the endangered W stock could experience Level B exposures 

(potential behavioral disturbance; approximately 86 in shallow water and approximately 23 in deep water) 

(Table 3.8-6 and Appendix B, Table B-16). These numbers represent approximately 0.7% of the 

estimated E North Pacific population (Tables 3.8-1 and 3.8-6). The E stock of Steller sea lions can be 

considered abundant in the BC Coast QAA during the period of the exemplary seismic survey; however, 

the QAA lies approximately 200 mi (322 km) south of the closest designated critical habitat for Steller

sea lion. The airgun array proposed for this exemplary QAA is large and would be operated in relatively 

shallow water. Thus, the potential for Level B exposures at the BC Coast QAA would be similar to the W 

Gulf of Alaska DAA site (see above). 

No serious injury or mortality of Steller sea lions is reasonably foreseeable. No adverse effects on the 

annual rates of recruitment or survival of Steller sea lion stocks are expected as a result of the estimated 

incidents of Level B harassment. Under the ESA, implementation of Alternative A or B may affect, is 

likely to adversely affect Steller sea lions in the W Gulf of Alaska DAA and BC Coast QAA. In 

accordance with the MMPA and section 7 of the ESA, Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) requires

consultation with NMFS regarding Level B exposures to Steller sea lions (Table 3.8-6). If and when a 

specific NSF-funded survey or a survey to be conducted by USGS is proposed for the area in the future, 

site-specific consultations with NMFS would occur as well as any other tiered supporting environmental

documentation.

Exposure Estimates for Non-ESA Listed Pinnipeds

Seventeen species and subspecies of pinnipeds not listed under the ESA may occur in the DAAs or QAAs 

(Tables 3.8-1, 3.8-3, and 3.8-4). Nine of these species occur in three of the five DAAs, but exposures are 

possible for two DAAs: S California, and W Gulf of Alaska (Table 3.8-6). Estimates of Level B 

behavioral exposures (i.e., numbers of pinnipeds receiving airgun sounds ≥160 dB re 1 μPa [rms]) 

represent <0.7% of each of these regional species populations, and the majority of the species would 

experience Level B exposures of <0.1% of their regional populations (Table 3.8-6). No serious injury or 

mortality of non-ESA listed pinnipeds is reasonably foreseeable. No adverse effects on the annual rates of 

recruitment or survival of pinniped stocks are expected as a result of the estimated incidents of Level B

harassment. In accordance with the MMPA, Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) requires consultation 

with NMFS regarding Level B exposures to non-ESA listed pinnipeds within the S California and W Gulf 

of Alaska DAAs (Table 3.8-6). If and when a specific NSF-funded survey or a survey to be conducted by 

USGS is proposed for the area in the future, site-specific consultations with NMFS would occur as well 

as any other tiered supporting environmental documentation.

Although 12 pinniped species not listed under the ESA could potentially occur in four of the eight QAAs, 

only three species (harbor, gray and hooded seals) are expected to occur regularly and only in the N 

Atlantic/Iceland and/or BC Coast QAAs (Table 3.8-4). Pinnipeds are considered rare or extralimital in the 

remaining six QAAs and thus are not expected to be affected by the proposed seismic survey activities

within those QAAs. Only small numbers of harbor, gray and hooded seals are predicted to potentially 

experience Level B behavior exposures within the N Atlantic/Iceland and/or BC Coast sites. Both of these 

QAAs involve a large airgun array, similar in size to that in the W Gulf of Alaska, suggesting that a 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-224

similarly small number of these pinnipeds could experience Level B behavioral exposures within these 

two QAAs. None of the anticipated short-term behavioral effects would result in any significant impacts 

to non-ESA listed pinnipeds at the population level.

Temporary Hearing Impairment or TTS

To date, TTS has not been demonstrated for any pinniped species exposed to the brief pulses produced by 

airguns or echosounders (e.g., Finneran et al. 2003). The probability of TTS is potentially greatest during 

surveys using large-source arrays if a pinniped approaches very close to the airgun(s), particularly in areas 

where pinnipeds are common (e.g., W Gulf of Alaska, BC Coast, N Atlantic/Iceland). In contrast, the 

potential is lower in areas where pinnipeds occur in small numbers and/or a small airgun array is 

proposed (e.g., Sub-Antarctic, S California, W Australia). The probability that a pinniped would approach 

close enough, and remain there long enough, for TTS to occur is reduced through implementation of the 

proposed mitigation and monitoring procedures and mitigation measures, such as immediate power- or 

shut-downs and ramp-ups, and the transiting movement of the seismic vessel. Furthermore, TTS is (by 

definition) a temporary phenomenon that does not constitute injury, and is very unlikely to have longterm consequences for the individual(s) or populations involved (Southall et al. 2007). No significant 

impacts to populations of pinnipeds are expected to occur under Alternative A or B as a result of potential 

TTS (Table 3.8-6).

Injury

Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)

PTS has not been demonstrated in any pinniped species exposed to non-explosive sound in the field or in 

captivity. The possibility of PTS occurring during the proposed seismic surveys within the exemplary 

analysis areas is considered less than the possibility of TTS as described above, since a pinniped would 

need to receive even more sound energy to potentially experience PTS as compared to TTS. It is 

considered unlikely that a pinniped would approach close enough, and remain there long enough, for PTS 

to occur given that pinnipeds are likely to avoid airgun(s) before receiving sound levels that could result 

in PTS. Furthermore, implementation of proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, such as 

immediate power- or shut-downs when marine mammals are sighted within the mitigation radii, would 

further reduce the possibility of PTS. In general, PTS is not expected to occur during exposure to brief 

intermittent sound pulses associated with the proposed seismic surveys within the analysis areas. 

Although modeling results suggest that a few individual pinnipeds could potentially receive ≥190 dB re 1 

μPa (rms) and experience Level A exposures under Alternative A or B in the W Gulf of Alaska DAA, 

these exposures would be <0.01% of the regional populations of these species (Table 3.8-6). However, 

the model does not allow for the likelihood that some of the exposed pinnipeds would show avoidance of 

the airgun source, as would be expected during an actual seismic survey. Avoidance behavior would 

reduce the number of exposures to the 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) Level A radius.

Of more direct relevance, very few (if any) individual pinnipeds are predicted to be exposed to sound 

equaling or exceeding the cumulative energy exposure criterion for injury (186 dB re 1 μPa2· s) during 

the exemplary seismic surveys (Table 3.8-6, Ae columns). The 186 dB re 1 μPa2·s criterion is currently 

considered a more realistic estimate of the exposure level above which auditory injuries might occur in 

the more susceptible pinniped species (e.g., harbor seal), allowing for recent research (Southall et al. 

2007) (see Section 3.2). Of the five exemplary seismic surveys analyzed in detail, only one survey (W 

Gulf of Alaska) was predicted to expose ≥1 pinniped to ≥186 dB re 1 μPa2·s (Table 3.8-6). The numbers 

of pinnipeds that would receive such levels of airgun sound are predicted to constitute <0.01% of any 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-225

regional population of a pinniped species. Also, those calculations overestimate numbers that might be 

injured partly, because some species of pinnipeds (e.g., California sea lion; northern fur seal) apparently 

have higher injury thresholds than assumed in the calculations, and partly because the model does not 

allow for avoidance reactions.

Under Alternatives A and B, modeling for the DAAs simulates that <4 Level A (rms) exposures and <3 

Level A cumulative energy (SEL) exposures of two pinniped species could occur in the W Gulf of 

Alaska; including 0.9 (rms) or 0.4 (SEL) endangered Steller sea lions (Table 3.8-6). A total of 2.8 or 1.4 

individual harbor seals could incur Level A rms or cumulative energy (SEL) exposure, respectively 

(Table 3.8-6). These figures are likely to overestimate actual Level A exposures, for reasons noted above. 

In summary, Level A exposures are unlikely to occur during a seismic survey under Alternative A or 

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) within the exemplary analysis areas. Some pinnipeds are expected to 

avoid Level A exposure before they reach the 190-dB re 1 μPa (rms) criterion isopleth or the 186-dB re 1 

μPa2· s cumulative energy criterion isopleth. Furthermore, implementation of proposed mitigation and 

monitoring would reduce and minimize potential exposures. No serious injury or mortality of pinnipeds is

reasonably foreseeable. No adverse effects on the annual rates of recruitment or survival of pinniped

stocks are expected as a result of the estimated incidents of Level A harassment. Under the ESA, 

implementation of Alternative A or Alternative B may affect and is likely to adversely affect individual 

Steller sea lions in the W Gulf of Alaska DAA. In accordance with the MMPA and section 7 of the ESA, 

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) requires consultation with NMFS regarding Level A exposures to 

Steller sea lions and harbor seals within the W Gulf of Alaska (Table 3.8-6). If and when a specific NSFfunded survey or a survey to be conducted by USGS is proposed for the area in the future, site-specific 

consultations with NMFS would occur as well as any other tiered supporting environmental

documentation.

Strandings and Mortality

Analysis areas with large airgun arrays where pinnipeds are common are the W Gulf of Alaska, BC 

Coast, and NW Atlantic/Iceland sites (Tables 3.8-1, 3.8-3, and 3.8-6). However, strandings or mortalities 

of pinnipeds have not been linked to airgun or echosounder sounds that would be used during the 

proposed seismic surveys (e.g., Richardson et al. 1995a; Southall et al. 2007; see Appendix E). It is 

considered highly unlikely that pinniped strandings or mortalities would occur as a result of airgun 

surveys, especially when mitigation and monitoring is implemented (e.g., shut-downs, power-downs, 

ramp-ups, etc.). Furthermore, some pinnipeds are expected to avoid close approaches to the airguns where 

exposure levels might potentially cause injuries, as described earlier. Thus, the proposed seismic survey 

activities within the exemplary analysis areas are not expected to result in strandings or mortality of any

pinniped species. 

Other Physiological Effects

Under Alternatives A and B, no other physiological effects on pinnipeds are expected as a result of 

proposed seismic activities as described in Section 3.8.4.3.

3.8.5.2 Other Potential Effects

Entanglement, Ingestion, and Ship Strikes

Under Alternatives A and B, the potential for non-acoustic types of effects (entanglement, 

ingestion/coating, and ship strikes) are considered insignificant as described in Section 3.8.4.4. An oil or 

fuel spill is considered highly unlikely to occur during the proposed seismic surveys. Each research vessel 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-226

used for NSF-funded marine seismic surveys has a spill prevention plan or similar document outlining 

procedures and policies to prevent a fuel or oil spill and to address such spills in the highly unlikely 

instance that one did occur. None of the equipment proposed for in-water use during the seismic surveys 

is considered potentially ingestible by a marine mammal due to its size and composition. In addition, 

there has never been a recorded oil/fuel spill, ship strike, or entanglement of any marine mammal in the 

survey equipment in over 54,000 nm (100,000 km) of previous NSF-funded seismic surveys (e.g., 

Smultea and Holst 2003; Haley and Koski 2004; Holst 2004; Smultea et al. 2004; Holst et al. 2005a; 

Haley and Ireland 2006; Hauser et al. 2008; Holst and Smultea 2008). Visual monitoring procedures 

further reduce the risk of entanglement or ship strike because observers watch for any marine mammals or 

sea turtles near the vessel and equipment. Therefore, entanglement and ship strikes are expected to be 

very unlikely. 

Thus, it is expected that the proposed seismic activities within the exemplary analysis areas would have 

no significant impact on individual pinnipeds or pinniped populations and would not adversely affect 

ESA-listed species due to entanglement with seismic gear, ingestion of toxic or other materials, and ship 

strikes.

3.8.6 Environmental Consequences – Alternative C (No-Action Alternative)

Under the No-Action Alternative, NSF-funded and USGS marine seismic research surveys using various 

acoustic sources (e.g., airguns, MBESs, SBPs, and pingers) would not occur. Therefore, baseline 

conditions would remain unchanged and there would be no impacts to pinnipeds with implementation of 

Alternative C.

3.8.7 Summary of Environmental Consequences – Pinnipeds

The potential impacts on pinnipeds with implementation of Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred 

Alternative) are summarized in Table 3.8-7. Pinnipeds are absent or rare in the areas where some seismic 

surveys would occur. With implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, impacts 

to pinnipeds under Alternative A or B in areas where pinnipeds do occur are expected to be limited to 

behavioral disturbance and, in some cases, localized avoidance of the area near the active airguns. A few 

cases of temporary hearing impairment are possible, with full recovery of hearing occurring subsequently. 

These effects are expected to have negligible short- and long-term impacts on individual pinnipeds and 

their habitats, and regional populations of pinnipeds within the analysis areas. However, because airgun 

operations are likely to result in localized avoidance by some ESA-listed species in some analysis areas, 

Alternatives A and B may affect, and is likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species (Table 3.8-7).

Although the MBESs, SBPs, and pingers can presumably be heard by pinnipeds, their operation is not 

likely to affect pinnipeds. The intermittent and narrow downward-directed nature of the MBESs and SPBs 

would result in no more than one or two brief ping exposures of any individual pinniped given the 

movement and speed of the vessel and animal; such brief exposure to this sound is not expected to cause 

injury or PTS based on results of limited studies of some pinniped species (reviewed in Appendix E). The 

streamer-mounted pingers and pingers used during coring are also highly unlikely to affect pinnipeds 

given their intermittent nature, their short-term and transitory use from a moving vessel, their relatively 

low source levels, their brief ping durations, and (in the case of ancillary core sampling) their relatively 

infrequent use. 

Modeling estimates that a small number of Level A (rms) exposures could occur under Alternative A in 

some analysis areas despite proposed mitigation and monitoring. However, such exposures are considered 

unlikely to occur during an actual seismic survey, because the model does not account for behavioral 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-227

avoidance by pinnipeds of seismic survey sound levels >190 dB re 1 μPa (rms). Furthermore, not all of 

the pinnipeds exposed to ≥190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) are likely to incur auditory or other injury. If 

consultation with NMFS demonstrated the need, potential site-specific mitigation measures could, in 

addition to the standard mitigation measures, be identified. 

Overall, the primary anticipated impacts to pinnipeds with implementation of Alternative A or Alternative 

B (Preferred Alternative) are:

 Small numbers of individual pinnipeds are predicted to be exposed to ≥160 dB re 1 μPa rms at 

three of the five DAAs; these numbers represent <1.0% of regional populations. However, many 

of these exposed pinnipeds would not show any overt disturbance. These exposures are not 

expected to result in any long-term or significant consequences to the affected individuals or their 

populations.

 In general, modeling results indicate that large airgun arrays operating in shallow water where 

pinnipeds are common to abundant would cause the highest numbers of short-term Level B

exposures. 

 Small numbers of individuals representing <0.01% of regional populations of some pinnipeds are 

predicted to be exposed to the NMFS Level A criterion of >190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) or SEL >186

dB re 1 μPa2· s in certain exemplary project areas under the simplifying assumptions of the 

modeling.

 PTS and other injurious effects are not expected to occur during the actual seismic surveys. Most 

pinnipeds are expected to avoid exposure to seismic sound levels that could potentially cause 

these effects. The model used for analysis overestimates Level A exposures, because it does not 

account for this expected behavioral avoidance and also does not allow for the higher TTS and 

PTS thresholds of some pinnipeds.

In summary, implementation of Alternative A or B is likely to result in minor short-term and localized

behavioral disturbance of small numbers of individual pinnipeds. These temporary effects are not 

anticipated to result in any long-term or population-level effects on pinniped populations. The numbers of 

individual pinnipeds estimated to be exposed to the current NMFS Level B criterion of >160 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms) during the exemplary surveys would be small in relation to regional population sizes. No PTS or 

other potential injury of pinnipeds is anticipated during an actual seismic survey under Alternative A with

proposed mitigation and monitoring measures. No short- or long-term significant impacts are expected on 

pinniped populations or their habitats, including ESA-listed species, as a result of implementation of 

Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred Alternative). Alternative C would have no impacts on 

pinnipeds, because the proposed marine seismic surveys would not occur.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-228

Table 3.8-7. Summary of Potential Impacts to Pinnipeds with Implementation of Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)

Analysis Area Species or Group(1) Alternative A or B(1)

DAA

NW Atlantic Non-ESA listed pinnipeds Effects highly unlikely given expected zero densities.(2)

Caribbean No pinniped species -

S California

Steller sea lion,

Guadalupe fur seal

Effects highly unlikely given expected zero densities.(2) No effect on ESA-listed species or their populations.

Non-ESA listed pinnipeds No significant impacts; limited to small number(3) of short-term Level B behavioral exposures. No modeled 

Level A exposures. 

W Gulf

of Alaska

Steller sea lion

May affect, likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species; consultation with NMFS required. Limited to small 

number(3) of short-term Level B behavioral exposures; <1 modeled Level A exposure but highly unlikely to 

occur in actual seismic survey as pinnipeds expected to avoid such exposure (see text).

Non-ESA listed pinnipeds

Limited to small number(3) of short-term Level B behavioral exposures; small number of modeled Level A 

exposures are highly unlikely to occur in actual seismic survey as pinnipeds expected to avoid such exposure 

(see text). 

Galapagos Ridge No pinniped species -

QAA

BC Coast Steller sea lion See W Gulf of Alaska DAA.

Non-ESA listed pinnipeds See above

Mid-Atlantic

Ridge No pinniped species -

Marianas No pinniped species -

Sub-Antarctic Non-ESA listed pinnipeds Level B behavioral effects possible but unlikely; Level A effects highly unlikely as species are rare and 

expected to avoid such exposure.

N Atlantic/Iceland Non-ESA listed pinnipeds See BC Coast QAA.

SW Atlantic No pinniped species -

W India No pinniped species -

W Australia Australian sea lion See Sub-Antarctic QAA.

(1)No significant effects expected at population level for any species (see text and Table 3.8-6). Bold = ESA-listed species.

(2)

See Appendix B, Annex 4 for estimated marine mammal densities in the DAAs.

(3)

Small number (<1%) of estimated regional population size exposed. See Table 3.8-6, footnote (a). See Tables 3.7-8 and 3.7-9 and Appendix B for modeled numbers of Level A and B 

exposures and percent of population exposed. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-229

3.9 OTHER MARINE MAMMALS (SEA OTTER AND W INDIAN MANATEE)

Marine mammals are classified into four orders: Carnivora, Pinnipedia, Cetacea, and Sirenia (Nowak 

1999). The Cetacea and Pinnipedia were addressed in Sections 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8. Within the order 

Carnivora are two species of marine mammals, the sea otter in the family Mustelidae and the polar bear in 

the family Ursidae. The order Sirenia encompasses four extant species (three species of manatees and the 

dugong). Of these six living species, only two potentially occur in the offshore waters of the analysis 

areas: N sea otter and W Indian manatee (Reeves et al. 2002; Jefferson et al. 2008) (Table 3.9-1). 

The remaining three sirenian species that do not occur in the project analysis areas are the Amazonian 

manatee, the W African manatee and the dugong. The Amazonian manatee is limited to freshwater 

riverine habitat of the Amazon and its tributaries in Brazil, the W African manatee occurs off W Africa, 

while the dugong occurs in coastal marine waters that include the Indian Ocean, Arabian Sea, Australia, 

Indonesia, Malaysia and E Africa. Off W Australia, the dugong occurs in shallow nearshore protected 

waters (e.g., bays) characterized by its primary seagrass forage (Reeves et al. 2002; Jefferson et al. 2008). 

The dugong is thus not expected to occur in the deeper offshore waters of the exemplary W Australia 

analysis area or other project areas. 

Therefore, the following discussion addresses only the sea otter and W Indian manatee. The status, global 

population estimates, general ecology, and general distribution and migratory movements of these species 

are summarized in Table 3.9-1 and discussed briefly below. Both these species are under the jurisdiction 

of the USFWS.

Table 3.9-1. Summary of the Status, Global Population Size, General Ecology, and General Distribution 

and Movement of Sea Otter and W Indian Manatee

Species

Status*

ESA/MMPA

IUCN/CITES

U.S.

MMPA

Stock

Global

Population

Size* General Ecology

General Distribution/

Migratory Movements

Sea otter T^/-

E/II

California;

S Central 

Alaska

>150,000

Shallow, coastal, kelp 

forests; feeds on abalones, 

sea urchins, crabs.

W North Pacific, central and SE

coastal Alaska, BC, central Calif., 

with small numbers in S Calif.; nonmigratory; local movements.

W Indian

manatee

E/-

VU/I Antilean Unknown

Subtropical and tropical 

freshwater systems, 

shallow nearshore coastal; 

feeds on aquatic plants.

Florida, Greater Antilles, N and E 

South America, Central America, E 

Mexico; possible long-range 

migrations between population 

centers.

Notes: *E = endangered, T = threatened, VU = vulnerable, I = Appendix I, II = Appendix II.

^Southwest Alaska DPS and S California population only.

Sources: Nowak 1999; USFWS 2004a, b; CITES 2010; IUCN 2010.

3.9.1 Overview of Sea Otter and W Indian Manatee

3.9.1.1 Sea Otter

The sea otter is the largest of the mustelids. Male sea otters reach maximum lengths of 4.9 ft (1.5 m) and 

weigh 48-99 lbs (22-45 kg); females are smaller, measuring approximately 4.6 ft (1.4 m) long and 

weighing 33-70 lbs (15-32 kg) (Kenyon 1975; Estes 1980). The sea otter differs from most marine 

mammals in that it lacks an insulating subcutaneous layer of fat. For protection against cold water it 

depends on a layer of air trapped among its hair. The underfur is the densest mammalian fur.

Sea otters mate at all times of the year, and young may be born in any season. However, in Alaska most 

pups are born in late spring. Like other marine mammals, they usually have only one pup during each 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-230

breeding cycle. The female‘s maternal instinct is very strong and she seldom leaves her pup except when 

diving for food. When a mother and pup are traveling, sleeping, or grooming, the pup usually rides its 

mother‘s chest as she floats on her back. Females can produce one pup a year, but in areas where food is 

limited, they may produce pups every other year. Bald eagles prey on newborn pups and killer whales 

may take adults (Doroff et al. 2003; Springer et al. 2003). 

General Distribution and Movements

Sea otters were originally found in coastal waters off Hokkaido, Sakhalin, Kamchatka, the Commander 

Islands, the Pribilof Islands, the Aleutians, S Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, California, 

and western Baja California. Today, there are three recognized subspecies of sea otter. Of the two 

northern sea otter subspecies, the Alaskan sea otter is found in the western North Pacific from the 

Kamchatka Peninsula through the Kuril Islands, and the Northern sea otter is distributed in the 

Commander Islands, the Aleutian Islands, and throughout central and SE coastal Alaskan waters and BC 

waters. The southern sea otter primarily occupies waters off central and more recently south-central 

California (Wilson et al. 1991; Cronin et al. 1996; USFWS 2003a). The USFWS recognizes five stocks in 

U.S. waters under the MMPA guidelines; these include single stocks in California and Washington and 

three in Alaska (Southeast, Southcentral, and Southwest) (USFWS 2005b).

Before commercial exploitation, the worldwide population of sea otters was estimated to be between 

150,000 (Kenyon 1969) and 300,000 (Johnson 1982). Commercial exploitation reduced the total sea otter 

population to as low as 2,000 animals in 13 locations. In 1911, sea otters received protection under the 

North Pacific Fur Seal Convention, and sea otter populations recovered quickly (Kenyon 1969). Sea otters 

were reintroduced into Southeast Alaska from 1965 to 1969 when 412 otters were transplanted from 

Amchitka Island and Prince William Sound, Alaska. As of 2008, it was estimated that there were 73,329

sea otters in three stocks in Alaskan waters: the Southwest Alaska stock with 47,676, the Southcentral 

Alaska stock with 15,090, and the Southeast Alaska stock with 10,563 (Allen and Angliss 2010). 

However, Doroff et al. (2003) reported that sea otters in the Aleutian archipelago declined by 75% 

between 1965 and 2000 (see also Estes et al. 1998; Springer et al. 2003). As few as 6,000 sea otters may 

remain in the Aleutians today (USFWS 2000). On the other hand, both the Southeast and Southcentral 

Alaska stocks appear to be growing (Irons et al. 1988, Pitcher 1989; Agler et al. 1995; Bodkin and 

Udevitz 1999). Several thousand sea otters were killed in Alaska by the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince 

William Sound in 1989, and the detrimental effects of the spill may have persisted into the 1990s (Estes 

and Bodkin 2002). Currently, approximately 2,700 sea otters inhabit California coastal waters (USGS 

2010b), and approximately 2,500 inhabit BC coastal waters (Watson 2000; Sea Otter Recovery Team 

2004). In total, there are now >150,000 sea otters worldwide (Table 3.9-1). 

Sea otters generally occur in shallow (<115 ft [35 m]) nearshore waters in areas with sandy or rocky 

bottoms. They feed on a wide variety of sessile and slow moving benthic invertebrates (Rotterman and 

Simon-Jackson 1988). The sea otter‘s diet varies with the physical and biological characteristics of the 

habitats in which it lives (Table 3.9-1; reviews by Riedman and Estes 1990; Estes and Bodkin 2002). Sea 

otters exhibit individual differences not only in prey choice, but also in choice and method of tool use, 

area in which they tend to forage, and water depth (Riedman and Estes 1990; Estes et al. 2003). In rockybottom habitats, sea otters generally forage for large-bodied prey offering the greatest caloric reward. In 

soft-bottom habitats, prey is smaller and more difficult to find and they feed on a variety of burrowing 

invertebrates. 

Although sea otters are generally found within 0.6 mi (1 km) of shore and in shallow waters (Rotterman 

and Simon-Jackson 1988), in the Aleutians they commonly forage at depths of 131 ft (40 m) or more; the 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-231

maximum recorded dive depth was 318 ft (97 m). Dives are usually short (52-90 sec), with the longest on 

record being 4 min 25 sec. Sea otters can reach swimming speeds of 5.6 mi/hr (9 km/hr) over short 

distances (Estes 1980; Riedman and Estes 1990) and are diurnal, with crepuscular peaks in activity. 

During their typical midday rest period, sea otters often rest in kelp beds, where they also spend the night.

Most sea otters do not migrate and do not disperse over long distances, although some migrate and are 

capable of long-distance movements of >62 mi (100 km) (Garshelis and Garshelis 1984). However, 

movements are likely limited by geographic barriers, high-energy requirements of animals, and social 

behavior. Sea otters are gregarious and may become concentrated in an area, sometimes resting in groups

containing less than 10 to over 1,000 animals. Breeding males drive nonbreeding males out of areas 

where females are concentrated. In some areas, the nonbreeding males will concentrate in ―male areas‖

which are usually off exposed points of land where shallow water extends offshore. 

Important Ecological Considerations

Important ecological considerations for sea otters with respect to activities considered in this analysis are 

the duration and timing of breeding and pupping, as well as the locations of nearshore feeding areas. An 

additional ecological consideration is that little is known about sea otter hearing capabilities, including 

their sensitivity to the low-frequency sound characteristic of seismic surveys (see Section 3.9.1.4).

Status

The SW Alaska DPS (Aleutian Islands, Alaska Peninsula coast, and Kodiak Archipelago) and California 

stocks of sea otters are listed as threatened under the ESA (USFWS 2010) and as endangered on the 

IUCN Red List (IUCN 2010). The species is also in Appendix II of CITES (CITES 2010) and is protected 

under the MMPA (Table 3.9-1). The global population size is estimated at >150,000 and regional 

populations in many areas are poorly known; in areas where population monitoring has been conducted, 

declines have been documented. The primary threats to sea otters include entanglement in fishing gear 

and debris, oil spills, harvesting for pelts, conflicts with commercial fishing interests, and coastal 

development.

3.9.1.2 W Indian Manatee

The W Indian manatee is a rotund, slow-moving animal that ranges in length from 6.9-15 ft (2.1 to 4.6 m) 

(Ripple and Perrine 1999). The back is often covered with distinctive scars from boat propeller cuts. 

There are two subspecies of W Indian manatee: the Florida manatee and the Antillean manatee. 

General Distribution and Movements

W Indian manatees occur in warm, subtropical and tropical waters of the western North Atlantic from the 

SE U.S. to Central and northern South America, the Caribbean, and the West Indies, primarily in 

freshwater systems, estuaries, and shallow, nearshore, coastal waters (Lefebvre et al. 1989). The species 

appears to prefer water above approximately 20oC but can endure water as cold as 13.5oC (Hartman 

1979). Although largely coastal in nature, there is evidence of long-range offshore migrations between 

population centers. In Florida, there are movements to and from warm-water refuge areas during winter. 

Individuals have been caught up to 4.6 mi (15 km) off the coast of Guyana (Husar 1977). Most manatees 

appear to be nomadic and may travel hundreds of miles.

Florida manatees comprise the largest known group of W Indian manatees anywhere in the species‘ 

range. The population size of the Florida manatee is unknown, but aerial surveys provide the highest 

minimum count at 3,276 (in January 2001) (USFWS 2001). The smaller population of Antillean manatees 

occurs in the Greater Antilles, northern and eastern South America, as well as Central America and 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-232

eastern Mexico (Lefebvre et al. 1989). The manatee occurs along the south and east coasts of Puerto Rico 

(Waring et al. 2002). It is also thought to occur in relatively small numbers in the SE Caribbean Sea, 

including Columbia, Venezuela, and Trinidad and Tobago (Reynolds and Odell 1991; InfoNatura 2005). 

Manatees are not found along the extensive coastline of Venezuela, but rather occur in eastern Venezuela, 

along the Gulf of Paria and in the Orinoco River system (Reynolds and Odell 1991). The population of 

Antillean manatees has been estimated at 86 in Puerto Rico and 340 in Belize (Reeves et al. 2002).

Important Ecological Considerations

Important ecological considerations for sirenians with respect to activities considered in this analysis are 

the duration of breeding, and the locations of migration routes and concentrated feeding areas. Although 

largely coastal, manatees could on infrequent occasions be encountered over continental shelf waters deep 

enough for a seismic survey. Occasional long-range migrations by W Indian manatees could place them 

far from shore (Husar 1977). Since sirenians swim slowly just below or at the surface of the water, they 

are vulnerable to collisions with boats. Such collisions account for an average of 24% of known manatee 

deaths in Florida annually (USFWS 2001). 

Status

The W Indian manatee is listed as endangered under the ESA, Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List, and in 

Appendix I of CITES (Table 3.9-1). Detailed population information is lacking; however, declines are 

apparent in many areas (IUCN 2010). The primary threats to manatees include vessel collisions, 

entanglement in fisheries gear and marine debris, hunting, coastal development, and oil spills (Lefebvre et 

al. 1989).

3.9.1.3 Acoustic Capabilities of Sea Otter and W Indian Manatee

Sea Otter. Sea otter vocalizations are considered to be most suitable for short range communication 

among individuals (McShane et al. 1995). Airborne sounds include screams, whines or whistles, hisses, 

deep-throated snarls or growls, soft cooing sounds, grunts, and barks (Kenyon 1975; McShane et al. 

1995). No data are available on the hearing abilities of this species (Table 3.9-2) (Ketten 1998).

W Indian Manatee. Available information indicates that W Indian manatees are capable of detecting 

sounds and low-frequency vibrations from 15 Hz to 46 kHz with best sensitivity at 6-20 kHz (Table 

3.9-2) (Gerstein et al. 1999). A more recent study found that, in one Florida manatee, auditory sensitivity 

extended up to 90.5 kHz (Bauer et al. 2009). Based on measurements of evoked potentials, Bullock et al. 

(1982) reported that manatee hearing is apparently best around 1-1.5 kHz. However, behavioral tests 

suggest that best sensitivities are at 6-20 kHz (Gerstein et al. 1999) or 8-32 kHz (Bauer et al. 2009). The 

ability to detect high frequencies may be an adaptation to shallow water, where the propagation of lowfrequency sound is limited (Gerstein et al. 1999).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-233

Table 3.9-2. Summary of Underwater or In-Air Hearing and Sound Production 

Characteristics of Sea Otter and W Indian Manatee

Sound Production Hearing

Species

Frequency Range

(Hz)

Overall

Frequency Range

(Hz)

Threshold or

Frequency Range of

Best Hearing Sensitivity

(dB re 1 μPa)

Sea otter

In air:

3,000-5,000(a)

2,000-8,000(b)

- -

W Indian manatee -

Underwater:

15-46,000(c)

Underwater:

48-50 (at 6-20 kHz)(a)

8-32 kHz(d)

Note: - = not available/unknown. 

Sources: (a)Richardson et al. 1995a; (b)Ghoul et al. 2009; (c)Gerstein et al. 1999;

(d)Bauer et al. 2009.

3.9.2 Affected Environment: Detailed Analysis Areas (DAAs)

This section summarizes the known region-specific use and unique habitat features for the two species 

that potentially occur within one or more of the five DAAs during the seasons when the exemplary 

marine seismic surveys could occur there (Table 3.9-3). Only the sea otter is found in more than one of 

these DAAs (S California and W Gulf of Alaska). The W Indian manatee is found in only the Caribbean

DAA. The two species are not found within the NW Atlantic and Galapagos Ridge DAAs. Data from 

monitoring conducted during previous NSF-funded seismic surveys are also included as relevant. 

Table 3.9-3. Potential Occurrence of Sea Otter and W Indian Manatee within the DAAs

during the Period of Proposed Exemplary Seismic Surveys

Species

NW Atlantic

(N Sum)*

Caribbean

(N Spr or Sum)*a

S California

(N Spr or Sum)* b

W Gulf of

Alaska

(N Sum)* c

Galapagos

Ridge

(S Sum)*

Sea otter - - BF r? BF u? -

W Indian manatee - BF r - - -

Notes: *(Season) = N or S hemisphere season during which the exemplary seismic cruise would occur within the 

analysis area; Sum = summer. B = known to breed or pup within the area; F = known to feed within the area; 

M = known to migrate through the area; ? = unknown/possible; c = common - the species is expected to be 

encountered once or more during 2-3 visits to the area and the number of individuals encountered during an 

average visit is unlikely to be more than a few 10s; u = uncommon - the species is expected to be 

encountered at most a few times a year assuming many visits to the area; r = rare - the species is not 

expected to be encountered more than once in several years; - = species does not occur there.

Sources: (a)Lefebvre et al. 1989. 

(b)USFWS 2003a; NMFS 1995. (c)Doroff et al. 2003; Angliss and Lodge 2004; L-DEO 

and NSF 2004c, d.

3.9.2.1 Caribbean

One species of sirenian, the W Indian manatee (Antillean subspecies), is expected to occur rarely in the 

Caribbean DAA during the exemplary spring or summer seismic period (Table 3.9-3). The Antillean 

manatee inhabits rivers, estuaries, lagoons, and coastal waters in the Caribbean and along the coasts of 

eastern Mexico and Central America, and northern South America (Waring et al. 2002). It is also thought 

to occur in relatively small numbers in the SE Caribbean Sea, including the coast of Columbia, 

Venezuela, and Trinidad and Tobago (Reynolds and Odell 1991; InfoNatura 2001). Lefebvre et al. (1989) 

indicated that W Indian manatees have a patchy coastal distribution dependent on the availability of 

suitable habitat, including vegetation and fresh water. Few manatees would be expected to occur in 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-234

marine waters >328 ft (100 m) deep. However, long-range migrations by W Indian manatees have 

resulted in sightings of animals 9 mi (15 km) off the coast of Guyana (Husar 1977).

3.9.2.2 S California

Of the species considered in this section, only the sea otter may occur within the shallow coastal or island 

waters of the S California DAA during the spring; during summer, these sea otters, unlike most other sea 

otter populations, migrate (north) out of the area (Table 3.9-3) (Estes et al. 2006). The southern sea otter 

historically ranged from N California or Oregon to approximately Punta Abreojos, Baja California 

(Kenyon 1975). Harvest of sea otters during the 1700s and 1800s reduced the species throughout its 

range. In 1914, the total California population was estimated to be approximately 50 animals (California 

Department of Fish and Game 1976). The 2010 California population is currently estimated at 

approximately 2,700 otters (USGS 2010b). 

The geographic range of the California sea otter population continues to expand to the north and south 

(Estes et al. 2006). The present normal range is between Half Moon Bay and Point Conception along the 

coast of central and southern California (Leatherwood et al. 1978; Gallo-Reynoso and Rathbun 1997; 

USFWS 2003a). However, individuals frequently travel southward beyond Point Conception. The 

southward boundary of the current range represents a seasonal redistribution of several hundred otters 

believed to be predominantly non-territorial males (Estes et al. 2006). The majority of these otters gather 

during the winter/spring near Cojo Cove, approximately 3 mi (5 km) southeast of Point Conception. 

During summer and autumn, these individuals are believed to rejoin the main population to the north; 

however, their exact whereabouts are not known (Estes et al. 2006). This population ranges along the 

mainland coast from Pt. Ano Nuevo, Santa Cruz County, south to Purisima Point, Santa Barbara County. 

Also, a small translocated population currently exists at San Nicolas Island, Ventura County. The initial 

translocation of sea otters to San Nicolas Island occurred in August 1987 (NMFS 1995). Counts of sea 

otters at San Nicolas Island during 1994 and 1995 ranged between 10 and 17 individuals. Sea otters have 

also been reported at San Clemente Island (Leatherwood et al. 1978).

Southern sea otters breed and give birth in California year round. However, breeding is not highly 

synchronous and the birth peak may extend over several months (Siniff and Ralls 1991; Riedman et al.

1994). Sea otters in California prefer rocky shoreline with kelp beds, although this is not an essential 

habitat requirement (Riedman and Estes 1990; USFWS 2003a). They more often associate with giant kelp 

as opposed to bull kelp. Individuals seldom range >0.6-1.2 mi (1 to 2 km) from shore; however, some 

individuals, particularly juvenile males, travel farther offshore (Riedman and Estes 1990; Ralls et al. 

1995, 1996; USFWS 2003a). The width of habitat they occupy is defined by the intertidal zone and 

extends offshore to about the 328-656-ft (100-200-m) isobath (Bodkin and Udevitz 1999; Bodkin 2003). 

However, most individuals occur between the shore and the 65-ft (20-m) isobath (Riedman and Estes 

1990; USFWS 2003a), and are therefore expected to be rare within the S California DAA. 

3.9.2.3 W Gulf of Alaska

The northern sea otter is expected to be uncommon in the W Gulf of Alaska DAA during the exemplary 

summer seismic period (Table 3.9-3). There are currently an estimated 73,329 sea otters in three stocks in 

Alaskan waters: the Southwest Alaska stock with 47,676, the Southcentral Alaska stock with 15,090, and 

the Southeast Alaska stock with 10,563 (Allen and Angliss 2010). The Southwest Alaska DPS that 

potentially occurs within the DAA is listed as threatened under the ESA (USFWS 2005b). Sea otters in 

Alaska are generally not migratory and do not disperse over long distances. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-235

Doroff et al. (2003) reported that sea otters in the Aleutian Archipelago declined by as much as 75% 

between 1965 and 2000 (see also Estes et al. 1998; Springer et al. 2003). The eastward extent of the 

decline lies somewhere between the Kodiak Archipelago and Prince William Sound. In 2000, the 

minimum population size for the Aleutian Islands was estimated at 8,742 (Doroff et al. 2003). The major 

cause of the decline in the Aleutians appears to be predation by killer whales (Estes et al. 1998; Doroff et 

al. 2003). 

An NSF-funded L-DEO seismic survey conducted in the Aleutian Islands in July-August 2005 (Ireland et 

al. 2005) reported no sightings of sea otters, but this survey generally avoided shallow areas where otters 

would be most likely to occur. Several sightings of sea otters were made during NSF-funded L-DEO 

seismic surveys in the eastern Gulf of Alaska in the summer of 2005 (MacLean and Koski 2005) and the 

fall of 2008 (Hauser and Holst 2009).

3.9.3 Affected Environment: Qualitative Analysis Areas (QAAs)

This section summarizes the known region-specific use and occurrence of sea otters and W Indian 

manatees within the eight QAAs (as indicated in Section 3.9.1.1, no other sirenians are likely to occur in 

the more offshore exemplary analysis areas). Among the eight exemplary QAAs, only one (BC Coast) 

contains one of the two species (sea otter) addressed in this section (Table 3.9-4). 

Table 3.9-4. Potential Occurrence of Sea Otter and W Indian Manatee within the QAAs during the 

Period of Proposed Exemplary Seismic Surveys

Species

N

Atlantic/

Iceland

(N Sum)*

BC

Coast

(N Fall)*(a)

SW

Atlantic

(Any)*

Mid-Atlantic

Ridge

(N Spr, Sum,

or Fall)*

W

India

(N Late Spr

Or Early Fall)*

W

Australia

(S Spr or

Fall)*

Mariana

Islands

(N Spr)*

SubAntarctic

(S Sum)*

Sea otter - F M c - - - - - -

W Indian

manatee - - - - - - - -

Notes: *(Season) = N or S hemisphere season during which the exemplary seismic cruise would occur within the analysis area; F = 

known to feed within the area; Sum = summer, Spr = spring. M = known to migrate through the area; c = common: the 

species is expected to be encountered once or more during 2-3 visits to the area and the number of individuals encountered 

during an average visit is unlikely to be more than a few 10s; - = species does not occur there.

Sources: (a)Watson 1993, 2000; Sea Otter Recovery Team 2004.

3.9.3.1 BC Coast

The sea otter is expected to be common in the BC Coast QAA during the exemplary fall seismic period 

(Table 5.10-4). Sea otters once occupied most of the nearshore habitats of the Pacific Rim from Mexico to 

Japan but were largely extirpated by hunting (Sea Otter Recovery Team 2004). A total of 89 otters from 

California were reintroduced to BC from 1969 to 1972. They now occur mainly off Vancouver Island, but 

are also found 78 mi (125 km) north near the Goose Island Group, within the BC Coast QAA. The Goose 

Island Group is presently the only part of the study area occupied by sea otters. The BC population has 

grown by an average of 18.6% per year, exceeding 1,500 otters by 1995 and is presently estimated to be 

approximately 2,500 individuals: 2,000 along Vancouver Island and 500 along the central coast (Watson 

2000; Sea Otter Recovery Team 2004). Sea otters occur in nearshore waters in groups (―rafts‖) of up to 

100 individuals, usually segregated by sex and age class. Those groups typically consist of females and 

pups or of males (Watson 1993).

Habitat use varies with weather and ocean conditions. Off Vancouver Island, otters move somewhat 

offshore during extended periods of favorable weather and congregate in sheltered inshore areas during 

storms (Sea Otter Recovery Team 2004). The most suitable potential otter habitat occurs on the outer 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-236

west coast of Vancouver Island, on the mainland coast north of Vancouver Island (including the analysis 

area), and around the Queen Charlotte Islands (Sea Otter Recovery Team 2004); however, sea otters do 

not presently occur around the Queen Charlotte Islands. Mating occurs year-round and peak pupping 

occurs in March and April (Watson 1993).

Under the requirements of the Canadian Species at Risk Act, DFOC formed a recovery team to develop 

and implement a National Recovery Strategy and Action Plan for the Sea Otter in BC (DFOC 2004a). In 

addition to recovery planning this act also prohibits killing, harming, harassing, capturing, and taking sea 

otters, and damaging or destroying sea otter residences and any part of the sea otter‘s  ̳critical habitat‘. 

The Canadian designation of critical habitat is ongoing and is presently incomplete. The sea otter is listed 

as a species of Special Concern by COSEWIC. 

3.9.4 Environmental Consequences – General

The following sections provide a general synopsis of the potential effects on sea otters and W Indian 

manatees from sounds and activities associated with the proposed seismic survey operations (due to 

limited data on W Indian manatees, the only sirenian expected to possibly occur in the project areas, the 

discussion also includes other sirenian species). Existing information on the impacts of seismic survey 

and other sounds on these species is sparse to non-existent. Data are generally limited to a small number 

of individuals. Furthermore, studies conducted in captivity have typically involved sounds presented to 

the subjects in air rather than in water (with the exception of sirenians). For analysis purposes, project 

effects are assessed at the individual level and the population level. Prior to discussing potential effects, 

the criteria and approach used to assess effects are described. This is followed by a comparison of the 

overlap between the sound frequencies of acoustic sources used in seismic surveys with presumed and 

documented hearing sensitivity of sea otters and manatees (Section 3.9.1.5 and Table 3.9-2). Acoustic and 

non-acoustic effects are then described below.

3.9.4.1 Criteria and Approach

The ability to apply empirically-based criteria in assessing impacts of project-related underwater sound on 

sea otters and sirenians is limited by our very limited understanding of their hearing sensitivities when 

compared to the other marine mammals addressed in this analysis. What is known about hearing 

sensitivity is based upon a few studies on in-air sound production in sea otters, or underwater auditory 

capability of the manatee, and knowledge of their auditory anatomy (Table 3.9-2). Sea otters are known to 

produce in-air sounds of 2 to 8 kHz (Ghoul et al. 2009). Underwater hearing of manatees is reported to 

extend from 15 Hz to 46 kHz; Gerstein et al. (1999) noted that the most sensitive hearing is at 6 to 20 

kHz. While these species are presumed to be capable of hearing sounds they produce, they likely also hear 

some sounds at lower or higher frequencies. 

With such limited data, it is not possible to determine how far away a particular airgun array may be audible 

to sea otters or manatees. Furthermore, it is not possible to identify sound exposures above which TTS, PTS, or 

injury could occur. For analyses in this PEIS, a more precautionary criterion of 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) has 

been adopted as the ―do not exceed‖ sound level criterion for the sea otter and W Indian manatee so as to 

prevent potential physical injury. 

3.9.4.2 Sound Sources and Characteristics

The sparse information available suggest that sea otters and W Indian manatees have best hearing 

sensitivity and/or produce most of their sounds, at frequencies higher than those predominantly produced 

by airguns (see Section 3.9.4.1). Most of the energy in the sound pulses emitted by airgun arrays is at low 

frequencies, with strongest spectrum levels below 200 Hz, considerably lower spectrum levels above 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-237

1000 Hz, and small amounts of energy emitted up to approximately 150 kHz (Goold and Fish 1998; Sodal 

1999; Goold and Coates 2006; Potter et al. 2007) (Appendix E). The predominant low frequencies of 

airgun sound appear to be below what little is known about the frequencies most important to sea otters 

and W Indian manatees, but these frequency ranges overlap.

Sea otters and manatees are known or likely to use the mid- to high frequencies produced by most of the 

MBESs and SBPs. The MBES proposed for the Langseth is the Kongsberg EM122 which operates in the 

range of approximately 10.5–13 (usually 12) kHz (rms) with a maximum source level of approximately

242 dB re 1 μPa-m (rms) (Table 2-5). The other MBESs proposed for other project vessels also operate 

near this frequency range (12–15.5 kHz), with maximum source levels of approximately 234 to 237 dB re 

1 μPa-m (rms) (Table 2-5). These frequencies overlap the known or suspected frequency sensitivity range 

of manatees and possibly sea otters, and are within the range of greatest sensitivity reported for manatees 

(see above and Table 3.9-2). The other two MBESs proposed for use operate at 30 and 95 kHz (Table 2-

5). The 30-kHz MBES is presumably inaudible to sea otters and is certainly audible to manatees. In 

contrast, the 95 kHz MBES is well above the known or suspected frequency range of both species (Table 

3.9-2). 

The SBPs associated with the proposed seismic activities operate in the MF range of approximately 3.5 

kHz, with a maximum source output of 222 dB re 1 μPa-m (rms). This frequency range is within the 

known or suspected frequency band audible to sea otters in air and manatees underwater (Table 3.9-2). 

The peak output of the omnidirectional pingers used for multi-streamer 3-D surveys is 183 dB re 1 μPa-m 

at 55–110 kHz, with a maximum rate of 3 pings per 10 sec. Sounds from these pingers are within the 

upper known hearing range of manatees (Table 3.9-2). In addition, the battery-powered coring pingers 

produce omnidirectional 12-kHz signals with a source output of approximately 192 dB re 1 μPa-m with 

one ping of 0.5, 2, or 10 ms duration per second. This source frequency is within the frequency range 

known or presumed to be audible to the W Indian manatee and probably audible to sea otters as well 

(Table 3.9-2).

Ship engines and the vessel hull itself emit broadband sounds at frequencies and amplitudes that would 

allow them to be heard by all the species underwater (Table 3.8-2). The source level of vessel sound 

would be considerably less than that of the airguns, MBESs, and SBPs, but vessel sound (unlike those 

other sources) would be emitted continuously (Richardson et al. 1995a). 

In summary, airgun and vessel sounds are presumably audible to sea otters and especially manatees 

underwater, although sea otters may be less sensitive to the predominant low frequencies produced by 

these sound sources than they are to mid- to high-frequency sounds. Sound frequencies produced by the 

SBPs, pingers and all but one of the planned MBESs overlap the range of manatee hearing; thus W Indian 

manatees can presumably hear these sounds if sufficiently close. In-air sound production by sea otters 

overlaps all but the highest-frequency MBESs and pingers. 

Types of effects that the aforementioned sound sources could potentially have on sea otters and sirenians 

(and thus W Indian manatees) are described below and summarized in Table 3.9-5. In general, the 

potential for adverse effects from exposure to the project sound sources can be reduced by implementing 

mitigation and monitoring program. Short-term behavioral effects are possible to the sea otter and W 

Indian manatee during exemplary seismic survey operations, although such effects may be reduced for 

sea otters as they do not appear to rely heavily on underwater communication and spend considerable 

time out of water. Regardless, with effective mitigation, no adverse effects are expected on the viability of 

any populations of these species. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-238

Table 3.9-5. Summary of Known and Anticipated General Effects of Seismic Survey Sounds on Sea 

Otters and W Indian Manatees

Species Masking Disturbance TTS

Injury

or PTS

Other

Physiological

Effects Comments

Sea otter Unknown,

unlikely.

Yes –

Short term. No No No No studies available.

W Indian

manatee

Yes –

Short term.

Yes –

Short term.

Unknown Unlikely Unlikely

Potential for limited impacts 

due to overlapping frequency 

of sources (seismic and SBP) 

and manatee hearing.

3.9.4.3 Acoustic Effects

The following sections discuss the types of potential acoustic effects that may occur to sea otters and W

Indian manatees exposed to sounds similar to those proposed for the project, including airgun pulses, MF 

and HF echosounder signals, and other anthropogenic sounds, based on the limited available data. Further 

discussion of these topics can be found in Appendix E.

Masking

Masking effects of seismic pulses are expected to be negligible in the case of sea otters due to their use of 

in-air calls rather than underwater calls. Masking of sirenian calls by pulsed sounds, such as those from 

airguns, is expected to be limited given the intermittent nature of the pulses. In addition, the low 

frequencies that dominate seismic survey sounds do not fall within the most sensitive hearing range of 

sirenians. W Indian manatees are presumed to be capable of hearing the airgun sounds; however, this does 

not necessarily mean that those sounds will have any appreciable masking effects. Furthermore, W Indian 

manatees are closely associated with seagrass beds in shallow coastal waters and exemplary seismic 

activity would not be conducted in this habitat in the one analysis area where they occur (SE Caribbean 

DAA). Recent modeling and field verification studies on underwater sound transmission loss relative to 

manatee habitat off Florida found that sounds attenuated more quickly in seabed habitat than in dredged 

areas, particularly for sounds at frequencies less than 2 kHz such as the dominant sounds from vessels 

(Miksis-Olds and Miller 2006). Manatees, particularly mothers with calves, may be selecting quieter 

habitats that attenuate high noise levels, facilitating their ability to tolerate high noise levels and meet 

nutritional needs while foraging in seagrass beds (Miksis-Olds and Miller 2006; Gannon et al. 2007). 

These studies suggest that the potential for masking of manatee sounds by seismic and other relatively 

low-frequency anthropogenic sounds is reduced in seagrass foraging habitats.

Masking effects due to the MBES, SBP, or pinger signals are expected to be minimal or non-existent 

given their low duty cycles, the brief period when an individual mammal would potentially be within the 

downward-directed MBES or SBP beam from a transiting vessel, and the relatively low source level of a 

pinger. Manatees are very unlikely to occur in water deep enough to be within the beam of an MBES or SBP 

from a seismic vessel passing nearby. Masking effects in general are discussed further in Appendix E.

Disturbance

Very few studies have been conducted on the effects of seismic survey activities on sea otters, and no 

such studies on sirenians are known. Thus, summaries of vessel effects are also included in the review of 

relevant literature below (also see Appendix E). 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-239

The behavior of sea otters along the California coast was monitored while they were exposed to a single 

100-in3airgun and a 4,089-in3array (Riedman 1983, 1984). No disturbance reactions were evident when 

the airgun array was as close as 0.55 mi (0.9 km) and sea otters did not respond noticeably to the single 

airgun. These results suggest that sea otters may be less responsive to marine seismic survey pulses than 

other marine mammals such as mysticetes and odontocetes as discussed above. Also, sea otters spend a 

great deal of time at the surface feeding and grooming (Riedman 1983, 1984). While at the surface, the 

potential exposure of sea otters to underwater sound would be much reduced by the pressure-release 

effect at the surface (Greene and Richardson 1988; Richardson et al. 1995a).

We are unaware of any studies on the impacts of airgun sounds or other project-related sounds on 

manatees. However, a few studies have reported effects of vessels on manatees (see review in Appendix 

E). Manatees have been found to reduce their use of important habitats when continually disturbed by 

boats in some areas (Provancha and Provancha 1988). In other areas such as the Belize River, manatee 

density is higher in areas with the greatest boat traffic (Auil 2004). According to Aragones (1990), 

dugongs in Calauit in the Philippines appear to have adapted to boat disturbance by concentrating their 

feeding between dusk and dawn when boat traffic and/or fishing activities are low. In Florida, manatees 

may select habitats where underwater vessel sounds are reduced (Miksis-Olds and Miller 2006; MiksisOlds et al. 2007).

Given the above varied results, it is possible that individual W Indian manatees (and to a lesser extent sea 

otters) could respond to seismic pulses, including at times localized avoidance or other short-term 

behavioral reactions. However, we are not aware of any information that would indicate that these species 

show more than localized avoidance of marine activity as described above and in Appendix E. Sea otters, 

in particular, are apparently not very responsive to airgun pulses.

There are currently no data on the potential disturbance effects of echosounders, such as MBESs and 

SBPs, on sea otters or sirenians (see Appendix E). Based on the likely brevity of exposure to these sound 

sources, reactions are expected to be limited to startle or otherwise brief responses of no lasting 

consequence to the animals. The signals from the SBP are somewhat weaker than those from the MBES. 

Therefore, behavioral responses are not expected unless animals are very close to the source. NMFS 

(2001b) has concluded that momentary behavioral reactions ―do not rise to the level of taking‖. Thus, 

brief exposure of the species considered here to small numbers of signals from echosounders would not 

result in a ―take‖ by harassment as defined by NMFS and the ESA (see Chapter 1).

Temporary Hearing Impairment or TTS

TTS is possible when marine mammals are exposed to high-level sounds (Southall et al. 2007). TTS 

thresholds associated with exposure to brief pulses (single or multiple) of underwater sound have not been 

measured in sea otters or sirenians. Several aspects of the monitoring and mitigation measures that have 

and would be implemented during NSF-funded seismic surveys are designed to detect marine mammals 

occurring near the airgun array to avoid exposing them to sound pulses that might cause hearing 

impairment (see Section 2.4). In addition, many marine mammals are likely to show some avoidance of 

the area with ongoing seismic operations (see Appendix E). In these cases, the avoidance response of the 

animals themselves reduces the possibility of hearing impairment.

TTS is considered highly unlikely to occur in sea otters as a result of project activities. TTS in sirenians is 

also considered unlikely as sirenians tend to inhabit quite shallow coastal habitats whereas proposed 

seismic surveys would be located further offshore.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-240

The project MBESs, SBPs, and pingers are not expected to induce TTS. See mysticete Sections 3.7.4.3

for further assessment based on operating characteristics of the project MBES, SBPs, and pingers.

Injury

Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)

There is no specific evidence that exposure to airgun pulses (even with large airgun arrays) or echosounders

can cause PTS in any marine mammal. However, given the possibility that some types of marine mammals 

close to an airgun array might incur TTS, there has been further speculation about the possibility that some 

individuals occurring very close to airguns might incur PTS. There have been no such studies involving sea 

otters or sirenians. Given that project activities are unlikely to cause TTS in the marine mammals 

considered in this section, and given the higher level of sound necessary to cause PTS as compared with 

TTS (Southall et al. 2007), PTS is not expected to occur through exposure of these species to airgun 

sounds. 

Strandings and Mortality

No mortalities or strandings of sea otters or manatees have been linked to acoustic sources that would be 

used during the proposed seismic surveys (see Section 3.9.4 and Appendix E). Some individual marine 

mammals are likely to avoid an approaching seismic vessel and associated acoustic sources. Based on that

likely avoidance, and the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures designed to minimize potential 

impacts, no strandings or mortality of these species are expected during the proposed marine seismic 

surveys within the analysis areas.

Other Physiological Effects

Non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that might, in theory, occur in marine mammals exposed to 

high-level underwater sound include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, and other types of 

organ or tissue damage (Cox et al. 2006; Southall et al. 2007; see Appendix E). To date, there have been 

no studies on the potential physiological effects of airgun or echosounder sounds on sea otters or 

sirenians. Marine mammals that show behavioral avoidance of seismic or other vessels, as documented for 

some manatees, are especially unlikely to incur auditory impairment or other physiological effects.

3.9.4.4 Other Potential Effects

Entanglement

Entanglements occur when cables, lines, nets, or other objects suspended in the water column or on the 

bottom become wrapped around marine mammals. Sea otters and sirenians are known to be vulnerable to 

entanglements with fishing gear (Lance et al. 2004; Estes 1990; USFWS 1993; Estes et al. 2003; Wendell 

et al. 1985), although it is considered highly unlikely that they could become entangled in seismic gear. 

During seismic operations, numerous cables, lines, and other objects primarily associated with the airgun 

array and hydrophone streamers will be towed behind the survey ship near the water‘s surface. No cases 

of entanglement of any marine mammals with this gear have been documented during previous NSFsponsored seismic surveys. The tendency of many marine mammals to avoid approaching seismic vessels 

(in contrast with their tendency to congregate around fishing vessels) presumably reduces the risk of 

entanglement. The typical nearshore, shallow-water distribution of sea otters and W Indian manatees also 

further reduces the likelihood that they would occur close to proposed seismic survey equipment in 

generally deeper offshore waters.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-241

Ingestion

An oil/fuel spill associated with the planned program is considered a highly unlikely event given the strict 

adherence to related regulations and safety protocols. Mortality associated with the ingestion of chemicals 

or marine debris has been documented in sea otters and manatees (e.g., Geraci and St. Aubin 1990). Oil 

spills and their associated impacts (e.g., death, habitat degradation, prey contamination and death) 

represent a significant anthropogenic threat to these species, but NSF‘s or USGS‘s proposed operations 

carry very little risk of causing such effects.

Sea otters can be adversely impacted by oil spills when oil compromises the insulative property of their 

fur, by inhaling volatile oil components, and through ingestion while grooming, resulting in gastrointestinal disorders and death (Geraci and Williams 1990; Bonnell et al. 1996).

Sirenians are expected to be less vulnerable to oil spills due to their lack of insulating fur and thus their 

inability to ingest oil by intense fur grooming. However, sirenians have reportedly died following 

ingestion of fishing gear and other materials, although mortality from such causes is very low (USFWS 

2001).

Ship Strikes

Ship strikes are not known to be a significant cause of sea otter mortality (Lance et al. 2004). However, 

the relatively slow-moving sirenians are known to be at great risk of mortality from boat strikes. For 

example, in Florida, the largest known cause of manatee deaths is collisions with the hulls and/or 

propellers of boats and ships (Wright et al. 1995). From 1976 to 2000, watercraft-related deaths accounted 

for 24% of the total mortality and were increasing at an average rate of 7.2% per year (Ackerman et al. 

1995; USFWS 2001; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, unpublished data). Watercraftrelated deaths were much lower in 1992 and 1993, but increased thereafter. From 1996 to 2000, 

watercraft-related deaths were the highest on record (USFWS 2001). Dugongs are vulnerable to ship 

strikes when feeding in shallow water (State of Queensland, Environmental Protection Agency 1999).

Though sirenians are susceptible to vessel strikes, sirenians are unlikely to be encountered at the water 

depths where proposed seismic survey activities would occur.

3.9.5 Environmental Consequences – Alternative A and Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)

Alternatives A and B consist of a combination of monitoring and mitigation measures developed in 

consultation with NMFS and designed to minimize the potential effects of NSF-funded or USGS seismic 

survey operations on marine mammals, including sea otters and W Indian manatees (Sections 2.6.1 and 

3.7.5). An additional mitigation measure specific to these species under the action alternatives is the 

precautionary adoption of 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) as the sound level criterion to which exposure should be 

avoided to prevent potential physical injury. Thus, the acoustic assessment criterion for analysis of 

Alternative A consists of evaluating the potential for sea otters and W Indian manatees to be exposed to 

received levels ≥180 dB re 1 μPa (rms). The estimated distances to the unweighted (i.e., not M-weighted) 

180-dB re 1 μPa (rms) isopleth in each of the DAAs can be found in Appendix B, Tables B-7 – B-12. 

These radii were estimated based on results of the site-specific acoustic modeling conducted for the 

analysis areas. However, because there are few reliable data on the at-sea distribution and density of sea 

otters and W Indian manatees, it is not possible to estimate the numbers of these species that may be 

potentially exposed to sound levels ≥180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) in any of the analysis areas. Therefore, only 

qualitative estimates of the relative numbers of sea otters and W Indian manatees that may be exposed to 

airgun sounds during the proposed seismic surveys can be made. Furthermore, these estimates are based 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-242

on limited or sometimes non-existent data on the occurrence, abundance, and distribution of these marine 

mammals in the analysis areas addressed.

3.9.5.1 Acoustic Effects

This section summarizes the various types and levels of potential acoustic effects on sea otters and W 

Indian manatees in the analysis areas during the seismic surveys under Alternative A or B. Assessment of 

effects is based on the review provided in the previous section and Appendix E. Anticipated effects are 

summarized in Table 3.9-6.

Masking

The potential for masking attributable to NSF-sponsored seismic surveys is expected to be limited and 

short-term for sea otters and sirenians in the three DAAs and one QAA where they occur (Table 3.9-6): 

airgun sounds are intermittent with a low duty cycle, and much of the airgun sound energy is below and 

outside the frequency range of best hearing or sound production by these species. Masking by project 

sounds is unlikely to cause adverse effects to sea otters given their primary reliance on in-air 

communications and the pulsed nature of the main project sounds. The potential for masking of manatee 

sounds is considered minimal given the intermittent and short-duration nature of project sounds. 

Furthermore, this species occurs only in the SE Caribbean analysis area where it tends to inhabit shallow 

coastal waters with seagrass beds, and project activities are not anticipated to occur in such areas (i.e., 

surveys would occur in deeper offshore waters). The potential for masking effects for both species is 

expected to be limited to no more than a small number of individuals in the short term, with no significant 

effects on populations.

Disturbance

Short-term Level B exposure involving behavioral disturbance and/or localized avoidance would be the 

primary type of effect resulting from the seismic surveys under Alternative A or B. Anticipated short-term 

impacts would be limited to very small numbers of sea otters and W Indian manatees depending on the 

analysis area and other factors as described below, especially given the mitigation measures such as 

immediate power- or shut-downs and ramp-ups (Table 3.9-6). In general, seismic operations in or near 

analysis areas where sea otters or sirenians are common and where large airgun arrays are proposed for 

use in shallow water are likely to have the greatest relative potential for acoustic impacts (as described in 

Chapter 2 and Appendix B). The sea otter is found in only two of the DAAs (S California and W Gulf of 

Alaska), and the W Indian manatee occurs only in the Caribbean DAA (Table 3.9-3). Within the eight 

QAAs, sea otters are known to occur in one (BC Coast), while W Indian manatees do not occur in any of 

the QAAs (Table 3.9-4). Although dugongs occur in shallow protected coastal waters of W Australia, 

they are not expected to occur in the more offshore waters of the exemplary W Australia QAA

Within the two DAAs where sea otters may be encountered, a large airgun array is proposed for use in 

intermediate to deep water (W Gulf of Alaska) and a small airgun array is proposed in shallow to 

intermediate-depth water (S California) (Table 2-11). In addition, in the BC Coast QAA, sea otters may 

occur where a large airgun array is proposed in shallow and intermediate-depth waters. Sea otters spend 

most of their time at or near the water surface, favor shallow coastal waters, and rarely range >0.6-1.2 mi

(1-2 km) from shore. These factors serve to reduce any potential impacts of the proposed seismic surveys 

on sea otters. Furthermore, sea otters did not react strongly upon exposure to airgun pulses in a study off 

California (Riedman 1983, 1984). Close encounters with sea otters in both DAAs are expected to be 

infrequent due to the relatively low population of sea otters and their largely coastal, shallow-water 

distribution in these areas. In the BC Coast QAA, sea otters would be present during the exemplary fall 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-243

seismic period, but would be concentrated in nearshore habitats that would be largely avoided by the 

survey vessel. 

The W Indian manatee is found only in the Caribbean DAA where a large airgun array is proposed for use 

in water depths ranging from shallow to deep. This species is expected to occur only rarely in the specific 

area of the exemplary project (Table 3.9-3). The species has a patchy coastal distribution in this DAA and 

is usually confined to nearshore waters <330 ft (<100 m) deep. Therefore, few manatees are expected to 

occur close enough to the proposed vessel track for sound levels would reach levels that could result in 

behavioral disturbance

Because sea otters are ESA-listed as threatened and W Indian manatees are endangered (Table 3.9-1), and 

because short-term Level B exposure of these species may occur under Alternative A or B, the proposed 

activities may affect and are likely to adversely affect these species (3.9-6). However, the potential 

disturbance of relatively small numbers of these individuals during the planned seismic survey activities 

is not expected to result in significant impacts to their populations.

Temporary Hearing Impairment or TTS

TTS is not likely for sea otters near proposed seismic operations as they spend most of their time at or 

near the water surface. TTS is also unlikely for W Indian manatees in the one analysis area where they 

occur (SE Caribbean DAA) as they inhabit primarily shallow coastal seagrass beds where seismic 

activities are not planned to occur. Furthermore, the probability that a sea otter or W Indian manatee

would approach close enough, and remain there long enough, for TTS to occur is reduced through 

application of the planned monitoring procedures and mitigation measures. These measures include rampups, and immediate power- or shut-downs. Moreover, TTS is (by definition) a temporary phenomenon 

that does not constitute injury, and is very unlikely to have long-term consequences for the individual(s) 

involved. No significant impacts to populations of sea otters or W Indian manatees are expected to occur 

under Alternative A or B as a result of potential TTS (Table 3.9-6).

Injury

Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)

The possibility of PTS occurring during the proposed seismic surveys within the analysis areas is less 

than the already-low possibility of TTS, since an individual would need to receive more sound energy to

experience PTS. It is considered unlikely that a sea otter or W Indian manatee would approach close 

enough (and remain there long enough) for PTS to occur. In addition, proposed seismic surveys within 

the analysis areas with sea otters or W Indian manatees are not expected to be conducted in the coastal 

nearshore habitats favored by these two species. Furthermore, monitoring procedures and mitigation 

measures, such as immediate power- or shut-downs when marine mammals are sighted within the safety 

radii, would further reduce the possibility of PTS in the unlikely event that it might otherwise occur. In 

general, PTS is not expected to occur during exposure to brief intermittent sound pulses associated with 

the proposed project acoustic sources. 

Strandings and Mortality

Strandings or mortalities of sea otters or sirenians have not been linked to airgun or echosounder sounds 

that would be used during the proposed seismic surveys (e.g., Richardson et al. 1995a; see Appendix E). 

It is considered highly unlikely that strandings or mortalities of these species would occur as a result of 

the exemplary airgun surveys, especially when mitigation and monitoring is implemented (e.g., shut-
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-244

downs, power-downs, ramp-ups, etc.). Furthermore, some individuals are expected to avoid close 

approaches to the airguns. 

Other Physiological Effects

Under Alternative A, no other physiological effects on sea otters or W Indian manatees are expected as a 

result of proposed seismic activities, as described in Section 3.9.4.3.

3.9.5.2 Other Potential Effects

Under Alternative A or B, the potential for non-acoustic effects (entanglement, ingestion, and ship 

strikes) is considered very unlikely, as described in Section 3.8.4.4. Visual monitoring procedures further 

reduce the risk of entanglement or ship strike because, during daylight, observers watch for any marine 

mammals near the vessel and equipment. No related significant impacts on sea otter or W Indian manatee 

populations are anticipated under Alternative A or Alternative B. 

3.9.6 Environmental Consequences – Alternative C (No-Action Alternative)

Under the No-Action Alternative, NSF-funded or USGS marine seismic research surveys using various 

acoustic sources (e.g., airguns, MBESs, SBPs, and pingers) would not occur. Therefore, baseline 

conditions would remain unchanged and there would be no impacts to sea otters or W Indian manatees

with implementation of Alternative C.

3.9.7 Summary of Environmental Consequences – Sea Otter and W Indian Manatee

In summary, Alternatives A and B may result in minor short-term and localized behavioral disturbance of 

individual sea otters and W Indian manatees (Table 3.9-6). The number of individuals of these species

estimated to be closely approached during the proposed seismic surveys is expected to be very small to 

none and limited to the three DAAs and one QAA where they occur (Table 3.9-6). No PTS or other 

potential injury of these species is anticipated during an actual seismic survey under Alternative A or B

with proposed mitigation and monitoring measures. No short- or long-term significant impacts are 

expected on ESA-listed species populations or their habitats as a result of implementation of Alternative 

A or B. Alternative C would have no impacts on the species considered here because the project would 

not occur.

Sounds from some of the MBESs and SBPs are within the frequency ranges detectable to W Indian

manatees and presumed detectable to sea otters. Short-term behavioral disturbance of these species may 

occur during proposed seismic activities. However, no Level A exposures are expected. W Indian 

manatees typically inhabit quite shallow coastal areas characterized by seabeds where seismic surveys are 

not proposed to occur. Furthermore, the intermittent and downward-directed nature of the echosounder 

signals emitted from the transiting seismic vessel would result in no more than one or two brief ping

exposures to an animal that happened to occur under the vessel. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-245

Table 3.9-6. Summary of Potential Impacts to Sea Otter and W Indian Manatee with 

Implementation of Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)

Analysis Area Species Alternative A or B

DAA

Caribbean West Indian

manatee

Potential short-term disturbance and localized displacement of individuals 

possible, but species unlikely to occur in areas where seismic surveys would 

occur. Potential for TTS unknown, considered possible close to airguns but 

highly unlikely to occur. No significant impacts or adverse effects expected 

on individuals or regional populations.

S California Sea otter Potential short-term disturbance and localized displacement of individuals 

possible, but species unlikely to occur in areas where seismic surveys would 

occur. Potential for TTS unknown, considered possible close to airguns but 

highly unlikely to occur. No significant impacts or adverse effects expected 

on individuals or regional populations.

W Gulf of Alaska Sea otter Potential short-term disturbance and localized displacement of individuals 

possible, but species unlikely to occur in areas where seismic surveys would 

occur. Potential for TTS unknown, considered possible close to airguns but 

highly unlikely to occur. No significant impacts or adverse effects expected 

on individuals or regional populations.

QAA

BC Coast Sea otter

Potential short-term disturbance and localized displacement of individuals 

possible, but species unlikely to occur in areas where seismic surveys would 

occur. Potential for TTS unknown, considered possible close to airguns but 

highly unlikely to occur. No significant impacts or adverse effects expected 

on individuals or regional populations.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-246

3.10 SOCIOECONOMICS

In accordance with NSF policy and EO 12114, socioeconomic activities are addressed for the three DAAs 

that are located within the 200-nm (370-km) EEZ of the U.S. (NW Atlantic, S California, and W Gulf of 

Alaska). The three other DAAs and the eight QAAs are not discussed in this section because they are 

outside of the U.S. EEZ.

Socioeconomics comprise the basic attributes and resources associated with the human environment, 

particularly economic activity and social welfare. Data were collected for socioeconomic characteristics 

within each of the DAAs including: commercial fisheries, commercial shipping, research and exploration 

activities, subsistence hunting and fishing, recreational fishing, and recreational boating (e.g., diving, 

whale watching, etc.). All of these activities may not occur in each of the DAAs examined.

Commercial fisheries activities are measured by the amount of fish landed annually and the dollar value 

of that catch. Commercial shipping is represented by the number of vessel trips to and from ports nearest 

the DAAs. Research and exploration activities usually involve academic and U.S. government 

oceanographic research and oil and gas exploration. The economic and cultural value of subsistence 

hunting and fishing is described in terms of the types of fish and marine mammals that are taken. Where 

applicable, recreational fishing is expressed in dollar value, number of recreational fishing trips, or 

amount of fish caught. Finally, a description is provided for recreational boating within the DAAs in 

addition to the types of activities conducted during recreational boat trips.

3.10.1 Affected Environment

3.10.1.1 NW Atlantic

Socioeconomic characteristics of the NW Atlantic DAA are largely reflected in commercial and 

recreational activities that occur along the coastline and offshore areas of New Jersey and New York. 

Commercial Fisheries

New Jersey. New Jersey generally ranks in the top 10 states nationally in terms of total pounds and dollar 

value of commercial fish and shellfish landed. In 2004, the dockside value of commercial fish landings in 

New Jersey was almost $146 million for 188 million pounds (Table 3.10-1). Some of the more important 

commercially fished species include bluefish, striped bass, black sea bass, silver hake, porgy, menhaden, 

Atlantic mackerel, monkfish, tuna, fluke, weakfish, squid, lobster, blue crab, and scallops (NOAA 

Fisheries 2006a). 

Table 3.10-1. Pounds and Value of Landings for New Jersey

Commercial Fisheries (2001-2004)

Year Pounds Value

2001 168,540,752 $110,246,318

2002 162,138,648 $112,708,180

2003 170,133,407 $120,671,702

2004 187,827,273 $145,937,709

Source: NOAA Fisheries 2006a.

New York. Commercial fishing ports are located along the South and North shores of Long Island from 

Brooklyn and the Bronx in New York City to the eastern tip of the Island‘s North and South Forks (New 

York Seafood Council 2004). 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-247

The dockside value of commercial fish landings in New York was more than $46 million in 2004, down 

from a high of $55 million in 2001 (Table 3.10-2). Some of the more important commercially fished 

species include silver hake, porgy, whiting, tilefish, summer flounder, fluke, squid, lobster, surf clam, 

hard clam, and scallops (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 2006). 

Table 3.10-2. Pounds and Value of Landings for New York 

Commercial Fisheries (2001-2004)

Year Pounds Value

2004 34,519,376 $46,901,150

2003 39,435,432 $51,655,997

2002 38,595,483 $51,345,058

2001 42,459,833 $55,187,128

Source: NOAA Fisheries 2006a.

The commercial fishing ports of New York host a diverse assemblage of fishing vessels. Vessels range 

from small 15-ft clam boats that work in nearshore bays to large 90-ft deep-sea trawlers or longliners that 

often fish hundreds of miles from shore in the Atlantic Ocean (New York Seafood Council 2004).

Commercial Shipping

Due to their location along the NW Atlantic coast, New Jersey and New York are important commercial 

shipping centers. New York/New Jersey has the largest port complex on the east coast of North America 

and is located at the hub of the most concentrated consumer market in the world (The Port Authority of 

New York and New Jersey 2006). 

Major freight traffic in the ports of New York/New Jersey consists primarily of petroleum, petroleum 

products, inedible crude materials (e.g., forest products, soil, rock, iron ore, etc.), manufactured 

equipment and machinery, primary manufactured goods, and food and farm products. Over 380,000 

vessel trips were recorded for the New York/New Jersey port area in 2004 (U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers [USACE] 2006a).

In addition to the ports of New York/New Jersey, commercial shipping from the Delaware River is also 

within the vicinity of the NW Atlantic DAA. The Delaware River and Bay is home to the fifth largest port 

complex in the United States in terms of total waterborne commerce. Every year, over 70 million tons of 

cargo move through the tri-state (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware) port complex. It is the second 

largest oil port in the United States, handling about 85% of the East Coast‘s oil imports (University of 

Delaware 2004). Major freight traffic in the Delaware River and Bay consists primarily of petroleum, 

petroleum products and primary manufactured goods. Over 44,000 vessel trips were recorded for the New 

Delaware River port area in 2004 (USACE 2006a).

Research and Exploration Activities

Oceanographic Research. The European Consortium for Ocean Research Drilling (ECORD) has 

undertaken a program of international research in Earth science since 1968 with the DSDP and later, from 

1985 to 2003, the ODP. Begun in October 2003, Europe and Canada, jointly with the U.S. and Japan, 

have helped to shape research using scientific ocean drilling with the Initial Science Plan for the IODP. 

This program involves several drilling platforms for advanced sampling of the ocean floor and provides a 

critically needed data-base for understanding the complex functioning of the Earth system. ECORD

completed a drilling program on the New Jersey Shallow Shelf, referred to as Expedition 313, between 

April and July 2009 (Figure 3.10-1) (ECORD Science Operator 2010). 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-248

Source: ECORD 2008. 

Figure 3.10-1. ECORD Drilling on the New Jersey Shallow Shelf

Oil and Gas Production. There is currently a moratorium on oil and gas leasing activities on the Outer 

Continental Shelf in the region of the NW Atlantic DAA. This moratorium has been in effect since 1982 

and is included annually in Department of the Interior appropriations acts. President Clinton extended the 

moratorium through 2012.

Subsistence Hunting and Fishing

Subsistence hunting and fishing is not known to occur in New Jersey or in its coastal waters (New Jersey 

Historic Preservation Office 2006). 

Recreational Fisheries

Recreational fisheries also play an important role in New Jersey‘s economy. In 1991, about 950,000 

people spent more than $630 million fishing in New Jersey‘s waters, generating more than $44 million in 

state sales tax. This resulted in $400 million in earnings and supported 16,750 jobs. In 2004, recreational 

fishing landed over 10 million pounds of fish (NOAA Fisheries 2006b). Although no dollar value was 

offered for the 2004 recreational landings, combined commercial and recreational fish revenues generate 

about $2 billion annually in the State of New Jersey (NJDEP 2006b). The majority of recreational fishing 

in the State of New Jersey was conducted using private charters and approximately 2 million trips were 

conducted in 2004 (NOAA Fisheries 2006b). 

Recreational Boating

Tourism is one of New Jersey‘s largest industries. It brings in more than $5.5 billion in tax revenues, 

provides jobs to more than 836,000 people and generates more than $16.6 billion in wages. Much of the 

tourism revenues are generated as a result of summer-oriented activities associated with New Jersey‘s 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-249

shoreline and beach areas. These activities include scuba diving, boating, fishing, and marine mammal 

watching, which occur primarily close to shore and not within the DAA. 

3.10.1.2 S California

Socioeconomic characteristics of the S California DAA are largely reflected in commercial and 

recreational activities that occur along the coastline and offshore areas of Santa Barbara, California. 

Commercial Fisheries

A summary of the reported poundage and value of commercial fish landings in the Santa Barbara area 

from 2001-2004 is presented in Table 3.10-3. Out of eight major ports in the Santa Barbara area, the ports 

of Hueneme and Ventura landed the largest total poundage of commercial fish species in the Santa 

Barbara area (California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG] 2006a). The major commercially fished 

species and a calendar of commercial fishing open seasons are listed in Table 3.10-4. 

Table 3.10-3. Pounds and Value of Landings for Santa 

Barbara Area Ports (2001-2004)

Year Pounds Value

2001 109,956,541 $17,600,165

2002 62,086,380 $17,232,731

2003 60,373,854 $22,906,278

2004 77,883,986 $24,258,956

Source: CDFG 2006a.

Table 3.10-4. Major Commercially Fished Species in S California DAA

Species Season

Surf perch September – April 30

White seabass July – March 14

Spiny lobster October 4 – March 21st

Clams September 1 – April 30

Dungeness crab (pots and traps) December 1 – July 15

Spot prawn February 2 – October 30 

Coonstripe shrimp (trapping) May 1 – October 30

California halibut Open All Year Long

Pink shrimp (trawling) April 1 – October 31

Ridgeback prawn (trawling) October 1 – May 30 

Sea urchin Seasons vary

King salmon (Chinook) Regulated by Federal Government

Silver salmon (coho) Regulated by Federal Government

Pacific halibut Regulated by Federal Government

Source: CDFG 2006b.

Commercial Shipping

Commercial shipping in the S California DAA is dominated by cargo transports, oil tankers, and tow/tugs 

(U.S. Navy 2002). Information was obtained for the following port areas that are located closest to the S 

California DAA. 

 Port of Los Angeles – the Port of Los Angeles features 26 cargo terminals, including dry and 

liquid bulk, container, breakbulk, and automobile and omni facilities (Port of Los Angeles 

2006). 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-250

 Port Hueneme – The Port of Hueneme is the only deep water harbor between Los Angeles 

and the San Francisco Bay area and the main commodities moved through the port include: 

automobiles, fresh fruit and produce, and forest products. Its unique positioning near the 

Santa Barbara Channel has also made the Port of Hueneme the primary support facility for 

the offshore oil and gas industry in California‘s Central Coast area (Port of Hueneme 2006).

 Santa Barbara Harbor – the Santa Barbara Harbor is home to over 1,000 pleasure and 

commercial vessels, providing access to the Channel Islands, the open seas, and the last 

harbor before rounding Point Conception (Sailor‘s Choice 2006).

Over 26,000 vessel trips were recorded for these three ports in 2004, with the Port of Los Angeles making 

up over 74% of the trips. Vessels traveling inbound and outbound of the Port of Los Angeles and Port 

Hueneme are primarily passenger or dry cargo vessels, but the Port of Los Angeles also has a 

considerable amount of tanker traffic compared to Port Hueneme (USACE 2006b).

Research and Exploration Activities

Oceanographic Research. Research and exploration activities off the coast of S California have been 

extensive. Various seismic surveys have been conducted and study programs have been developed by 

research institutes, the USGS, and the MMS. For example, the USGS conducted multibeam mapping in 

the eastern Santa Barbara Channel in August 2004 aboard the R/V Ewing. The survey was funded by 

MMS, whose staff are interested in maps of hardbottom habitats, particularly natural outcrops that support 

reef communities in areas affected by oil and gas activity (USGS 2005).

The MMS Environmental Studies Program supplies the scientific and technical information needed to 

predict, assess, and manage the potential impact of OCS activities on the marine, coastal, and human 

environments. The MMS focuses studies in this region to assess and manage ongoing operations and 

predict the effects of future decommissioning of offshore facilities. Cooperative research programs have 

been established with the State of California; the University of California-Santa Barbara, -San Diego, and 

-Berkley; SIO; and various federal agencies to address physical, chemical, and biological oceanography;

atmospheric studies; marine mammals, fisheries, turtle and seabird studies; and studies of the sociology 

and economic factors and impacts related to OCS and marine mineral activities (MMS 2003). 

Oil and Gas Production. Santa Barbara County and its offshore areas have been an oil and gas producing 

region for over a century. Oil production in Santa Barbara County, including offshore production landed 

in the county, reached a high of almost 69 million barrels in 1995. The focus in production has shifted 

from onshore and near-shore fields to fields underlying federal waters 3 or more miles from shore. 

Currently, there is one platform located 2.1 mi (3.3 km) from shore and there are 19 platforms in the OCS 

ranging from 3.7-10.5 mi (6-17 km) offshore. These platforms are positioned in water depths ranging 

from 154 to 1,075 ft (47 to 328 m) (County of Santa Barbara 2006). 

Subsistence Hunting and Fishing

Subsistence hunting and fishing may occur to a limited degree, but it is not extensive enough for the 

CDFG to keep official records (CDFG 2006c). 

Recreational Fishing

Southern California is the leading recreational fishing area along the U.S. Pacific Coast. Modes of 

recreational fishing include shore and pier activities, as well as private and charter boats. Inner waters 

from Santa Barbara to Point Conception are lined with kelp beds and reefs that provide recreational 

fishing opportunities for kelp bass, yellowtail, bonito, rockfish, barracuda, and other fish. The Channel 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-251

Islands sport fishing areas are concentrated around the offshore kelp beds and reefs and open ocean south 

of Anacapa and Santa Cruz islands (U.S. Navy 2002).

The California Recreational Fisheries Survey (CRFS) is the new method for estimating total marine 

recreational finfish catch and effort in California. The 2005 Annual Review of the CRFS shows that 

approximately 48,000 angler trips occurred in the Channel District, which includes Santa Barbara and 

Ventura counties. The amount of fish caught by marine recreational anglers, for all possible species of 

fish and for all modes of fishing in the Channel District, was 642,000 pounds (CDFG 2006d).

Recreational Boating

The Santa Barbara Channel and the associated California Channel Islands are used by the public for many 

recreational purposes including boating, diving, bird watching, and whale watching, all of which are 

important to the local economy. Recreational diving at shipwrecks around the Channel Islands is very 

popular and is discussed in Section 3.12. 

3.10.1.3 W Gulf of Alaska

The socioeconomic characteristics of the W Gulf of Alaska DAA are mainly influenced by the 

commercial and recreational activities that occur in the Chignik Management Area, which includes the 

south side of the Alaska Peninsula from Kodiak to the Aleutian Islands. 

Commercial Fisheries

Fishing is the basis of the cash economy for the W Gulf of Alaska, including Kodiak, Chignik, and the 

Aleutian Islands. Table 3.10-5 lists the pounds and value of commercial landings for the Kodiak, Chignik, 

and the Aleutian Islands from 2001-2004. 

Table 3.10-5. Pounds and Value of Landings for W Gulf of 

Alaska Ports (2001-2004)

Year Pounds Value

2001 103,830,000 $28,419,000

2002 104,193,000 $18,805,000

2003 100,443,000 $23,893,000

2004 126,560,000 $26,851,000

Source: ADFG 2006b.

The commercial salmon season in Chignik, Kodiak, and the Aleutian Islands is open by regulation from 1 

June to 31 October. However, the actual in-season fishing time and area is regulated via emergency order 

(ADFG 2006c). The type of gear varies, using purse seines in Chignik, and seines or gillnets in Kodiak 

and the Aleutian Islands. The herring season is open for sac roe from 15 April through 30 June and for 

food and bait from 15 August through 28 February, using trawl, seine, or gillnet. 

Commercial Shipping

Commercial shipping data are available for two ports within the W Gulf of Alaska DAA: Kodiak Harbor 

and Unalaska Island. Approximately 2,500 vessel trips originated within these two ports in 2004. The 

primary vessels in the Kodiak Harbor are passenger or dry cargo (65%) and tug (20%). Vessels traveling 

inbound and outbound of Unalaska Island are also primarily passenger or dry cargo vessels, but Unalaska 

Island has more tanker traffic compared to Kodiak Harbor (USACE 2006b).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-252

Research and Exploration Activities

Oceanographic Research. No oceanographic research is taking place in the W Gulf of Alaska DAA at 

this time (MMS 2006b). 

Oil and Gas Production. Currently, there is no oil and gas production in the W Gulf of Alaska DAA or 

offshore state and federal waters (MMS 2006b). The last well drilled in 1983 gave no indications of oil 

and gas in this area. As a result, oil companies have not shown an interest in conducting exploration in 

this area. Furthermore, the Western Gulf of Alaska has been excluded from the MMS 5-year oil and gas 

leasing program in Alaska for over 15 years. 

Subsistence Hunting and Fishing

Subsistence fishing and hunting is common in the W Gulf of Alaska DAA, specifically in the Chignik 

village network, which consists of Chignik, Chignik Lagoon, and Chignik Lake. Ocean waters in the 

vicinity of Chignik are abundant with fish species that have both subsistence and commercial value to 

Chignik residents, including all five species of Pacific salmon, halibut, herring, Pacific cod, and smelt. A 

wide variety of invertebrates are found in the region, including octopus, crab, clams, and mussels. Seal oil 

and/or seal fat are subsistence foods used by many Chignik Natives. Over 25% of household diets in 

Chignik consist of subsistence-harvested proteins. Seafood resources rather than land mammals make up 

the majority of the subsistence foods consumed by the people of Chignik (MMS 1993). 

Recreational Fishing and Boating

Due to its remoteness and distance from land, the W Gulf of Alaska DAA is not generally used for 

recreational fishing or boating activities. 

3.10.1.4 Summary of Socioeconomic Activities

A summary of the socioeconomic activities within each of the four DAAs is presented in Table 3.10-6.

Table 3.10-6. Summary of Socioeconomic Activities within the DAAs

Activity

DAA

NW Atlantic S California W Gulf of Alaska

Commercial Fisheries Large Large Large

Commercial Shipping Large Large Small

Research & Exploration Extensive Extensive None

Subsistence Hunting/Fishing None Limited Extensive

Recreational Fishing/Boating Large Large Uncommon

3.10.2 Environmental Consequences

This section addresses the potential impact to commercial fisheries, commercial shipping, research and 

exploration activities (including oil and gas), and recreational fishing and boating that could result from 

implementing the proposed seismic survey activities in the three DAAs within the U.S. EEZ.

Commercial Fisheries. Commercial fishing could be affected by seismic surveys in three ways:

 Seismic surveys could cause behavioral changes in target species that could make them more 

difficult to catch.

 Survey vessels and towed cables could temporarily preclude fishers from productive fishing 

grounds.

 Survey vessels and towed cables could interfere with commercial fishing gear.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-253

Fish can undergo three types of potential effects when exposed to underwater seismic sounds: 

pathological, physiological, and behavioral. Proposed seismic surveys are not likely to cause either 

pathological or physiological effects to fish. This is primarily because the pathological (mortality) zone 

for fish would be expected to be within a few meters of the seismic source. Moreover, primary and 

secondary stress responses of fish after exposure to seismic survey sound (physiological) appear to be 

temporary (see Section 3.3.4 and Appendix D). Instead, potential impacts to commercial fisheries are 

more likely from behavioral effects to fish from sounds associated with the seismic surveys.

There is a general concern about the potential reduction in the catchability of fish due to behavioral 

effects to fish from seismic survey operations, including changes in distribution, migration, and 

reproduction. Disturbances to fish populations and distributions could result in reduced catch of one or 

more target species for the duration of seismic survey operations. For some fish species, behavioral 

changes from seismic survey operations may result in changes in vertical or horizontal distribution. 

However, for some fisheries, there has been no significant effect on distribution or evidence of reduced

catch rates (Table 3.3-6). Short-term behavioral effects to fish resulting from seismic surveys would be 

localized and not expected to significantly impact commercial fisheries (Section 3.3.4).

Preclusion of fishers from productive fishing grounds constitutes a space-use conflict. The size of the area 

precluded to fishing would depend upon the overall area of the geophysical survey. Seismic information 

is collected along predetermined tracklines that form a larger spatial grid. Typically, the seismic vessel 

operates on a 24-hour basis, for 2 to 8 weeks, towing as many as four parallel streamers that are up to 3.7 

mi (6 km) long. These vessels operate under a ―restricted ability to maneuver‖ designation, which means 

other vessels in the path of the survey vessel must give way. Further, because of the length of the 

hydrophone array, the survey vessel requires considerable turning room between tracklines. Thus, the area 

precluded to fishing would extend beyond the planned geophysical survey area when appropriate 

allowances are made for maneuvering the vessel.

The degree of impact would depend upon the relative mobility of the fishing operation (MMS 2004). 

Fixed gear such as traps is most vulnerable, and mobile gear such as hook-and-line fishing from drifting 

(or trolling) boats is least vulnerable. Common fishing practices such as bottom trawling, purse netting, 

and surface longlining would also be vulnerable. These gear types are not very mobile and require 

considerable time to deploy and retrieve. The potential for conflicts would increase with increasing water 

depth along with decreasing mobility of fishing vessels.

Surface currents and wind greatly influence the movement of longlines and other drifting gear (e.g., gill 

nets and purse nets) and must be taken into account when assessing potential impacts. A longline 

deployed upstream of a geophysical survey grid could drift into the path of the survey vessel. Surface 

longlines are generally allowed to drift for 4-5 hr before a 10- to 12-hr retrieval period (MMS 2004). 

Minimizing potential adverse effects on fisheries can generally be accomplished through adjusting 

tracklines and timing of surveys.

Commercial Shipping. Preclusion of cargo or other commercial ships from shipping lanes constitutes a 

space-use conflict. As previously stated, seismic research vessels operate under a ―restricted ability to 

maneuver‖ designation, which means other vessels in the path of the survey vessel must give way. 

Further, because of the length of the hydrophone array, the survey vessel requires considerable turning 

room between tracklines. Thus, the shipping lanes precluded to cargo ships could extend beyond the 

planned survey areas when appropriate allowances are made for maneuvering the vessel. However, 

proposed seismic surveys would use one vessel for a survey that would operate for a limited duration. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-254

Moreover, commercial shipping vessels would be notified of research activities in advance of any seismic 

surveys. 

Research and Exploration Activities. The proposed seismic surveys have the potential to impact other 

research and exploration activities by altering marine faunal behavior, obscuring natural marine seismic 

occurrences, and interfering with other seismic research or exploration efforts. Coordination with other 

researchers would minimize or eliminate the potential for interference with other marine research and 

exploration activities.

Subsistence Hunting and Fishing. Seismic surveys areas are usually in deeper waters while subsistence 

hunting and fishing generally occur closer to the shore. However, the proposed seismic surveys could 

impact the behavior of both fish and marine mammals, which could affect subsistence hunting and 

fishing. Seismic surveys would be planned to minimize potential impacts to marine mammals and fish.

This will include avoidance of breeding, rearing, or feeding areas critical to the reproductive success of 

the population for those species of concern. 

Recreational Fishing. Impacts to recreational fishing would typically be similar to those described for 

commercial fishing. However, since most recreational fishing utilizes mobile gear such as hook-and-line 

fishing from drifting (or trolling) boats, the potential for impacts would generally be less than those 

described for commercial fishing operations.

Recreational Boating. Impacts to recreational boating would typically be similar to those described for 

commercial shipping. However, since recreational boats are generally smaller in size than commercial 

cargo ships, and can easily avoid the seismic research vessel, potential impacts to recreational boating 

would generally be less than those described for commercial shipping.

3.10.2.1 Alternative A and Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)

NW Atlantic

Commercial Fishing. Commercial fisheries in the NW Atlantic DAA could experience temporary, 

localized reduced catch for some fish species. Survey vessels and towed cables could potentially interfere 

with commercial fishing gear for the duration of the seismic survey, which ranges from days to months. 

Overall, the impact on commercial fisheries under Alternative A would not be significant because the 

potential effects of seismic survey sounds on fisheries would likely be temporary and localized during the 

period of seismic survey operations (see Section 3.4.5). Minimizing potential impacts to commercial 

fisheries, due to interference with fishing grounds or fishing gear, could be accomplished through 

adjustments to tracklines and timing of surveys. During the planning phase of proposed seismic surveys, 

NSF and the project proponents or USGS would schedule and  ̳fine-tune‘ the ship track, as best as 

possible, to minimize potential adverse impacts to critical life stages of species of concern including fish 

and marine invertebrates. Communication with fishers during the surveys would serve to further minimize 

any potential impacts.

Commercial Shipping. At least three commercial shipping lanes occur within the NW Atlantic DAA. 

However, seismic research activities would take place in deeper waters of the Atlantic shelf. Commercial 

shipping vessels would be notified of research activities in advance of any surveys. Proposed seismic 

surveys under Alternative A or Alternative B would not result in significant impacts to commercial 

shipping because of the limited duration of the surveys and prior notification to commercial vessels.

Research and Exploration Activities. Coordination with other researchers and the oil and gas industry 

would minimize or eliminate the potential for interference of the proposed NSF-funded or USGS seismic 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-255

surveys with other marine research activities. Therefore, proposed seismic surveys under Alternative A or 

Alternative B would not result in significant impacts to research and exploration activities.

Subsistence Hunting and Fishing. Since there are no subsistence hunting and fishing areas in the NW 

Atlantic DAA, the proposed seismic research surveys would have no impact on these resources.

Recreational Fishing. Impacts to recreational fishing could occur within the NW Atlantic DAA from 

proposed seismic surveys. As previously discussed regarding potential impacts to commercial fisheries, 

impacts would primarily be related to potential short-term behavioral changes of fish due to acoustic 

sources associated with the seismic surveys. Also, survey vessels could interfere with recreational fishing 

gear. However, most recreational fishing utilizes mobile gear such as hook-and-line fishing from drifting 

(or trolling) boats, which is less prone to disruption from marine seismic surveys. Therefore, there would 

be no significant impacts to recreational fishing with implementation of Alternative A or Alternative B.

Recreational Boating. Impacts to recreational boating could occur within the NW Atlantic DAA. 

However since recreational boats are generally small in size, stay closer to shore than the proposed survey 

area, and can easily avoid the research vessel, there would be no significant impacts to recreational 

boating with implementation of Alternative A or Alternative B.

S California

Commercial Fisheries. There are more than 14 major commercially fished species in the S California 

DAA. These commercial fisheries could experience temporary localized reduced catch for some fish 

species. Survey vessels and towed cables could potentially interfere with commercial fishing gear for the 

duration of the seismic survey, which ranges from days to months. Overall, the impact on commercial 

fisheries under Alternative A would not be significant because the potential effects of seismic survey 

sounds on fisheries would likely be temporary and localized during the period of seismic survey 

operations (see Section 3.4.5). Minimizing potential impacts to commercial fisheries, from interference 

with fishing grounds or fishing gear, could be accomplished through adjustments to tracklines and timing 

of surveys. During the planning phase of proposed seismic surveys, NSF and the project proponents or 

USGS would schedule and ‘fine-tune‘ the ship track, as best as possible, to minimize potential adverse 

effects to critical life stages of species of concern including fish and marine invertebrates. 

Communication with fishers during the surveys would serve to further minimize any potential impacts.

Despite other numerous research and exploration activities and commercial shipping throughout the S 

California DAA that may affect catchability, the number of fish landings have steadily increased in this 

area since 2000. Implementation of Alternative A or B would not result in significant impacts to 

commercial fisheries in the S California DAA.

Commercial Shipping. Commercial shipping vessels would be notified of research activities in advance of 

any surveys to allow for adjustments to shipping routes and schedules. It is anticipated that if the 

proposed seismic survey vessel were in the Channel when commercial vessels were in route, that the 

commercial vessels would avoid the seismic survey vessel. Impacts to commercial shipping would not be 

significant under Alternative A or Alternative B. 

Research and Exploration. The proposed seismic survey could potentially affect other concurrent 

oceanographic research activities and oil and gas exploration. Under Alternative A or Alternative B, 

significant impacts to research and exploration would not occur because coordination would take place 

with other researchers to prevent overlapping schedules and interference with other research or 

exploration.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-256

Subsistence Hunting and Fishing. There is no known subsistence fishing and hunting in the S California 

DAA. Therefore, the proposed seismic survey would have no impact on subsistence activities. 

Recreational Fishing. Southern California is the leading recreational fishing area along the U.S. Pacific 

Coast. The proposed seismic surveys may cause temporary and localized changes in fish behavior, which 

could result in reduced catch. However, recreational fishermen could select alternate locations away from 

the seismic survey vessel, without substantially affecting their activities. Impacts to recreational fishing 

under Alternative A or B would not be significant. 

Recreational Boating. The proposed seismic survey under Alternative A or B would not have a significant 

impact on recreational boating because most recreational boaters would select an alternate route without 

substantially affecting their activities. 

W Gulf of Alaska

Commercial Fisheries. Commercial fishing remains the basis of the cash economy in the W Gulf of 

Alaska DAA. These commercial fisheries could experience temporary, localized reduced catch for some 

fish species. Survey vessels and towed cables could potentially interfere with commercial fishing gear for 

the duration of the seismic survey, which ranges from days to months. Overall, the impact on commercial 

fisheries under Alternative A or Alternative B would not be significant because the potential effects of 

seismic survey sounds on fisheries would likely be temporary and localized during the period of seismic 

survey operations (see Section 3.4.5). Minimizing potential impacts to commercial fisheries, from 

interference with fishing grounds or fishing gear, could be accomplished through adjustments to 

tracklines and timing of surveys. During the planning phase of proposed seismic surveys, NSF and the 

project proponents or USGS would schedule and  ̳fine-tune‘ the ship track, as best as possible, to 

minimize potential adverse effects to critical life stages of species of concern including fish and marine 

invertebrates. Communication with fishers during the surveys would serve to further minimize any 

potential impacts.

Commercial Shipping. The vessel traffic in the waters of the W Gulf of Alaska DAA is limited to 

passenger or dry cargo vessels and tugboats. Seismic surveys under Alternative A or Alternative B would 

not result in significant impacts to commercial vessel traffic because surveys would use one vessel that 

would operate for a limited duration. Moreover, commercial vessels would be notified of research 

activities in advance of any seismic surveys. 

Research and Exploration. Currently, there is no oceanographic research or oil and gas production in the 

W Gulf of Alaska DAA. Therefore, proposed seismic surveys under Alternative A or Alternative B would 

not impact other research programs or exploration.

Subsistence Hunting and Fishing. Subsistence fishing and hunting is common in the W Gulf of Alaska 

DAA, specifically in the Chignik village network, which consists of Chignik, Chignik Lagoon, and 

Chignik Lake. Ocean waters in the vicinity of Chignik are abundant with fish species that have both 

subsistence and commercial value to Chignik residents. The majority of the hunting of marine mammals 

occurs close to shore by subsistence hunters, while the seismic source vessel is expected to conduct the 

seismic survey farther offshore. 

Seismic surveys may potentially cause temporary changes in fish behavior and therefore, can reduce 

catchability. However, most fishing occurs close to shore and the proposed seismic survey would be 

further offshore. Therefore, given that the planned seismic survey is far offshore of hunting and fishing 

areas, proposed seismic surveys under Alternative A or Alternative B would have no significant impact 

on the availability of marine mammals or fish for subsistence harvest. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-257

Recreational Fishing and Boating. The W Gulf of Alaska is somewhat of a remote area particularly in the 

area of the proposed seismic survey. Recreational fishing and boating is expected to be minimal within 

the DAA. Therefore, no significant impacts to recreational fishing and boating are anticipated under 

Alternative A or Alternative B. 

3.10.2.2 Alternative C (No-Action Alternative)

Under the No-Action Alternative, NSF-funded or USGS marine seismic research surveys would not 

occur. Therefore, baseline conditions would remain unchanged and there would be no impacts to 

socioeconomics with implementation of Alternative C.

3.10.3 Summary of Environmental Consequences

Based on available information, there would be no significant impacts to socioeconomics with 

implementation of Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) within the exemplary analysis 

areas (Table 3.10-7). 

Table 3.10-7. Summary of Potential Impacts to Socioeconomics with Implementation of 

Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)

Analysis Area Alternative A or Alternative B

NW Atlantic

 Temporary, localized reduced fish catch to some species – not significant to commercial 

fisheries.

 No significant impacts to commercial shipping, research and exploration activities, 

subsistence hunting and fishing, and recreational fishing and boating.

S California

 Temporary, localized reduced fish catch to some species – not significant to commercial 

fisheries.

 No significant impacts to commercial shipping, research and exploration activities, 

subsistence hunting and fishing, and recreational fishing and boating.

W Gulf of

Alaska

 Temporary, localized reduced fish catch to some species – not significant to commercial 

fisheries.

 No significant impacts to commercial shipping, research and exploration activities, 

subsistence hunting and fishing, and recreational fishing and boating.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-258

3.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES

In accordance with NSF policy and EO 12114, cultural resources are addressed for the three DAAs that 

are located within the 200-nm (370-km) EEZ of the U.S. (NW Atlantic, S California, and W Gulf of 

Alaska). The three other DAAs and the eight QAAs are not discussed in this section because they are 

outside of the U.S. EEZ.

Background research and inventories of cultural resources located within each of the DAAs were 

consulted to assist in complying with NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) of 1966, as amended, and as implemented by 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 of NHPA requires 

federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties before undertaking a project. 

A historic property is defined as any prehistoric or historic site, building, structure, object, or district 

included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

Criteria set forth in federal regulation 36 CFR Part 60 are used to evaluate whether a property is eligible 

for listing in the NRHP. To qualify for listing in the NRHP, a site, building, structure, object, or district 

generally should be at least 50 years old; must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, 

workmanship, feeling and association; and must meet one of the four following criteria:

 Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our 

history.

 Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.

 Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that 

represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a 

significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.

 Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

The types of cultural resources applicable to the offshore locations of the DAAs include prehistoric and 

historic archaeological resources and traditional cultural properties. 

Archaeological resources are sites ―where the remnants of a past culture survive in a physical context that 

allows for the interpretation of these remains‖ (Little et al. 2000). Sites may include surface or subsurface 

elements of cultures from prehistory (pre-contact with Europeans) or history (post-contact). The material 

cultural remains may consist of artifacts (e.g., fragments of tools, arrow points, ceramic vessels), features 

(e.g., remnants of foundations, hearths, trash middens), or other materials (e.g., ecological remains). 

Archaeological sites present within the proposed DAAs may include submerged isolated artifacts from 

prehistoric or historic voyages, and historic shipwrecks.

Traditional cultural properties are sites, districts, buildings, structures, or objects associated with the 

cultural beliefs, practices, or customs of a living community that are ―rooted in that community‘s history, 

and are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community‖ (Parker and King 

1998). Traditional cultural properties may include locations of historic events, locations where sacred or 

ceremonial rituals, practices, or activities are or were performed, locations associated with the traditional 

beliefs or history of a cultural group, traditional hunting or gathering areas of economic and cultural 

importance, and sources of raw materials used to produce tools or sacred objects. The community may 

consider these properties significant to the cultural values, identity, and persistence of their traditional 

culture.

Like other cultural resources, the significance of traditional cultural properties is evaluated by applying 

the NRHP Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR Part 60). These criteria primarily must be applied through 

consultation with the cultural group to which the property may have traditional cultural significance. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-259

Consultation with other affected cultural groups also may be necessary to establish the significance of the 

property. Traditional cultural properties that potentially occur in the DAAs may include subsistence 

hunting and fishing areas of cultural groups, and locations where Native Americans performed ceremonial 

activities.

3.11.1 Affected Environment

3.11.1.1 NW Atlantic

Archaeological Resources

There are no recorded archaeological sites in the NW Atlantic DAA. The New Jersey State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO) does not have any information on cultural resources beyond 3 mi (4.8 km) 

of the shoreline. However, there is the potential that prehistoric archaeological sites may be present in the 

DAA on the continental shelf. At the beginning of the Early Archaic period 10,000 years ago, the relative 

sea level was approximately 81 to 85 ft (25 to 26 m) lower than at present and the New Jersey shoreline 

extended approximately 50 mi (80.5 km) beyond its current position (New Jersey SHPO 2006). 

Prehistoric archaeological deposits could potentially exist if landforms beneath the seafloor are well 

preserved.

There is also the potential for historic archaeological resources in the NW Atlantic DAA. The Automated 

Wreck and Obstruction Information System (AWOIS) is a catalogue of reported submerged shipwrecks 

and obstructions in U.S. coastal waters. This database indicates 29 shipwrecks and obstructions are within 

the DAA (NOAA 2006). Additional data sources maintained by the recreational scuba diving community 

in the New Jersey area estimate the number of shipwreck sites off the coast of New Jersey to be between 

4,000 to 7,000 (New Jersey Scuba Diver 2006). The majority of these wrecks are located along the 

coastline and are not within the NW Atlantic DAA. 

Traditional Cultural Resources

There are no known traditional cultural properties or subsistence use areas in the NW Atlantic DAA. 

Because the DAA is more than 25 mi (40 km) offshore, it is unlikely that any traditional cultural 

properties would be present (New Jersey SHPO 2006). 

3.11.1.2 S California

Archaeological Resources

Little information is available on submerged prehistoric archaeological sites in the S California DAA. 

However, there is the potential that prehistoric archaeological sites may be present in the DAA. Native 

California peoples settled in villages along the Pacific coast. Along the Santa Barbara Channel, coastal 

groups developed watercraft for widespread trading expeditions, including travel to the Channel Islands to 

get steatite to make bowls and effigies. At least 25 individual artifact sites from prehistoric seafaring have 

been reported between Ventura Beach and Point Conception (Foster 2004).

Historic archaeological resources in the S California DAA consist of submerged shipwrecks and one 

submerged aircraft. Two shipwreck databases were consulted to identify reported shipwreck sites in this 

DAA. The NOAA AWOIS indicates numerous reported shipwrecks in the DAA (NOAA 2006). All but 

one of these sites is within 5 mi (8 km) of the coast. 

The California State Lands Commission‘s (CSLC) online database of California shipwrecks was also 

searched for known shipwreck sites. The database includes 69 shipwrecks in Santa Barbara County, 41 of 

which are in the S California DAA. The earliest of these shipwrecks occurred in 1846, and the most 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-260

recent in 1968. The most common causes of the wrecks were burning, collision, or stranding (CSLC 

2006). 

Traditional Cultural Resources

The California Native American Heritage Commission was contacted to identify any potential traditional 

cultural properties in the S California DAA. The Commission has no recorded properties of traditional 

cultural significance located offshore; all are located on land (California Native American Heritage 

Commission 2006).

3.11.1.3 W Gulf of Alaska

Archaeological Resources

There are no recorded prehistoric archaeological sites in the W Gulf of Alaska DAA. However, there is 

the potential that prehistoric archaeological sites may be present on the continental shelf (Alaska Office of 

History and Archaeology 2006a). The relative sea level 12,000 years ago was probably between 164 to 

197 ft (50 to 60 m) lower than at present. Prehistoric archaeological deposits could potentially exist on 

well-preserved landforms of the continental shelf shoreward of the 197-ft (60-m) bathymetric contour, 

which roughly approximates the shoreline 12,000 years ago BP (MMS 2006a). 

Historic archaeological resources in the W Gulf of Alaska DAA comprise submerged shipwrecks. Two 

shipwreck databases were consulted to identify reported shipwreck sites in this DAA. The NOAA 

AWOIS database indicates 22 reported shipwreck and obstruction sites in the W Gulf of Alaska DAA 

(NOAA 2006). The majority of the sites are within 25 mi (40 km) of the shoreline of the Alaska 

Peninsula. The MMS database lists 85 shipwrecks near the Alaska Peninsula and in the Gulf of Alaska 

(MMS 2000). This database lacks precise locational data to accurately determine how many of these 

shipwrecks may be in the W Gulf of Alaska DAA. However, MMS maps indicate that known shipwrecks 

are scattered throughout the DAA, with the heaviest concentration within Chignik Bay (10 shipwrecks) 

(Alaska Office of History and Archaeology 2006b). 

Traditional Cultural Resources

The W Gulf of Alaska DAA includes subsistence use areas of traditional cultural significance to Alaska 

Peninsula Native people, who are ancestors of the maritime hunting cultures of Pacific and Yupi‘k 

Eskimos and Aleuts (Fall and Utermohle 1995). Today, these Native Alaskans live in a network of 

villages, of which the three principal ones are Chignik, Chignik Lagoon, and Chignik Lake. Their primary 

subsistence activity is fishing all five species of Pacific salmon, halibut, cod, and other fish species. These 

resources hold both subsistence and commercial value to the Chignik Native population. Other 

subsistence activities of the Chignik-area Natives include hunting marine and coastal animals such as 

harbor seals, clams, and waterfowl (MMS 1993; Fall and Utermohle 1995). 

The Chignik villages have a village-kinship network formed from four major extended families. The 

family networks take part in traditional activities, including fishing, hunting, and gathering subsistence 

resources. Native families primarily share or give away resources to other families within the Chignik 

village network, but they also share resources with many other communities on the Alaska Peninsula. 

Sharing resources has been a fundamental value of the Chignik Native population (MMS 1993). The 

nutritional value of the subsistence resources is also important to the Chignik Native population, who 

believe a diet consisting of entirely store-bought food is not healthy (Fall and Utermohle 1995).

The subsistence use areas of the Chignik Native population overlap with the northwestern portion of the 

W Gulf of Alaska DAA. The subsistence use areas for harvesting fish and marine and coastal animals are 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-261

along the Pacific coast of the Alaska Peninsula, including Chignik Bay (Fall and Utermohle 1995). The 

off-shore distances of these harvest areas are not known. Nonetheless, the DAA extends along the coast, 

and thus, would include these subsistence use areas. 

3.11.1.4 Summary of Cultural Resources

A summary of cultural resources within each of the four DAAs is presented in Table 3.11-1.

Table 3.11-1. Summary of Occurrence of Cultural Resources within the DAAs

Cultural Resource

DAA

NW Atlantic S California W Gulf of Alaska

Prehistoric Archaeological

None recorded;

potential for sites on 

continental shelf.

None recorded; sites

likely occur in Santa

Barbara Channel.

None recorded; potential for 

sites on continental shelf

shoreward of 197-ft (60-m) 

bathymetric contour.

Historic Archaeological At least 29 reported 

shipwrecks.

Numerous reported

shipwrecks.

Numerous reported

shipwrecks.

Traditional Cultural Properties None recorded. None recorded.

Subsistence use areas of 

Chignik Native population 

overlap NW portion of DAA.

3.11.2 Environmental Consequences

Criteria set forth in 36 CFR 800 are used to evaluate the effects of an undertaking on historic properties. 

The regulation defines an effect as an alteration to the characteristics of a historic property that qualify it 

for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Project activities may directly or indirectly affect 

significant cultural resources. Potential effects of the proposed seismic research surveys may include the 

following:

 Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property.

 Change of the character of the property‘s use or of physical features within the property‘s setting 

that contribute to its significance.

 Introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the 

property‘s significant historic features.

Elements of the proposed action that may affect archaeological resources include: ground-disturbing 

activities from seismic research cruises (e.g., placing certain types of equipment on the ocean floor) and 

scientific dredging, drilling, and coring. Potential impacts to traditional cultural properties include 

increased noise over traditional use areas and disturbances to subsistence resources. 

3.11.2.1 Alternative A and Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)

NW Atlantic

Archaeological Resources. As described in Section 3.11.1.1, there are several known historic shipwreck 

sites in the deep ocean waters of the NW Atlantic DAA, but no other known or recorded archaeological 

sites. Although equipment (e.g., OBS/H) may be released from the research vessel as part of proposed 

seismic survey activities and sink to the ocean floor, it is improbable that the equipment would come into 

contact with a shipwreck because of the sparse distribution of these sites across the DAA. If the 

equipment were to land on a shipwreck, it would have minimal to no effect on the historical integrity of 

the shipwreck. The OBS/H is designed to be deployed and recovered. After an OBS/H has been on the 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-262

bottom for a period of time (days to months), it would release from its anchor and float to the surface for 

recovery by the research vessel. 

The proposed seismic research surveys could also include limited scientific dredging, drilling, or coring. 

Any of these three research activities could directly impact submerged archaeological sites. If dredging, 

drilling, or coring is part of any research cruise, then the project proponent would obtain the necessary 

permits and fulfill permit requirements, including initiating consultation with the New Jersey SHPO in 

accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA. A tiered, cruise-specific EA would address any potential sitespecific impacts to cultural resources.

Traditional Cultural Resources. No traditional cultural properties or subsistence use areas have been

identified in the NW Atlantic DAA. 

S California

Archaeological Resources. As described in Section 3.11.1.3, there is the potential that prehistoric 

archaeological sites may be present in the S California DAA, although none have been formally recorded. 

This DAA also contains numerous historic archaeological sites, including dozens of shipwrecks and one 

submerged aircraft, the majority of which are within 5 mi (8 km) of the mainland and 6 nm (11 km) of the 

coasts of San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Islands of Channel Islands National Park. Segments of 

the proposed trackline of the seismic survey would come within approx. 3.7 mi (6 km) of the mainland 

and the coast of Santa Cruz Island. 

Although equipment (e.g., OBS/H) may be released from the research vessel as part of proposed seismic 

survey activities and sink to the ocean floor, it is improbable that the equipment would come into contact 

with a shipwreck because of the sparse distribution of these sites across the DAA. If the equipment were 

to land on a shipwreck, it would have minimal to no effect on the historical integrity of the shipwreck. 

The OBS/H is designed to be deployed and recovered. After an OBS/H has been on the bottom for a 

period of time (days to months), it would release from its anchor and float to the surface for recovery by 

the research vessel. 

The proposed seismic research surveys could also include limited scientific dredging, drilling, or coring. 

Any of these three research activities could directly impact submerged archaeological sites. If dredging, 

drilling, or coring is part of any research cruise, then the project proponent would obtain the necessary 

permits and fulfill permit requirements, including initiating consultation with the California SHPO in 

accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA. A tiered, cruise-specific EA would address any potential sitespecific impacts to cultural resources.

Traditional Cultural Resources. No traditional cultural properties or subsistence use areas have been 

identified in the S California DAA.

W Gulf of Alaska

Archaeological Resources. The W Gulf of Alaska DAA does not include any recorded prehistoric 

archaeological sites, although there is the potential that prehistoric archaeological deposits may be present 

on certain areas of the continental shelf, as described in Section 3.11.1.4. Historic archaeological sites in 

the DAA consist of numerous shipwrecks, most of which are near the shoreline of the Alaska Peninsula. 

Portions of the projected trackline of the W Gulf of Alaska cruise would come within 10 mi (16 km) of 

the peninsula shore. 

Although equipment (e.g., OBS/H) may be released from the research vessel as part of proposed seismic

survey activities and sink to the ocean floor, it is improbable that the equipment would come into contact 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-263

with a shipwreck because of the sparse distribution of these sites across the DAA. If the equipment were 

to land on a shipwreck, it would have minimal to no effect on the historical integrity of the shipwreck. 

The OBS/H is designed to be deployed and recovered. After an OBS/H has been on the bottom for a 

period of time (days to months), it would release from its anchor and float to the surface for recovery by 

the research vessel. 

The proposed seismic research surveys could also include limited scientific dredging, drilling, or coring. 

Any of these three research activities could directly impact submerged archaeological sites. If dredging, 

drilling, or coring is part of any research cruise, then the project proponent would obtain the necessary 

permits and fulfill permit requirements, including initiating consultation with the Alaska SHPO in 

accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA. A tiered, cruise-specific EA would address any potential sitespecific impacts to cultural resources.

Traditional Cultural Resources. The W Gulf of Alaska DAA includes subsistence use areas of traditional 

cultural significance to Alaska Peninsula Native people. The Chignik Native population harvests fish and 

hunts marine and coastal mammals along the Pacific coast of the Alaska Peninsula, including Chignik 

Bay. The off-shore distances of these harvest areas are indeterminate; nonetheless, the DAA extends 

along the coast, and thus, would potentially include these subsistence use areas.

Potential effects from a seismic research survey could result in reductions in subsistence resources and in 

changes in subsistence resource distribution patterns. For instance, sounds from airguns during seismic 

research surveys can sometimes cause changes in the distribution and catchability of fish. They can also 

alter the migration route of some marine mammals to avoid the disturbance. Harbor seals are the primary 

marine mammal hunted by the Chignik Native population, but studies vary as to the degree of avoidance 

of pinnipeds within an area of operating airguns. Nonetheless, avoidance reactions of pinniped species are 

expected to be of short duration and limited to relatively small distances, and with no long-term 

behavioral reactions (LGL 2005). 

The potential impacts of the seismic research survey would likely be localized and temporary. However, 

an interruption or temporary reduction of subsistence resources may still impact certain Chignik-area

communities. A reduction in the Chignik population‘s primary subsistence resources of fish and harbor 

seals would reduce their opportunities to share the subsistence resources with other families and 

communities and also impact the diets of Chignik Native people, who depend upon and believe in the 

nutritional value of subsistence resources in their diets. 

Disturbances to subsistence resources and increased noise over traditional subsistence use areas have been 

cited by Native Americans as potentially significant impacts (U.S. Navy 2002). When a project proponent 

has identified a specific area within the W Gulf of Alaska within which a seismic research survey is 

proposed, then a site-specific EA would be prepared as a tiered-NEPA document and supplement this 

PEIS. The project proponent would consult with the affected Chignik Native population to develop 

appropriate measures to mitigate any potential impacts that the seismic research survey may have on 

subsistence resources. 

One of the most effective measures for minimizing or eliminating impacts to subsistence resources is to 

schedule the research cruise before or after the primary periods of subsistence hunting and fishing. 

Regardless of the season of the seismic cruise, Alternatives A and B would implement measures to reduce 

impacts to marine mammals (refer to Section 2.6.1.1 for detailed descriptions of these mitigation 

measures). 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

3-264

3.11.2.2 Alternative C (No-Action Alternative)

Under the No-Action Alternative, NSF-funded or USGS marine seismic research surveys would not 

occur. Therefore, baseline conditions would remain unchanged and there would be no impacts to cultural 

resources with implementation of Alternative C.

3.11.3 Summary of Environmental Consequences

Based on available information, there would be no significant impacts to cultural resources with 

implementation of Alternative A or B within the exemplary analysis areas (Table 3.11-2). 

Table 3.11-2. Summary of Potential Impacts to Cultural Resources with Implementation of 

Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)

DAA Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)

NW Atlantic  No significant impacts to archaeological resources.

 No traditional cultural resources present.

S California  No significant impacts to archaeological resources.

 No traditional cultural resources present.

W Gulf of Alaska  Adverse but not significant impacts to archaeological and traditional cultural resources.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

4-1

CHAPTER 4

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND IRREVERSIBLE/IRRETRIEVABLE

COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

4.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

CEQ regulations (40 CFR §§1500 – 1508) implementing the provisions of NEPA, as amended (42 USC 

§§4321 et seq.) provide the definition of cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts are defined as:

―the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added 

to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal 

or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.‖ (40 CFR §1508.7)

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place 

over a period of time. A cumulative impact results from the additive effect of all projects in the same 

geographical area. Generally, an impact can be considered cumulative if: a) effects of several actions 

occur in the same locale, b) effects on a particular resource are the same in nature, and c) effects are longterm in nature. The common factor key to cumulative assessment is identifying any potential temporally

and/or spatially overlapping or successive effects that may significantly affect individual or populations 

of marine resources occurring in the analysis areas.

4.1.1 Potential Cumulative Effects Issues

Marine seismic research surveys funded by NSF or conducted by the USGS may occur in various study 

areas distributed across the world‘s oceans including the Atlantic, Pacific, Arctic, Indian, and S Oceans, 

as well as peripheral seas such as the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, 

Mediterranean Sea, etc. The overall time frame for the analysis of the cumulative effects is assumed to be 

5 years. In any given year, NSF may typically fund 4-7 seismic surveys per year and the USGS may 

conduct 8-12 seismic surveys per year, all in different locations. The duration of a cruise would range 

from days to 7 weeks with approx. 1 to 2 weeks of transit and/or preparation between cruises. Seismic 

operations may last 30-800 hr during a seismic survey. Some seismic surveys could be conducted 

simultaneously on different vessels, but would occur in different locations. Once a cruise has been 

completed, the next cruise would typically occur far from the previous site or in a different region. 

However, consecutive cruises may occasionally occur in the same location or the same region (e.g., the N 

Pacific), but they would not be expected to occur simultaneously in the same location. 

4.1.1.1 Underwater Noise

Chapter 3 describes the affected environment of the exemplary analysis areas along with the 

environmental consequences of implementing the proposed seismic surveys. Direct and indirect effects of 

the proposed marine seismic research would result from noise from airgun arrays and other acoustic 

sources, vessel traffic, and scientific dredging or coring. From a cumulative effects perspective, the 

notable issue associated with marine seismic research centers around the noise generated during seismic 

surveys. The addition of underwater noise to ambient noise levels in the ocean could have impacts on 

marine invertebrates, fish, seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals. 

There are several categories of other past, present, and future planned actions with noise-producing 

activities that must be considered when analyzing the cumulative impacts of the proposed seismic 

surveys. These actions generally include commercial shipping, oil and gas exploration and production, 

aircraft flights, naval operations, research, commercial fishing, and recreational activities. It is worthwhile 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

4-2

to note that many of these actions are thought to have contributed to increases in the ambient sound levels 

in the world‘s oceans (US Navy 2001; McDonald et al. 2006).

The number of commercial ships on the world‘s oceans significantly increases from year to year. From 

1995 to 1999, it is estimated that the commercial fleet increased from approximately 73,000 vessels in 

1995 to approximately 82,000, a 12% in just 4 years (NRC 2003a). To get a sense of how the number of 

cruises (five to seven a year) under the proposed action compares with commercial shipping vessel traffic, 

some of the commercial shipping data from Section 3.10 is repeated here. Commercial shipping records 

for the NW Atlantic DAA show more than 380,000 vessel trips in 2004 and more than 26,000 vessel trips 

for the S California DAA. Another document reports 279,000 vessel trips for the Gulf of Mexico per year. 

These vessel trips portray only a portion of the global commercial shipping industry, which is one of the 

greatest contributors of overall noise in the world‘s oceans (MMS 2004). When one considers the 

extremely low number of vessel trips per year (five to seven) proposed by NSF and the USGS, this 

amounts to less than 0.001% of the total vessel trips for only the NW Atlantic, S California, and Gulf of 

Mexico areas. If the total vessel trips worldwide are included, the percentage would be significantly 

smaller.

Another contributor to underwater noise is the oil and gas industry where it is estimated that there are 

approximately 100 ships worldwide, with 15-20 operating at any one time (Jopling et al. 2006). It should 

be noted that the proposed NSF-funded marine seismic activities assessed in this PEIS, due to their 

proposed location and types of activities, generally occur in areas that are not subject to oil and gas 

exploration. Underwater sounds generated from passing aircraft are transient in nature with peak received 

noise levels in the water occurring as an aircraft passes directly overhead (MMS 2004). Altogether, these 

other actions may include multiple causes and multiple effects, which may occur in more than one locale.

4.1.2 Assessment of Cumulative Impacts

4.1.2.1 Marine Invertebrates, Fish, and Seabirds

Some decapod crustaceans and cephalopods might detect the particle displacement/motion caused by 

airgun and airgun array sounds. A lesser number of invertebrate species might similarly detect the 

MBESs, SBPs, and pingers. Acoustic impacts on marine invertebrates from the exemplary seismic 

program would likely include adverse pathological and physiological effects only within a few meters 

from an active source operating at high levels. Behavioral effects on marine invertebrates would 

potentially extend to somewhat greater ranges. On a population level, these potential effects are 

considered insignificant. 

The principal impacts to marine fish from the exemplary seismic program are expected to be short-term 

behavioral or physiological effects from airguns and airgun array sounds. Potential impacts to fish from 

exposure to the MBESs, SBPs, and pingers would be considerably less because few fish are capable of 

detecting the high-frequency sounds produced by these two acoustic sources. Impacts to marine fish from 

the proposed action are not predicted to be significant.

Acoustic impacts of airguns or sonar devices on seabirds are unlikely to occur under the proposed marine 

seismic research. There would be no significant impacts to individual seabirds or their populations from 

the proposed seismic surveys.

A variety of other activities occur to various degrees in each of the exemplary regions that have the 

potential to affect marine invertebrates, fish, and seabirds. Marine fish and, to a much lesser extent, 

seabirds may be impacted by vessel traffic and noise from commercial shipping, the oil and gas industry, 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

4-3

and military activities, among others. Moreover, many marine fish species are impacted by the 

commercial fishing industry.

In any given year, there would typically be from 4-7 seismic surveys funded by NSF or 8-12 seismic 

surveys conducted by USGS. This represents a very minor (short-term) incremental increase in the overall 

level of human activity. Moreover, the planned monitoring and mitigation measures, which include

avoiding sensitive habitats and/or seasons, visual monitoring, and safety radii, would all serve to reduce 

the level of impact and the likelihood of cumulative effects. Impacts to marine invertebrates and fish from 

the Proposed Action in combination with other cumulative activities are expected to be very limited, 

consisting of primarily short-term behavior. Cumulative impacts to seabirds would be negligible. 

Significant cumulative impacts to marine invertebrates, fish, and seabirds are not expected in the 

exemplary analysis areas or elsewhere.

4.1.2.2 Sea Turtles

There is some overlap between sea turtle hearing and the frequencies of the acoustic sources proposed for 

the exemplary surveys. Acoustic impacts on individual sea turtles from the exemplary seismic program 

are expected to consist of short-term behavioral disturbance if an individual were close to an operating 

airgun. There are no data with respect to the potential for PTS, injury or mortality. No sea turtle mortality 

has been documented during seismic operations funded by NSF or conducted by USGS and none is 

expected during the proposed surveys.

In each of the exemplary regions, a variety of human activities occur, including, to various degrees, 

commercial and recreational vessel traffic, fisheries, oil and gas exploration and development, coastal 

development, and hunting. Some of these activities lead directly to sea turtle mortality. Threats to sea 

turtles include beach development, sand mining, oil spills, ship strikes, entanglement in fishing gear, 

ingestion of marine garbage, and destruction of feeding habitat. These activities, when conducted 

separately or in combination with other activities, including the exemplary seismic surveys, could affect 

sea turtles in the study areas. 

In all of the regional areas of interest, the planned exemplary seismic surveys represent a very minor 

(short-term) incremental increase in the overall level of human activity. Furthermore, the proposed 

monitoring and mitigation measures, including avoiding sensitive habitats and/or seasons, serve to reduce 

the level of impact and the likelihood of cumulative effects. Any cumulative effects that are incurred are 

expected to result in no more than a negligible impact on sea turtle populations in the 13 exemplary 

analysis areas or elsewhere.

4.1.2.3 Marine Mammals

Cumulative impacts to marine mammals are based on (1) those that undertake localized and/or longdistance migrations (e.g., pinnipeds, mysticetes, and odontocetes) and (2) those that tend to be more 

resident and/or occur in only one of the analysis areas (e.g., sea otter, and manatee). Given the oftentimes 

wide distribution and migratory distances characteristic of many marine mammals and the global-ocean 

occurrence of the proposed marine seismic research, cumulative effects are addressed on an ocean-region 

basis as done for the environmental consequences sections. This is considered an appropriate scale in 

relation to the ranges of many migratory populations of marine mammals. While multiple genetically 

distinct or separate populations of marine mammals may occur within each region, there is also genetic 

interchange within and even sometimes across these regions. This is the context and level within which 

cumulative effects on marine mammals are addressed below. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

4-4

Mysticetes, Odontocetes, and Pinnipeds

No significant cumulative effects are anticipated on pinnipeds, mysticetes or odontocetes with respect to 

NSF-funded or USGS seismic survey cruises in the exemplary analysis areas. Effects of each exemplary 

survey within each DAA were modeled and impacts to marine mammals within all 13 analysis areas are 

expected to be limited to localized and short-term behavioral changes. Thus no impacts are anticipated at 

the regional population level. The few, relatively short, localized NSF or USGS cruises in the context of 

the ocean-region basis would not have more than a negligible cumulative effect on marine mammals at 

the individual or population level. Possible exceptions are local non-migratory populations or populations 

highly concentrated in one area at one time of year (e.g., for breeding). However, the latter scenario 

would be mitigated by timing and locating proposed seismic surveys to avoid sensitive seasons and/or 

locations important to marine mammals, especially those that are ESA-listed. This is a standard 

mitigation procedure that has been followed during past NSF-funded seismic surveys and would continue 

to be implemented. 

It is possible that a long-migrating animal or population exposed during one NSF cruise could be exposed 

to a subsequent cruise(s) during migration of the same or different years at another location or region 

(e.g., a summer survey could occur in the W Gulf of Alaska followed by a fall survey off the BC Coast); 

this is the same seasonal migration pattern of some mysticetes, pinnipeds, and odontocetes, including the 

humpback whale, sperm whale, and Steller sea lion. However, such exposure would be considered a 

series of short-term behavioral changes. There is no evidence that such short-term effects, whether 

considered alone or in succession, result in long-term adverse impacts to individuals or populations 

assuming important habitats or activities are not disturbed. Furthermore, long-migrating marine mammals 

in particular have undoubtedly been exposed to many anthropogenic underwater sound activities for 

decades in all ocean basins. Many of these populations continue to grow despite a preponderance of 

anthropogenic marine activities that have been documented to disturb some individuals behaviorally (e.g., 

Hildebrand 2004; see Appendix E).

With respect to non-NSF or non-USGS marine seismic research activities within the 13 analysis areas, 

there is wide variation in levels and types of human-related activities that are currently ongoing and/or 

planned for the foreseeable future. Those activities with potential to affect marine mammals in addition to 

the proposed NSF-funded or USGS seismic survey operations include seismic and other activities 

involved with oil and gas exploration, recreation, tourism and commercial vessel traffic, military 

exercises and operations, fishing activity, hunting and/or incidental mortality, and pollution, among 

others. 

Cumulative impacts to mysticetes, odontocetes, and pinnipeds are expected to be negligible and 

insignificant in all 13 exemplary analysis areas. This is particularly so in areas that lack or have limited 

amounts of human-related activities. These include the mid-ocean Galapagos Ridge and Caribbean 

DAAs, and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, Sub-Antarctic, and Marianas QAAs. The SW Atlantic and W India 

QAAs are considered areas with mid-level anthropogenic activities. In contrast, the potential for 

cumulative impacts could be elevated in areas with increased human activity such as the NW Atlantic, S 

California, and W Gulf of Alaska DAAs, and the BC Coast, N Atlantic/Iceland, and W Australia QAAs. 

In the latter areas, careful pre-cruise planning to avoid sensitive locations and periods, and coordination 

with other activities that may have adverse impacts, along with mitigation and monitoring, can avoid and 

minimize the potential for cumulative impacts. In general, along with NMFS permitting requirements, 

NSF-funded cruises also coordinate with and oftentimes obtain permits or conduct country-specific 

impact assessments as required to operate in waters near foreign countries. Through this process, potential 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

4-5

operational conflicts or overlaps with other human-related activities that may affect marine mammals can 

be identified, minimized, and/or avoided. Cumulative impacts are anticipated to be insignificant given the 

pre-cruise planning and coordination with other ongoing and planned activities as well as mitigation and 

monitoring during proposed seismic operations.

Other Marine Mammals (Sea Otter and W Indian Manatee)

Sea Otter. Sea otters occur in the S California and W Gulf of Alaska DAAs, and in the BC Coast QAA; 

all three areas fall within the N Pacific region and represent different sea otter populations. Human 

activities in the N Pacific region are extensive and include fishing, commercial, recreational and to a 

lesser extent scientific vessel traffic, coastal development, oil and gas exploration and production, and 

military activities. 

Cumulative effects from the planned exemplary surveys are considered unlikely and insignificant in all 

three areas. The S California DAA involves the use of a small array in shallow to intermediate water 

depth, while the W Gulf of Alaska DAA and BC Coast QAA would involve a large array. Sea otters 

spend most of their time at the surface of the water and favor shallow coastal waters that would be 

avoided by the survey vessels. Both of these latter factors would mitigate any potential for negative or 

cumulative effects. Proposed mitigation measures would also ensure that sea otters were not exposed to 

sounds >180 dB re 1 μPa (rms). 

The exemplary proposed seismic surveys would be expected to provide no more than a very minor, 

localized (and short-term) increment in the level of regional human activity within each study area. 

Furthermore, timing of exemplary surveys would be coordinated with NMFS and USFWS and other 

potential stakeholders to minimize potential spatial and temporal overlap with other anthropogenic 

activities that may affect the same sea otter populations. Simultaneous NSF-funded or USGS seismic 

surveys would be planned so that they would not overlap in time and space where there could be additive 

impacts to sea otters.

W Indian Manatee. The W Indian manatee is considered rare and is affiliated with nearshore coastal 

waters in the one analysis area where it could occur, the Caribbean DAA. Human activities in this region 

include oil and gas exploration and production, commercial and recreational vessel traffic including 

tourism, as well as fishing and hunting of marine mammals. These activities, when conducted separately 

or in combination with other activities such as the exemplary seismic program, could and are known to 

affect marine mammals. Thus, in theory, these activities could potentially affect manatees that may 

occasionally occur in the study area. However, no manatees were seen during a seismic survey in the 

Caribbean in the spring of 2004 (Smultea et al. 2004).

Although an exemplary large array is considered at the Caribbean DAA, potential impacts are expected to 

be limited and highly localized as manatees are typically confined to nearshore waters <100 m deep 

characterized by vegetation (see section 3.8.5.1). This habitat would be avoided by the survey vessel as 

seismic operations would occur primarily in more offshore waters. Mitigation measures would further 

ensure that manatees were not exposed to sound levels >180 dB re 1 μPa (rms). 

In summary, the potential of encountering a manatee is rare at best at the Caribbean DAA. Furthermore,

the proposed generally offshore seismic surveys would be short-term and transient and localized in 

nature. Thus, associated cumulative impacts are highly unlikely and would be insignificant to individuals 

or the population of manatees in the region.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

4-6

4.1.2.4 Socioeconomics and Cultural Resources

None of the socioeconomic characteristics evaluated would experience significant impacts from the 

proposed NSF-funded or USGS marine seismic research. Commercial fisheries could be impacted by the 

localized short-term behavioral effects to fish from the seismic surveys. Commercial vessels would be 

notified of research activities in advance of any seismic surveys, which would operate for a limited 

duration in any one location. Coordination with other researchers would minimize or eliminate the 

potential for interference with other marine research and exploration activities. Seismic surveys are 

usually in deeper waters while subsistence hunting and fishing generally occur closer to the shore; cruises 

would be planned to avoid breeding, rearing, or feeding areas critical to the species of concern to 

subsistence hunting and fishing. Recreational fishing and boating activities can easily avoid seismic 

research vessels so potential impacts are negligible.

Similarly, the proposed seismic surveys would not result in significant impacts to cultural resources. 

Prehistoric archaeological deposits, such as shipwrecks or submerged aircraft, may be present within 

certain areas of the exemplary analysis areas. If a particular cruise would include limited scientific 

dredging or coring, then coordination would be conducted with the appropriate SHPO when tiered cruisespecific EAs are developed to obtain any necessary site-specific data on the locations of submerged 

cultural resources (e.g., shipwrecks) so as to avoid said cultural resources. Potential impacts to traditional 

cultural resources, which include subsistence areas of traditional cultural significance, would be avoided 

by scheduling cruises before or after the primary periods of subsistence hunting and fishing.

Various other human activities have the potential to affect both socioeconomic characteristics and cultural 

resources. These resources tend to be rather localized and the potential for significant impact from the 

proposed marine seismic research is rather unlikely. Further, the planned monitoring and mitigation 

measures, including coordination with other organizations responsible for other ongoing and planned 

activities (e.g., commercial vessels) all serve to reduce the level of impact and the likelihood of 

cumulative effects. Any cumulative effects to socioeconomic characteristics and cultural resources are 

expected to be negligible.

4.1.2.5 Other Potential Cumulative Effects Issues

In addition to the expected primary impact to marine fauna associated with underwater noise from 

implementation of the Proposed Action, a number of additional factors may cumulatively impact marine 

invertebrates, fish, sea turtles, and mammals. These include, but are not limited to, disease, natural and 

man-made toxins, predation, climate change, and debris ingestion. These factors, as appropriate, would be 

examined in detail during the preparation of site-specific environmental documents and the associated 

cumulative effects analyses. 

4.1.3 Summary of Cumulative Impacts

The results of this cumulative impacts analysis indicate that there would not be any significant cumulative 

effects to marine resources from the proposed NSF-funded or USGS marine seismic research. All seismic 

cruises would be permitted according to the rules and regulations of the applicable agencies of U.S. 

federal, state, and foreign governments. 

While there are uncertainties about the location and timing of future human activities in combination with 

the proposed seismic surveys at the programmatic level, cruise-specific EAs would be prepared when a 

particular seismic research activity is proposed. A more detailed, cruise-specific cumulative effects 

analysis would be conducted at the time of the preparation of the cruise-specific EAs, allowing for the 

identification of other potential activities in the area of the proposed seismic survey that may result in 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

4-7

cumulative impacts to environmental resources. These cruise-specific EAs would also take into 

consideration the seasonal distribution of marine resources and acoustic properties of a proposed site to 

develop site-specific mitigation measures. These additional mitigation measures would be followed to 

ensure that potential cumulative impacts do not become significant. For example, if noise modeling 

results indicate that Level A (injury) harassment impacts to marine mammals or threatened and 

endangered marine mammal species may occur, then additional mitigation measures would be added to 

the cruise parameters to reduce and eliminate the potential for Level A harassment impacts to marine 

mammals that may occur in the project area. 

4.2 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

In accordance with Section 102 (c)(v) of NEPA, an EIS should identify ―any irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.‖ 

The proposed NSF-funded or USGS marine seismic research would allow academic or U.S. government 

scientists, respectively, to conduct marine seismic surveys to investigate the geology and geophysics of 

the seafloor. In terms of renewable resources, the proposed research would not result in the destruction of 

marine resources such that the range of potential uses of the marine environment would be limited. 

Nonrenewable resources that would be consumed during the operation of seismic research vessels include 

fuel and oil. The proposed seismic surveys would also require a commitment of human labor and 

financial resources. Since the reuse of these resources may not be possible, they would be irreversibly and 

irretrievably committed as part of the proposed marine seismic research. Nonetheless, commitment of 

these resources would not be considered significant.

4.3 POSSIBLE CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THE OBJECTIVES OF FEDERAL 

LAND USE POLICIES, PLANS, AND CONTROLS

The proposed NSF-funded and USGS marine seismic research would comply with applicable federal, 

state, regional, and local laws and regulations. Therefore, there would be no conflicts between proposed 

marine seismic research and the objectives of federal, state, regional, and local land use plans, policies, 

and controls. The numerous environmental statutes and their requirements that have been considered 

throughout this analysis include: 

 NEPA

 MMPA

 ESA

 MSA

 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)

 Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)

 Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships

 CWA

4.3.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

This PEIS has been prepared in accordance with CEQ regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR Part 

1500-1508) and NOAA Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing NEPA (NOAA 

Administrative Order Series 216-6, May 20, 1999). Similarly, public involvement and review are also 

being conducted in compliance with NEPA.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

4-8

4.3.2 Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)

The proposed NSF-funded or USGS marine seismic research would be conducted in compliance with the 

MMPA. At the cruise-specific stage, and if applicable, NSF or the USGS would submit an application for 

an IHA or LOA to NMFS and/or USFWS under Section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA to incidentally take 

marine mammals during activities associated with the proposed marine seismic research. An IHA or LOA 

would only be issued if the required findings and determinations described in Section 101(a)(5) of the 

MMPA could be met.

4.3.3 Endangered Species Act (ESA)

The proposed marine seismic research would not adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or 

species proposed as such, and would not adversely modify designated critical habitat. The information in 

this PEIS will be used by NSF or the USGS to support ESA section 7 consultations with NMFS and the 

USFWS regarding marine seismic research funded by NSF or conducted by USGS.

4.3.4 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)

The proposed NSF-funded or USGS marine seismic research would have no adverse effects on EFH or 

reduce the productive capacity of any fish stock. This PEIS will be used by NSF or the USGS to support a 

determination of no adverse effects on EFH for the conduct of the proposed NSF-funded or USGS marine 

seismic research.

4.3.5 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)

Under the CZMA, ―any federal activity within or outside of the coastal zone that affects any land or water 

use or natural resource of the coastal zone‖ shall be ―consistent to the maximum extent practicable with 

the enforceable policies‖ of a state‘s coastal management plan. NSF and the USGS have, respectively, 

determined that the proposed NSF-funded and USGS marine seismic research would be consistent to the 

maximum extent practicable with relevant state coastal management policies. When a specific marine 

seismic research cruise has been funded by NSF, NSF would submit a coastal consistency determination 

to the appropriate state agency when a site-specific EA is prepared.

4.3.6 Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 prohibits the transport of any material 

from the U.S. for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters without a permit. The proposed NSFfunded or USGS marine seismic research would not involve any ocean dumping. A reauthorization of 

Title III in 1992 resulted in the renaming of this section to the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. The first 

two titles of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act continue to provide protection to the 

ocean by preventing ocean dumping of toxic materials. This Act also authorizes National Marine 

Sanctuaries. NSF has determined that its marine seismic research would not destroy, cause the loss of or 

injure any sanctuary resource. As a result, consultation with the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource 

Management is not necessary.

4.3.7 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)

The MBTA was designed to protect migratory birds (including their eggs, nests, and feathers) and their 

habitats. Migratory birds are viewed as a shared resource, and collaboration with other nations (Canada, 

Mexico, Russia, and Japan) is aimed at cooperatively protecting this resource. The proposed NSF-funded 

or USGS marine seismic research would not result in the taking or killing of any migratory birds.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

4-9

4.3.8 Clean Water Act (CWA)

The CWA is intended to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological properties of U.S. 

waters. This is accomplished in part through the permitted discharges of pollutants to navigable and ocean 

waters. The proposed NSF-funded or USGS marine seismic research would not result in discharges of 

any pollutants to ocean waters. The operation of research vessels would only result in discharges 

incidental to normal operations of a surface vessel.

4.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

NEPA requires consideration of the relationship between short-term use of the environment and the 

impacts that such use could have on the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity of the 

impacted environment. The proposed marine seismic research would allow academic scientists to 

investigate the geology and geophysics of the seafloor. This research would require both short-term and 

long-term commitments of human labor and financial resources. Nonrenewable resources that would be 

consumed during the operation of seismic research vessels include fuel and oil. The planned monitoring 

and mitigation measures, which include avoiding sensitive habitats and/or seasons, visual monitoring, and 

safety radii, would all serve to minimize the effects of the proposed marine seismic research. The majority 

of effects from marine seismic research would be temporary in nature. As a result, implementation of the 

proposed marine seismic research would not result in any environmental impacts that would significantly 

affect the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity of the marine environment.

4.5 COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER EOS

4.5.1 EO 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions

This EO requires an analysis of environmental impacts in cases where a federal agency‘s actions could 

significantly affect the global commons, the environment of a foreign nation, or protected global 

resources. Thus, this PEIS has been prepared in accordance with EO 12114.

4.6 GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION

NSF would consult with the governments of other nations in cases where cruises would be planned in 

their territorial waters. This government-to-government consultation would be conducted after a cruisespecific EA or other appropriate environmental documentation is prepared so that the results of the impact 

analysis may be made available to that nation‘s government.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

4-10

[This page intentionally left blank.]
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-1

CHAPTER 5

LITERATURE CITED

Ackerman, B.B. 1995. Aerial surveys of manatees: a summary and progress report. Pages 13–33 in T.J. 

O'Shea, B.B. Ackerman, and H.F. Percival, eds. Population Biology of the Florida Manatee 

(Trichechus manatus latirostris). Information and Technology Report 1. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, DC.

Adam, P.J. and G.G. Garcia. 2003. New information on the natural history, distribution, and skull size of 

the extinct (?) West Indian monk seal, Monachus tropicalis. Marine Mammal Science 19:297-317.

ADEH. 2001. Guidelines on the Application of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity 

Conservation Act to Interactions between Offshore Seismic Operations and Larger Cetaceans. 

October. http://www.deh.gov.au/epbc/policy/seismic/#download. Last updated 6 May 2006, accessed 

10 May 2006.

ADEH. 2005. Draft Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia. 

http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/marine-turtles/index.html. Last 

updated 6 May 2006, accessed 3 June 2006.

ADEH. 2006. Marine Species Conservation: Marine Turtles. 

http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/species/turtles/index.html. Last updated 13 April, accessed 13 June.

ADFG. 2005. Turtle. http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/amphibia/turtle.php. Last updated 23 

May 2005, accessed 1 June 2006.

ADFG. 2006a. Personal communication via telephone, Jeff Estensen, Fisheries Biologist, Nome, AK. 7 

June.

ADFG. 2006b. COMFISH 2006, March 16 ,17, and 18, 2006. Prepared by ADFG, Division of 

Commercial Fisheries, Westward Region. 

ADFG. 2006c. Personal communication via telephone, Ken Bouwens, Fisheries Biologist, Kodiak, AK. 

13 June.

Advanced Research Projects Agency. 1995. Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental 

Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the California Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC) Project 

and its Associated Marine Mammal Research Program. Volume 1.

Agler, B.A., S.J. Kendall, P.E. Seiser, and J.R. Lindell. 1995. Estimates of marine bird and sea otter 

abundance in southeast Alaska during summer 1994. Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK.

Agudo, A.I. 1995. Varamentos de cetaceos mariños e de esteiro en Venezuela (Caribe Sudoriental, 

America do Sur). Eubalaena 6:7-22.

Aguilar de Soto, N., M. Johnson, P.T. Madsen, P.L. Tyack, A. Bocconcelli, and F. Borsani. 2006. Does 

intense ship noise disrupt foraging in deep-diving Cuvier‘s beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris)? 

Marine Mammal Science 22:690-699.

Airame, S., J.E. Dugan, K.D. Lafferty, H. Leslie, D.A. McArdle, and R.R. Warner. 2003. Applying 

ecological criteria to marine reserve design: A case study from the California Channel Islands. 

Ecological Applications 13:S170-S184.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-2

Akamatsu, T., Y. Hatakeyama, and N. Takatsu. 1993. Effects of pulsed sounds on escape behavior of 

false killer whales. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 59:1297-1303.

Akematsu, T., A. Nanami, and H.Y. Yan. 2003. Spotlined sardine Sardinops melanosticus listens to 

1-kHz sound by using its gas bladder. Fisheries Science 69:348-354.

Alaska Office of History and Archaeology. 2006a. Personal communication via email, Joan Dale, 

Archaeologist/Forensic Consultant, Anchorage, AK. 14 June.

Alaska Office of History and Archaeology. 2006b. Personal communication via email, Dave McMahan, 

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer/State Archaeologist, Anchorage, AK. 16 June.

Allen, B.M. and R.P. Angliss. Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2010. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-206. NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA. February.

Alstrup, J. and B. Møhl. 1993. Detection of intense ultrasound by the cod Gadus morhua. Journal of 

Experimental Biology 182:71-80.

Alstrup, J. and B. Møhl. 1998. Discrimination between high and low repetition rates of ultrasonic pulses 

by the cod. Journal of Fish Biology 52:205-208.

Alvarado, J. and A. Figueroa. 1995. East Pacific green turtle, Chelonia mydas. Pages 24-36 in P.T. 

Plotkin, ed. Status Reviews of Sea Turtles Listed Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973: 

Loggerhead Turtle, Caretta caretta; East Pacific Green Turtle, Chelonia mydas; Leatherback Turtle, 

Dermochelys coriacea; Hawksbill Turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata; Kemp‘s Ridley Turtle, 

Lepidochelys kempii; Olive Ridley Turtle, Lepidochelys olivacea. NMFS, Silver Spring, MD, and 

USFWS, Washington, DC.

American Cetacean Society. 2004. American Cetacean Society Fact Sheet: Sei Whale & Bryde‘s Whale, 

Balaenoptera borealis & Balaenoptera edeni. 

http://www.acsonline.org/factpack/SeiBrydesWhales.htm. Last updated March 2004, accessed 26 

March 2007. 

Amoser, S., L.E. Wysocki, and F. Ladich. 2004. Noise emission and potential impact during the first 

powerboat race in an Alpine lake and potential impact on fish communities. Journal of the Acoustical 

Society of America 116:3789-3797.

André, M., M. Solé, M. Lenoir, M. Durfort, C. Quero, A. Mas, A. Lombarte, M. van der Schaar, M.

López-Bejar, M. Morell, S. Zaugg, and L. Houégnigan. 2011. Low-frequency sounds induce acoustic 

trauma in cephalopods. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment: (e-View) doi:10.1890/100124. 

Andrew, R.K., B.M. Howe, J.A. Mercer, and M.A. Dzieciuch. 2002. Ocean ambient sound: comparing 

the 1960s with the 1990s for a receiver off the California coast. Acoustic Research Letters Online 

3:65-70. 

Andriguetto-Filho, J.M., A. Ostrensky, M.R. Pie, U.A. Silva, and W.A. Boeger. 2005. Evaluating the 

impact of seismic prospecting on artisanal shrimp fisheries. Continental Shelf Research 25:1720-

1727.

Andriolo, A., P.G. Kinas, M.H. Engel, and C.C. Albuquerque Martins. 2006a. Monitoring humpback 

whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) population in the Brazilian breeding ground, 2002 to 2005. Paper 

SC/58/SH15 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, IWC Annual Meeting, 1-13 June, St. Kitts 

and Nevis. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-3

Andriolo, A., C.C.A. Martins, M.H. Engel, J.L. Pizzorno, S. Mas-Rosa, A.C. Freitas, M.E. Morete, and 

P.G. Kinas. 2006b. The first aerial survey to estimate abundance of humpback whales (Megaptera 

novaeangliae) in the breeding ground off Brazil (breeding stock A). Journal of Cetacean Research 

and Management 8:307-311.

Angliss, R.P. and B.M. Allen. 2009. Alaska marine mammal stock assessments, 2008. NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-193. April.

Angliss, R.P. and K.L. Lodge. 2002. Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2002. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-133. NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA. 

Angliss, R.P. and K.L. Lodge. 2004. Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2003. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-144. NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA.

Angliss, R.P. and R.B. Outlaw. 2005. Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2005. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-161. NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA. 

Angliss, R.P. and R.B. Outlaw. 2007. Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2006. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-168. NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA. 

January. 

Aragones, L. 1990. The status, distribution and basic feeding ecology of the dugong in Calauit Island, 

Busuanga. Thesis, Marine Science Institute, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.

Arbelo, M., M. Méndez, E. Sierra, P. Castro, J. Jaber, P. Calabuig, M. Carrillo, and A. Fernández. 2005. 

Novel ―gas embolic syndrome‖ in beaked whales resembling decompression sickness. Page 17 in

Abstracts of the 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 December 

2005, San Diego, CA.

Arenas, P. and M. Hall. 1991. The association of sea turtles and other pelagic fauna with floating objects 

in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Pages 7-10 in M. Salmon and J. Wyneken, compilers. 

Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-302. Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, FL.

Arnold, B.W. 1996. Visual monitoring of marine mammal activity during the Exxon 3-D seismic survey: 

Santa Ynez Unit, offshore California 9 November to 12 December 1995. Prepared by Impact 

Sciences Inc., San Diego, CA, for Exxon Company, U.S.A., Thousand Oaks, CA. 

Arnould, J.P.Y. and J.P. Croxall. 1995. Trends in entanglement of Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus 

gazella) in man-made debris at South Georgia. Marine Pollution Bulletin 30:707–712.

Ash, C. 1962. Whaler‘s Eye. Macmillan, New York, NY. 

Astrup, J. and B. Møhl. 1993. Detection of intense ultrasound by the cod Gasdus morhua. Journal of 

Experimental Biology 182:71-80.

Astrup, J. and B. Møhl. 1998. Discrimination between high and low repetition rates of ultrasonic pulses 

by the cod. Journal of Fisheries Biology 52:205-208.

Atema, J., R.R. Fay, A.N. Popper, and W.N. Tavolga. 1988. The Sensory Biology of Aquatic Animals. 

Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 

Au, W.W.L. 1993. The sonar of dolphins. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-4

Au, W.W.L. and K. Banks. 1998. The acoustics of snapping shrimp Synalpheus parneomeris in Kaneohe 

Bay. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 103: 41-47.

Au, W.W.L., A.N. Popper, and R.R. Fay. 2000. Hearing by Whales and Dolphins. Springer Handbook of 

Auditory Research Volume 12. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 

Au, W.W.L., A.A. Pack, M.O. Lammers, L.M. Herman, M.H. Deakos, and K. Andrews. 2006. Acoustic 

properties of humpback whale songs. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 120:1103-1110.

Auil, N.E. 2004. Abundance and distribution trends of the West Indian manatee in the coastal zone of 

Belize: Implications for conservation. Thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

Avens, L.A., J.B. Neill, S.P. Epperly, and K.J. Lohmann. 2003. Site fidelity and homing behavior in 

juvenile loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). Marine Biology 143:211-220.

Backus, R.H. and W.E. Schevill. 1966. Physeter clicks. Pages 510-528 in K.S. Norris, ed. Whales, 

Dolphins, and Porpoises. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Bain, D.E. and R. Williams. 2006. Long-range effects of airgun noise on marine mammals: responses as 

a function of received sound level and distance. Paper SC/58/E35 presented to the IWC Scientific 

Committee, IWC Annual Meeting, 1-13 June, St. Kitts and Nevis.

Baird, R.W. 2001. Status of killer whales, Orcinus orca, in Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 115:676-

701.

Baird, R.W. 2003. Updated COSEWIC status report on the humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae in 

Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, ONT.

Baird, R.W. and L.M. Dill. 1995. Occurrence and behaviour of transient killer whales: seasonal and podspecific variability, foraging behaviour and prey handling. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:1300-

1311.

Baird, R.W. and H. Whitehead. 2000. Social organization of mammal-eating killer whales: group stability 

and dispersal patterns. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:2096-2105.

Baker, C. S., L. Medrano-Gonzalez, J. Calambokidis, A. Perry, F. Pichler, H. Rosenbaum, J. M. Straley, 

J. Urban-Ramirez, M. Yamaguchi, and O. von Ziegesar. 1998. Population structure of nuclear and 

mitochondrial DNA variation among humpback whales in the North Pacific. Molecular Ecology 

7:695-708.

Balazs, G.H., P. Siu, and J-P Landret. 1995. Ecological aspects of green turtles nesting at Scilly Atoll in 

French Polynesia. Pages 7-10 in J.I. Richardson and T.H. Richardson, compilers. Proceedings of the 

Twelfth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-SEFSC-361. NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, FL.

Balcomb, K.C. 1989. Baird's beaked whales - Berardius bairdii Stejneger, 1883; Arnoux beaked whale -

Berardius arnuxii Duvernoy, 1851. Pages 261-288 in S.H. Ridgway and S.R. Harrison, eds. 

Handbook of Marine Mammals, Vol. 4: River Dolphins and the Larger Toothed Whales. Academic 

Press, San Diego, CA. 

Balcomb, K.C., III and D.E. Claridge. 2001. A mass stranding of cetaceans caused by naval sonar in the 

Bahamas. Bahamas Journal of Science 8(2):2-12.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-5

Baldwin, R., K. Van Waerebeek, and M. Gallagher. 1998. A review of small cetaceans from waters off 

the Arabian Peninsula. Paper SC/50/SM6 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, IWC Annual 

Meeting, 16-20 May, Muscat, Oman.

Baldwin, R.M. 1995. New Discoveries in the Arabian Gulf. Sonar 13:7

Ballance, L.T. and R.L. Pitman. 1998. Cetaceans of the western tropical Indian Ocean: Distribution, 

relative abundance, and comparisons with cetacean communities of the two other tropical ecosystems. 

Marine Mammal Science 14:429-459.

Banner, A. 1967. Evidence of sensitivity to acoustic displacements in the lemon shark, Negaprion

brevirostris (Poey). Pages 265-273 in P.H. Cahn, ed. Lateral Line Detectors. Indiana University 

Press, Bloomington, IN. 

Banner, A. 1972. Use of sound in predation by young lemon sharks, Negaprion brevirostris. Bulletin of 

Marine Science 22:251-283.

Bannister, J. L. 1985. Southern right (Eubalaena australis) and humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) 

whales off Western Australia: some recent survey work. Pages 105-113 in J.K. Ling and M.M. 

Bryden, eds. Studies of Sea Mammals in South Latitudes. South Australian Museum, South Australia. 

Bannister, J. 2001. Status of southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) off Australia. Journal of 

Cetacean Research and Management Special Issue 2:103-110.

Bannister, J.L. and S.L. Hedley. 2001. Southern Hemisphere Group IV humpback whales: their status 

from recent aerial surveys. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 47:587-598.

Bannister, J.L., C.M. Kemper, and R.M. Warneke. 1996. The Action Plan for Australian Cetaceans. 

Biodiversity Group, Environment Australia. 

Barlow, J. 1984. Reproductive seasonality in pelagic dolphins (Stenella spp.): implications for measuring 

rates. Report of the International Whaling Commission Special Issue 6:191-198.

Barlow, J. 1994. An assessment of the 1994 status of harbor porpoise in California. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-205. Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, CA.

Barlow, J. 1995. The abundance of cetaceans in California waters. Part I: ship surveys in summer and fall 

of 1991. Fishery Bulletin 93:1-14.

Barlow, J. 2003. Preliminary estimates of the abundance of cetaceans along the U.S. west coast: 1991-

2001. Southwest Fisheries Science Center Administrative Report LJ-03-03. NMFS, Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, CA.

Barlow, J. 2004a. Splash 2004: NOAA ship McArthur weekly science report. Science summary: 

Thursday, 12 August to Wednesday, 18 August 2004. 19 August 2004. NMFS, Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center, La Jolla, CA.

Barlow, J. 2004b. Splash 2004: NOAA ship McArthur weekly science report. Science summary: 

Thursday, 19 August to Wednesday, 25 August 2004. 26 August 2004. NMFS, Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center, La Jolla, CA. 

Barlow, J. and K.A. Forney. 2007. Abundance and population density of cetaceans in the California 

Current ecosystem. Fishery Bulletin 105:509–526.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-6

Barlow, J. and T. Gerrodette. 1996. Abundance of cetaceans in California waters based on 1991 and 1993 

ship surveys. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-233. Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center, La Jolla, CA.

Barlow, J. and R. Gisiner. 2006. Mitigating, monitoring and assessing the effects of anthropogenic sound 

on beaked whales. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 7:239-249. 

Barlow, J. and B.L. Taylor. 2001. Estimates of large whale abundance off California, Oregon, 

Washington, and Baja California based on 1993 and 1996 ship surveys. Southwest Fisheries Science 

Center Administrative Report LJ-01-03. NMFS, La Jolla, CA.

Barlow, J., R.W. Baird, J.E. Heyning, K. Wynne, AM. Manville, L.F. Lowry, D. Hanan, J. Sease, and 

V.N. Burkanov. 1994. A review of cetacean and pinniped mortality in coastal fisheries along the west 

coast of the USA and Canada and the east coast of the Russian Federation. Reports of the 

International Whaling Commission (Special Issue) 15:405-426.

Barlow, J., K.A. Forney, P.S. Hill, R.L. Brownell Jr., J.V. Carretta, D.P. DeMaster, F. Julian, M.S. 

Lowry, T. Ragen, and R.R. Reeves. 1997. U. S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 1996. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-248. Southwest Fisheries Science 

Center, La Jolla, CA.

Barlow, J., M.C. Ferguson, W.F. Perrin, L. Ballance, T. Gerrodette, G. Joyce, C.D. Macleod, K. Mullin, 

D.L. Palka, and G. Waring. 2006. Abundance and densities of beaked and bottlenose whales (family 

Ziphiidae). Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 7:263-270.

Barmes, T., K.L. Eckert, and J. Sybesma. 1993. WIDECAST Sea Turtle Recovery Action Plan for Aruba. 

CEP Technical Report No. 25. UNEP Caribbean Environment Program, Kingston, Jamaica. 

Barnes, R.D. 1980. Invertebrate Zoology. Saunders College/Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Philadelphia, 

PA.

Bartol, S.M. and D.R. Ketten. 2006. Turtle and tuna hearing. Pages 98-103 in Y. Swimmer and R. Brill, 

eds. Sea Turtle and Pelagic Fish Sensory Biology: Developing Techniques to Reduce Sea Turtle 

Bycatch in Longline Fisheries. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-7. NMFS, Pacific 

Islands Fisheries Science Center, Honolulu, HI.

Bartol, S., J.A. Musick, and M.L. Lenhardt. 1999. Auditory evoked potentials of the loggerhead sea turtle 

(Caretta caretta). Copeia 1999:836-840.

Barton, P., J. Diebold, and S. Gulick. 2006. Balancing mitigation against impact: a case study from the 

2005 Chicxulub seismic survey. Eos Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 87(36), Joint 

Assembly Supplement, Abstract OS41A-04. 23-26 May, Baltimore, MD.

Bauer, G.B., J.C. Gaspard, K. Dziuk, A. Cardwell, L. Read, R.L. Reep, and D.A. Mann. 2009. The 

manatee audiogram and auditory critical ratios. Pages 27-28 in Abstracts of the 18th Biennial 

Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 October 2009, Québec City, Canada.

Beasley, I., K.N.M. Robertson, and P. Arnold. 2005. Description of a new dolphin, the Australian snubfin 

dolphin Orcaella heinsohni sp. N. (Cetacea, Delphinidae). Marine Mammal Science 21:365-400.

Benson, S.R., K.A. Forney, P.H. Dutton, and S.A. Eckert. 2003. Occurrence of leatherback sea turtles off 

the coast of central California. Page 27 in J.A. Seminoff, compiler. Proceedings of the Twenty-second 

Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-SEFSC-503. NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, FL.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-7

Berkson, H. 1967. Physiological adjustments to deep diving in the Pacific green turtle (Chelonia mydas 

agassizii). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 21:507-524.

Bermudez-Villapol, L.A. and A.J. Sayegh. 2005. Cetaceans strandings in Nueva Esparta State, 

Venezuela, period 2000-2004. Page 33 in Abstracts of the 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of 

Marine Mammals, 12-16 December 2005, San Diego, CA.

Bertram, D.F. 1995. The roles of introduced rats and commercial fishing in decline of ancient murrelets 

on Langara Island, British Columbia. Conservation Biology 9:865-872.

Best, P.B. 1979. Social organization in sperm whales, Physeter macrocephalus. Pages 227-289 in H.E. 

Winn and B.L. Olla, eds. Behavior of Marine Animals, Volume 3. Plenum Press, New York, NY.

Best, P.B. and C.H. Lockyer. 2002. Reproduction, growth and migrations of sei whales Balaenoptera

borealis off the west coast of South Africa in the 1960s. South African Journal of Marine Science 

24:111-133.

Best, P.B., P.A.S. Canham, and N. Macleod. 1984. Patterns of reproduction in sperm whales, Physeter

macrocephalus. Report of the International Whaling Commission Special Issue 6:51-79.

Bigg, M.A. 1985. Status of the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) and California sea lion (Zalophus 

californianus) in British Columbia. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

77:1-20.

Bigg, M.A. 1990. Migration of northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) off western North America. 

Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1764.

Bjørge, A., D. Thompson, P.S. Hammond, M.A. Fedak, E.B. Bryant, H. Aarefjord, R. Roen, and M. 

Olson. 1995. Habitat use and diving behaviour of harbour seals in a coastal archipelago in Norway. 

Pages 211-223 in A.S. Blix, L. Walloe, and O. Ulltang, eds. Whales, Seals, Fish and Man. 

Development in Marine Biology Volume 4. Elsevier Science, B.B., Amsterdam.

Bjorndal, K.A. 1995. The consequences of herbivory for the life history pattern of the Caribbean green 

turtle, Chelonia mydas. Pages 111-116 in K.A. Bjorndal, ed. Biology and Conservation of Sea 

Turtles. Revised edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Bjorndal, K.A. 1997. Foraging Ecology and Nutrition of Sea Turtles. Pages 189-231 in P.L. Lutz and J.A. 

Musick, eds. The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, and H.R. Martins. 2000. Somatic growth model of juvenile loggerhead sea 

turtles Caretta caretta: duration of the pelagic stage. Marine Ecology Progress Series 202:265-272.

Black, A. 2005. Light induced seabird mortality on vessels operating in the Southern Ocean: incidents 

and mitigation measures. Antarctic Science 17:67-68.

Blackwell, S.B., R.G. Norman, C.R. Greene Jr. and W.J. Richardson. 2007. Acoustic measurements. 

Pages 4-1 – 4-52 in Marine mammal monitoring and mitigation during open water seismic 

exploration by Shell Offshore Inc. in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, July-September 2006: 90-day 

report. LGL Report P891-1. Prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates Inc., Anchorage, AK, and 

Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Shell Offshore Inc., Houston, TX, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-8

Blackwell, S.B., C.R. Greene, T.L. McDonald, C.S. Nations, R.G. Norman, and A. Thode. 2009a. 

Beaufort Sea bowhead whale migration route study. Chapter 8 in D.S. Ireland, D.W. Funk, R. 

Rodrigues, and W.R. Koski, eds. 2009. Joint Monitoring Program in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, 

Open Water Seasons, 2006-2007. LGL Alaska Report P971-2. Report from LGL Alaska Research 

Associates, Anchorage, AK for Shell Offshore Inc., Anchorage, AK. 

Blackwell, S.B., C.S. Nations, T.L. McDonald, A.M. Thode, K.H. Kim, C.R. Greene, and M.A. 

Macrander. 2009b. Effects of seismic exploration activities on the calling behavior of bowhead 

whales in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Page 35 in Abstracts of the 18th Biennial Conference on the 

Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 October 2009, Québec City, Canada.

Blaxter, J.H.S. 1981. The swim bladder and hearing. Pages 61-69 in W.N. Tavolga, A.N. Popper, and 

R.R. Fay, eds. Hearing and Sound Communication in Fishes. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.

BLI. 2006. Data Zone: Search for Species. www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index. 

Bodkin, J.L. 2003. Sea otter: Enhydra lutris. Pages 735-743 in G.A. Feldhamer, B.C. Thompson, and 

J.A. Chapman, eds. Wild Mammals of North America. Second editon. Johns Hopkins University 

Press, Baltimore, MD.

Bodkin, J.L. and M.S. Udevitz. 1999. An aerial survey method to estimate sea otter abundance. Pages 13-

26 in G.W. Garner, S.C. Amstrup, J. L. Laake, B.F. J. Manly, L.L. McDonald, and D.G. Robertson, 

eds. Marine Mammal Survey and Assessment Methods. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands. 

Boeger, W.A., M.R. Pie, A. Ostrensky, and M.F. Cardoso. 2006. The effect of exposure to seismic 

prospecting on coral reef fishes. Brazilian Journal of Oceanography 54:235-239.

Bolten, A., K.A. Bjorndal, and H.R. Martins. 1994. Biology of Pelagic-Stage Loggerheads in the Atlantic. 

Pages 19-20 in K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar, eds. Proceedings of the 

Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351. NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, FL. 

Bolten, A.B., K.A. Bjorndal, H.R. Martins, and G.H. Balazs. 1996. Satellite telemetry of pelagic-stage 

juvenile loggerheads in the Eastern Atlantic. Pages 39-41 in J.A. Keinath, D.E. Barnard, J.A. Musick, 

and B.A. Bell, compilers. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and 

Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351. NMFS, Southeast Fisheries 

Science Center, Miami, FL.

Bolton, A.B. and H.R. Martins. 1990. Kemp‘s ridley captured in the Azores. Marine Turtle Newsletter 

48:23.

Bonnell, M. L. and M. D. Dailey. 1993. Marine Mammals. Pages 604-681 in M. D. Dailey, D. J. Reish, 

and J. W. Anderson, eds. Ecology of the Southern California Bight. University of California Press, 

Berkeley, CA. 

Bonnell, M.L., C.E. Bowlby, and G.A. Green. 1992. Pinniped distribution and abundance off Oregon and 

Washington, 1989-1990. In J.J. Brueggeman, ed. Oregon and Washington Marine Mammal and 

Seabird Surveys. Minerals Management Service Contract Report 14-12-0001-30426.

Bonnell, M.L., R.G. Ford, and A.J. Brody. 1996. Assessing the threat of oil spills to southern sea otters. 

Endangered Species Update 13(12):38-42.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-9

Booman, C., J. Dalen, H. Leivestad, A. Levsen, T. van der Meeren, and K. Toklum. 1996. Effecter av 

luftkanonskyting på egg, larver og yngel. Fisken Og Havet 1996(3):1-83 (Norwegian with English 

summary).

Borsani, J.F. C.W. Clark, and L. Tedesco. 2005. Does pile-driving noise withdraw fin whales from their 

habitat? Page 40 in Abstracts of the 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 

12-16 December 2005, San Diego, CA. 

Boudreau, M., S.C. Courtenay, and K. Lee (eds.). 2009. Potential Impacts of Seismic Energy on Snow 

Crab: An Update to the September 2004 Review. Proceedings of a workshop held 23 January 2007 at 

the Gulf Fisheries Center, Moncton, NB, Canada. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 2836.

Bowlby, C.E., G.A. Green, and M.L. Bonnell. 1994. Observations of leatherback turtles offshore of 

Washington and Oregon. Northwest Naturalist 75:33-35.

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. 

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 96:2469-2484.

Boyd, I.L., C. Lockyer, and H.D. March. 1999. Reproduction in marine mammals. Pages 218-286 in J.E. 

Reynolds, III and S.A. Rommel, eds. Biology of Marine Mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, 

Washington, DC. 

Bradford, A.L., P.R. Wade, D.W. Weller, A.M. Burdin, Y.V., Ivashchenko, G.A. Tsidulko, G.R. 

VanBlaricom, and R.L. Brownell, Jr. 2006. Survival estimates of western gray whales Eschrichtius

robustus incorporating individual heterogeneity and temporary emigration. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series 315:293-307.

Bradley, D.L. and R. Stern. 2008. Underwater Sound and the Marine Mammal Acoustic Environment. 

Prepared for the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission, Bethesda, MD. July.

Brady, S. and J. Boreman. 1994. Sea turtle distributions and documented fishery threats off the 

northeastern United States coast. Pages 31-34 in B.A. Schroder and B.E. Witherington, compilers. 

Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-341. NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, FL.

Braham, H.W., B.D. Krogman, and G.M. Carroll. 1984. Bowhead and white whale migration, 

distribution, and abundance in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas, 1975-78. NOAA Technical 

Report NMFS-SSRF-778. Rockville, MD.

Braithwaite, L.F., M.G. Aley, and D.L. Slater. 1983. The effects of oil on the feeding mechanism of the 

bowhead whale. Report from Brigham Young University, Salt Lake City, UT, for Minerals 

Management Service, Anchorage, AK. 

Branch, T.A. and D.S. Butterworth. 2001. Estimates of abundance south of 60°S for cetacean species 

sighted frequently on the 1978/79 to 1997/98 IWC/IDCR-SOWER sighting surveys. Journal of 

Cetacean Research and Management 3:251-279.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-10

Branch, T.A.; K.M. Stafford, D.M. Palacios, C. Allison, J.L. Bannister, C.L.K. Burton, E. Cabrera, C.A. 

Carlson, B. Galletti Vernazzani, P.C. Gill, R. Hucke-Gaete, K.C.S. Jenner, M.-N.M. Jenner,

K. Matsuoka, Y.A. Mikhalev, T. Miyashita,M.G. Morrice, S. Nishiwaki, V.J. Sturrock, D. Tormosov,

R.C. Anderson, A.N. Baker, P.B. Best, P. Borsa, R.L. Brownell, Jr, S. Childerhouse,K.P. Findlay, 

T. Gerrodette, A.D. Ilangakoon, M. Joergensen, B. Kahn, D.K. Ljungblad, B. Maughan,

R.D. McCauley, S. McKay, T.F. Norris, S. Rankin, F. Samaran,D. Thiele, K. Van Waerebeek, and 

R.M. Warneke. 2007. Past and present distribution, densities and movements of blue whales 

Balaenoptera musculus in the Southern Hemisphere and northern Indian Ocean. Mammal Review

37:116-175.

Breithaupt, T. 2002. Sound perception in aquatic crustaceans. Pages 548-558 in K. Wiese, ed. Crustacean 

Nervous System. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg, Germany. 

Brill, R.W., G.H. Balazs, K.N. Holland, R.K.C. Chang, S. Sullivan, and J. George. 1995. Daily 

movements, habitat use, and submergence intervals of normal and tumor-bearing juvenile green 

turtles (Chelonia mydas L.) within a foraging area in the Hawaiian Islands. Journal of Experimental 

Marine Biology and Ecology 185:203-218.

Broderick, D., C. Moritz, J.D. Miller, M. Guinea, R.I.T. Prince, and C.J. Limpus. 1994. Genetic studies of 

the hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata: evidence for multiple stocks in Australian waters. 

Pacific Conservation Biology 1:121-131. 

Brongersma, L.D. 1995. Marine Turtles of the Eastern Atlantic Ocean. Pages 407-416 in K.A. Bjorndal, 

ed. Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Revised Edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, 

Washington, DC.

Brueggeman, J.J., G.A. Green, R.A. Grotefendt, and D.G. Chapman. 1987. Aerial surveys of endangered 

cetaceans and other marine mammals in the northwestern Gulf of Alaska and southeastern Bering 

Sea. Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program, Final Report. OCS Study MMS 

89-0026. Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, AK. 

Brueggeman, J.J., G.A. Gren, K.C. Balcomb, C.E. Bowlby, R.A. Grotefendt, K.T. Briggs, M.L. Bonnell, 

R.G. Ford, D.H. Varoujean, D. Heinemann, and D.G. Chapman. 1990. Oregon-Washington Marine 

Mammal and Seabird Survey: Information synthesis and hypothesis formulation. OCS Study MMS 

89-0030.

Buchanan, J.B., D.H. Johnson, E.L. Greda, G.A. Green, T.R. Wahl, and S.J. Jeffries. 2001. Wildlife of 

coastal and marine habitats. Pages 389-422 in D.H. Johnson and T.A. O'Neil, eds. Wildlife-Habitat 

Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

Buchanan, R.A., J.R. Christian, S. Dufault, and V.D. Moulton. 2004. Impacts of underwater noise on 

threatened or endangered species in United States waters. Report No. SA791. Report prepared by 

LGL Ltd. for American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC. 

Budelmann, B.U. 1992. Hearing in crustacea. Pages 131-139 in D.B. Webster, R.R. Fay, and A.N. 

Popper, eds. Evolutionary Biology of Hearing. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.

Budelmann, B.U. 1996. Active marine predators: the sensory world of cephalopods. Marine and 

Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology 27:59-75.

Budelmann, B.U. and R. Williamson. 1994. Directional sensitivity of hair cell afferents in the Octopus 

statocyst. Journal of Experimental Biology 187:245-259.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-11

Bullock, T.H., T.J. Oshea, and M.C. McClune. 1982. Auditory evoked-potentials in the West Indian 

manatee (Sirenia, Trichechus manatus). Journal of Comparative Physiology 148:547-554.

Burghardt, G.M. and R.A. Stanley, eds. 1982. Iguanas of the World: Their Behavior, Ecology and 

Conservation. Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, NJ. 

Burkhardt, E., O. Boebel, H. Bornemann, and C. Ruholl. 2008. Risk assessment of scientific sonars.

Bioacoustics 17:235-237

Burton, C.L.K. 2001. Historical and recent distribution of humpback whales in Shark Bay, Western 

Australia. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 47:599-611.

Byles, R.A. 1988. Behavior and Ecology of Sea Turtles from Chesapeake Bay, Virginia. Dissertation, 

College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.

Calambokidis, J. 1995. Blue whales off California. Whalewatcher 29(1):3-7.

Calambokidis, J. 2003. Grey whale photographic identification in 2002: Collaborative research in the 

Pacific Northwest. Draft report prepared by Cascadia Research, Olympia, WA for National Marine 

Mammal Laboratory, Seattle, WA. September.

Calambokidis, J. and S.D. Osmek. 1998. Marine mammal research and mitigation in conjunction with air 

gun operation for the USGS `SHIPS' seismic surveys in 1998. Final Report. Prepared by Cascadia 

Research, Olympia, WA, for U.S. Geological Survey, NMFS, and MMS. July.

Calambokidis, J., G.H. Steiger, J.M. Straley, T.J. Quinn, II, L.M. Herman, S. Cerchio, D.R. Salden, M. 

Yamaguchi, F. Sato, J. Urbán R., J. Jacobsen, O. von Ziegesar, K.C. Balcomb, C.M. Gabriele, M.E. 

Dahlheim, N. Higashi, S. Uchida, J.K.B. Ford, Y. Miyamura, P. Ladrón de Guevara, S.A. Mizroch, L. 

Schlender, and K. Rasmussen. 1997. Abundance and population structure of humpback whales in the 

North Pacific Basin. Final Contract Report 50ABNF500113 to NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science 

Center, La Jolla, CA.

Calambokidis, J., T. Chandler, K. Rasmussen, L. Schlender, and G.H. Steiger. 2000. Humpback and blue 

whale photo-identification research off California, Oregon and Washington in 1999. Final Contract 

Report to NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, CA.

Calambokidis, J., G.H Steiger, J.M Straley, L.M. Herman, S. Cerchio, D.R. Salden, J. Urbán R., J.K. 

Jacobsen, O. von Ziegesar, K.C. Balcomb, C.M. Gabriele, M.E. Dahlheim, S. Uchida, G. Ellis, Y. 

Miyamura, P. Ladrón de Guevara P., M. Yamaguchi, F. Sato, S.A. Mizroch, L. Schlender, K. 

Rasmussen, J. Barlow, and T.J. Quinn II. 2001. Movements and population structure of humpback 

whales in the North Pacific. Marine Mammal Science 17:769-794.

Calambokidis, J., J.D. Darling, V. Deecke, P. Gearin, M. Gosho, W. Megill, C.M. Tombach, D. Goley, C. 

Toropova, and B. Gisborne. 2002. Abundance, range and movements of a feeding aggregation of gray 

whales (Eschrichtius robustus) from California to southeastern Alaska in 1998. Journal of Cetacean 

Research and Management 4:267-276.

Calambokidis, J., T. Chandler, L. Schlender, G.H. Steiger, and A. Douglas. 2003. Research on humpback

and blue whales off California, Oregon, and Washington in 2002. Final Report prepared by Cascadia 

Research, Olympia, WA to NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, CA. 

Calambokidis, J., T. Chandler, E. Falcone, and A. Douglas. 2004. Research on large whales off 

California, Oregon and Washington in 2003. Prepared by Cascadia Research, Olympia, WA for 

NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, CA.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-12

Calambokidis, J., E.A. Falcone, T.J. Quinn, A.M Burdin, P.J. Clapham, J.K.B. Ford, C.M. Gabriele, R. 

LeDuc, D. Mattila, L. Rojas-Bracho, J.M. Straley, B.L. Taylor, J. Urban R., D. Weller, B.H. 

Witteveen, M. Yamaguchi, A. Bendlin, D. Camacho, K. Flynn, A. Havron, J. Huggins, and N. 

Maloney. 2008. SPLASH: Structure of Populations, Levels of Abundance and Status of Humpback 

Whales in the North Pacific. Final Report for Contract AB133F-03-RP-0078. Prepared for U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Western Administrative Center, Seattle, WA. May.

Calambokidis, J., J. Barlow, J.K.B. Ford, T.E. Chandler, and A.B. Douglas. 2009. Insights into the 

population structure of blue whales in the eastern North Pacific from recent sightings and 

photographic identification. Marine Mammal Science 25:816-832.

Caldwell, J. and W. Dragoset. 2000. A brief overview of seismic air-gun arrays. The Leading Edge 

2000(8, Aug.):898-902.

California Native American Heritage Commission. 2006. Personal communication via telephone. 15 June.

Campbell, G.S., R.C. Gisiner, D.A. Helweg, and L.L. Milette. 2002. Acoustic identification of female 

Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 111:2920-2928.

Cardona-Maldonado, M.A. and A.A. Mignucci-Giannoni. 1999. Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales in 

Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, with a review of Kogia in the Caribbean. Caribbean Journal of 

Science 35:29-37.

Caribbean Conservation Corporation & Sea Turtle Survival League. 1998. 566 sea turtles found dead 

along Florida shores from January to June 1998. 

http://www.cccturtle.org/pressreleases.php?page=n_boats. Posted 31 August 1998; accessed August 

2006.

Carr, A. 1987. New perspectives on the pelagic stage of sea turtle development. Conservation Biology 

1:103-121.

Carr, A., M.H. Carr, and A.B. Meylan. 1978. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles: The west 

Caribbean green turtle colony. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 162:1-46.

Carretta, J. V., M. S. Lynn, and C. A. LeDuc. 1994. Right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) sighting off San 

Clemente Island, California. Marine Mammal Science 10:101-105.

Carretta, J.V., K.A. Forney, M.M. Muto, J. Barlow, J. Baker, and M. Lowry. 2004. U.S. Marine Mammal 

Stock Assessments: 2003. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-358. NMFS, 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, CA.

Carretta, J.V., K.A. Forney, M. M. Muto, J. Barlow, J. Baker, B. Hanson, and M.S. Lowry. 2005. U.S. 

Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2004. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TMNMFS-SWFSC-375. NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, CA. 

Carretta, J.V., K.A. Forney, M.M. Muto, J. Barlow, J. Baker, B. Hanson, and M.S. Lowry. 2006. U.S. 

Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2005. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TMNMFS-SWFSC-388. NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, CA. March.

Carretta, J.V., K.A. Forney, M.M. Muto, J. Barlow, J. Baker, B. Hanson, and M.S. Lowry. 2007. U.S. 

Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2006. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-TMSWFSC-398. NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, CA. January.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-13

Carretta, J.V., K.A. Forney, M.S. Lowry, J. Barlow, J. Baker, D. Johnston, B. Hanson, M.M. Muto, D. 

Lynch, and L. Carswell. 2008. U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2008. NOAA-TMNMFS-SWFSC-434. NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, CA.

Casper, B.M., P.S. Lobe, and H.Y. Yan. 2003. The hearing sensitivity of the little skate Raja erinacea: A 

comparison of two methods. Environmental Biology of Fishes 68:371-379.

Cawardine, M. 1998. Whales and Whale Watching in Iceland. Iceland Review, Reykjavik, Iceland.

Cawthorn, M.W. 1990. New Zealand: Progress report cetacean research, April 1988 to May 1989. Report 

of the International Whaling Commission 40:202-205.

CCC. 2003. An introduction to sea turtles. http://www.cccturtle.org/overview.htm. Accessed 13 June 

2006.

CDFG. 1976. A proposal for sea otter protection and research, and request for return of management to 

the State of California, January. 2 Vols. Unpublished Report. Sacramento, CA.

CDFG. 2006a. Fishing: California Commercial Landings. Final Data for 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/fishing.html#commercial. Accessed 20 June. 

CDFG. 2006b. Fishing: Laws and Regulations. Commercial Ocean Fishing. 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/pdffiles/2006CommercialDigestCalendar.pdf. Accessed 20 June.

CDFG. 2006c. Personal communication via telephone, Dave Owno, Santa Barbara, CA. 28 June.

CDFG. 2006d. California Recreational Fisheries Survey (CRFS). http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/crfs.html. 

Accessed 20 June.

CephBase. 2006. CephBase. www.cephbase.utmb.edu. 

CETAP. 1982. Characterization of marine mammals and turtles in the mid- and North Atlantic areas of 

the U.S. outer continental shelf. Final report to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Washington, 

DC, from the Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI. 

Chapman, C.J. 1973. Field studies of hearing in teleost fish. Helgoländer wiss. Meersunters 24:371-390.

Chapman, C.J. and A.D. Hawkins. 1969. The importance of sound in fish behaviour in relation to capture 

by trawls. FAO Fisheries Report 62:717-729.

Chapman, C.J. and A.D. Hawkins. 1973. A field study of hearing in the cod, Gadus morhua L. Journal of 

Comparative Physiology 85:147-167.

Chapman, C.J. and O. Sand. 1974. Field studies of hearing in two species of flatfish, Pleuronectes

platessa and Limanda limanda. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology A. 47: 371-385.

Charest, S., J. Founier, and C. Tarver. 2003. Research and monitoring program: marine mammals. Field 

season report 2003. Laskeek Bay Conservation Society. 

www.laskeekbay.org/index.php?contentid=121. 

Charrier, I., N. Mathevon, and P. Jouventin. 2002. How does a fur seal mother recognize the voice of her 

pup? An experimental study of Arctocephalus tropicalis. Journal of Experimental Biology 

205:603-612.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-14

Charrier, I., N. Mathevon, and P. Jouventin. 2003. Individuality in the voice of fur seal females: an 

analysis study of the pup attraction call in Arctocephalus tropicalis. Marine Mammal Science 

19:161-172.

Chaytor and ten Brink, submitted, Tectonophysics.

Chittleborough, R.G. 1965. Dynamics of two populations of the humpback whale, Megaptera

novaeangliae (Borowski). Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 16:33-128.

Christensen, I., T. Haug, and N. Øien. 1992. Seasonal distribution, exploitation and present abundance of 

stocks of large baleen whales (Mysticeti) and sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) in Norwegian 

and adjacent waters. ICES Journal of Marine Science 49:341-355. 

Christian, J.R., A. Mathieu, D.H. Thomson, D. White, and R.A. Buchanan. 2003. Effect of seismic energy 

on snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio). Environmental Studies Research Funds Report No. 144. Calgary, 

AB, Canada. November.

Christian, J.R., A. Mathieu, and R.A. Buchanan. 2004. Chronic effects of seismic energy on snow crab 

(Chionoecetes opilio). Environmental Studies Research Funds Report No. 158, Calgary, AB. March.

Christie, K., C. Lyons, W.R. Koski, D.S. Ireland, and D.W. Funk. 2009. Patterns of bowhead whale 

occurrence and distribution during marine seismic operations in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Page 55 in

Abstracts of the 18th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 October 2009,

Québec City, Canada. 

CITES. 2010. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna: 

Appendices I, II and III (valid from 24 June 2010). http://www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.shtml. 

Clapham, P. 2001. Why do baleen whales migrate? A response to Corkeron and Connor. Marine 

Mammal Science 17:432-436.

Clapham, P.J., S.B. Young, and R.L. Brownell, Jr. 1999. Baleen whales: conservation issues and the 

status of the most endangered populations. Mammal Review 29:35-60.

Clapham, P.J., C. Good, S.E. Quinn, R.R. Reeves, J.E. Scarff, and R.L. Brownell, Jr. 2004. Distribution 

of North Pacific right whales (Eubalaena japonica) as shown by 19th and 20th century whaling catch 

and sighting records. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 6:1-6.

Clark, C.W. and W.T. Ellison. 2004. Potential use of low-frequency sounds by baleen whales for probing 

the environment: Evidence from models and empirical measurements. Pages 564-589 in J.A. 

Thomas, C.F. Moss, and M. Vater, eds. Echolocation in Bats and Dolphins. University of Chicago 

Press, Chicago, IL.

Clark, C.W., P. Tyack, and W.T. Ellison. 2001. Revised Overseas Environmental Impact Statement and 

Environmental Impact Statement for Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency 

Active (SURTASS LFA) Sonar Technical Report 1: Low frequency Sound Scientific Research 

Program Technical Report (Responses of four species of whales to sounds of SURTASS LFA sonar 

transmissions). Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Navy. January.

Clarke, J.T., S.E. Moore, and M.M. Johnson. 1993. Observations on beluga fall migration in the Alaskan 

Beaufort Sea, 198287, and northeastern Chukchi Sea, 198291. Report of the International Whaling 

Commission 43:387-396.

Clay, C.S. and H. Medwin. 1977. Acoustical oceanography. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-15

Clifton, K., D.O. Cornejo, and R.S. Felger. 1995. Sea turtles of the Pacific coast of Mexico. Pages 199-

209 in K.A. Bjorndal, ed. Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Revised edition. Smithsonian 

Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Cogger, H.G. and D.A. Lindner. 1969. Marine turtles in northern Australia. Australian Zoology 15:150-

159.

Coles, W.C. and J.A. Musick. 2000. Satellite sea surface temperature analysis and correlation with sea 

turtle distribution off North Carolina. Copeia 2000:551-554.

Collin, S.P. and N.J. Marshall, eds. 2003. Sensory Processing in Aquatic Environments. Springer-Verlag, 

New York, NY. 

Collins, T., G. Minton, R. Baldwin, K. Van Waerebeek, A. Hywell-Davies, and V.A. Cockcroft. 2002. 

Preliminary assessment of the frequency, distribution and causes of mortality of beach cast cetaceans 

in the Sultanate of Oman, January 1999 to February 2002. Paper SC/54/04 presented to the IWC 

Scientific Committee, IWC Annual Meeting, 20-24 May 2002, Shimonoseki, Japan.

Cook, M.L.H., R.A. Varela, J.D. Goldstein, S.D. McCulloch, G.D. Bossart, J.J. Finneran, D. Houser, and 

A. Mann. 2006. Beaked whale auditory evoked potential hearing measurements. Journal of 

Comparative Physiology A 192:489-495.

Cook, S.L. and T.G. Forrest. 2005. Sounds produced by nesting leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys

coriacea). Herpetelogical Review 36:387-390.

Coombs, S. and J.C. Montgomery. 1999. The enigmatic lateral line system. Pages 319-362 in R.R. Fay 

and A.N. Popper, eds. Comparative Hearing: Fish and Amphibians. Springer Handbook of Auditory 

Research 11. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.

Coombs S., J. Jansen, and J.F. Webb. 1988. Diversity of lateral line systems: evolutionary and functional 

considerations. Pages 267-288 in J. Atema., R.R. Fay, A.N. Popper, and W.N. Tavolga, eds. The 

Sensory Biology of Aquatic Animals. Springer-Verlag, New York. 

Coombs, S, P. Görner, and H. Münz, eds. 1989. The Mechanosensory Lateral Line: Neurobiology and 

Evolution. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 

Corkeron, P.J. and R.C. Connor. 1999. Why do baleen whales migrate? Marine Mammal Science 

15:1228-1245.

Cornelius, S.E. and D.C. Robinson. 1986. Post-nesting movements of female olive ridley turtles tagged in 

Costa Rica. Vida Silvestre Neotropical 1:12-23.

COSEWIC. 2003. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Steller sea lion Eumetopias 

jubatus in Canada. Ottawa, ONT, Canada. 

Cottingham, D. 1988. Persistent marine debris: Challenge and response. The federal perspective. Alaska 

Sea Grant Report No. 88-01. 

County of Santa Barbara. 2006. Planning and Development, Energy Division: Offshore Platforms. 

http://www.countyofsb.org/energy/information/offshorePlatforms.asp#grace. Accessed 21 June.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-16

Cox, T.M., T.J. Ragen, A.J. Read, E. Vos, R.W. Baird, K. Balcomb, J. Barlow, J. Caldwell, T. Cranford, 

L. Crum, A. D‘amico, G. D‘spain, A. Fernández, J. Finneran, R. Gentry, W. Gerth, F. Gulland, J. 

Hildebrand, D. Houserp, R. Hullar, P.D. Jepson, D. Ketten, C.D. Macleod, P. Miller,S. Moore, D.C. 

Mountain, D. Palka, P. Ponganis, S. Rommel, T. Rowles, B. Taylor, P. Tyack, D. Wartzok, R. 

Gisiner, J. Meads, and L. Benner. 2006. Understanding the impacts of anthropogenic sound on 

beaked whales. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 7:177-187.

Craig, A.S., L.M. Herman, and A.A. Pack. 2002. Male mate choice and male-male competition coexist in 

the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 80:745-755.

Croll, D.A., B.R. Tershy, A. Acevdeo, and P. Levin. 1999. Marine vertebrates and low frequency sound. 

Technical Report for LFA EIS. Marine Mammals and Seabird Ecology Group, Institute of Marine 

Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA.

Cronin, M.A., J. Bodkin, B. Ballachey, J. Estes, and J.C. Patton. 1996. Mitochondrial-DNA variation 

among subspecies and populations of sea otters (Enhydra lutris). Journal of Mammalogy 77:546-557.

Crum, L.A., M.R. Bailey, J. Guan, P.R. Hilmo, S.G. Kargl, and T.J. Matula. 2005. Monitoring bubble 

growth in supersaturated blood and tissue ex vivo and the relevance to marine mammal bioeffects. 

Acoustic Research Letters Online 6:214-220.

CSLC. 2006. California Shipwrecks: Online Database of California Shipwrecks. 

http://shipwrecks.slc.ca.gov/. Accessed 7 June 2006.

Culik, B.M. 2004. Review of small cetaceans. Distribution, behavior, migration and threats. UNEP/CMS 

Secretariat, Bonn, Germany.

Cummings, W.C. 1985. Byrde‘s whale Balaenoptera edeni (Anderson, 1878). In S.H. Ridgway and R 

Harrison, eds. Handbook of Marine Mammals Vol. 3: The Sirenians and Baleen Whales. Academic 

Press, London, UK.

Dahlheim, M.E. 1987. Bio-acoustics of the gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus). Dissertation, University 

of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. 

Dahlheim, M.E. 1988. Killer whale (Orcinus orca) depredation on longline catches of sablefish 

(Anoplopoma fimbria) in Alaskan waters. NWAFC Processed Report 88-14. NMFS, Northwest and 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA.

Dalen, J. and G.M. Knutsen. 1986. Scaring effects in fish and harmful effects on eggs, larvae and fry by 

offshore seismic explorations. Symposium on Underwater Acoustics, Halifax.

Dalen, J. and A. Raknes. 1985. Scaring effects on fish from three dimensional seismic surveys. Institute 

of Marine Research Report FO 8504/8505, Bergen, Norway (Norwegian with English summary).

Dalen, J., E. Ona, A.V. Soldal, and R. Saetre. 1996. Seismiske undersøkelser til havs: en vurdering av 

konsekvenser for fisk og fiskerier [Seismic investigations at sea; an evaluation of consequences for 

fish and fisheries]. Fisken og Havet 1996:1-26. (Norwegian with English summary).

Danil, K. and S. Chivers. 2005. Habitat-based spatial and temporal variability in life history 

characteristics of female common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) in the eastern tropical Pacific. Page 

67 in Abstracts of the 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 December 

2005, San Diego, CA.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-17

d‘Auvergne, C. and K.L. Eckert. 1993. WIDECAST Sea Turtle Recovery Action Plan for St. Lucia. CEP 

Technical Report No. 26. UNEP Caribbean Environment Program, Kingston, Jamaica. 

Davenport, J. 1988. Do diving leatherbacks pursue glowing jelly? British Herpetological Society Bulletin

24:20-21.

Davenport, J. 1997. Temperature and the life-history strategies of sea turtles. Journal of Thermal Biology 

22:479-488.

Dávila, J.M., U. ten Brink, J. Payero, J.L. Granja, C. Von Hilldebrandt, D. Córdoba, A. Muñnoz Martín, 

A. Pazos, M. Catalán, and M. Gómez. 2005. Survey Explores Active Tectonics in Northeastern 

Caribbean. Eos Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 86(51):537.

Davis, J.E. and S.S. Anderson. 1976. Effects of oil pollution on breeding grey seals. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin 7:115-118.

Davis, R.W., G.S. Fargion, N. May, T.D. Leming, M. Baumgartner, W.E. Evans, L.J. Hansen, and K. 

Mullin. 1998. Physical habitat of cetaceans along the continental slope in the north-central and 

western Gulf of Mexico. Marine Mammal Science 14:490-507.

de Boer, M.N., R. Baldwin, C.L.K. Burton, E.L. Eyre, K.C.S. Jenner, M-N.M. Jenner, S.G. Keith, 

K.A.McCabe, E.C.M. Parsons, V.M. Peddemors, H.C. Rosenbaum, P. Rudolph, and M. P. 

Simmonds, eds. 2003. Cetaceans in the Indian Ocean Sanctuary: a review. Whale and Dolphin 

Conservation Society Science Report. Whiltshire, UK.

Debrot, A.O. and N.B. Barros. 1992. Notes on a Gervais‘ beaked whale, Mesoplodon europaeus and a 

dwarf sperm whale, Kogia simus, stranded in Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles. Marine Mammal 

Science 8:172-178.

Deffenbaugh, M. 2002. Mitigating seismic impact on marine life: Current practice and future technology. 

Bioacoustics 12: 316-18. 

del Hoyo, J., A. Elliot, and J. Sargatal, eds. 1992. Handbook of the Birds of the World. Volumes 1 and 3. 

Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain.

DeLong, R.L. and B.S. Stewart. 1991. Diving patterns of northern elephant seal bulls. Marine Mammal 

Science 7:369-384.

DeMaster, D.P. and I. Stirling. 1981. Ursus maritimus. Mammalian Species 145:1-7.

Denton, E.J., J.A.B. Gray, and J.H.S. Blaxter. 1979. The mechanics of the clupeid acoustico-lateralis 

system: frequency responses. Journal of the Marine Biological Association UK 59:27-47.

DeRuiter, S.L., Y-T. Lin, A.E. Newhall, P.T. Madsen, P.J.O. Miller, J.F. Lynch, and P.L. Tyack. 2005. 

Quantification and acoustic propagation modeling of airgun noise recorded on DTAG-tagged sperm 

whales in the Gulf of Mexico. Page 73 in Abstracts of the 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of 

Marine Mammals, 12-16 December, San Diego, CA.

DFOC. 2004a. Proceedings of the National Marine Mammal Peer Review Committee; 20-23 April 2004, 

St. Andrews, New Brunswick. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Proceedings Series 2004/009.

DFOC. 2004b. Potential impacts of seismic energy on snow crab. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat 

Habitat Status Report 2004/003.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-18

DFOC. 2005a. Ecological Geography of the Sea. http://www.mar.dfompo.gc.ca/science/ocean/BedfordBasin/Papers/Longhurst1998/Provinces/EcologicalGeographyOfTh

eSea.htm. Accessed 21 September.

DFOC. 2005b. Mitigation of Seismic Noise in the Marine Environment. Statement of Canadian Practice. 

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/canwaters-eauxcan/infocentre/media/seismicsismique/pdf/statement_e.pdf. Last updated 19 February 2005, accessed 10 February 2006. 

DFOC. 2005c. Personal communication to LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, from J. Ford, 

Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, BC.

Diebold, J.B., M. Tolstoy, P.J. Barton, and S.P. Gulick. 2006. Propagation of exploration seismic sources 

in shallow water. Eos Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 87(36), Joint Assembly 

Supplement, Abstract OS41A-03. 23-26 May, Baltimore, MD.

Doksæter, L., E. Olsen, and L. Nøttestad. 2005. Distribution and ecology of dolphins along the MidAtlantic Ridge between Iceland and the Azores. Page 76 in Abstracts of the 16th Biennial Conference 

on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 December 2005, San Diego, CA.

Dolman, S.J. and M.P. Simmonds. 2006. An updated note on the vulnerability of cetaceans to acoustic 

disturbance. Paper SC/58/E22 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, IWC Annual Meeting, 1-

13 June, St. Kitts and Nevis. 

Dolman, S., M. Green, E. Heskett, J. Reynolds, and N. Rose. 2006. Statement C: Environmental Caucus 

Statement for the Report of the Advisory Committee on Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals to the 

Marine Mammal Commission. Marine Mammal Commission, Bethesda, MD. 1 February. Available 

at: http://www.mmc.gov/sound/. 

Domico, T. 1988. Bears of the World. Facts on File, New York, NY.

Donovan, G.P. 1991. A review of IWC stock boundaries. Report of the International Whaling 

Commission 13:39-68.

Dooling, R. 2002. Avian hearing and avoidance of wind turbines. Technical Report NREL/TP-500-

30844. National Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. 

Dooling, R.J. and A.N. Popper. 2000. Hearing in birds and reptiles: an overview. Pages 1-12 in R.J. 

Dooling, R.R. Fay, and A.N. Popper, eds. Comparative Hearing: Birds and Reptiles. Springer 

Handbook of Auditory Research. Springer-Verlag New York, NY.

Dooling, R.J., B. Lohr, and M.L. Dent. 2000. Hearing in birds and reptiles. Pages 308-359 in R.J. 

Dooling, R.R. Fay, and A.N. Popper, eds. Comparative Hearing: Birds and Reptiles. Springer 

Handbook of Auditory Research. Springer-Verlag New York, NY.

Doroff, A.M., J.A. Estes, M. T. Tinker, D.M. Burn, and T.J. Evans. 2003. Sea otter population declines in 

the Aleutian Archipelago. Journal of Mammalogy 84:55-64.

Dorsey, E. M., S. J. Stern, A. R. Hoelzel, and J. Jacobsen. 1990. Minke whale (Balaenoptera

acutorostrata) from the west coast of North America: individual recognition and small-scale site 

fidelity. Report of the International Whaling Commission Special Issue 12:357-368.

Dufault, S. and H. Whitehead. 1995. An assessment of changes with time in the marking patterns used for 

photoidentification of individual sperm whales, Physeter macrocephalus. Marine Mammal Science 

11:335-344.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-19

Dow, W.E., D.A. Mann, T.T. Jones, S.A. Eckert, and C.A. Harms. 2008. In-water and in-air hearing 

sensitivity of the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas). Abstract, Acoustic Communication by Animals, 

2

nd International Conference, 12-15 August 2008, Corvallis, OR.

Dunn, R.A. and O. Hernandez. 2009. Tracking blue whales in the eastern tropical Pacific with an oceanbottom seismometer and hydrophone array. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126:1084-

1094. 

Dutton, P.H., and D.L. McDonald. 1990a. Status of sea turtles in San Diego Bay, 1989-1990. Final report. 

Sea World Research Institute Technical Report #90-225. San Diego, CA.

Dutton, P.H., and D.L. McDonald. 1990b. Sea turtles present in San Diego Bay. Pages 139-141 in T.H. 

Richardson, J.I. Richardson, and M. Donnelly, compilers. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual 

Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC278. NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, FL.

Dutton, D., P. Dutton, R. Leroux, and J. Seminoff. 2002. Ultrasonic tracking of green turtles (Chelonia 

mydas) in south San Diego Bay: 2001-2002 Report. Submitted to the San Diego Bay Port Authority, 

San Diego, CA.

Eckert, K.L. 1993. The biology and population status of marine turtles in the North Pacific Ocean. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-186. Southwest Fisheries Science Center, San Diego, CA.

Eckert, K.L. 1995a. Hawksbill sea turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata. Pages 76-108 in P.T. Plotkin, ed. 

Status Reviews of Sea Turtles Listed Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973: Loggerhead Turtle, 

Caretta caretta; East Pacific Green Turtle, Chelonia mydas; Leatherback Turtle, Dermochelys 

coriacea; Hawksbill Turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata; Kemp‘s Ridley Turtle, Lepidochelys kempii; 

Olive Ridley Turtle, Lepidochelys olivacea. NMFS, Silver Spring, MD, and USFWS, Washington, 

DC.

Eckert, K.L. 1995b. Leatherback sea turtle, Dermochelys coriacea. Pages 37-75 in P.T. Plotkin, ed. Status 

Reviews of Sea Turtles Listed Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973: Loggerhead Turtle, 

Caretta caretta; East Pacific Green Turtle, Chelonia mydas; Leatherback Turtle, Dermochelys 

coriacea; Hawksbill Turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata; Kemp‘s Ridley Turtle, Lepidochelys kempii; 

Olive Ridley Turtle, Lepidochelys olivacea. NMFS, Silver Spring, MD, and USFWS, Washington, 

DC.

Eckert, K.L. and S.A. Eckert. 1988. Pre-reproductive movements of leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys 

coriacea) nesting in the Caribbean. Copeia 1988:400-406.

Eckert, K.L., S.A. Eckert, T.W. Adams, and A.D. Tucker. 1989. Inter-nesting migrations by leatherback 

sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in the West Indies. Herpetologica 45:190-194.

Eckert, S.A. 2000. Letter to M. James, Nova Scotia Leatherback Turtle Working Group, regarding 

possible impacts of seismic exploration off Nova Scotia on sea turtles. Hubbs-Sea World Research 

Institute, San Diego, CA. 

Eckert, S.A. 2002. Distribution of juvenile leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea sightings. Marine

Ecology Progress Series 230:289-293.

Eckert, S.A., K.L. Eckert, and G.L. Kooyman. 1986. Diving patterns of two leatherback sea turtles 

(Dermochelys coriacea) during the internesting intervals at Sandy Point, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin 

Islands. Herpetologica 42:381-388.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-20

Eckert, S.A., K.L. Eckert, P. Ponganis, and G.L. Kooyman. 1989. Diving and foraging behavior of 

leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea). Canadian Journal of Zoology 67:2834-2840.

Eckert, S.A., H-C. Liew, K.L. Eckert, and E-H. Chan. 1996. Shallow water diving by leatherback turtles 

in the South China Sea. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2:237-243.

Eckert, S.A., A. Bowles, and E. Berg. 1998. The effect of seismic airgun surveys on leatherback sea 

turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) during the nesting season. Report from Hubbs-Sea World Research 

Institute, San Diego, CA, for BHP Petroleum (Trinidad) Ltd. 

ECORD Science Operator. 2010. Expedition 313 – New Jersey Shallow Shelf. 

http://www.eso.ecord.org/expeditions/313/313.php. Accessed 6 June.

Ehrhart, L.M. 1995. A Review of Sea Turtle Reproduction. Pages 29-38 in K.A. Bjorndal, ed. Biology 

and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Revised Edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 

Eisenberg, J.F. and J. Frazier. 1983. A leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) feeding in the wild. 

Journal of Herpetology 17:81-82.

Eldredge, L.G. 2003. The marine reptiles and mammals of Guam. Micronesica 35-36: 653-660.

Elsner, R. 1999. Living in water: solutions to physiological problems. Pages 73-116 in J.E. Reynolds, III 

and S.A. Rommel, eds. Biology of Marine Mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 

Engås, A, S. Løkkeborg, E. Ona, and A.V. Soldal. 1996. Effects of seismic shooting on local abundance 

and catch rates of cod (G. morhua) and haddock (M. aeglefinus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Science 53:2238-2249.

Engel, M.H., M.C.C. Marcondes, C.C.A. Martins, F.O. Luna, R.P. Lima, and A. Campos. 2004. Are 

seismic surveys responsible for cetacean strandings? An unusual mortality of adult humpback whales 

in Abrolhos Bank, northeastern coast of Brazil. Paper SC/56/E28 presented to the IWC Scientific 

Committee, IWC Annual Meeting, 19-22 July, Sorrento, Italy.

Enger, P.S. 1967. Hearing in herring. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 22:527-538.

Enger, P.S., H.E. Karlsen, F.B. Knudsen, and O. Sand. 1993. Detection and reaction of fish to infrasound. 

ICES Marine Science Symposium 196:108-112.

Engelhardt, F.R. 1978. Petroleum hydrocarbons in arctic ringed seals, Phoca hispida, following 

experimental oil exposure. Pages 614-628 in Proceedings of the Conference on the Assessment of the 

Ecological Impacts of Oil Spills, 14-17 June 1978, Keystone, CO. American Institute of Biological 

Science.

Engelhardt, F.R. 1982. Hydrocarbon metabolism and cortisol balance in oil-exposed ringed seals, Phoca 

hispida. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 72C:133-136.

Engelhardt, F.R. 1985. Effect of petroleum on marine mammals. Pages 217-243 in F.R. Engelhardt, ed. 

Petroleum Effects in the Arctic Environment. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London.

Engelhardt, F.R., J.R. Geraci, and T.G. Smith. 1977. Uptake and clearance of petroleum hydrocarbons in 

the ringed seal, Phoca hispida. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 34:1143-1147.

Environment Canada. 2006. Species at Risk: Sei Whale – Pacific Population. 

http://www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca/search/speciesDetails_e.cfm?SpeciesID=755. Last updated 8 May 

2006, accessed 18 March 2007.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-21

Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, and A.J. Chester. 1995. Aerial surveys for sea turtles in North Carolina inshore 

waters. Fishery Bulletin 93:254-261.

Ernst, C.H., R.W. Barbour, and J.E. Lovich. 1994. Turtles of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian 

Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Estes, J.A. 1980. Enhydra lutris. Mammalian Species 133:1-8.

Estes, J.A. 1990. Action plan for sea otters. Pages 22-28 in P. Foster-Turley, S. Macdonald, and C. 

Mason, eds. Otters: An Action Plan for Their Conservation. IUCN/SSC Publication, Kelvyn Press, 

Broadview, IL.

Estes, J.A. and J.L. Bodkin. 2002. Otters. Pages 842-858 in W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and J.G. M. 

Thewissen, eds. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 

Estes, J.A., M.T. Tinker, T.M. Williams, and D.F. Doak. 1998. Killer whale predation on sea otters 

linking oceanic and nearshore ecosystems. Science 282:473-476.

Estes, J.A., M.L. Riedman, M.M. Staedler, M.T. Tinker, and B.E. Lyon. 2003. Individual variation in 

prey selection by sea otters: patterns, causes and implications. Journal of Animal Ecology 72:144-

155.

Estes, J., T. Williams, D. Costa, K. Ralls, and D. Siniff. 2006. Population dynamics and biology of the 

California sea otter at the southern end of its range. Coastal Marine Institute, Coastal Research 

Center, University of Santa Barbara, Current Research. 

http://coastalresearchcenter.ucsb.edu/cmi/seaotters. Accessed 3 July 2006. 

EuroTurtle. 2006. Sea turtle outlines. http://www.euroturtle.org. Accessed 13 June.

Evans, P.G.H. 1987. Natural History of Whales & Dolphins. Facts on File, Inc., New York, NY.

Fair, P.A. and P.R. Becker. 2000. Review of stress in marine mammals. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem 

Stress and Recovery 7:335-354.

Falk, M.R. and M.J. Lawrence. 1973. Seismic exploration: its nature and effects on fish. Canada 

Technical Report Series No. CEN/T-73-9. Department of the Environment, Fisheries and Marine 

Service, Resource Management Branch, Fisheries Operations Directorate, Central Region 

(Environment), Winnipeg, MB.

Fall, J.A. and C.J. Utermohle, eds. 1995. An Investigation of the Sociocultural Consequences of Outer 

Continental Shelf Development in Alaska. Vol. V, Alaska Peninsula and Arctic. Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, AK.

Fay, C., M. Bartron, S. Craig, A. Hecht, J. Pruden, R. Saunders, T. Sheehan, and J. Trial. 2006. Status 

Review for Anadromous Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) in the United States. Report to the National 

Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. July. 

Fay, R.R. 1988. Hearing in Vertebrates: A Psychophysics Databook. Hill-Fay Associates, Winnetka, IL.

Fay, R.R. 2005. Sound source localization by fishes. Pages 36-66 in A.N. Popper and R.R. Fay, eds. 

Sound Source Localization. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.

Fay, R.R. and A.N. Popper. 2000. Evolution of hearing in vertebrates: The inner ears and processing. 

Hearing Research 149: 1-10.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-22

Fay, R.R. and A.M. Simmons. 1999. The sense of hearing in fishes and amphibians. Pages 269-318 in

R.R. Fay and A.N. Popper, eds. Comparative Hearing: Fish and Amphibians. Springer Handbook of 

Auditory Research 11. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 

Ferguson, M.C. and J. Barlow. 2001. Spatial distribution and density of cetaceans in the Eastern Tropical 

Pacific Ocean based on summer/fall research vessel surveys in 1986-96. Administrative Report LJ01-04. NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, CA.

Fernandez, P.G., A.S. Brierley, E.J. Simmonds, N.W. Millard, S.D. McPhail, F. Armstron, P. Stevenson, 

and M. Squires. 2003. Fish do not avoid survey vessels. Nature 404:35-36.

Fernández, A., M. Arbelo, R. Deaville, I.A.P. Patterson, P. Castro, J.R. Baker, E. Degollada, H.M. Ross, 

P. Herráez, A.M. Pocknell, E. Rodríguez, F.E. Howie, A. Espinosa, R.J. Reid, J.R. Jaber, V. Martin, 

A.A. Cunningham, and P.D. Jepson. 2004. Pathology: whales, sonar and decompression sickness 

(reply). Nature 428(6984).

Fernández, A., J.F. Edwards, F. Rodriquez, A.E. de los Monteros, P. Herráez, P. Castro, J.R. Jaber, V. 

Martin, and M. Arbelo. 2005a. ―Gas and fat embolic syndrome‖ involving a mass stranding of beaked 

whales (Family Ziphiidae) exposed to anthropogenic sonar signals. Veterinary Pathology 42:446-457.

Fernández, A., M. Méndez, E. Sierra, A. Godinho, P. Herráez, A.E. De los Monteros, F. Rodrigues, and 

M. Arbelo. 2005b. New gas and fat embolic pathology in beaked whales stranded in the Canary 

Islands. Page 90 in Abstracts of the 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-

16 December 2005, San Diego, CA. 

Fertl, D. and G.L. Fulling. 2007. Interactions between marine mammals and sea turtles. Marine Turtle 

Newsletter 115:4-8.

Finley, K.J. 1982. The estuarine habitat of the beluga or white whale, Delphinapterus leucas. Cetus 4:4-5.

Finley, K.J., J.P. Hickie, and R.A. Davis. 1987. Status of the beluga, Delphinapterus leucas, in the 

Beaufort Sea. Canadian Field-Naturalist 101:271-278.

Finneran, J.J. and C.E. Schlundt. 2004. Effects of intense pure tones on the behavior of trained 

odontocetes. Technical Report 1913. Space and Naval Warfare (SPAWAR) Systems Center, San 

Diego, CA. February.

Finneran, J.J., C.E. Schlundt, R. Dear, D.A. Carder, and S.H. Ridgway. 2002. Temporary shift in masked 

hearing thresholds in odontocetes after exposure to single underwater impulses from a seismic 

watergun. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 111:2929-2940.

Finneran, J.J., R. Dear, D.A. Carder, and S.H. Ridgway. 2003. Auditory and behavioral responses of 

California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) to single underwater impulses from an arc-gap 

transducer. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 114:1667-1677.

Finneran, J.J., D.A. Carder, C.E. Schlundt, and S.H. Ridgway. 2005. Temporary threshold shift in 

bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) exposed to mid-frequency tones. Journal of the Acoustical 

Society of America 118:2696-2705.

Finneran, J.J., D.S. Houser, B. Mase-Guthrie, R.Y. Ewing and R.G. Lingenfelser. 2009. Auditory evoked 

potentials in a stranded Gervais' beaked whale (Mesoplodon europaeus). Journal of the Acoustical 

Society of America 126:484-490. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-23

Fiscus, C.H. and K. Niggol. 1965. Observations of cetaceans of California, Oregon, and Washington. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report 498:1-27.

FishBase. 2006. FishBase: A Global Information System on Fishes. http://www.fishbase.org/home.htm. 

Accessed April.

Flinn, R.D., A.W. Trites, E.J. Gregr, and R.I. Perry. 2002. Diets of fin, sei, and sperm whales in British 

Columbia: An analysis of commercial whaling records, 1936-1967. Marine Mammal Science 

18:663-679.

Foote, A.D., R.W. Osbourne, and A.R. Hoelzel. 2004. Whale-call response to masking boat noise. Nature 

428:910.

Ford, J.K.B., K. Heise, L.G. Barrett-Lennard, and G.M. Ellis. 1994. Killer whales and other cetaceans of 

the Queen Charlotte Islands/Haidi Gwaii. Prepared for South Moresby/Gwaii Haanas National Park 

Reserve, Parks Canada, Queen Charlotte City, BC.

Ford, J.K.B., G.M. Ellis, L. Barrett-Lennard, A.B. Morton, R.S. Palm, and K. Balcomb. 1998. Dietary 

specialization in two sympatric populations of killer whales (Orcinus orca) in coastal British 

Columbia and adjacent waters. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76:1456-1471.

Forney, K.A. 2007. Preliminary estimates of cetacean abundance along the U.S. West Coast and within 

four National Marine Sanctuaries during 2005. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-TM406. NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, CA.

Forney, K. A. and J. Barlow. 1998. Seasonal patterns in the abundance and distribution of California 

cetaceans, 1991-92. Marine Mammal Science 14:460-489.

Forney, K.A. and Brownell, R.L., Jr. 1996. Preliminary report of the 1994 Aleutian Island Marine 

Mammal Survey. Paper SC/48/O11 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, IWC Annual 

Meeting, 24-28 June 1996, Aberdeen, UK.

Forney, K. A., J. Barlow, and J. Carretta. 1995. The abundance of cetaceans in California coastal waters. 

Part II: Aerial surveys in winter and spring of 1991 and 1992. Fishery Bulletin 93:15-26.

Foster, John W. 2004. California‘s Ancient Maritime Heritage. http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=23712. 

Accessed June 2006.

Francois, R.E. and G.R. Garrison. 1982a. Sound absorption based on ocean measurements. Part I: Pure 

water and magnesium sulfate contributions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 72:896-907.

Francois, R.E. and G.R. Garrison. 1982b. Sound absorption based on ocean measurements. Part II: Boric 

acid contribution and equation for total absorption. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 

72:1879-1890.

Frankel, A.S. 2005. Gray whales hear and respond to a 21–25 kHz high-frequency whale-finding sonar. 

Page 97 in Abstracts of the 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 

December 2005, San Diego, CA. 

Frankel, A.S., W.T. Ellison, and J. Buchanan. 2002. Application of the Acoustic Integration Model (AIM) 

to predict and minimize environmental impacts. Pages 1438-1443 in Oceans '02, Vol. 3. Marine 

Technology Society & IEEE.

Frazier, J. G. and T. Mundkur. 1990. Dugong Dugong dugon Muller in the Gulf of Kutch, Gujarat. 

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 87:368-379.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-24

Freitas, A.C., P.G. Kinas, C.C.A. Martins, and M.H. Engel. 2004. Abundance of humpback whales on the 

Abrolhos Bank wintering ground, Brazil. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 6:225-230.

Fretey, J. 2001. Biogeography and Conservation of Marine Turtles of the Atlantic Coast of Africa. 

UNEP/CMS Technical Publication No. 6. UNEP/CMS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. February.

Frick, M.G., A. Ross, K.L. Williams, A.B. Bolten, K.A. Bjorndal, and H.R. Martins. 2003. Epibiotic 

associates of oceanic-stage loggerhead turtles from the southeastern North Atlantic. Marine Turtle 

Newsletter 101:18-20. 

Frisk, G, D. Bradley, J. Caldwell, G. D‘Spain, J. Goron, D. Ketten, J. Miller, D.L. Nelson, A.N. Popper, 

and D. Wartzok. 2003. Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals. National Academies Press, Washington, 

DC. 

Fritts, T.H., M.L. Stinson, and R. Márquez-M. 1982. Status of sea turtle nesting in southern Baja 

California, Mexico. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 81:51-60.

Frost, K.J., L.F. Lowry, and J.J. Burns. 1988. Distribution, abundance, migration, harvest, and stock 

identity of belukha whales in the Beaufort Sea. Pages 27-40 in P.R. Becker, ed. Beaufort Sea (Sale 

97) Information Update. OCS Study MMS 86-0047. NOAA, Ocean Assessment Division, 

Anchorage, AK. 

Fujieda, S., Y. Matsuno, and Y. Yamanaka. 1996. The auditory threshold of the bastard halibut 

Paralichthys olivaceus. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 62:201-204.

Gailey, G., B. Würsig, and T.L. McDonald. 2007. Abundance, behavior, and movement patterns of 

western gray whales in relation to a 3-D seismic survey, northeast Sakhalin Island, Russia. 

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 134:75-91. 

Gale Group. 2006. Hooded Seal. Grzimek‘s Animal Life Encyclopedia. 

http://www.answers.com/topic/hooded-seal. Accessed 17 June 2006.

Gallagher, M.D. 1991. Strandings of sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) on the shores of Oman, 

Eastern Arabia. Pages 241-245 in S. Leatherwood and G. P. Donovan, eds. Cetaceans and Cetacean 

Research in the Indian Ocean Sanctuary. Marine Mammal Technical Report No. 3. UNEP, Nairobi, 

Kenya. 

Gallo, J.P. 1994. Factors affecting the population status of Guadalupe fur seal, Arctocephalus townsendi

(Merriam, 1897), at Isla de Guadalupe, Baja California, Mexico. Dissertation, University of 

California, Santa Cruz, CA.

Gallo-Reynoso, J.P. and G. B. Rathbun. 1997. Status of sea otters (Enhydra lutris) in Mexico. Marine 

Mammal Science 13:332-340.

Gambell, R. 1985a. Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus (Linnaeus, 1758). Pages 171-192 in S.H. Ridgway 

and R. Harrison, eds. Handbook of Marine Mammals. Vol. 3. The Sirenians and Baleen Whales. 

Academic Press, London, UK.

Gambell, R. 1985b. Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis. Pages 155-170 in S.H. Ridgway and R. Harrison, 

eds. Handbook of Marine Mammals. Vol. 3. The Sirenians and Baleen Whales. Academic Press, 

London, UK. 

Gannier, A. 2002. Cetaceans of the Marquesas Islands (French Polynesia): distribution and relative 

abundance as obtained from a small boat dedicated survey. Aquatic Mammals 28:198-210.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-25

Gannier, A. 2004. The large-scale distribution of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) wintering 

in French Polynesia during 1997-2002. Aquatic Mammals 30:227-236.

Gannon, J.G., K.M. Scolardi, J.E. Reynolds, III, J.K. Koelsch, and T.J. Kessenich. 2007. Habitat selection 

by manatees in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Marine Mammal Science 23:133-143.

Garrigue, C., A. Aguayo, V.L.U. Amante-Helweg, C.S. Baker, S. Caballero, P. Clapham, R. Constantine, 

J. Denkinger, M. Donoghue, L. Flórez-González, J. Greaves, N. Hauser, C. Olavarría, C. Pairoa, H. 

Peckham, and M. Poole. 2002. Movements of humpback whales in Oceania, South Pacific. Journal of 

Cetacean Research and Management 4:255-260.

Garshelis, D.L. and J.A. Garshelis. 1984. Movements and management of sea otters in Alaska. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 48:665-678.

Gaywood, M.J. 1997. Marine turtles in British and Irish waters. British Wildlife 9:69-78.

Gedamke, J., S. Frydman, and N. Gales. 2008. Risk of baleen whale hearing loss from seismic surveys: 

preliminary results from simulations accounting for uncertainty and individual variation. International 

Whaling Commission Working Paper SC/60/E9. 

Gentry, R., ed. 2002. Report of the workshop on acoustic resonance as a source of tissue trauma in 

cetaceans. 24-25 April, NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 

Gentry, R., A. Bowles, W. Ellison, J. Finneran, C. Greene, Jr., D. Kastak, D. Ketten, J. Miller, P. 

Nachtigall, W.J. Richardson, B. Southall, J. Thomas and P. Tyack. 2004. Noise exposure criteria. 

Presentation to the Second Plenary Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Acoustic Impacts on 

Marine Animals, 28-30 April, Arlington, VA. Available at 

http://mmc.gov/sound/plenary2/pdf/gentryetal.pdf.

Geraci, J.R. 1990. Cetaceans and oil: physiologic and toxic effects. Pages 167-197 in J.R. Geraci and D.J. 

St. Aubin, eds. Sea mammals and Oil: Confronting the Risks. Academic Press, San Diego. 

Geraci, J.R. and T.G. Smith. 1976. Direct and indirect effects of oil on ringed seals (Phoca hispida) of the 

Beaufort Sea. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33:1976-1984.

Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1980. Offshore petroleum resource development and marine mammals: a 

review and research recommendations. Marine Fisheries Review 42:1-12.

Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1982. Study of the effects of oil on cetaceans. Report from University of 

Guelph for Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC. 

Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1985. Expanded studies of the effects of oil on cetaceans, Part I. Report 

by University of Guelph for Minerals Management Service, Washington, DC. 

Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin, eds. 1990. Sea Mammals and Oil: Confronting the Risks. Academic 

Press, San Diego, CA. 

Geraci, J.R., and T.D. Williams. 1990. Physiologic and toxic effects on sea otters. Pages 211-221 in J.R. 

Geraci and D.J. St. Aubin, eds. Sea Mammals and Oil: Confronting the Risks. Academic Press, San 

Diego, CA.

Gerletto, F. and P. Fréon. 1992. Some elements on vertical avoidance of fish schools to a vessel during 

acoustic surveys. Fisheries Research 14: 251-259.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-26

Gerletto, F., J. Castillo, A. Saavedra, and M.A. Barbieri. 2004. Three-dimensional structure and 

avoidance behaviour of anchovy and sardine schools in central southern Chile. ICES Journal of 

Marine Science 61:1120-1126.

Gerrodette, T. and J. Pettis. 2005. Responses of Tropical Cetaceans to an Echosounder during Research 

Vessel Surveys. Page 104 in Abstracts of the 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine 

Mammals, 12-16 December 2005, San Diego, CA. 

Gerstein, E.R., L. Gerstein, S.E. Forsythe, and J.E. Blue. 1999. The underwater audiogram of the West 

Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus). Journal of Acoustical Society America 105:3575-83.

Ghoul, A., C. Reichmuth, and J. Mulsow. 2009. Source levels and spectral analysis of southern sea otter 

(Enhydra lutris nereis) scream vocalizations. Page 90 in Abstracts of the 18th Biennial Conference on 

the Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 October 2009, Québec City, Canada.

Gilmore, R.G., Jr. 2003. Sound production and communication in the spotted seatrout. Pages 177-195 in

P.L. Lutz, ed. Biology of the Spotted Seatrout. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 

Gisiner, R.C., ed. 1999. Proceedings – Workshop on the Effects of Anthropogenic Noise in the Marine 

Environment, Bethesda, MD, 10-12 February 1998. Office of Naval Research, Arlington, VA. 

Goddard, P.D. and D.J. Rugh. 1998. A group of right whales seen in the Bering Sea in July 1996. Marine 

Mammal Science 14:344-349.

Godley, B., M. Gaywood, R. Law, C. McCarthy, C. McKenzie, I. Patterson, R. Penrose, R. Reid, and H. 

Ross. 1998. Patterns of marine turtle mortality in British waters 1992-96 with reference to tissue 

contaminant levels. Journal of the Marine Biological Association UK 78:973-984.

Goodall, C., C. Chapman, and D. Neil. 1990. The acoustic response threshold of the Norway lobster, 

Nephrops norvegicus (L.) in a free sound field. Pages 106-113 in K. Wiese, W.D. Krenz, J. Tautz, H. 

Reichert, and B. Mulloney, eds. Frontiers in Crustacean Neurobiology. Birkhäuser, Basel, 

Switzerland. 

Goold, J.C. 1996a. Acoustic assessment of common dolphins off the west Wales coast, in conjunction 

with 16th round seismic surveying. Report from School of Ocean Sciences, University of Wales, 

Bangor, Wales, for Chevron UK Ltd, Repsol Exploration (UK) Ltd., and Aran Energy Exploration 

Ltd. 

Goold, J.C. 1996b. Acoustic assessment of populations of common dolphin Delphinus delphis in 

conjunction with seismic surveying. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the U.K. 76:811-

820.

Goold, J.C. 1996c. Acoustic cetacean monitoring off the west Wales coast. Report from School of Ocean 

Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor, Wales, for Chevron UK Ltd, Repsol Explororation (UK) Ltd, 

and Aran Energy Exploration Ltd. 

Goold, J.C. and R.F.W. Coates. 2006. Near source, high frequency air-gun signatures. Paper SC/58/E30 

presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, IWC Annual Meeting, 1-13 June, St. Kitts and Nevis. 

Goold, J.C. and P.J. Fish. 1998. Broadband spectra of seismic survey air-gun emissions, with reference to 

dolphin auditory thresholds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 103:2177-2184.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-27

Gordon, J., D. Gillespie, J. Potter, A. Frantzis, M.P. Simmonds, R. Swift, and D. Thompson. 2004. A 

review of the effects of seismic surveys on marine mammals. Marine Technology Society Journal

37(4):16-34.

Gordon, J., R. Antunes, N. Jaquet, and B. Würsig. 2006. An investigation of sperm whale headings and 

surface behaviour before, during and after seismic line changes in the Gulf of Mexico. International 

Whaling Commission Working Paper SC/58/E45. 

Gosho, M. E., D.W. Rice, and J.M. Breiwick. 1984. The sperm whale. Marine Fisheries Review 46:54-

64. 

Gosselin, J.-F. and J. Lawson. 2004. Distribution and abundance indices of marine mammals in the Gully 

and two adjacent canyons of the Scotian Shelf before and during nearby hydrocarbon seismic 

exploration programmes in April and July 2003. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Proceedings 

Series 2004/133. 

Gramentz, D. 1988. Involvement of loggerhead turtle with the plastic, metal, and hydrocarbon pollution 

in the Central Mediterranean. Marine Pollution Bulletin 19:11-13.

Green, D. and F. Ortiz-Crespo. 1995. Status of sea turtle populations in the central eastern Pacific. Pages 

221-233 in K.A. Bjorndal, ed. Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Revised edition. Smithsonian 

Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Green, G., J.J. Brueggeman, R.A. Grotefendt, C.E. Bowlby, M.L. Bonnell, and K.C. Balcomb, III. 1992. 

Cetacean distribution and abundance off Oregon and Washington, 1989-1990. OCS Study 91-0093. 

Prepared by Ebasco Environmental, Bellevue, WA, and Ecological Consulting, Inc. , Portland, OR, 

for Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region, Los Angeles, CA.

Green, G.A., R.A. Grotefendt, M.A. Smultea, C.E. Bowlby, and R.A. Rowlett. 1993. Delphinid aerial 

surveys in Oregon and Washington offshore waters. Final Report. Prepared by Ebasco 

Environmental, Bellevue, WA, for NMFS, National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Seattle, WA.

Greene, C.R., Jr. and W.J. Richardson. 1988. Characteristics of marine seismic survey sounds in the 

Beaufort Sea. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 836:2246-2254.

Greene, C.R., Jr. 1997. Physical acoustics measurements. Pages 3-1 – 3-63 in W.J. Richardson, ed. 

Northstar Marine Mammal Monitoring Program, 1996: Marine Mammal and Acoustical Monitoring 

of a Seismic Program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. LGL Report 2121-2. Prepared by LGL Ltd.

environmental research associates, King City, ON, and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, 

CA, for BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Anchorage, AK, and NMFS, Anchorage, AK, and Silver 

Spring, MD.

Greene, C.R., Jr., N.S. Altman, and W.J. Richardson. 1999a. Bowhead whale calls. Pages 6-1–6-23 in

W.J. Richardson, ed. Marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of Western Geophysical's openwater seismic program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 1998. LGL Rep. TA2230-3. Prepared by LGL 

Ltd., King City, ONT, and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Western Geophysical, 

Houston, TX, and NMFS, Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. 

Greene, C.R., Jr., N.S. Altman and W.J. Richardson. 1999b. The influence of seismic survey sounds on 

bowhead whale calling rates. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106(4, Pt. 2):2280

(Abstract).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-28

Greene, C.R., Jr., W.C. Burgess, R. Norman, and R.W. Blaylock. 2000. Physical acoustics measurements, 

1999. Pages 3-1 – 3-45 in W.J. Richardson, ed. Marine Mammal and Acoustical Monitoring of 

Western Geophysical's Open-water Seismic Program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 1999. LGL Report

TA2313-4. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ON., and 

Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Western Geophysical, Houston, TX, and NMFS, 

Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. 

Gregory. J. and P. Claburn. 2003. Avoidance behaviour of Alosa fallax fallax to pulsed ultrasound and its 

potential as a technique for monitoring clupeid spawning migration in a shallow river. Aquatic Living 

Resources 16:313-316.

Gregr, E.J. 2002. Whales in northern B.C.: past and present. In T. Pitcher, M. Vasconcellos, S. Heymans, 

C. Brignall, and N. Haggan, eds. Information Supporting Past and Present Ecosystem Models of 

Northern British Columbia and the Newfoundland Shelf. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 10(1):1-

116.

Gregr, E.J. and A.W. Trites. 2001. Predictions of critical habitat for five whale species in the waters of 

coastal B.C. Canadian Journal of Aquatic Sciences 58:1265-1285.

Gregr, E.J., L. Nichol, J.K.B. Ford, G. Ellis, and A.W. Trites. 2000. Migration and population structure of 

northeastern Pacific whales off coastal British Columbia: An analysis of commercial whaling records 

from 1908-1967. Marine Mammal Science 16:699-727.

Groch, K.R., M.E. Fabian, and J.T. Palazzo, Jr. 2003. Monitoring behavioral responses of southern right 

whales to whale watching activities in the southern Brazilian coast and an evaluation of its 

conservation implications. In 55th Meeting of the International Whaling Commission, Berlin, 

Germany. 

Guerra, A., A.F. González, and F. Rocha. 2004. A review of the records of giant squid in the northeastern Atlantic and severe injuries in Architeuthis dux stranded after acoustic explorations. Paper 

presented at the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Annual Science 

Conference, 22–25 September 2004, Vigo, Spain. ICES CM 2004/CC:29.

Guinea, M.L. 1990. Notes on sea turtle rookeries on the Arafura Sea Islands of Arnhem Land, Northern 

Territory. Northern Territory Naturalist 12:4.

Guinea, M.L. 1995. The sea turtles and sea snakes of Ashmore Reef Nature Reserve 67. 

Guinea, M.L. and R. Chatto. 1992. Sea turtles killed in Australian shark fin fishery. Marine Turtle 

Newsletter 57:5. 

Gunnlaugsson, T. and J. Sigurjónsson. 1990. NASS-87: estimation of whale abundance based on 

observations made onboard Icelandic and Faroese survey vessels. Report of the International Whaling 

Commission 40:571-580. 

Gunnlaugsson, Th., G.A. Vikingsson, D.G. Pike, G. Desportes, B. Mikkelsen, and D. og Bloch. 2002. Fin 

whale abundance in the North Atlantic, estimated from Icelandic and Faroese NASS-2001 vessel 

surveys. North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission SC/10/AE/8. 

Hain, J. 2007. Vampire facts and daylight truths. Right Whale News 14(4):6-7. 

Hain, J.H.W., M.J. Ratnaswamy, R.D. Kenney, and H.E. Winn. 1992. The fin whale, Balaenoptera

physalus, in waters of the northeastern United States continental shelf. Report of the International 

Whaling Commission 42:653-669.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-29

Hale, P.T., A.S. Barreto, and G.J.B. Ross. 2000. Comparative morphology and distribution of the aduncus

and truncatus forms of bottlenose dolphin Tursiops in the Indian and Western Pacific Oceans. 

Aquatic Mammals 26:101-110.

Haley, B. LGL. 2006. Marine Mammal Monitoring During University of Texas at Austin‘s Marine 

Geophysical Survey of the Western Canada Basin, Chukchi Borderland and Mendleev Ridge, Arctic 

Ocean, July – August 2006. LGL Report TA4285-3. November. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental 

research associates, King City, ONT, for University of Texas at Austin Institute for Geophysics, 

Austin, TX; NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD; and USFWS, Marine 

Mammals Management Office, Anchorage, AK.

Haley, B. and D. Ireland. 2006. Marine Mammal Monitoring during University of Alaska Fairbanks‘ 

Marine Geophysical Survey across the Arctic Ocean, August–September 2005. LGL Report TA4122-

3. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT, for University of 

Alaska-Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 

Haley, B., and W.R. Koski. 2004. Marine Mammal Monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth 

Observatory‘s ADWBC Seismic Program in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, July–August 2004. LGL 

Report TA2822-27. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT, for 

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY, and NMFS, Silver Spring, 

MD. 

Hall, A.J., J. Watkins, and L. Hiby. 1996. The impact of the 1993 Braer oil spill on grey seals in Shetland. 

Science of the Total Environment 186:119-125.

Hamilton, E.L. 1980. Geoacoustic modeling of the sea floor. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 

68:1313-1340.

Hammill, M.O., G.B. Stenson, R.A. Myers, and W.T. Stobo. 1998. Pup production and population trends 

of the grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 55:423-430.

Handegard, N.O., K. Michalsen, and D. Tjøsthein. 2003. Avoidance behaviour in cod (Gadus morhua) to 

a bottom-trawling vessel. Aquatic Living Resources 16:265-270.

Hanni, K.D. and P. Pyle. 2002. Entanglement of pinnipeds in synthetic materials at Southeast Farallon 

Island, California, 1976-1998. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40:1076-1081.

Härkönen, T. and M.P. Heide-Jørgensen. 1990. Comparative life histories of east Atlantic and other 

harbour seal populations. Ophelia 32:211-235.

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 17:795-812.

Harris, R.E., T. Elliott, and R.A. Davis. 2007. Results of mitigation and monitoring program, Beaufort 

Span 2-D marine seismic program, open-water season 2006. LGL Rep. TA4319-1. Rep. from LGL 

Ltd., King City, Ont., for GX Technology Corp., Houston, TX. 

Hart, P., H. Ryan, and D. Hogg. 2006. Marine Mammal Observation Report, U.S. Geological Survey 

Geophysical Research Cruise, Offshore Dana Point and San Francisco, California, September 2006. 

USGS Cruise ID S2-06-SC and L1-06-NC. Coastal and Marine Geology Team, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Menlo Park, CA.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-30

Hartman, D.S. 1979. Ecology and behaviour of the manatee (Trichechus manatus) in Florida. Special 

Publication No. 5, American Society of Mammalogists.

Harwood, J. and B. Wilson. 2001. The implications of developments on the Atlantic Frontier for marine 

mammals. Continental Shelf Research 21(8-10):1073-1093.

Harwood, L.A., F. McLaughlin, R.M. Allen, J. Illasiak Jr., and J. Alikamik. 2005. First-ever marine 

mammal and bird observations in the deep Canada Basin and Beaufort/Chukchi seas: expeditions 

during 2002. Polar Biology 28:250-253.

Hasbún, C.R. and M. Vásquez. 1999. Sea Turtles of El Salvador. Marine Turtle Newsletter 85:7-9.

Hassel, A., T. Knutsen, J. Dalen, S. Løkkeborg, K. Skaar, Ø. Østensen, E.K. Haugland, M. Fonn, Å. 

Høines, and O.A. Misund. 2003. Reaction of sandeel to seismic shooting: A field experiment and 

fishery statistics study. Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway.

Hassel, A., T. Knutsen, J. Dalen, K. Skaar, S. Løkkeborg, O.A. Misund, O. Ostensen, M. Fonn, and E.K. 

Haugland. 2004. Influence of seismic shooting on the lesser sandeel (Ammodytes marinus). ICES 

Journal of Marine Science 61:1165-1173.

Hastings, M.C. and A.N. Popper. 2005. Effects of Sound on Fish. Prepared for Jones & Stokes, 

Sacramento, CA, for California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA. 28 January.

Hauser, D. and M. Holst. 2009. Marine Mammal Monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory‘s 

Marine Seismic Program in the Gulf of Alaska, September–October 2008. LGL Report TA4412-3. 

Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, St. John‘s, NF and King City, ONT, for 

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY, and NMFS, Silver Spring, 

MD. 

Hauser, N., H. Peckham, and P. Clapham. 2000. Humpback whales in the southern Cook Islands, South 

Pacific. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2:159-164.

Hauser, D., M. Holst, and V.D. Moulton. 2008. Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Monitoring during 

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory‘s Marine Seismic Program in the Eastern Tropical Pacific, April–

August 2008. LGL Report TA4656/7-1. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, St. 

John‘s, NF and King City, ONT, for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, 

Palisades, NY, and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 

Hawkes, L.A., A.C. Broderick, M.S. Coyne, M.H. Godfrey, and B.J. Godley. 2007. Only some like it hot 

– quantifying the environmental niche of the loggerhead sea turtle. Diversity and Distributions 

13:447-457.

Hawkins, A.D. 1981. The hearing abilities of fish. Pages 109-133 in W.N. Tavolga, A.N. Popper, and 

R.R. Fay, eds. Hearing and Sound Communication in Fishes. Springer-Verlag, New York. 

Hawkins, A.D. 1993 Underwater sound and fish behaviour. Pages 129-169 in T.J Pitcher, ed. Behaviour 

of Teleost Fishes. Second Edition. Chapman and Hall, London, UK. 

Hawkins, A. 2006. Assessing the impact of pile driving upon fish. Pages 21-22 in C.L. Irwin, P. Garrett,

and K.P. McDermott, eds. Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Ecology and 

Transportation, 29 August – 2 September 2005, San Diego, CA. Center for Transportation and the 

Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. (Abstract)
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-31

Hawkins, A.D. and A.D.F. Johnstone. 1978. The hearing of the Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar. Journal of

Fish Biology 13:655-673.

Hawkins, A.D. and K.J. Rasmussen. 1978. The calls of gadoid fish. Journal of the Marine Biological 

Association UK 58:891-991.

Hays, G.C., C.R. Adams, A.C. Broderick, B.J. Godley, D.J. Lucas, J.D. Metcalfe, and A.A. Prior. 2000. 

The diving behaviour of green turtles at Ascension Island. Animal Behavior 59:577-586.

Hays, G.C., A.C. Broderick, B.J. Godley, P. Lovell, C. Martin, B.J. McConnell, and S. Richardson. 2002. 

Biphasal long-distance migration in green turtles. Animal Behavior 64:895-898.

Hazard, K. 1988. Beluga whale, Delphinapterus leucas. Pages 195-235 in J.W. Lentfer, ed. Selected 

Marine Mammals of Alaska. Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, DC. 

Hazel, J., I.R. Lawler, H. Marsh, and S. Robson. 2007. Vessel speed increases collision risk for the green 

turtle Chelonia mydas. Endangered Species Research 3:105-113.

Heimlich, S. 1994. Killer Whales. Voyageur Press, McGregor, MN. 

Heimlich-Boran, J.R. 1988. Behavioral ecology of killer whales (Orcinus orca) in the Pacific Northwest. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology 66:565-578.

Helfman, G.S., B.B. Colette, and D.E. Facey. 1997. The Diversity of Fishes. Blackwell Science, Malsen,

MA. 

Henninger, H.P. and W.H. Watson, III. 2005. Mechanisms underlying the production of carapace 

vibrations and associated waterborne sounds in the American lobster, Homarus americanus. Journal 

of Experimental Biology 208:3421-3429.

Herata, H., ed. 2007. International Workshop, Impacts of Seismic Survey Activities on Whales and Other 

Marine Biota – Proceedings. 6-7 September 2006, Dessau, Germany.

Heyning, J. E., and T. D. Lewis. 1990. Fisheries interactions involving baleen whales off southern 

California. Report of the International Whaling Commission 40:427-431.

Hildebrand, J. 2004. Impacts of anthropogenic sound on cetaceans. Paper SC/56/E13 presented to the 

IWC Scientific Committee, IWC Annual Meeting, 19-22 July, Sorrento, Italy.

Hildebrand, J.A. 2005. Impacts of anthropogenic sound. Pages 101-124 in J.E. Reynolds, W.F. Perrin, 

R.R. Reeves, S. Montgomery, and T. Ragen, eds. Marine Mammal Research: Conservation Beyond 

Crisis. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. 

Hill, P.S., J. L. Laake, and E. Mitchell. 1999. Results of a pilot program to document interactions between 

sperm whales and longline vessels in Alaska waters. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC108. NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA.

Hill, R.D. 1985. Investigation of lightning strikes to water surface. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America 78:2096-2099.

Hillis-Starr, Z-M., R. Boulon, and M. Evans. 1998. Sea turtles of the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. 

Pages 334-337 in M.J. Mac, P.A. Opler, C.E. Puckett Haeker, and P.D. Doran, eds. Status and Trends 

of the Nation‘s Biological Resources, Volume 1. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Reston, VA. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-32

Hindell, M.A., D.J. Slip, and H.R. Burton. 1991. The diving behaviour of adult male and female southern 

elephant seals, Mirounga leonina. Australian Journal of Zoology 39:595-619.

Hirsh, A.G. and P.G. Rodhouse. 2000. Impacts of geophysical seismic surveying on fishing success. 

Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 10:113-118.

Hirth, H.F. 1980. Some aspects of the nesting behavior and reproductive biology of sea turtles. American 

Zoologist 20:507-523. 

Hochscheid, S., B.J. Godley, A.C. Broderick, and R.P. Wilson. 1999. Reptilian diving: Highly variable 

dive patterns in the green turtle Chelonia mydas. Marine Ecology Progress Series 185:101-112.

Hodge, R.P. 1979. Dermochelys coriacea schlegeli (Pacific leatherback) USA: Alaska. Herpetological

Review 10:102.

Hofman, R.J. 1995. The changing focus of marine mammal conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 

10:462-465.

Hoelzel, A.R. and S.J. Stern. 2000. Minke Whales. Voyager Press, Stillwater, MN.

Hogarth, W.T. 2002. Declaration of William T. Hogarth in opposition to plaintiff‘s motion for temporary 

restraining order, 23 October. Civ. No. 02-05065-JL. U.S. District Court, Northern District of 

California, San Francisco Division.

Holliday, D.V., R.E. Pieper, M.E. Clarke, and C.F. Greenlaw. 1987. The effects of airgun energy releases 

on the eggs, larvae, and adults of the northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax). API Publication 4453. 

Report by Tracor Applied Sciences for American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC. 

Holst, M. 2004. Marine mammal monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory's TAG seismic 

study in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean, October–November 2003. LGL Report TA2822-21. Prepared by 

LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT, for Lamont-Doherty Earth 

Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY, and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 

Holst, M. 2009a. Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth 

Observatory‘s TAIGER Marine Seismic Program near Taiwan, April – July 2009. LGL Rep. 

TA4553-4. Prepared by LGL Ltd., King City, ONT, for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, 

Columbia University, Palisades, NY, and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 15 December.

Holst, M. 2009b. Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth 

Observatory‘s Marine Seismic Program in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, January – March 2009. LGL 

Report TA4686-3. Prepared by LGL Ltd., King City, ONT, for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, 

Columbia University, Palisades, NY and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 17 May.

Holst, M. and J. Beland. 2008. Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth 

Observatory‘s Seismic Testing and Calibration Study in the Northern Gulf of Mexico, November 

2007 – February 2008. LGL Report TA4295-2. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research 

associates, King City, ONT, and LGL Alaska Research Associates, Anchorage, AK, for L-DEO, 

Columbia University, Palisades, NY, and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-33

Holst, M. and J. Beland. 2010. Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth 

Observatory‘s ETOMO Marine Seismic Program in the Northeast Pacific Ocean, August – September 

2009 – February 2008. LGL Report TA4597-3. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research 

associates, King City, ONT and LGL Alaska Research Associates, Anchorage, AK for L-DEO, 

Columbia University, Palisades, NY; NMFS, Silver Spring, MD; and Department of Fisheries and 

Oceans, Vancouver, BC. 20 January.

Holst, M. and F.C. Robertson. 2009. Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Monitoring during a Rice 

University Seismic Survey in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, August 2009. LGL Report TA4760-3. 

Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT, for Rice University, 

Department of Earth Science, Houston, TX; L-DEO, Columbia University, Palisades, NY; and 

NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. June.

Holst, M. and M.A. Smultea. 2008. Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Monitoring during Lamont-Doherty 

Earth Observatory‘s Marine Seismic Program off Central America, February–April 2006. LGL 

Report TA4342-3. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT, for 

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY, and NMFS, Silver Spring, 

MD. 

Holst, M., M.A. Smultea, W.R. Koski, and B. Haley. 2005a. Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Monitoring 

during Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory‘s Marine Seismic Program off the Northern Yucatán 

Peninsula in the Southern Gulf of Mexico, January–February 2005. LGL Report TA2822-31. 

Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT, for Lamont-Doherty Earth 

Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY, and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. June.

Holst, M., M.A. Smultea, W.R. Koski, and B. Haley. 2005b. Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Monitoring 

during Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory‘s Marine Seismic Program in the Eastern Tropical Pacific 

Ocean off Central America, November–December 2004. LGL Rep. TA2822-30. Prepared by LGL 

Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT, for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, 

Columbia University, Palisades, NY, and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD.

Holst, M., W.J. Richardson, W.R. Koski, M.A. Smultea, B. Haley, M.W. Fitzgerald, and M. Rawson. 

2006. Effects of large- and small-source seismic surveys on marine mammals and sea turtles. Eos 

Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 87(36), Joint Assembly Supplement, Abstract 

OS42A-01. 23-26 May 2006, Baltimore, MD.

Hooker, S.K. 1999. Resource and habitat use of northern bottlenose whales in the Gully: ecology, diving 

and ranging behaviour. Dissertation, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.

Hooker, S.K., R.W. Baird, S. Al-Omari, S. Gowans and H. Whitehead. 2001. Behavioural reactions of 

northern bottlenose whales (Hyperoodon ampullatus) to biopsy darting and tag attachment 

procedures. Fisheries Bulletin 99:303-308.

Hoover, K., S.S. Sadove, and P. Forestell. 1999. Trends of harbor seal, Phoca vitulina, abundance from 

aerial surveys in New York waters: 1985-1999. Page 85 in Abstracts of the 13th Biennial Conference 

on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 28 November-3 December 1999, Wailea, Maui, HI.

Horrocks, J.A. 1992. WIDECAST Sea Turtle Recovery Action Plan for Barbados. CEP Technical Report 

No. 12. UNEP Caribbean Environment Program, Kingston, Jamaica. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-34

Houser, D.S. and J.J. Finneran. 2006. Variation in the hearing sensitivity of a dolphin population 

determined through the use of evoked potential audiometry. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America 120:4090-4099.

Houston, J. 1991. Status of Cuvier‘s beaked whale, Ziphius cavirostris, in Canada. Canadian Field 

Naturalist 105:215-218.

Howard J., W.M. Roberts, and A.J. Hudspeth. 1988. Mechanoelectrical transduction by hair cells. Annual 

Review of Biophysics and Biophysical Chemistry 17:99-124.

Hu, M.Y., H.Y. Yan, W.S. Chung, J.C. Shiao and P.P. Hwang. 2009. Acoustically evoked potentials in 

two cephalopods inferred using the auditory brainstem response (ABR) approach. Comparative 

Biochemistry and Physiology, Part A 153:278–283.

Hudspeth, A.J. and V.S. Markin. 1994. The ear‘s gears: mechanical transduction by hair cells. Physics 

Today February:22-28.

Husar, S. 1977. Trichechus inunguis. Mammalian Species 72:1-4.

Husavik Whale Centre. 2006. Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). 

http://www.icewhale.is/default.asp?Id=552. Accessed 21 December.

Hutchinson, D.R. and P.E. Hart. 2004. Cruise report for G1-03-GM, USGS gas hydrates cruise, R/V/ 

Gyre, 1-14 May 2003, Northern Gulf of Mexico. USGS Open-File Report 03-474.

Imber, M.J. 1975. Behaviour of petrels in relation to the moon and artificial lights. Notornis 22:302–306.

InfoNatura. 2005. Birds, mammals, and amphibians of Latin America. 

http://www.natureserve.org/infonatura. 

IAGC. 2004. Further analysis of 2002 Abrolhos Bank, Brazil humpback whale strandings coincident with 

seismic surveys. Houston, TX. 

Ireland, D., M. Holst, and W.R. Koski. 2005. Marine Mammal Monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth 

Observatory‘s Seismic Program off the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, July-August 2005. LGL Report 

TA4089-3. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT, for LamontDoherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY, and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD.

Irons, D.B., D.R. Nysewander, and J.L. Trapp. 1988. Prince William Sound sea otter distribution in 

respect to population growth and habitat type. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK.

IUCN. 1992. Crocodiles: An Action Plan for their Conservation. Compiled by J. Thorbjarnarson; edited 

by H. Messel, F.W. King, and J.P. Ross. IUCN/SSC Crocodile Specialist Group. Gland, Switzerland, 

and Cambridge, UK.

IUCN. 2010. 2006 IUCN Redlist of Threatened Species. Version 2010.2. http://www.redlist.org/.

Accessed July.

Iverson, R.T.B. 1967. Response of yellowfin tuna to underwater sound. Pages 105-121 in W.N. Tavolga, 

ed. Marine Bioacoustics, Volume 2. Pergamon Press, New York. 

Iverson, R.T.B. 1969. Auditory thresholds of the scombrid fish Euthynnus affinis, with comments on the 

use of sound in tuna fishing. FAO Fisheries Report 62:849-859.

IWC. 2001. Report of the workshop on the comprehensive assessment of right whales: a worldwide 

comparison. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management Special Issue 2:1-60.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-35

IWC. 2006. Whale population estimates. http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/estimate.htm. Last 

updated 5 September 2006, accessed 26 March 2007.

IWC. 2007. Report of the standing working group on environmental concerns. Annex K to Report of the 

Scientific Committee. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 9(Suppl.):227-260. 

Jackson, H.R. and K.J. DesRoches, eds. 2008. 2008 Louis S. St-Laurent Field Report, August 22 -

October 3, 2008. Geological Survey of Canada Open File 6275.

Jaquet, N. and H. Whitehead. 1996. Scale-dependent correlation of sperm whale distribution with 

environmental features and productivity in the South Pacific. Marine Ecology Progress Series 

135:1-9.

Jefferson, T.A., S. Leatherwood, and M.A. Webber. 1993. FAO Species Identification Guide: Marine 

Mammals of the World. UNEP/FAO, Rome, Italy.

Jefferson, T.A., M.A. Webber, and R.L. Pitman. 2008. Marine Mammals of the World: A 

Comprehensive Guide to Their Identification. Academic Press, St. Louis, MO.

Jeffs, A., N. Tolimieri, and J.C. Montgomery. 2003. Crabs on cue for the coast: the use of underwater 

sound for orientation by pelagic crab stages. Marine and Freshwater Research 54:841-845.

Jeffs, A.G., J.C. Montgomery, and C.T. Tindle. 2005. How do spiny lobster post-larvae find the coast? 

New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 39:605-617.

Jenner, K.C.S., M.N. Jenner, and K.A. McCabe. 2001. Geographical and temporal movements of 

humpback whales in Western Australian waters. APPEA Journal 41:749-765.

Jensen, A.S. and G.K. Silber. 2003. Large whale ship strike database. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-OPR-25. NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD.

Jepson, P.D., M. Arbelo, R. Deaville, I.A.P. Patterson, P. Castro, J.R. Baker, E. Degollada, H.M. Ross, P. 

Herráez, A.M. Pocknell, F. Rodríguez, F.E. Howie, A. Espinosa, R.J. Reid, J.R. Jaber, V. Martin, 

A.A. Cunningham, and A. Fernández. 2003. Gas-bubble lesions in stranded cetaceans. Nature

425:575-576.

Jepson, P.D., D.S. Houser, L.A. Crum, P.L. Tyack, and A. Fernández. 2005a. Beaked whales, sonar and 

the ―bubble hypothesis‖. Pages 141-142 in Abstracts of the 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology 

of Marine Mammals, 12-16 December 2005, San Diego, CA. 

Jepson, P.D. R. Deaville, I.A.P. Patterson, A.M. Pocknell, H.M. Ross, J.R. Baker, F.E. Howie, R.J. Reid, 

A. Colloff, and A.A. Cunningham. 2005b. Acute and chronic gas bubble lesions in cetaceans stranded 

in the United Kingdom. Veterinary Pathology 42:291-305.

Jerko, H., I. Turunen-Rise, P.S. Enger, and O. Sand. 1989. Hearing in the eel (Anguilla anguilla). Journal 

of Comparative Physiology 165A:455-459.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 2004. Guidelines for Minimising Acoustic Disturbance to Marine 

Mammals from Seismic Surveys (April). 

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/Seismic_survey_guidelines_200404.pdf. 

Jochens, A.E. and D.C. Biggs, eds. 2003. Sperm whale seismic study in the Gulf of Mexico; Annual 

Report: Year 1. OCS Study MMS 2003-069. MMS, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-36

Jochens, A. D. Biggs, K. Benoit-Bird, D. Engelhaupt, J. Gordon, C. Hu, N. Jaquet, M. Johnson, R. Leben, 

B. Mate, P. Miller, J. Ortega-Ortiz, A. Those, P. Tyack, and B. Würsig. 2008. Sperm whale seismic 

study in the Gulf of Mexico/Synthesis report. OCS Study MMS 2008-006. Report from the 

Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, for the Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

Johnson, A.M. 1982. Status of Alaska sea otter populations and developing conflicts with fisheries. Pages 

293-299 in Transactions of the 47th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 

Washington, DC.

Johnson, M., P.T. Madsen, W.M.X. Zimmer, N. Aguilar de Soto, and P. Tyack. 2004. Beaked whales 

echolocate on prey. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London B (Suppl.) 271:S383-S386.

Johnson, S.R. 2002. Marine mammal mitigation and monitoring program for the 2001 Odoptu 3-D 

seismic survey, Sakhalin Island Russia: Executive summary. Prepared by LGL Ltd, Sidney, BC, for 

Exxon Neftegas Ltd., Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Russia. Also available as Working Paper SC/02/WGW/19, 

IWC Western Gray Whale Working Group Meeting, Ulsan, South Korea, 22-25 October 2002. 

Johnson, S.R., W.J. Richardson, S.B. Yazvenko, S.A. Blokhin, G. Gailye, M.R. Jenkerson, S.K. Meier, 

H.R. Melton, M.W. Newcomer, A.S. Perlov, S.A. Rutenko, B. Würsig, C.R. Martin, and D.E. Egging. 

2007. A western gray whale mitigation and monitoring program for a 3-D seismic survey, Sakhalin 

Island, Russia. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 134:1-19.

Johnstone, C.E and C.T. Phillips. 2003. Sound production in sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus and S. 

platorynchus (Acipenseridae). Environmental Biology of Fishes 68:59–64.

Jonsgård, Å. 1966. The distribution of Balaenopteridae in the North Atlantic Ocean. Pages 114-124 in

K.S. Norris, ed. Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Jonsgård, A. and K. Darling. 1977. On the biology of the eastern North Atlantic sei whale, Balaenoptera

borealis Lesson. Report of the International Whaling Commission Special Issue 1:124-129.

Jopling, B.C., S.J. Dolman, and M.P. Simmonds. 2006. Paper SC/58/E11 presented to the IWC Scientific 

Committee, IWC Annual Meeting, 1-13 June, St Kitts and Nevis.

Jorgenson, J.K. and E.C. Gyselman. 2009. Hydroacoustic measurements of the behavioral response of 

arctic riverine fishes to seismic airguns. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126:1598-1606.

Jorgensen, R., N.O. Handegard, H. Gjosaeter, and A. Slotte. 2004. Possible vessel avoidance behaviour of 

capelin in a feeding area and on a spawning ground. Fisheries Research 69:251-261.

Kaifu, K., S. Segawa, and K. Tsuchiya. 2007. Behavioral responses to underwater sound in the small 

benthic octopus Octopus ocellatus. Journal of the Marine Acoustic Society of Japan 34:46-53.

Kaifu, K., T. Akamatsu, and S. Segawa. 2008. Underwater sound detection by cephalopod statocyst. 

Fisheries Science 74:781-786.

Kajimura, H. 1984. Opportunistic feeding of the northern fur seal, Callorhinus ursinus, in the eastern 

North Pacific Ocean and eastern Bering Sea. NOAA Technical Report NMFS-SSRF-779. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-37

Kalb, H. and D. Owens. 1994. Differences between solitary and arribada nesting olive ridley females 

during the internesting period. Page 68 in K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar, 

compilers. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and 

Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351. NMFS, Southeast Fisheries 

Science Center, Miami, FL.

Kalmijn, A.J. 1988. Hydrodynamic and acoustic field detection. Pages 83-130 in J. Atema, R.R. Fay, 

A.N. Popper, and W.N. Tavolga, eds. The Sensory Biology of Aquatic Animals. Springer-Verlag, 

New York, NY. 

Kalmijn, A.J. 1989. Functional evolution of lateral line and inner ear systems. Pages 187-216 in S. 

Coombs P. Görner, and H. Münz, eds. The Mechanosensory Lateral Line: Neurobiology and 

Evolution. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 

Kannada, S. and A. Romero. 2005. Past and present distribution of marine mammals in the Caribbean: A 

historical analysis of causes and consequences. Page 146 in Abstracts of the 16th Biennial Conference 

on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 December 2005, San Diego, CA.

Kapoor, B.G. and T.J. Hara, eds. 2001. Sensory Biology of Jawed Fishes: New Insights. Science 

Publishers, Inc., Enfield, NH. 

Karlsen, H.E. 1992. Infrasound sensitivity in the plaice (Pleuronecta platessa). Journal of Experimental 

Biology 171:173-187.

Kasamatsu, F., S. Nishiwaki, and H. Ishikawa. 1995. Breeding areas and southbound migrations of 

southern minke whales Balaenoptera acutorostrata. Marine Ecology Progress Series 119: 1-10.

Kastak, D. and R.J. Schusterman. 1998. Low-frequency amphibious hearing in pinnipeds: methods, 

measurements, noise, and ecology. Journal of the Acoustical Society of American 103:2216-2228.

Kastak, D. and R.J. Schusterman. 1999. In-air and underwater hearing sensitivity of a northern elephant 

seal (Mirounga angustirostris). Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:1751-1758.

Kastak, D., R.L. Schusterman, B.L. Southall, and C.J. Reichmuth. 1999. Underwater temporary threshold 

shift induced by octave-band noise in three species of pinnipeds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America 106:1142-1148.

Kastak, D., B.L. Southall, R.J. Schusterman, and C. Reichmuth Kastak. 2005. Underwater temporary 

threshold shift in pinnipeds: effects of noise level and duration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America 118:3154-3163.

Kastelein, R.A., M. Hagedoorn, W.W.L. Au, and D. de Haan. 2003. Audiogram of a striped dolphin 

(Stenella coeruleoalba). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113:1130-1137.

Kastelein, R.A., R. van Schie, W.C. Verboom and D. de Haan. 2005. Underwater hearing sensitivity of a 

male and a female Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 

118:1820-1829. 

Kastelein, R.A., P.J. Wensveen, L. Hoek, W.C. Verboom and J.M. Terhune. 2009. Underwater detection 

of tonal signals between 0.125 and 100 kHz by harbor seals (Phoca vitulina). Journal of Acoustical 

Society of America 125:1222-1229. 

Kasuya, T. 1986. Distribution and behavior of Baird's beaked whales off the Pacific coast of Japan. 

Scientific Report of the Whales Research Institute 37:61-83.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-38

Kasuya, T. 2002. Giant beaked whales. Pages 519-522 in W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and J.G.M. Thewissen, 

eds. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 

Kasuya, T. and T. Miyashita. 1988. Distribution of sperm whale stocks in the North Pacific. Science 

Report of the Whale Research Institute 39:31-75.

Kasuya, T. and S. Ohsumi. 1984. Further analysis of Baird‘s beaked whales in the waters adjacent to 

Japan. Report of the International Whaling Commission 33:633-641.

Kato, H. 2002. Bryde's whales Balaenoptera edeni and B. brydei. Pages 171-177 in W.F. Perrin, B. 

Würsig, and J.G.M. Thewissen, eds. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, 

CA.

Keinath, J.A. 1993. Movements and behaviour of wild and head-started sea turtles. Dissertation, College 

of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.

Keitt, B.S., B.R. Tershy, and D.A. Croll. 2004. Nocturnal behavior reduces predation pressure on blackvented shearwaters Puffinus opisthomelas. Marine Ornithology 32:173–178.

Kemper, C.M. 2002. Pygmy right whale Caperea marginata. Pages 1010-1012 in W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, 

and J.G.M. Thewissen, eds. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 

Kenney, R.D. 1990. Bottlenose dolphins off the northeastern United States. Pages 369-386 in S. 

Leatherwood and R. R. Reeves, eds. The Bottlenose Dolphin. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Kenney, R.D. 1996. Preliminary assessment of competition for prey between leatherback turtles and 

ocean sunfish in northeast shelf waters. Pages 144-147 in J.A. Keinath, D.E. Barnard, J.A. Musick, 

and B.A. Bell, compilers. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and 

Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-387. NMFS, Southeast Fisheries 

Science Center, Miami, FL.

Kenney, R.D. and H.E. Winn. 1987. Cetacean biomass densities near submarine canyons compared to 

adjacent shelf/slope areas. Continental Shelf Research 7:107-114. 

Kenyon, K.W. 1969. The sea otter in the eastern Pacific Ocean. North American Fauna 68. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

Kenyon, K.W. 1975. The Sea Otter in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 

NY.

Ketten, D.R. 1995. Estimates of blast injury and acoustic trauma zones for marine mammals from 

underwater explosions. Pages 391-407 in R.A. Kastelein, J.A. Thomas, and P.E. Nachtigall, eds. 

Sensory Systems of Aquatic Mammals. De Spil Publishers, Woerden, Netherlands. 

Ketten, D.R. 1998. Marine mammal auditory systems: a summary of audiometric and anatomical data 

and its implications for underwater acoustic impacts. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TMNMFS-SWFSC-256. Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, CA.

Ketten, D.R. 2000. Cetacean ears. Pages 43-108 in W.W.L. Au, A.N. Popper, and R.R. Fay, eds. Hearing 

by Whales and Dolphins. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 

Ketten, D.R. 2004. Marine mammal auditory systems: a summary of audiometric and anatomical data and 

implications for underwater acoustic impacts. Polarforschung 72:79-92. ;
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-39

Ketten D.R. and J.J. Finneran. 2004. Injury [Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)] Criteria. Presentation to 

Advisory Committee on Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals, Marine Mammal Commission. 

Arlington, Virginia, 28-30 April.

Ketten, D.R., J. Lien, and S. Todd. 1993. Blast injury in humpback whale ears: evidence and implications. 

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 94:1849-1850. (Abstract)

Ketten, D.R., J. O'Malley, P.W.B. Moore, S. Ridgway, and C. Merigo. 2001. Aging, injury, disease, and 

noise in marine mammal ears. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 110:2721. (Abstract)

Knowlton, A.R. and M.W. Brown. 2007. Running the gauntlet: right whales and ship strikes. Pages 409-

435 in S.D. Kraus and R.M. Rolland, eds. The Urban Whale: North Atlantic Right Whales at the 

Crossroads. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 

Knowlton, A.R., C.W. Clark, and S.D. Kraus. 1991. Sounds recorded in the presence of Sei whales, 

Balaenoptera borealis. Page 40 in Abstracts of the 9

th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine 

Mammals, 5-9 December 1991, Chicago, IL.

Knowlton, A.R., J. Sigurjonsson, J.N. Ciano, and S.D. Kraus. 1992. Long-distance movements of North 

Atlantic Right whales (Eubalaena glacialis). Marine Mammal Science 8:397-405.

Kolinski, S.P., D.M. Parker, L.I. Ilo, and J.K. Ruak. 2001. An assessment of the sea turtles and their 

marine and terrestrial habitats at Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

Micronesica 34:55-72.

Komak, S., J.G. Boal, L. Dickel, and B.U. Budelmann. 2005. Behavioural responses of juvenile cuttlefish 

(Sepia officinalis) to local water movements. Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology

38:117-125.

Kongsberg Maritime. 2005a. Hydroacoustics, Echo Sounders Multibeam: EM 120 Multibeam echo 

sounder. 

http://www.km.kongsberg.com/KS/WEB/NOKBG0397.nsf/AllWeb/6B7656717DD9FE01C1256D4

A0031824C?OpenDocument. Accessed 20 November.

Kongsberg Maritime. 2005b. Sub bottom profiler - SBP 120. 

http://www.km.kongsberg.com/KS/WEB/NOKBG0240.nsf/AllWeb/EF54BDEF668D0CABC1256C

AE00303701?OpenDocument. Accessed 20 November.

Kopitsky, K., R.L. Pitman, and P.H. Dutton. 2002. Reproductive ecology of olive ridleys in the open 

ocean in the eastern tropical Pacific. Pages 90-91 in A. Mosier, A. Foley, and B. Brost, compilers. 

Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-477. NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, FL.

Koski, W.R., J.W. Lawson, D.H. Thomson, and W.J. Richardson. 1998. Marine Mammal Technical 

Report. Point Mugu Sea Range Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact 

Statement. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT, and Ogden 

Environmental and Energy Services, Santa Barbara, CA, for Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons 

Division, Point Mugu, CA. December.

Koski, W.R., M.P. Heide-Jørgensen and K. Laidre. 2006. Winter abundance of bowhead whales, Balaena 

mysticetus, in Hudson Strait, March 1981. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 8:139-144.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-40

Koski, W.R., D.W. Funk, D.S. Ireland, C. Lyons, K. Christie, A.M. Macrander, and S.B. Blackwell. 

2009. An update on feeding by bowhead whales near an offshore seismic survey in the central 

Beaufort Sea. International Whaling Commission Working Paper SC/61/BRG3. 

Kostyvchenko, L.P. 1973. Effects of elastic waves generated in marine seismic prospecting on fish eggs 

in the Black Sea. Hydrobiological Journal 9:45-48.

Kraus, S.D. and R.M. Rolland. 2007. Right whales in the urban ocean. Pages 1-38 in S. D. Kraus and R. 

M. Rolland, eds. The Urban Whale: North Atlantic Right Whales at the Crossroads. Harvard 

University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Kraus, S.D., P.K. Hamilton, R.D. Kenney, A.R. Knowlton, and C.K. Slay. 2001. Reproductive parameters 

of the North Atlantic right whale. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management Special Issue 

2:231-236.

Kreithen, M.L. and D.B. Quine. 1979. Infrasound detection by the homing pigeon: A behavioral 

audiogram. Journal of Comparative Physiology 129:1-4.

Kremser, U., P. Klemm, and W.D. Kötz. 2005. Estimating the risk of temporary acoustic threshold shift, 

caused by hydroacoustic devices, in whales in the Southern Ocean. Antarctic Science 17:3-10. 

Kryter, K.D. 1985. The Effects of Noise on Man. 2nd edition. Academic Press, Orlando, FL. 

La Bella, G., S. Cannata, C. Froglia, A. Modica, S. Ratti, and G. Rivas. 1996. First assessment of effects 

of air-gun seismic shooting on marine resources in the Central Adriatic Sea. Pages 227-238 in Society 

of Petroleum Engineers, International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment, New Orleans, 

Louisiana, 9-12 June. 

Lacroix, D.L., R.B. Lanctot, J.A. Reed, and T.L. McDonald. 2003. Effect of underwater seismic surveys 

on molting male long-tailed ducks in the Beaufort Sea, Alaska. Canadian Journal of Zoology 

81:1862-1875.

Ladich, F. and A.N. Popper. 2004. Parallel evolution in fish hearing organs. Pages 95-127 in G.A. 

Manley, A.N. Popper, and R.R. Fay, eds. Evolution of the Vertebrate Auditory System. SpringerVerlag, New York, NY.

Laist, D.W., A.R. Knowlton, J.G. Mead, A.S. Collet, and M. Podesta. 2001. Collisions between ships and 

whales. Marine Mammal Science 17:35-75. 

Lance, M.M., S. A. Richardson, and H.L. Allen. 2004. Washington state recovery plan for the sea otter. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Program, Olympia, WA. December. 

Larsen, F. 1995. Abundance of minke and fin whales off West Greenland, 1993. Report of the 

International Whaling Commission 45:365-370.

Latha, G., S. Senthilvadivu, R. Venkatesan, and V. Rajendran. 2005. Sound of shallow and deep water 

lobsters: Measurements, analysis, and characterization (L). Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America 117: 2720-2723.

Laurinolli, M.H. and N.A. Cochrane. 2005. Hydroacoustic analysis of marine mammal vocalization data 

from ocean bottom seismometer mounted hydrophones in the Gully. Pages 89-95 in K. Lee, H. Bain 

and G.V. Hurley, eds. Acoustic Monitoring and Marine Mammal Surveys in The Gully and Outer 

Scotian Shelf Before and During Active Seismic Surveys. Environmental Studies Research Funds 

Report 151. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-41

Lazell, J.D. 1980. New England waters: critical habitat for marine turtles. Copeia 1980:290-295.

L-DEO. 2005. R/V Langseth Seismic Source Arrays. Personal communication via email from J. Diebold, 

Chief Scientist for Marine Operations, to A. Shor, Program Director, Division of Ocean Sciences, 

NSF. 23 November.

L-DEO. 2006. Marine Operations: R/V Ewing Replacement Plan. 

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/fac/oma/replacement/index.html. 

L-DEO. 2010. Marine Operations: R/V Marcus G. Langseth. 

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/fac/oma/langseth/index.html. Accessed 1 September.

L-DEO and NSF. 2003a. Environmental Assessment of a Marine Seismic Survey by the R/V Maurice

Ewing in the Hess Deep Area of the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean. LGL Report TA2822-4. 

Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT. 18 March.

L-DEO and NSF. 2003b. Environmental Assessment of a Marine Seismic Survey by the R/V Maurice

Ewing off the West Coast of Norway in the Norwegian Sea. LGL Report TA2822-6. Prepared by 

LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT. 29 April.

L-DEO and NSF. 2003c. Environmental Assessment of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory‘s Marine 

Seismic Surveys in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean. LGL Report TA2822-9. Prepared by LGL Ltd. 

environmental research associates, King City, ONT. 28 July.

L-DEO and NSF. 2003d. Environmental Assessment of a Marine Seismic Survey by the R/V Maurice

Ewing near Bermuda. LGL Report TA2822-10. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research 

associates, King City, ONT. 5 August.

L-DEO and NSF. 2003e. Environmental Assessment of a Marine Seismic Survey by the R/V Maurice

Ewing in the Southeast Caribbean Sea and adjacent Atlantic Ocean. LGL Report TA2822-13. 

Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT. 11 September.

L-DEO and NSF. 2003f. Environmental Assessment of a Marine Seismic Survey by the R/V Maurice

Ewing off the Northern Yucatán Peninsula, Gulf of Mexico, March-April 2004. LGL Report TA2822-

15. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT. 1 October.

L-DEO and NSF. 2003g. Environmental Assessment of Marine Seismic Testing Conducted by the R/V 

Maurice Ewing in the Northern Gulf of Mexico, May – June 2003. LGL Report TA2822-3. Prepared 

by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT. 7 March.

L-DEO and NSF. 2003h. Request by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory for an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization to allow the incidental take of marine mammals during a marine seismic survey off the 

northern Yucatán Peninsula, Gulf of Mexico, March–April 2004. LGL Report TA2822-14. Prepared 

by LGL Ltd, King City, ONT, for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, 

Palisades, NY, and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 

L-DEO and NSF. 2004a. Environmental Assessment of a Marine Seismic Survey by R/V Maurice Ewing

on the Blanco Fracture Zone in the Northeastern Pacific Ocean, July 2004. LGL Report TA2822-22. 

Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT. 25 February.

L-DEO and NSF. 2004b. Environmental Assessment of a Planned Low-Energy Marine Seismic Survey 

by the R/V Maurice Ewing in the Eastern Pacific Ocean off Central America, Late Autumn 2004. 

LGL Report TA2822-18. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT. 

June.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-42

L-DEO and NSF. 2004c. Environmental Assessment of a Marine Seismic Survey by the R/V Maurice

Ewing in the Gulf of Alaska, Late Summer/Early Autumn 2004. LGL Report TA2822-24. Prepared 

by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT. 6 April.

L-DEO and NSF. 2004d. Environmental Assessment of a Marine Geophysical Survey by the R/V Kilo

Moana around the Aleutian Islands, June–July 2005. LGL Report 4089-1. Prepared by LGL Ltd.

environmental research associates, King City, ONT. 20 December. 

L-DEO and NSF. 2005. Revisions to the Environmental Assessment and IHA Application for a 2005 

Summer Aleutian Islands Seismic Survey. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, 

King City, ONT. 17 February.

L-DEO and NSF. 2006a. Draft Environmental Assessment of the Batholiths Marine Seismic Survey, 

Inland Waterways and Near-Offshore, Central Coast of British Columbia. LGL Report TA2822-32. 

Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, Sidney, BC. 28 March.

L-DEO and NSF. 2006b. Draft Environmental Assessment of a Marine Geophysical Survey by the R/V 

Marcus G. Langseth in the Bermuda Rise area, October–November 2006. LGL Report TA4250-1. 

Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT. February.

L-DEO and NSF. 2007a. Environmental Assessment of two Marine Geophysical Surveys by R/V Marcus 

G. Langseth in the Eastern Tropical Pacific, 2008. LGL Report TA4397-1. Prepared by LGL Ltd. 

environmental research associates, King City, ONT. 21 August.

L-DEO and NSF. 2007b. Environmental Assessment of a Marine Geophysical Survey by R/V Marcus G. 

Langseth off Central America, January-March 2008. LGL Report TA4342-1. Prepared by LGL Ltd. 

environmental research associates, King City, ONT. 16 April.

L-DEO and NSF. 2008a. Environmental Assessment of a Marine Geophysical Survey by the R/V Marcus 

G. Langseth in Southeast Asia, March-July 2009. LGL Report TA4553-1. Prepared by LGL Ltd. 

environmental research associates, King City, ONT. 24 October.

L-DEO and NSF. 2008b. Environmental Assessment of a Marine Geophysical Survey by the R/V Marcus 

G. Langseth in Southwest Pacific Ocean, January-February 2009. LGL Report TA4686-1. Prepared 

by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT. 15 August.

L-DEO and NSF. 2008c. Environmental Assessment of a Marine Geophysical Survey by the R/V Marcus 

G. Langseth in the Gulf of Alaska, September 2008. LGL Report TA4412-1. Prepared by LGL Ltd. 

environmental research associates, King City, ONT. 8 April.

L-DEO and NSF. 2009. Environmental Assessment of a Marine Geophysical Survey by the R/V Marcus 

G. Langseth in the Northeast Pacific Ocean, August-September 2009. LGL Report TA4597-1. 

Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT. 11 February.

Leatherwood, S., L.J. Harrington-Coulombe, and C.L. Hubbs. 1978. Relict survival of the sea otter in 

central California and evidence of its recent redispersal south of Point Conception. Bulletin of 

Southern California Academy of Sciences 77:109-115.

Leatherwood, S., B.S. Stewart, and P.A. Folkens. 1987. Cetaceans of the Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary. Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, Santa Barbara, CA and National 

Marine Fisheries Service, La Jolla, CA. 

Le Boeuf, B.J., D.P. Costa, A.C. Huntley, G.L. Kooyman, and R.W. Davis. 1986. Pattern and depth of 

dives in northern elephant seals, Mirounga angustirostris. Journal of Zoology 208:1-7.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-43

Le Boeuf, B.J., Y. Naito, A.C. Huntley, and T. Asaga. 1989. Prolonged, continuous, deep diving by 

northern elephant seals. Canadian Journal of Zoology 67:2514-2519.

Le Corre, M., A. Ollivier, S. Ribes, and P. Jouventin. 2002. Light-induced mortality of petrels: a four 

year study from Re ́union Island (Indian Ocean). Biological Conservation 105:93–102.

LeDuc, R., W.L. Perryman, J.W. Gilpatrick, Jr., C. Stinchcomb, J.V. Carretta, and R.L. Brownell, Jr. 

2001. A note on recent surveys for right whales in the southeastern Bering Sea. Journal of Cetacean 

Research and Management Special Issue 2:287-289.

Lee, Wu-Jung1,; Yu, Hsin-Yi; Chou, Lien-Siang. 2005. Vocalization Repertoire of the Three Strayed 

Rough-Toothed Dolphins (Steno bredanensis) in the Danshui River, Taipei, Taiwan. Page 165 in

Abstracts of the 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 December 

2005, San Diego, CA.

Lefebvre, L.W., T.J. O‘Shea, G.B. Rathburn, and R.C. Best. 1989. Distribution, status, and biogeography 

of the West Indian manatee. In C.A. Woods and F.E. Sergile, eds. Biogeography of the West Indies: 

Past, Present, and Future. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Lenhardt, M. 2002. Sea turtle auditory behavior. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 112(5, Pt. 

2):2314 (Abstract).

Lenhardt, M.L. 1994. Seismic and very low frequency sound induced behaviors in captive loggerhead 

marine turtles (Caretta caretta). Pages 238-241 in K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. 

Eliazar, compilers. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and 

Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351. NMFS, Southeast Fisheries

Science Center, Miami, FL.

Lenhardt, M.L., S. Bellmund, R.A. Byles, S.W. Harkins, and J.A. Musick. 1983. Marine turtle reception 

of bone-conducted sound. Journal of Auditory Research 23:119-125.

Lesage, V., C. Barrette, M.C.S. Kingsley and B. Sjare. 1999. The effect of vessel noise on the vocal 

behavior of belugas in the St. Lawrence River estuary, Canada. Marine Mammal Science 15:65-84.

LGL. 2003. Marine Mammal Monitoring During Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory's Acoustic 

Calibration Study in the Northern Gulf of Mexico, 2003. LGL Report TA2822-12. September. 

Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT, for Lamont-Doherty Earth 

Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY, and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD.

LGL. 2005. Marine Mammal and Bird Observations during a Survey in Support of the BATHOLITHS 

Research Project in the Southeastern Queen Charlotte Basin, British Columbia. Prepared by LGL Ltd.

environmental research associates, Sidney, BC, for Department of Geosciences, Princeton University, 

NJ. 14 November.

Limpus, C.J. 1995a. Conservation of marine turtles in the Indo-Pacific region. Final report to the 

Australian Nature Conservancy Agency, Canberra, Australia.

Limpus, C.J. 1995b. Global overview of the status of marine turtles: a 1995 viewpoint. Pages 605-609 in

K.A. Bjorndal, ed. Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Revised edition. Smithsonian Institution 

Press, Washington, DC.

Limpus, C.J. and N. MacLachlin. 1979. Observations on the leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea

(L.), in Australia. Australian Wildlife Research 6:105-116. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-44

Limpus, C.J. and N. MacLachlin. 1994. The conservation status of the Leatherback Turtle, Dermochelys 

coriacea, in Australia. Pages 63-67 in Proceedings of the Australian Marine Turtle Conservation 

Workshop, Gold Coast, 14-17 November 1990. 

Limpus, C.J., A. Fleay, and M. Guinea. 1984. Sea turtles of the Capricornia section, Great Barrier Reef. 

Pages 61-78 in W. T. Ward and P. Saenger, eds. The Capricornia Section of the Great Barrier Reef: 

Past, Present and Future. Royal Society of Queensland and Australian Coral Reef Society. 

Little, B., E.M. Seibert, J. Townsend, J.H. Sprinkle, Jr., and J. Knoerl. 2000. National Register Bulletin 

36: Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archeological Properties. 

http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/arch/index.htm. 

Ljungblad, D. and K. Stafford. 2005. Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) acoustic results from the 2003-

2004 International Whaling Commission-Southern Ocean Whale and Ecosystem Research 

Circumpolar Cruise, Area V. Page 170 in Abstracts of the 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of 

Marine Mammals, 12-16 December 2005, San Diego, CA.

Ljungblad, D.K., S.E. Moore, and D.R. Van Schoik. 1984. Aerial surveys of endangered whales in the 

Beaufort, eastern Chukchi, and northern Bering Seas, 1983: with a five year review, 1979-1983. 

NOSC Technical Report 955. Prepared by Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA for MMS, 

Anchorage, AK. 

Ljungblad, D.K., B. Würsig, S.L. Swartz, and J.M. Keene. 1988. Observations on the behavioral 

responses of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) to active geophysical vessels in the Alaskan 

Beaufort Sea. Arctic 41:183-194.

Ljungblad, D.K., K.M. Stafford, H. Shimada, and K. Matsuoka. 1997. Sounds attributed to blue whales 

recorded off the southwest coast of Australia in December 1995. Report of the International Whaling 

Commission 47:435-439.

Lohmann, K.J. and C.M.F. Lohmann. 1998. Migratory guidance mechanisms in marine turtles. Journal of 

Avian Biology 29:585-596.

Lohmann, K.J., B.E. Witherington, C.M.F. Lohmann, and M. Salmon. 1997. Orientation, navigation, and 

natal beach homing in sea turtles. Pages 107-135 in P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick, eds. The Biology of 

Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Lohmann, K.J., S.D. Cain, S.A. Dodge, and C.M.F. Lohmann. 2001. Regional magnetic fields as 

navigational markers for sea turtles. Science 294(5541):364-366.

Løkkeborg, S. 1991. Effects of geophysical survey on catching success in longline fishing. Paper 

presented at the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Annual Science 

Conference. ICES CM B 40:1-9. 

Longhurst, A. 2006. Ecological Geography of the Sea. 2

nd Edition. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

López-Castro, M.C., W.J. Nichols, and M. Orantes. 2000. Olive ridley nesting in Baja California Sur, 

Mexico: Preliminary observations. Pages 273-274 in H. Kalb and T. Wibbels, compilers. 

Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-443. NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, FL.

Love, M.S and A. York. 2005. A comparison of the fish assemblages associated with an oil/gas pipeline 

and adjacent seafloor in the Santa Barbara Channel, Southern California Bight. Bulletin of Marine 

Science 77:101-117.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-45

Love, M.S., D.M. Schroeder, and W.H. Lenarz. 2005. Distribution of boccaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) 

and cow cod (Sebastes levis) around oil platforms and natural outcrops off California with 

implications for larval production. Bulletin of Marine Science 77:397-408.

Lovell, J.M., M.M. Findley, R.M. Moate, and H.Y. Yan. 2005a. The hearing abilities of the prawn 

Palaemon serratus. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A 140:89-100.

Lovell, J.M., M.M. Findlay, R.M. Moate, J.R. Nedwell, and M.A. Pegg. 2005b. The inner ear 

morphology and hearing abilities of the paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) and the lake sturgeon 

(Acipenser fulvescens). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part A 142:286- 296.

Lucke, K., U. Siebert, P.A. Lepper, and M.-A. Blanchet. 2009. Temporary shift in masked hearing 

thresholds in a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) after exposure to seismic airgun stimuli. 

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125:4060-4070.

Luczkovich, J.J., M.W. Sprague, S.E. Johnson, and R.C. Pullinger. 1999. Delimiting spawning areas of 

weakfish Cynoscion regalis (Family Sciaenidae) in Pamlico Sound, North Carolina using passive 

acoustic surveys. Bioacoustics 1999:143-160. 

Lutcavage, M.E. 1996. Planning your next meal: Leatherback travel routes and ocean fronts. Pages 174-

178 in J.A. Keinath, D.E. Barnard, J.A. Musick, and B.A. Bell, compilers. Proceedings of the 

Fifteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-387. NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, FL.

Lutcavage, M.E. and P.L. Lutz. 1997. Diving physiology. Pages 277-296 in P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick, 

eds. The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Lutcavage, M. and J.A. Musick. 1985. Aspects of the biology of sea turtles in Virginia. Copeia 1985:449-

456.

Lutcavage, M.E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington. and P.L. Lutz. 1997. Human impacts on sea turtle survival. 

Pages 387-409 in P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick, eds. The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca 

Raton, FL.

Lutz. P.L. and J.A. Musick, eds. 1997. The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Lux, J., R.Reina, and L. Stokes. 2003. Nesting activity of leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in 

relation to tidal and lunar cycles at Playa Grande, Costa Rica. Pages 215-216 in J.A. Seminoff, 

compiler. Proceedings of the Twenty-second Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and 

Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-503. NMFS, Southeast Fisheries 

Science Center, Miami, FL.

MacAskie, I.B. and C.R. Forrester. 1962. Pacific leatherback turtles (Dermochelys) off the coast of 

British Columbia. Copeia 3:646.

MacGillivray, A.O. and D. Hannay. 2007. Chapter 3: Summary of noise assessment. Pages 3-1 – 3-21 in

Marine mammal monitoring and mitigation during open water seismic exploration by ConocoPhillips 

Alaska, Inc. in the Chukchi Sea, July-October 2006. LGL Report P903-2. Prepared by LGL Alaska 

Research Associates Inc., Anchorage, AK, and JASCO Research Ltd., Victoria, BC, for 

ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc., Anchorage, AK, and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 

Macleod, K., M.P. Simmonds, and E. Murray. 2006. Abundance of fin (Balaenoptera physalus) and sei 

whales (B. borealis) amid oil exploration and development off northwest Scotland. Journal of 

Cetacean Research and Management 8:247-254.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-46

MacLean, S.A. and B. Haley. 2004. Marine mammal monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth 

Observatory's seismic study in the Støregga slide area of the Norwegian Sea, August-September 

2003. LGL Report TA2822-20. Prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., Anchorage, AK, 

for L-DEO, Columbia University, Palisades, NY. 

MacLean, S.A. and W.R. Koski. 2005. Marine Mammal Monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth 

Observatory‘s Seismic Program in the Gulf of Alaska, August – September 2004. LGL Report 

TA2822-28. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT, for LamontDoherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY, and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD.

Madsen, P.T., B. Mohl, B.K. Nielsen, and M. Wahlberg. 2002. Male sperm whale behavior during 

exposures to distant seismic survey pulses. Aquatic Mammals 28:231-240.

Madsen, P.T., M. Johnson, P.J.O. Miller, N. Aguilar de Soto, J. Lynch, and P.L. Tyack. 2006. 

Quantitative measures of air gun pulses recorded on sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) using 

acoustic tags during controlled exposure experiments. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 

120:2366–2379.

Malakoff, D. 2002. Seismology - Suit ties whale deaths to research cruise. Science 298(5594):722-723.

Malme, C.I. and P.R. Miles. 1985. Behavioral responses of marine mammals (gray whales) to seismic 

discharges. Pages 253-280 in G.D. Greene, F.R. Engelhard, and R.J. Paterson, eds. Proceedings of the 

Workshop on Effects of Explosives Use in the Marine Environment, January 1985, Halifax, NS. 

Technical Report 5. Canadian Oil & Gas Lands Admininstration, Environmental Protection Branch, 

Ottawa, ONT.

Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, C.W. Clark, P. Tyack, and J.E. Bird. 1984. Investigations of the potential effects 

of underwater noise from petroleum industry activities on migrating gray whale behavior/Phase II: 

January 1984 migration. BBN Report 5586. Prepared by Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc., Cambridge, 

MA, for MMS, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, AK. 

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. BBN 

Report 5851; OCS Study MMS 85-0019. Prepared by BBN Labs Inc., Cambridge, MA, for MMS, 

Anchorage, AK. 

Malme, C.I., B. Würsig, J.E. Bird, and P. Tyack. 1986. Behavioral responses of gray whales to industrial 

noise: feeding observations and predictive modeling. Outer Continental Shelf Environmental 

Assessment Program, Final Report. BBN Rep. 6265. OCS Study MMS 88-0048. Prepared by BBN 

Labs Inc., Cambridge, MA, for NMFS and MMS, Anchorage, AK. 

Malme, C.I., B. Würsig, B., J.E. Bird, and P. Tyack. 1988. Observations of feeding gray whale responses 

to controlled industrial noise exposure. Pages 55-73 in W.M. Sackinger, M.O. Jeffries, J.L. Imm, and 

S.D. Treacy, eds. Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions, Vol. II. Symposium on Noise 

and Marine Mammals. University of Alaska-Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK. 

Manly, B.F.J., V.D. Moulton, R.E. Elliott, G.W. Miller, and W.J. Richardson. 2007. Analysis of 

covariance of fall migrations of bowhead whales in relation to human activities and environmental 

factors, Alaskan Beaufort Sea: Phase I, 1996-1998. LGL Report TA2799-2; OCS Study MMS 2005-

033. Report from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and WEST Inc., Cheyenne, WY, for Minerals 

Management Service, Herndon, VA, and Anchorage, AK. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-47

Mann, D.A., Z. Lu, and A.N. Popper. 1997. A clupeid fish can detect ultrasound. Nature 389:341.

Mann, D.A., Z. Lu, M.C. Hastings, and A.N. Popper. 1998. Detection of ultrasonic tones and simulated 

dolphin echolocation clicks by a teleost fish, the American shad (Alosa sapidissima). Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America 104:562-568.

Mann, D.A., D.M. Higgs, W.N. Tavolga, M.J. Souza, and A.N. Popper. 2001. Ultrasound detection by 

clupeiforme fishes. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 109:3048-3054.

Mann, D.A., A.N. Popper, and B. Wilson. 2005. Pacific herring hearing does not include ultrasound. 

Biological Letters 1:158-161.

Maravilla-Chavez, M.O. and M.S Lowry. 1999. Incipient breeding colony of Guadalupe fur seals at Isla 

Benito del Este, Baja California, Mexico. Marine Mammal Science 15:239-241.

Marcatto, M.A., M.B. Alonso, and C.P. Bertozzi. 2005. Marine mammal sightings during fishery 

operations in southeastern and southern Brazil. Page 179 in Abstracts of the 16th Biennial Conference 

on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 December 2005, San Diego, CA. 

Márquez, M.R. 1990. Sea Turtles of the World: An Annotated and Illustrated Catalogue of Sea Turtle 

Species Known to Date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 125, Vol 11. Rome, Italy.

Mate, B. and J. Urbán. 2005. The spring northward migration and summer feeding of mother gray whales 

in the eastern North Pacific. Page 182 in Abstracts of the 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of 

Marine Mammals, San Diego, CA, 12-16 December 2005. 

Mate, B.R., K.M. Stafford, and D.K. Ljungblad. 1994. A change in sperm whale (Physeter

macrocephalus) distribution correlated to seismic surveys in the Gulf of Mexico. Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America 96:3268-3269.

Maybaum, H.L. 1990. Effects of a 3.3 kHz sonar system on humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, 

in Hawaiian waters. Eos 71(2):92. 

Maybaum, H.L. 1993. Responses of humpback whales to sonar sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society 

of America 94:1848-1849.

May-Collado, L., T. Gerrodette, J. Calambokidis, K. Rasmussen, and I. Sereg. 2005. Patterns of cetacean 

sighting distribution in the Pacific Exclusive Economic Zone of Costa Rica based on data collected 

from 1979-2001. Revista de Biologia Tropical 53:249-263.

McCauley, R.D. and D.H. Cato. 2003. Acoustics and marine mammals: introduction, importance, threats 

and potential as a research tool. Pages 332-353 in N. Gales, M. Hindell, and R. Kirkwood, eds. 

Marine Mammals: Fisheries, Tourism and Management issues. CSIRO Publications, Melbourne, 

Victoria, Australia.

McCauley, R.D. and J.R. Hughes. 2006. Marine seismic mitigation measures – perspectives in 2006. 

Paper SC/58/E44 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, IWC Annual Meeting, 1-13 June, St 

Kitts and Nevis.

McCauley, R.D., M.-N. Jenner, C. Jenner, K.A. McCabe, and J. Murdoch. 1998. The response of 

humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to offshore seismic survey noise: preliminary results of 

observations about a working seismic vessel and experimental exposures. APPEA Journal 38:692-

707.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-48

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. 2000a. Marine seismic surveys: Analysis of airgun signals; 

and effects of air gun exposure on humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and squid. Report from Centre 

for Marine Science and Technology, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, for Australian 

Petroleum Production Association, Sydney, NSW. 

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. 2000b. Marine seismic surveys – a study of environmental 

implications. APPEA Journal 40:692-706.

McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, and A.N. Popper. 2003. High intensity anthropogenic sound damages fish 

ears. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113:638-642.

McDonald, M.A. and S.E. Moore. 2002. Calls recorded from North Pacific right whales (Eubalaena

japonica) in the eastern Bering Sea. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 4:261-266.

McDonald, M.A., J.A. Hildebrand, and S.C. Webb. 1995. Blue and fin whales observed on a seafloor 

array in the Northeast Pacific. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 98:712-721.

McDonald, M.A., J.A. Hildebrand, and S.M. Wiggins. 2006. Increases in deep ocean ambient noise in the 

Northeast Pacific west of San Nicholas Island, California. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America 120:711-718.

McGavern, L. 1989. Plastics: Sealing the Fate of Marine Life. MIT Sea Grant College Program for 

Coastweeks. 

McLellan, W.M., A.S. Friedlaender, J.G. Mead, C.W. Potter, and D.A. Pabst. 2003. Analysing 25 years 

of bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) strandings along the Atlantic coast of the USA: do historic 

records support the coastal migratory stock hypothesis? Journal of Cetacean Research and 

Management 4:297-304.

MCS Advisory Board, ed. 2006. Imaging Earth History Beneath the Ocean Floor: Three Decades of 

Major Scientific Accomplishment. Prepared by Geosciences Professional Services, Inc., Bethesda, 

MD. Available at http://www.geo-prose.com/projects/imaging_earth.html.

McShane, L.J., J.A. Estes, M.L. Riedman, and M.M. Staedler. 1995. Repertoire, structure, and individual 

variation of vocalizations in the sea otter. Journal of Mammalogy 76:414-427.

Mecklenberg, C.W., T.A. Mecklenberg, and L.K. Thorsteinson. 2002. Fishes of Alaska. American 

Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 

Medwin, H. 2005. Sounds in the Sea: From Ocean Acoustics to Acoustical Oceanography. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Melin, S. R. and R. L. DeLong. 1999. Observations of a Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi) 

female and pup at San Miguel Island, California. Marine Mammal Science 15:885-888.

Mellinger, D.K., K.M. Stafford, and C.G. Fox. 2004. Seasonal occurrence of sperm whale (Physeter

macrocephalus) sounds in the Gulf of Alaska, 1999–2001. Marine Mammal Science 20:48–62.

Melvin, E.F., J.K. Parrish, and L.L. Conquest. 1999. Novel tools to reduce seabird bycatch in coastal 

gillnet fisheries. Conservation Biology 13:1386-1397.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-49

Méndez, M., M. Arbelo, E. Sierra, A. Godinho, M.J. Caballero, J. Jaber, P. Herráez, and A. Fernández. 

2005. Lung fat embolism in cetaceans stranded in Canary Islands. Page 189 in Abstracts of the 16th

Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 December 2005, San Diego, CA.

Mesnick, S.L. and K. Ralls. 2002. Mating systems. Pages 726-733 in W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and H.G.M. 

Thewissen, eds. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 

Meyer M. and A.N. Popper. 2002. Hearing in ―primitive‖ fish: brainstem responses to pure tone stimuli 

in the lake sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology

25:11-12 (Abstract). 

Meylan, A. 1995. Sea turtle migration: Evidence from tag returns. Pages 91-100 in K.A. Bjorndal, ed. 

Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Revised Edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, 

Washington, DC. 

Mignucci-Giannoni A.A. and D.K. Odell. 2001. Tropical and subtropical records of hooded seals 

(Cystophora cristata) dispel the myth of extant Caribbean monk seals (Monachus tropicalis). Bulletin 

of Marine Science 68:47-58.

Mikhalev, Y. 1997. Humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae in the Arabian Sea. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series 149:13-21.

Miksis-Olds, J.L. and J.H. Miller. 2006. Transmission loss in manatee habitats. Journal of the Acoustical

Society of America 120:2320-2327.

Miksis-Olds, J.L., P.L. Donaghay, J.H. Miller, P.L. Tyack, and J. Nystuen. 2007. Noise level correlates 

with manatee use of foraging habitats. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 121:3011-3020.

Miller, J.D. 1997. Reproduction in sea turtles. Pages 51-81 in P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick, eds. The 

Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Miller, J.D., K.A. Dobbs, C.J. Limpus, N. Mattocks, and A.M. Landry, Jr. 1998. Long-distance 

migrations by the hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata, from north-eastern Australia. Wildlife

Research 25:89-95. 

Miller, G.W., R.E. Elliott, W.R. Koski, V.D. Moulton, and W.J. Richardson. 1999. Whales. Pages 5-1 to 

5-109 in W.J. Richardson, ed. Marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of Western Geophysical‘s 

open-water seismic program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 1998. LGL Report TA2230-3. Prepared by 

LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT, and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa 

Barbara, CA, for Western Geophysical, Houston, TX and NMFS, Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, 

MD.

Miller, P.J.O., N. Biassoni, A. Samuels, and P.L. Tyack. 2000. Whale songs lengthen in response to 

sonar. Nature 405(6789):903.

Miller, G.W., V.D. Moulton, R.A. Davis, M. Holst, P. Millman, A. MacGillivray, and D. Hannay. 2005. 

Monitoring seismic effects on marine mammals—southeastern Beaufort Sea, 2001-2002. Pages 511-

542 in S.L. Armsworthy, P.J. Cranford, and K. Lee, eds. Offshore Oil and Gas Environmental Effects 

Monitoring/Approaches and Technologies. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH.

Minke Whale Project. 2004a. International Whaling Commission Report – Dwarf Minke Whales. 

http://www.minkewhale.org/iwc_report.htm. Accessed 12 July 2006.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-50

Minke Whale Project. 2004b. Dwarf Minke Whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata: Migration. 

http://www.minkewhale.org/whale_migration.htm. Accessed 19 December 2007.

Minton, G., T. Collins, K. Findlay, R. Baldwin, H.C. Rosenbaum, F. Kennedy and V. Cockcroft. 2002. 

Preliminary investigations of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) distribution and habitat 

use off the coast of Oman. Paper SC/54/H3 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, IWC Annual 

Meeting, 20-24 May 2002, Shimonoseki, Japan.

Misund. O. A., J. T. Øvreal, and M. T. Hafsteinsson. 1996. Reactions of herring schools to the sound field 

of a survey vessel. Aquatic Living Resources 9:5-11.

Mitson, R.B. and H.P. Knudsen. 2003. Causes and effects of underwater noise on fish abundance 

estimation. Aquatic Living Resources 16:255-263.

Mizroch, S.A. 1991. Distribution of minke whales in the North Pacific based on sightings and catch data. 

Paper 43/Mi36 presented at the IWC Annual Meeting, Reykjavik, Iceland, 27-31 May. 

MMC. 2003. Marine Mammal Species of Special Concern. http://www.mmc.gov/species. Last updated 19 

December 2003, accessed March 2006 and June 2006.

MMC. 2004. Annual Report to Congress 2003. Bethesda, MD. 30 April. 

MMS. 1993. Social Indicators Study of Alaskan Coastal Villages: IV, Postspill Key Informant 

Summaries, Schedule C Communities, Part 2 (Kenai, Tyonek, Seldovia, Kodiak City, Kariuk, Old 

Harbor, Chignik). Technical Report No. 155. Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, AK. May.

MMS. 2000. Shipwrecks off Alaska‘s Coast. http://www.mms.gov/alaska/ref/ships/index.htm. Last 

updated 6 June, accessed 7 June.

MMS. 2002. Liberty Development and Production Plan. Final Environmental Impact Statement. OCS 

EIS/EA, MMS 2002-019, 4 volumes. Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, AK. May.

MMS. 2003. MMS and California, Summer 2003. 

http://www.mms.gov/ooc/newweb/congressionalaffairs/statepapers2003/california2003.pdf. Accessed 

21 June 2006. 

MMS. 2004. Geological and Geophysical Exploration for Mineral Resources on the Gulf of Mexico 

Outer Continental Shelf Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2004-

054. Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. July.

MMS. 2006a. Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment: Arctic Ocean Outer Continental Shelf 

Seismic Surveys - 2006. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2006-038. Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, AK. June. 

MMS. 2006b. Personal communication via telephone, Robin Cacy, Public Affairs Officer, Alaska OCS 

Region, Regional Directors Office, Anchorage, AK. 21 June.

MMS. 2007. Notice to Lessees and Operators (NTL) of Federal Oil, Gas, and Sulphur Leases in the Outer 

Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region: Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation 

Measures and Protected Species Observer Program. NTL No. 2007-G02. 7 February.

Mobley, J.R., Jr. 2005. Assessing responses of humpback whales to North Pacific Acoustic Laboratory 

(NPAL) transmissions: results of 2001-2003 aerial surveys north of Kauai. Journal of the Acoustical 

Society of America 117:1666-1673. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-51

Moein, S.E., J.A. Musick, J.A. Keinath, D.E. Barnard, M. Lenhardt, and R. George. 1994. Evaluation of 

seismic sources for repelling sea turtles from hopper dredges. Report from Virginia Institute of 

Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA, for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS. 

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. 2006. Special status species: northern elephant seal 

(Mirounga angustirostris). http://www.mbnms-simon.org/projects/specialSpecies/elephant_seal.php. 

Last updated January 2006, accessed February 2007.

Montevecchi, W.A., F.K. Wiese, G. Davoren, A.W. Diamond, F. Huettmann, and J. Linke. 1999. Seabird 

attraction to offshore platforms and seabird monitoring from offshore support vessels and other ships: 

literature review and monitoring designs. Report prepared for Canadian Association of Petroleum 

Producers, Calgary, AB.

Moore, C.J., S.L. Moore, M.K. Leecaster, and S.B. Weisberg. 2001. A comparison of plastic and plankton 

in the North Pacific Central Gyre. Marine Pollution Bulletin 42:1297-1300.

Moore, M.J., S.D. Berrow, B.A. Jensen, P. Carr, R. Sears, V.J. Rowntree, R. Payne, and P.K. Hamilton. 

1999. Relative abundance of large whales around South Georgia (1979-1998). Marine Mammal 

Science 15:287-302.

Moore, P.W.B. and R.J. Schusterman. 1987. Audiometric assessment of northern fur seals Callorhinus 

ursinus. Marine Mammal Science 3:31–53.

Moore, S. 2001. Aleutian Passes cruise: killer whale component introduction. AFSC Quarterly Report. 

Moore, S.E. and R.P. Angliss. 2006. Overview of planned seismic surveys offshore northern Alaska, 

July-October 2006. Paper SC/58/E6 presented to IWC Scientific Committee, IWC Annual Meeting, 

1-13 June, St Kitts and Nevis.

Moore, S.E. and J.T. Clarke. 2002. Potential impact of offshore human activities on gray whales 

(Eschrichtius robustus). Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 4:19-25.

Moore, S.E., K.M. Stafford, M.E. Dahlheim, C.G. Fox, H.W. Braham, J.J. Polovina, and D.E. Bain. 1998. 

Seasonal variation in reception of fin whale calls at five geographic areas in the North Pacific. Marine 

Mammal Science 14:617-627.

Moore, S. E., J.M. Waite, L.L. Mazzuca, and R.C. Hobbs. 2000. Mysticete whale abundance and 

observations of prey associations on the central Bering Sea shelf. Journal of Cetacean Research and 

Management 2:227-234.

Moore, S.E., J.M. Waite, N.A. Friday, and T. Honkalehto. 2002a. Cetacean distribution and relative 

abundance on the central-eastern and the southeastern Bering Sea shelf with reference to 

oceanographic domains. Progress in Oceanography 55:249-261.

Moore, S.E., W.A. Watkins, M.A. Daher, J.R. Davies, and M.E. Dahlheim. 2002b. Blue whale habitat 

associations in the Northwest Pacific: analysis of remotely-sensed data using a Geographic 

Information System. Oceonagraphy 15:20-25.

Moore, S.E., K.M. Stafford, D.K. Mellinger, and J.A. Hildebrand. 2006. Listening for large whales in 

offshore waters of Alaska. BioScience 56:49-55.

Moreno, I.B., A.N. Zerbini, D. Danielwicz, M.C. de Oliveira Santos, P.C. Simoes-Lopez, J. Laison-Brito, 

Jr., and A.F. Azevedo. 2005. Page 198 in Abstracts of the 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of 

Marine Mammals, 12-16 December 2005, San Diego, CA.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-52

Mori, K., S. Ichiki, H. Tsutsui, and M. Uchikomi. 2005. Distribution and residencey of Indo-Pacific 

bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) in the waters of the Ogasawara (Bonin) Islands, Japan. Page 

198 in Abstracts of the 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 

December 2005, San Diego, CA.

Morreale, S., E. Standora, F. Paladino, and J. Spotila. 1994. Leatherback migrations along deepwater 

bathymetric contours. Page 109 in B.A. Schroeder and B.E. Witherington, compilers. Proceedings of 

the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-341. NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, FL.

Mosher, D.C., J.W. Shimeld, and D.R. Hutchinson. 2009. 2009 Canada Basin Seismic Reflection and 

Refraction Survey, Western Arctic Ocean: CCGS Louis S. St.. Laurent Expedition Report. 

Geological Survey of Canada Open File 6343. 

Moulton, V.D. and J.W. Lawson. 2002. Seals, 2001. Pages 3-1 – 3-48 in W.J. Richardson, ed. Marine 

Mammal and Acoustical Monitoring of WesternGeco‘s Open Water Seismic Program in the Alaskan 

Beaufort Sea, 2001. LGL Report TA2564-4. Prepared by LGL Ltd., King City, ONT and Greeneridge 

Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for WesternGeco, Houston, TX, and NMFS, Anchorage, AK, and 

Silver Spring, MD. 

Moulton, V.D. and G.W. Miller. 2005 (published 2007). Marine mammal monitoring of a seismic survey 

on the Scotian Slope, 2003. Pages 29-40 in K. Lee, H. Bain and G.V. Hurley, eds. Acoustic 

Monitoring and Marine Mammal Surveys in The Gully and Outer Scotian Shelf before and during 

Active Seismic Surveys. Environmental Studies Research Funds Report 151.

Moulton, V.D., B.D. Mactavish, and R.A. Buchanan. 2005. Marine mammal and seabird monitoring of 

Chevron Canada Resources' 3-D seismic program on the Orphan Basin, 2004. LGL Report SA817. 

Prepared by LGL Ltd., St. John's, NF, for Chevron Canada Resources, Calgary, AB, ExxonMobil 

Canada Ltd., St. John's, NF, and Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Ltd., Calgary, AB. 

Moulton, V.D., B.D. Mactavish, R.E. Harris, and R.A. Buchanan. 2006a. Marine mammal and seabird 

monitoring of Chevron Canada Limited's 3-D seismic program on the Orphan Basin, 2005. LGL 

Report SA843. Prepared by LGL Ltd., St. John's, NF, for Chevron Canada Resources, Calgary, AB, 

ExxonMobil Canada Ltd., St. John's, NF, and Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Ltd., Calgary, AB. 

Moulton, V.D., B.D. Mactavish, and R.A. Buchanan. 2006b. Marine mammal and seabird monitoring of 

ConocoPhillips‘ 3-D seismic program in the Laurentian Sub-basin, 2005. LGL Report SA849. 

Prepared by LGL Ltd., St. John‘s, NF, for ConocoPhillips Canada Resources Corp., Calgary, AB. 

Moyle, P.B. 2001. Inland fish of California, 2nd edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Mrosovksy, N. 1972. Spectrographs of the sounds of leatherback turtles. Herpetologica 28:256-258.

Mullin, K.D. and G.L. Fulling. 2003. Abundance of cetaceans in the southern U.S. North Atlantic Ocean 

during summer 1998. Fisheries Bulletin 101:603-613.

Musick, J.A. and C.J. Limpus. 1997. Habitat utilization and migration in juvenile sea turtles. Pages 137-

163 in P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick, eds. The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Nachtigall, P.E., J.L. Pawloski, and W.W.L. Au. 2003. Temporary threshold shifts and recovery 

following noise exposure in the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America 113:3425-3429.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-53

Nachtigall, P.E., A.Y. Supin, J. Pawloski, and W.W.L. Au. 2004. Temporary threshold shifts after noise 

exposure in the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) measured using evoked auditory potentials. 

Marine Mammal Science 20:673-687.

NAMMCO. 2005. Status of marine mammals in the North Atlantic: Minke whale. 

http://www.nammco.no/webcronize/images/Nammco/634.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2006. 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2006. North Atlantic Productivity. 

http://disc.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceancolor/scifocus/space/ocdst_north_atlantic_productivity.shtml. Last 

updated 14 February.

Nations, C.S., S.B. Blackwell, K.H. Kim, A.M. Thode, C.R. Greene, Jr., A.M. Macrander, and T.L. 

McDonald. 2009. Effects of seismic exploration in the Beaufort Sea on bowhead whale call 

distributions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126(4, Pt. 2):2230 (Abstract).

NAVFAC Pacific. 2007. Marine mammal and sea turtle survey and density estimates for Guam and the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Prepared by SRS-Parsons Joint Venture, Newport, 

CA, Geo-Marine, Inc., Plano, TX, and Bio-Waves, Inc., Encinitas, CA, for NAVFAC Pacific and 

Commander Pacific Fleet, Honolulu, HI. August.

Nedwell, J.R., A.W.H. Turnpenny, J. Lovell, S.J. Parvin, R. Workman, J.A.L. Spinks and D. Howell. 

2007. A validation of the dBht as a measure of the behavioural and auditory effects of underwater

noise. Subacoustech Report 534R1231. Prepared by Subacoustech, Bishop's Waltham, Hants., UK, 

for Chevron Ltd.

Neff, J.M. 1985. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Pages 416-454 in G.M. Rand and S.R. Petrodelli, 

eds. Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology. Hemisphere Publishing, Washington, DC.

Nelson, J.S. 2006. The Fishes of the World. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 

Nelson, J.S., E.J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L.T. Findley, C.R. Gilbert, R.N. Lea, and J.D. Williams. 

2004. Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Sixth 

Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 29. Bethesda, MD.

New England Fishery Management Council. 1998. Essential Fish Habitat Amendment. 

http://www.nefmc.org/habitat/index.html. 7 October.

New Jersey Scuba Diver. 2006. Marine Biology: Commercial fishing vessels, Dive Sites, and Artifacts 

and Shipwrecks. http://www.njscuba.net/. Accessed 20 June 2006. 

New Jersey SHPO. 2006. Personal communication via telephone, Deborah Fimbel, New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection, Natural & Historic Resources, Trenton, NJ. June.

New York Seafood Council. 2004. Major New York Commercial Fishing Port Areas and Commercial 

Landings. http://www.nyseafood.com/doc.asp?document_id=3599. Accessed July 2006.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2006. Marine Fishery Landings and 

Statistics. http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/marine/bmr/marstats.html. Accessed July.

New Zealand Department of Conservation. 2006. Guidelines for Minimising Acoustic Disturbance to 

Marine Mammals from Seismic Survey Operations. Marine Conservation Unit, Wellington, NZ. 

February 2006
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-54

Nichol, L., E. Gregr, R. Flinn, J. Ford, R. Gurney, L. Michaluk, and A. Peacock. 2002. British Columbia 

commercial whaling catch data 1908 to 1967: A detailed description on the B.C. historic whaling 

database. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2371.

Nichols, W.J., P.H. Dutton, J.A. Seminoff, E. Bixby, F.A. Abreu, and A. Resendiz. 2000a. Poi or papas: 

Do Hawaiian and Mexican green turtles feed together in Baja California waters? Pages 14-15 in H. 

Kalb and T. Wibbels, compilers. Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle 

Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-443. NMFS, Southeast 

Fisheries Science Center, Miami, FL.

Nichols, W.J., A. Resendiz, J.A. Seminoff, and B. Resendiz. 2000b. Transpacific migration of a 

loggerhead turtle monitored by satellite telemetry. Bulletin of Marine Science 67:937-947.

Nieukirk, S.L., K.M. Stafford, D.K. Mellinger, R.P. Dziak, and C.G. Fox. 2004. Low-frequency whale 

and seismic airgun sounds recorded in the mid-Atlantic Ocean. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America 115: 1832-1843.

Nishimoto, M.M. and L. Washburn. 2002. Patterns of coastal eddy circulation and abundance of pelagic 

juvenile fish in the Santa Barbara Channel, California, USA. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 241: 183-199.

Nishiwaki, M., T. Kasuya, N. Miyazaki, N. Toboyama, and T. Kataoka. 1979. Present distribution of the 

dugong in the world. Scientific Report of the Whale Research Institute 31:133-141.

NJDEP. 2006a. New Jersey Division of Fish & Wildlife, Marine Fisheries Administration, Commercial 

Regulations – 2006 (Revised February 2006). http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/pdf/2006/comregs06.pdf. 

Accessed 20 June 2006.

NJDEP. 2006b. Division of Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Marine Fisheries. 

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/marfhome.htm. Accessed 20 June.

NMFS. 1992. Recovery plan for the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus). Prepared by the Steller Sea 

Lion Recovery Team. Silver Spring, MD.

NMFS. 1993. Designated Critical Habitat; Steller Sea Lion; Final Rule. Federal Register 58:45269-

45285.

NMFS. 1994a. Designated critical habitat; northern right whale. Federal Register 59:28793-28808.

NMFS. 1994b. Designated critical habitat; Steller sea lion; final rule; technical amendment. Federal 

Register 59:30715-30716.

NMFS. 1995. Small takes of marine mammals incidental to specified activities; offshore seismic activities 

in Southern California. Federal Register 60:53753-53760.

NMFS. 1998a. Recovery plan for the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus). Prepared by R.R. Reeves, P.J. 

Clapham, R.L. Brownell, Jr., and G.K. Silber for NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 

NMFS. 1998b. Draft recovery plan for the fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) and sei whale 

(Balaenoptera borealis). Prepared by R.R. Reeves, G.K. Silber, and P.M. Payne for NMFS, Silver 

Spring, MD.

NMFS. 1998c. Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by the 

Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. December.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-55

NMFS. 2000. Small takes of marine mammals incidental to specified activities; marine seismic-reflection 

data collection in southern California. Federal Register 65:16374-16379.

NMFS. 2001a. Stock structure of coastal bottlenose dolphins along the Atlantic coast of the US. Prepared 

for the Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Team. Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, FL.

NMFS. 2001b. Small takes of marine mammals incidental to specified activities; oil and gas exploration 

drilling activities in the Beaufort Sea/Notice of issuance of an incidental harassment authorization. 

Federal Register 66:9291-9298.

NMFS. 2002. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion: Authorization of 

Pelagic Fisheries under the Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific 

Region. Southwest Region, Pacific Islands Area Office, Honolulu, HI.

NMFS. 2003a. Taking of threatened or endangered species incidental to commercial fishing operations; 

Final rule and technical correction. Federal Register 68:69962-69967.

NMFS. 2003b. Biological Opinion on Marine Mammal Conservation Division‘s Incidental Harassment 

Authorization to Lamont-Doherty‘s Earth Observatory for Takes Incidental to Marine Seismic 

Testing in the Northern Gulf of Mexico [F/FPR/2003/00342]. Silver Spring, MD. 23 May.

NMFS. 2004a. Northern fur seal study funded. Alaska Region News Release. NMFS 04-AKR, July 12, 

2004. http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/newsreleases/nfs071204.htm. 

NMFS. 2004b. Biological Opinion for Issuance of an MMPA Authorization to Lamont-Doherty Earth 

Observatory‘s Marine Seismic Survey in the Southeast Caribbean Sea and Adjacent Atlantic Ocean 

[F/FPR/2003/01492]. Silver Spring, MD.

NMFS. 2004c. NOAA scientists sight blue whales in Alaska: Critically endangered blue whales rarely 

seen in Alaska waters. NOAA-04-R160:1-2. NMFS Alaska Region News Release, Juneau, AK. 27 

July.

NMFS. 2005a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Essential Fish Habitat Identification and 

Conservation in Alaska, Volume 1. Alaska Region, Juneau, AK. April.

NMFS. 2005b. Biological Opinion for Low-Energy Seismic Survey by Scripps Institute of Oceanography 

in the Southwest Pacific Ocean. Silver Spring, MD.

NMFS. 2005c. Endangered Fish and Wildlife; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement. Federal Register 70:1871-1875.

NMFS. 2005d. Final Recovery Plan for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic 

Salmon (Salmo salar). Silver Spring, MD.

NMFS. 2005e. Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) Status Review Update. Biological Review Team, 

Santa Cruz Laboratory, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa Cruz, CA. February.

NMFS. 2005f. Biological Opinion for Marine Seismic Research on the Chicxulub Crater off the Northern 

Yucatan Peninsula in the Gulf of Mexico [F/FPR/2003/01540]. Silver Spring, MD.

NMFS. 2005g. Endangered Fish and Wildlife; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement. Federal Register 70:1871-1875.

NMFS. 2006a. Endangered and Threatened Species; Revision of Critical Habitat for the Northern Right 

Whale in the Pacific Ocean. Federal Register 71:38277-38297.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-56

NMFS. 2006b. Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat and No-Entry Zones. 

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/stellers/habitat.htm. Accessed 12 June.

NMFS. 2006c. Olive Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys oliveacea). 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/olive.html. Accessed on 13 June.

NMFS. 2006d. Proposed Recovery Plan for Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca). Northwest 

Regional Office, Seattle, WA. November.

NMFS. 2007. Office of Protected Resources, Fisheries Interaction/Protected Species Bycatch, 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/by_catch/bycatch_rm.htm. Accessed 10 Decmber. 

NMFS. 2008a. Biological Opinion for Issuance of an MMPA Authorization to Lamont-Doherty Earth 

Observatory‘s Marine Seismic Survey off Central America. Office of Protected Resources, Silver 

Spring, MD.

NMFS. 2008b. Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for North Pacific 

Right Whale. Federal Register 73:19000-19014.

NMFS. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Threatened Status for Southern Distinct

Population Segment of Eulachon. Federal Register 75:13012-13024.

NMFS and USFWS. 1998a. Recovery plan for U.S. Pacific populations of the leatherback turtle 

(Dermochelys coriacea). NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 

NMFS and USFWS. 1998b. Recovery plan for U.S. Pacific populations of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta 

caretta). NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 

NMFS and USFWS. 1998c. Recovery plan for U.S. Pacific populations of the green turtle (Chelonia 

mydas). NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 

NMFS and USFWS. 1998d. Recovery plan for U.S. Pacific populations of the hawksbill turtle 

(Eretmochelys imbricata). NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 

NMFS and USFWS. 1998e. Recovery plan for U.S. Pacific populations of the olive ridley turtle 

(Lepidochelys olivacea). NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 

NMFS and USFWS. 1998f. Recovery plan for U.S. Pacific populations of the East Pacific green turtle 

(Chelonia mydas). NMFS, Silver Spring, MD.

NMFS and USFWS. 2007a. Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) 5-year Review: Summary and 

Evaluation. NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD and USFWS, Southeast 

Region, Ecological Services Field Office, Jacksonville, FL. August.

NMFS and USFWS. 2007b. Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) 5-year Review: Summary 

and Evaluation. NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD and USFWS, Southeast 

Region, Ecological Services Field Office, Jacksonville, FL. August.

NOAA. 1999. Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy 

Act. Administrative Series 216-6. 20 May.

NOAA. 2001. Guidance on Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements. Memorandum prepared by 

C.R. O‘Connor, Acting General Counsel, Washington, DC, for W.T. Hogarth, Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries. 11 December.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-57

NOAA. 2003. Guidance on Adopting National Environmental Policy Act Documents Prepared by Other 

Federal Agencies. Memorandum from S. Kennedy, Acting NOAA NEPA Coordinator, Silver Spring, 

MD. 17 December.

NOAA. 2005. Sound in the deep sea. 

www.oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/03fire/background/acoustics/acoustics.html. Last updated 

11 July 2005, accessed 28 April 2006.

NOAA. 2006. Office of Coast Survey: Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System 

(AWOIS). http://chartmaker.ncd.noaa.gov/hsd/hsd-3.html. Last updated 14 April, accessed 19 June.

NOAA Fisheries. 2005. Final Assessment of NOAA Fisheries‘ Critical Habitat Analytical Review Teams 

for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead. Protected Resources 

Division. Portland, OR.

NOAA Fisheries. 2006a. Office of Science and Technology: Annual Commercial Landing Statistics. 

http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html. Last updated 15 November 

2005, accessed 20 June 2006.

NOAA Fisheries. 2006b. Office of Science and Technology: Recreational Fisheries. 

http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/recreational/index.html. Accessed 20 June 2006. 

NOAA Fisheries. 2010. Office of Protected Resources: Species Information. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/. Accessed November.

NOAA and U.S. Navy. 2001. Joint interim report: Bahamas marine mammal stranding event of 15-16 

March 2000. NMFS, Silver Spring, MD, and Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Installations and 

Environment, Washington, DC.

North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Fishery management plan for the salmon fisheries in the 

EEZ off the coast of Alaska. North Pacific Fishery Management Council and National Marine Fishery 

Service.

North Pacific Right Whale Recovery Team. 2004. National Recovery Strategy for the North Pacific Right 

Whale (Eubalaena japonica) in Pacific Canadian waters. Department of Fisheries & Oceans Canada, 

Vancouver, BC. 

North Slope Borough Department of Planning and Community Services. 2004. Revision to the North 

Slope Borough Coastal Management Plan: Distribution of Subsistence Use. http://www.co.northslope.ak.us/acmp/CMP%20Plan/NSBTerrestrialSubsistence.pdf. Last updated 24 May 2005, accessed 

8 June 2006.

Nøttestad, L., T. Falkenhaug, J. Horne, C. Anderson, E. Olsen, U. Pietkowski, H. Skov, G. Vikingsson, 

and G. Waring. 2005. Marine mammal hot spots along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge from Iceland to the 

Azores investigated by integrated acoustics, biological sampling and visual observations. Page 208 in

Abstracts of the 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 December 

2005, San Diego, CA.

Nowacek, D.P., L.H. Thorne, D.W. Johnston, and P.L. Tyack. 2007. Responses of cetaceans to 

anthropogenic noise. Mammal Review 37:81-115.

Nowak, R.M. 1999. Walker‘s Mammals of the World. Sixth Edition. Johns Hopkins University Press, 

Baltimore, MD.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-58

NRC. 1990. Decline of the Sea Turtles: Causes and Preventions. National Academy Press, Washington, 

DC. 

NRC. 1995. Clean Ships, Clean Ports, Clean Oceans. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 

NRC. 2003a. Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

NRC. 2003b. Decline of the Steller sea lion in Alaska waters: Untangling food webs and fishing nets. 

National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

NRC. 2005. Marine Mammal Populations and Ocean Noise: Determining When Noise Causes 

Biologically Significant Effects. Prepared by D.W. Wartzok, J. Altmann, W. Au, K. Ralls, A. 

Starfield, and P.L. Tyack. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

NSF. 2005. Notice of Intent To Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement for the National Science Foundation To Address Potential Impacts 

on the Marine Environment Related to the Use of Seismic Sources in Support of NSF-Funded 

Research by U.S. Academic Scientists. Federal Register 70: 55630-55631.

NSF. 2006a. Investing in America‘s Future: Strategic Plan FY 2006-2011. NSF 06-48. Arlington, VA. 

September. Available at: 

NSF. 2006b. Past and Current Year Program Supported by NSF Division of Ocean Sciences and Arctic 

Section of Office of Polar Programs. Personal communication via email from A. Shor, Program 

Director, Division of Ocean Sciences, Arlington, VA to R. Spaulding, TEC Inc., Bainbridge Island, 

WA. 11 May.

NSF. 2008a. United States National Science Foundation: FY2007 Performance Highlights. NSF 08-

03Arlington, VA. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf0803/highlights_complete.pdf. 

NSF. 2008b. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Integrated Ocean Drilling Program-U.S. 

Implementing Organization (IODP-USIO). Prepared for Consortium for Ocean Leadership, Inc., 

Washington, DC, in Collaboration with Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, 

and Texas A&M University/Texas A&M University Research Foundation. June.

Offutt, G.C. 1970. Acoustic stimulus perception by the American lobster, Homarus americanus 

(Decapoda). Experientia 26: 1276-1278.

OGP. 2008. Fundamentals of Underwater Sound. Report No. 406. London, UK. May.

O‘Hara, J. and J.R. Wilcox. 1990. Avoidance responses of loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta, to low 

frequency sound. Copeia 1990:564-567.

O‘Hara, K., N. Atkins, and S. Iudicello. 1986. Marine Wildlife Entanglement in North America. Prepared 

by Center for Environmental Education, Washington, DC. 

Olavarría, C., M. Poole, N. Hauser, C. Garrigue, S. Caballero, M. Brasseur, K. Martien, K. Russell, M. 

Oremus, R. Dodemont, L. Flórez-González, J. Capella, H. Rosenbaum, D. Moro, C. Jenner, M.-N. 

Jenner, J. Bannister, and C.S. Baker. 2003. Population differentiation of humpback whales from far 

Polynesia (Group F breeding grounds) based on mitochondrial DNA sequences. Paper SH/55/SH11 

presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, IWC Annual Meeting, 26 May–6 June, Berlin, Germany.

Olesiuk, P.F. 1999. An assessment of the status of harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) in British Columbia. 

Technical Report 99/33. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, 

BC.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-59

Oliver, J.A. 1946. An aggregation of Pacific sea turtles. Copeia 2:103.

Olsen, E., L. Nøttestad, L. Kleivane, P. Budgell, R. Prieto, M. Silva, and N. Øien. 2005. Intelligent 

migration of a sei whale from the Azores to the Labrador Sea in April. Page 208 in Abstracts of the 

16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 December 2005, San Diego, 

CA.

Omura, H. 1955. Whales in the northern part of the North Pacific. Norsk Hvalfangst-Tidende 44:323-345.

Packard, A., H.E. Karlsen, and O. Sand. 1990. Low frequency hearing in cephalopods. Jorunal of 

Comparative Physiology A 166: 501-505.

Page, B., J. McKenzie, R. McIntosh, A. Baylis, A. Morrissey, N. Calvert, T. Haase, M. Berris, D. Dowie, 

P.D. Shaughnessy, and S.D. Goldsworthy. 2004. Entanglement of Australian sea lions and New 

Zealand fur seals in lost fishing gear and other marine debris before and after Government and 

industry attempts to reduce the problem. Marine Pollution Bulletin 49:33-42.

Palka, D.L. 2006. Summer abundance estimates of cetaceans in US North Atlantic Navy Operating Areas. 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 06-03. NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science 

Center, Woods Hole, MA.

Parente, C.L., J.D. Lontra, and M.E. de Araujo. 2006. Occurrence of sea turtles during seismic surveys in 

Northeastern Brazil. Biota Neotropica 6:Jan/Apr. 

Park, Y.S., T. Maukai, and Y. Sakurai. 1995. Auditory characteristics of walleye pollock Theragra

chalcogramma (Pallus). Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 61:159-163.

Parker, D.M., P. Dutton, S. Eckert, D.R. Kobayashi, J.J. Polovina, D. Dutton, and G.H. Balazs. 2004. 

Transpacific migration along oceanic fronts by loggerhead turtles released from Sea World San 

Diego. Pages 280-281 in M.S. Coyne and R.D. Clark, compilers. Proceedings of the Twenty-first 

Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-SEFSC-528. NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, FL.

Parker, P.L. and T.F. King. 1998. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural 

Properties. http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb38/. 

Parks, S.E., C.W. Clark, and P.L. Tyack. 2007. Short- and long-term changes in right whale calling 

behavior: the potential effects of noise on acoustic communication. Journal of the Acoustical Society 

of America 122:3725-3731.

Parry, G.D. and A. Gason. 2006. The effect of seismic surveys on catch rates of rock lobsters in western 

Victoria, Australia. Fisheries Research 79:272-284.

Parsons, T.R., M. Takahashi, and B. Hargrave. 1977. Biological Oceanographic Processes. 2

nd edition. 

Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK.

Parvin, S.J. 1998. The effects of low frequency underwater sound on divers. Pages 227-232 in

Proceedings of Undersea Defence Technology (UDT) Europe 98, 23-25 June 1998, Wembley 

Conference Centre London, UK.

Payne, P.M., J.R. Nicolas, L. O'Brien, and K.D. Powers. 1986. The distribution of the humpback whale, 

Megaptera novaeangliae, on Georges Bank and in the Gulf of Maine in relation to densities of the 

sand eel, Ammodytes americanus. Fishery Bulletin 84:271-277.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-60

Payne, P.M., D.W. Heinemann, and L.A. Selzer. 1990. A distributional assessment of cetaceans in 

shelf/shelf-edge and adjacent slope waters of the northeastern United States based on aerial and 

shipboard surveys, 1978-1988. NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA.

Payne, J.F., C.A. Andrews, L.L. Fancey, A.L. Cook, and J.R. Christian. 2007. Pilot Study on the Effects 

of Seismic Air Gun Noise on Lobster (Homarus americanus). Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences 2712.

Payne, J.F., C. Andrews, L. Fancey, D. White, and J. Christian. 2008. Potential Effects of Seismic Energy 

on Fish and Shellfish: An Update since 2003. Fisheries and Oceans Canada Science, Canadian 

Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2008/060. 

Payne, J.F., J. Coady, and D. White. 2009. Potential effects of seismic airgun discharges on monkfish 

eggs (Lophius americanus) and larvae. Environmental Studies Research Funds Report 170. St. 

John‘s, NL. 

Pearson, W.H., J.R. Skalski, and C.I. Malme. 1992. Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device 

on behavior of captive rockfish (Sebastes spp.). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 

49:1343-1356.

Pearson, W., J. Skalski, S. Sulkin, and C. Malme. 1994. Effects of seismic energy releases on the survival 

and development of zoeal larvae of Dungeness crab (Cancer magister). Marine Environmental 

Research 38:93-113.

Pendoley, K. 1997. Sea turtles and management of marine seismic programs in Western Australia.

Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia Journal 25:8-16.

Perry, S.L., D.P. DeMaster, and G.K. Silber. 1999. The great whales: history and status of six species 

listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973. Marine Fisheries Review 

(Special Issue) 61:1-74.

Peterson, A.P., editor. 2006. Zoological Nomenclature Resource (Zoonomen): Birds. 

http://www.zoonomen.net. Last updated 26 April.

PFMC. 1998. The coastal pelagic species fishery management plan. Amendment 8. Portland, OR.

PFMC. 2006. Pacific coast groundfish fishery management plan for the California, Oregon, and 

Washington groundfish fishery as amended through Amendment 19 including Amendment 16-4. 

Portland, OR.

PFMC. 2007. Fishery management plan for US west coast fisheries for highly migratory species. As 

amended by Amendment 1. Portland, OR.

Pickard, G.L. and W.J. Emery. 1990. Descriptive physical oceanography. 5th edition. ButterworthHeinemann, Oxford, UK.

Pickett, G.D., D.R. Eaton, R.M.H. Seaby, and G.P. Arnold. 1994. Results of bass tagging in Poole Bay 

during 1992. Laboratory Leaflet Number 74. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Directorate 

of Fisheries Research, Lowestoft, UK.

Pierson, M.O., J.P. Wagner, V. Langford, P. Birnie, and M.L. Tasker. 1998. Protection from, and 

mitigation of, the potential effects of seismic exploration on marine mammals. Chapter 7 in M.L. 

Tasker and C. Weir, eds. Proceedings of the Seismic and Marine Mammals Workshop, London, 23-

25 June 1998.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-61

Pike, G.C. 1962. Migration and feeding of the gray whale (Eschrichtius gibbosus). Journal of the 

Fisheries Research Board Canada 19:815-38.

Pitcher, K.W. 1989. Studies of southeastern Alaska sea otter populations: distribution, abundance, 

structure, range expansion and potential conflicts with shellfisheries. Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game, Anchorage, AK.

Pitman, R.L. 1990. Pelagic distribution and biology of sea turtles in the eastern tropical Pacific. Pages 

143-148 in T.H. Richardson, J.I. Richardson, and M. Donnelly, compilers. Proceedings of the Tenth 

Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFC-278. NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, FL.

Pitman, R.L. 2002. Mesoplodont whales Mesoplodon spp. Pages 738-742 in W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and 

J.G.M. Thewissen, eds. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Pitman, R.L. and M.S. Lynn. 2001. Biological observations of an unidentified mesoplodont whale in the 

eastern tropical Pacific and probable identity: Mesoplodon peruvianus. Marine Mammal Science 17: 

648-657.

Pitman, R.L., A. Aguayo L., and J. Urbán R. 1987. Observations of an unidentified beaked whale 

(Mesoplodon sp.) in the eastern tropical Pacific. Marine Mammal Science 3:345-352.

Pitman, R.L., D.M. Palacios, P.L.R. Brennan, B.J. Brennan, K.C. Balcomb, III, and T. Miyashita. 1999.

Sightings and possible identity of a bottlenose whale in the tropical Indo-Pacific: Indopacetus 

pacificus? Marine Mammal Science 15:531-549.

Plachta, D.T.T. and A.N. Popper. 2003. Evasive responses of American shad (Alosa sapidissima) to 

ultrasonic stimuli. Acoustic Research Letters Online 4:25-30. 

Plotkin, P.T., R.A. Byles, and D.W. Owens. 1994a. Post-breeding movements of male olive ridley sea 

turtles Lepidochelys olivacea from a nearshore breeding area. Page 119 in K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. 

Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar, compilers. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium 

on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351. 

NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, FL.

Plotkin, P.T., R.A. Byles, and D.W. Owens. 1994b. Migratory and reproductive behavior of Lepidochelys 

olivacea in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Page 138 in B.A. Schroeder and B.E. Witherington, compilers. 

Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-341. NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, FL.

Polacheck, T. 1987. Relative abundance, distribution and inter-specific relationship of cetacean schools in 

the eastern tropical Pacific. Marine Mammal Science 3:54-77.

Polovina J.J., E. Howell, D.M. Parker, and G.H. Balazs. 2003. Dive-depth distribution of loggerhead 

(Caretta caretta) and olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) sea turtles in the central North Pacific: 

might deep longline sets catch fewer turtles? Fishery Bulletin 101:189–193.

Polovina, J.J., D.R. Kobayashi, D.M. Parker, M.P. Seki, and G.H. Balazs. 2000. Turtles on the edge: 

movements of loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) along oceanic fronts, spanning longline fishing 

grounds in the central north Pacific, 1997-1998. Fisheries Oceanography 9:71-82.

Popper, A.N. 2003. Effects of anthropogenic sounds on fish. Fisheries 28:24-31.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-62

Popper, A.N. 2005. A Review of Hearing by Sturgeon and Lamprey. Report for U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Portland District, Portland, OR. 12 August.

Popper, A.N. and R.R. Fay. 1993. Sound detection and processing by fish: critical review and major 

research questions. Brain, Behavior, and Evolution 41:14-38.

Popper, A.N. and R.R. Fay. 1999. The auditory periphery in fishes. Pages 43-100 in R.R. Fay and A.N. 

Popper, eds. Comparative Hearing: Fish and Amphibians. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.

Popper, A.N. and R.R. Fay. 2010. Rethinking sound detection by fishes. Hearing Research (in press). 

doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2009.12.023.

Popper, A.N., M. Salmon, and K.W. Horch. 2001. Acoustic detection and communication by decapod 

crustaceans. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 187:83-89.

Popper, A.N., R.R. Fay,C. Platt, and O. Sand. 2003. Sound detection mechanisms and capabilities of 

teleost fishes. Pages 3-38 in S.P. Collin and N.J. Marshall, eds. Sensory Processing in Aquatic 

Environments. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Popper, A.N., M.E. Smith, P.A. Cott, B.W. Hanna, A.O. MacGillivray, M.E. Austin, and D.A. Mann. 

2005. Effects of exposure to seismic airgun use on hearing of three fish species. Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America 117:3958-3971.

Popper, A.N., T.J. Carlson, A.D. Hawkins, B.L. Southall, and R.L. Gentry. 2006. Interim criteria for 

injury of fish exposed to pile driving operations: A white paper. Prepared for the Fisheries 

Hydroacoustic Working Group established by the California Department of Transportation, Oregon 

Department of Transportation, and Federal Highways Administration. 13 May.

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 2006. Seaport. 

http://www.panynj.gov/DoingBusinessWith/seaport/html/index.html. Accessed July.

Port of Hueneme. 2006. Port of Hueneme, Oxnard Harbor District. http://www.portofhueneme.org/. 

Accessed 21 June.

Port of Los Angeles. 2006. Port of Los Angeles. http://www.portoflosangeles.org/. Accessed 21 June. 

Potter, J.R. 2004. A possible mechanism for acoustic triggering of decompression sickness symptoms in 

deep-diving marine mammals. Paper presented to the 2004 IEEE International Symposium on 

Underwater Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, 19-23 April. 

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 Journal of Oceanic Engineers 32:469-483.

Preen, A.R., H. Marsh, I.R. Lawler, R.I.T. Prince, and R. Shepherd. 1997. Distribution and abundance of 

dugongs, turtles, dolphins, and other megafauna in Shark Bay, Ningaloo Reef and Exmouth Gulf, 

Western Australia. Wildlife Research 24:185-208.

Price, A. 2007. The effects of high frequency, high intensity underwater sound on the oxygen uptakes of 

Mytilus edulis (L.). Bachelor of Science Thesis (Honours), Applied Biology, Heriot-Watt University, 

Scotland.

Prince, R.I. 1993. Western Australian marine turtle conservation project: an outline of scope and an 

invitation to participate. Marine Turtle Newsletter 60:14. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-63

Prince, R.I. 1994a. The Flatback turtle Natator depressus in Western Australia: new information from the 

Western Australian Marine Turtle Project. Pages 146-153 in Proceedings of the Australian Marine 

Turtle Conservation Workshop, Gold Coast, 14-17 November 1990.

Prince, R.I. 1994b. Status of the Western Australian marine turtle populations: the Western Australian 

Marine Turtle Project 1986-1990. Pages 1-14 in Proceedings of the Australian Marine Turtle 

Conservation Workshop, Gold Coast, 14-17 November 1990.

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1973. International migrations of South American sea turtles (Cheloniidae and 

Cermochelidae). Animal Behavior 21:18-27.

Projecto TAMAR. 2006. Species in Brazil. 

http://ospiti.peacelink.it/zumbi/org/tamar/eng/species.html#ver. Accessed 13 June.

Provancha, J.A. and Provancha, M.J. 1988. Long-term trends in abundance and distribution of manatees 

in the northern Banana River, Brevard County, FL. Marine Mammal Science 4:323-338.

Pye, H.J., and W.H. Watson, III. 2004. Sound detection and production in the American lobster, Homarus 

americanus: Sensitivity range and behavioural implications. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America 115 (Part 2):2486.

Racca, R.G. and J.A. Scrimger. 1986. Underwater Acoustic Source Characteristics of Air and Water 

Guns. Prepared by JASCO Research Ltd., Victoria, BC, for Defence Research Establishment Pacific 

(DREP). Contract No. 06SB 97708-5-7055.

Radford, C.A., A.G. Jeffs, and J.C. Montgomery. 2007. Orientated swimming behavior of crab postlarvae 

in response to reef sound. Poster at First International Conference on the Effects of Noise on Aquatic 

Life, Nyborg, Denmark, August 2007.

Ralls, K., B.B. Hatfield, and D.B. Siniff. 1995. Foraging patterns of California sea otters as indicated by 

telemetry. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:523-531.

Ralls, K., T.C. Eagle, and D.B. Siniff. 1996. Movement and spatial use patterns of California sea otters. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:1841-1849.

Ramcharitar, J., D.M. Higgs, and A.N. Popper. 2001. Sciaenid inner ears: a study in diversity. Brain 

Behavior and Evolution 58:152-162.

Ramcharitar, J. and A.N. Popper. 2004. Masked auditory thresholds in sciaenid fishes: a comparitive 

study. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116:1687-1691.

Rawizza, H.E. 1995. Hearing and associative learning in cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis. Hopkins Marine 

Station Student Paper. Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.

Reeves, R.R. 1992. Whale responses to anthropogenic sounds: A literature review. Science and Research 

Series 47. New Zeland Department of Conservations, Wellington, NZ. 

Reeves, R.R. and H. Whitehead. 1997. Status of the sperm whale, Physeter macrocephalus, in Canada. 

Canadian Field-Naturalist 111:293-307.

Reeves, R.R., S. Leatherwood, S.A. Karl, and E.R. Yohe. 1985. Whaling results at Akutan (1912-39) and 

Port Hobron (1927-37), Alaska. Report of the International Whaling Commission 35:441-457.

Reeves, R.R., B.S. Stewart, and S. Leatherwood. 1992. The Sierra Club Handbook of Seals and Sirenians. 

Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, CA. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-64

Reeves, R.R., E. Mitchell and H. Whitehead. 1993. Status of the northern bottlenose whale, Hyperoodon

ampullatus. Canadian Field-Naturalist 107:490-508.

Reeves, R.R., B.S. Stewart, P.J. Clapham, and J.A. Powell. 2002. Guide to Marine Mammals of the 

World. Chanticleer Press, New York, NY.

Reeves, R.R., T.D. Smith, and E.A. Josephson. 2007. Near-annihilation of a species: right whaling in the 

North Atlantic. Pages 39-74 in S.D. Kraus and R.M. Rolland, eds. The Urban Whale: North Atlantic 

Right Whales at the Crossroads. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Reiser, C.M., B. Haley, J. Beland, D.M. Savarese, D.S. Ireland, and D.W. Funk. 2009. Evidence of shortrange movements by phocid species in reaction to marine seismic surveys in the Alaskan Chukchi and 

Beaufort seas. Page 211 in Abstracts of the 18th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine 

Mammals, 12-16 October 2009, Québec City, Canada. 

Renaud, M.L. and J.A. Carpenter. 1994. Movements and submergence patterns of loggerhead turtles 

(Caretta caretta) in the Gulf of Mexico determined through satellite telemetry. Bulletin of Marine 

Science 55:1-15.

Reyes, J.C. 1991. The conservation of small cetaceans: a review. Prepared for the Secretariat of the 

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. UNEP/CMS Secretariat, 

Bonn, Germany.

Reynolds, J.E. and D.K. Odell. 1991. Manatees and Dugongs. Facts on File Inc., New York, NY.

Rice, D.W. 1986. Beaked whales. Pages 102-109 in D. Haley, ed. Marine Mammals of the Eastern North 

Pacific and Arctic Waters. Pacific Search Press, Seattle, WA.

Rice, D.W. 1989. Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus Linnaeus, 1758. Pages 177-233 in S.H. Ridgway 

and R. Harrison, eds. Handbook of Marine Mammals, Vol. 4: River Dolphins and the Larger Toothed 

Whales. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 

Rice, D.W. 1998. Marine Mammals of the World: Systematics and Distribution. Special Publication 4, 

Society for Marine Mammalogy. 

Rice, D.W. and C.H. Fiscus. 1968. Right whales in the south-eastern North Pacific. Norsk Hvalfangsttid 

57:105-107.

Rice University and NSF. 2009. Environmental Assessment of a Marine Geophysical Survey by the R/V 

Endeavor in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, August 2009. LGL Report TA4760-1. Prepared by LGL 

Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT. 12 May.

Richard, P., L. Loseto, G. Stern, J. Orr, and S. Ferguson. 2005 Using resource selection function analysis 

to determine ice and shelf habitat use in Beaufort beluga whales. Page 236 in Abstracts of the 16th

Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 December 2005, San Diego, CA.

Richards, R. 2002. Southern right whales: a reassessment of their former distribution and migration 

routes in New Zealand waters, including on the Kermadee grounds. Journal of the Royal Society of 

New Zealand 32:355-377.

Richardson, W.J. and B. Würsig. 1997. Influences of man-made noise and other human actions on 

cetacean behaviour. Marine and Freshwater Behavioral Physiology 29:183-209.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-65

Richardson, W.J., M.A. Fraker, B. Würsig, and R.S. Wells. 1985. Behaviour of bowhead whales Balaena

mysticetus summering in the Beaufort Sea: reactions to industrial activities. Biological Conservation 

32:195-230.

Richardson, W.J., B. Würsig, and C.R. Greene. 1986. Reactions of bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus, 

to seismic exploration in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 

79:1117-1128.

Richardson, W.J., R.A. Davis, C.R. Evans, D.K. Ljungblad, and P. Norton. 1987. Summer distribution of 

bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus, relative to oil industry activities in the Canadian Beaufort Sea, 

1980-84. Arctic 40:93-104.

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995a. Marine Mammals and Noise. 

Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene Jr., J.S. Hanna, W.R. Koski, G.W. Miller, N.J. Patenaude, M.A. Smultea, 

R. Blaylock, R. Elliott, and B. Wursig. 1995b. Acoustic effects of oil production activities on 

bowhead and white whales visible during spring migration near Pt. Barrow, Alaska-1991 and 1994 

phases. OCS Study MMS 95-0051. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King 

City, ONT, for MMS, Herndon, VA. 

Richardson, W.J., G.W. Miller, and C.R. Greene, Jr. 1999. Displacement of migrating bowhead whales 

by sounds from seismic surveys in shallow waters of the Beaufort Sea. Journal of the Acoustical 

Society of America 106:2281. (Abstract)

Richardson, W.J., M. Holst, W.R. Koski, and M. Cummings. 2009. Responses of cetaceans to largesource seismic surveys by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Page 213 in Abstracts of the 18th

Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 October 2009, Québec City, Canada.

Ridgway, S. H. and R. Harrison. 1989. Handbook of Marine Mammals, Vol. 4: River Dolphins and the 

Larger Toothed Whales. Academic Press, London, UK.

Ridgway, S.H., E.G. Wever, J.G. McCormick, J. Palin, and J.H. Anderson. 1969. Hearing in the giant sea 

turtle, Chelonia mydas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S. 64:884-890.

Riedman, M.L. 1983. Studies of the effects of experimentally produced noise associated with oil and gas 

exploration and development on sea otters in California. Prepared by the Center for Coastal Marine 

Studies, University of California-Santa Cruz, CA, for U.S. Minerals Management Service, 

Anchorage, AK. 

Riedman, M.L. 1984. Effects of sounds associated with petroleum industry activities on the behavior of 

sea otters in California. Appendix D. Pages D1-D12 in C.I. Malme, P.R. Miles, C.W. Clark, P. Tyack, 

and J.E. Bird. Investigations of the potential effects of underwater noise from petroleum industry 

activities on migratory gray whale behavior. Phase II. Final report to the Minerals Management 

Service.

Riedman, M.L. and J.A. Estes. 1990. The sea otter Enhydra lutris: behavior, ecology, and natural history. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 90(14). 

Riedman M.L, J.A. Estes, M.M. Staedler, A.A. Giles, and D.R. Carlson. 1994. Breeding patterns and 

reproductive success of California sea otters. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:391-399.

Ripple, J. and D. Perrine. 1999. Manatees and Dugongs of the World. Voyageur Press, Stillwater, MN.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-66

Roden, C.L. and K.D. Mullin. 2000. Sightings of cetaceans in the northern Caribbean Sea and adjacent 

waters, winter 1995. Caribbean Journal of Science 36:280-288.

Rogers, P. and M. Cox. 1988. Underwater sound as a biological stimulus. Pages 131-149 in A. Atema, 

R.R. Fay, A.N. Popper, and W.N. Tavolga, eds. The Sensory Biology of Aquatic Animals. SpringerVerlag, New York, NY. 

Romano, T.A., M.J. Keogh, C.Kelly, P. Feng, L. Berk, C.E. Schlundt, D.A. Carder and J.J. Finneran. 

2004. Anthropogenic sound and marine mammal health: measures of the nervous and immune 

systems before and after intense sound exposure. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 

61:1124-1134.

Romero, A., A.I. Agudo, S.M. Green, and G. Notarbartolo di Sciara. 2001. Cetaceans of Venezuela: their 

distribution and conservation status. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 151. NMFS, Seattle, WA. 

Roppel, A.Y. 1984. Management of northern fur seals on the Pribilof Islands, Alaska, 1786-1981. NOAA 

Technical Report NMFS-4. 

Ross, J.B. 2006. Review of the Conservation Status of Australia‘s Smaller Whales and Dolphins. 

Prepared for the Department of Environment and Heritage, Australia. 

Roth, E.H. and V. Schmidt. 2010. Noise levels generated by research icebreakers and marine seismic 

sources in the deep-water, Arctic Ocean. Scripps Technical Report MPL TM-527.

Rotterman, L.M. and T. Simon-Jackson. 1988. Sea otter (Enhydra lutris). In J.W. Lentfer, ed. Selected 

Marine Mammals of Alaska: Species Accounts with Research and Management Recommendations. 

Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, DC.

Rowlett, R.A., G.A. Green, C.E. Bowlby, and M.A. Smultea. 1994. The first photographic documentation 

of a northern right whale off Washington State. Northwest Naturalist 75:102- 104.

Rowntree, V.J., R.S. Payne, and D.M. Schell. 2001. Changing patterns of habitat use by southern right 

whales (Eubalaena australis) on their nursery ground at Península Valdés, Argentina, and in their 

long-range movements. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management Special Issue 2:133–143. 

Saetre, R. and E. Ona. 1996. Seismiske undersøkelser og skader på fiskeegg og -larver en vurdering av 

mulige effekter pa bestandsniv0. [Seismic investigations and damages on fish eggs and larvae; an 

evaluation of possible effects on stock level] Fisken og Havet 1996:1-17, 1-8. (in Norwegian with 

English summary).

Sailor‘s Choice. 2006. Welcome to Santa Barbara Harbor. 

http://www.sailorschoice.com/SantaBarbara/index.htm. Accessed 21 June. 

Sakamoto, W., I. Uchida, Y. Naito, K. Kureha, M. Tujimura, and K. Sato. 1990. Deep diving behavior of 

the loggerhead turtle near the frontal zone. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 56:1435-1443.

Saltzman, J. and K.F. Wishner. 1997. Zooplankton ecology in the eastern tropical Pacific oxygen 

minimum zones above a seamount: 1. General trends. Deep Sea Research I 44:907-930.

Samuel, Y., S.J. Morreale, C.W. Clark, C.H. Greene, and M.E. Richmond. 2005. Underwater, lowfrequency noise in a coastal sea turtle habitat. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 117:1465-

1472.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-67

Samuel, Y., S.J. Morreale, C.W. Clark, M.E. Richmond, and C.H. Greene. 2006. Underwater noise and 

anthropogenic disturbance in critical sea turtle habitats. Page 93 in N.J. Pilcher, ed. Proceedings of 

the 23rd Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum

NMFS-SEFSC-536.

Sand, O. 1981. The lateral line and sound reception. Pages 459-478 in W.N. Tavolga, A.N. Popper, and 

R.R. Fay, eds. Hearing and Sound Communication in Fishes. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.

Sand, O. and H.E. Karlsen. 1986. Detection of infrasound by the Atlantic cod. Journal of Experimental 

Biology 125:197-204.

Sand, O. and H.E. Karlsen. 2000. Detection of infrasound and linear acceleration in fish. Philosophical 

Transactions of the Royal Society, London B 355:1295-1298.

Sanders, M. 1989. Marine debris: fatal attraction. Makai 11:2-3.

Santulli, A., C. Messina, L. Ceffa, A. Curatolo, G. Rivas, G. Fabi, and V. Damelio. 1999. Biochemical 

responses of European sea bass (Dicentrachus labrax) to the stress induced by offshore experimental 

seismic prospecting. Marine Pollution Bulletin 38:1105-1114.

Sanvito, S. and F Galimberti. 2000a. Bioacoustics of southern elephant seals I: Acoustic structure of 

male aggressive vocalizations. International Journal of Animal Sound and its Recording 10:259-285. 

Sanvito, S. and F Galimberti. 2000b. Bioacoustics of southern elephant seals II: Individual and 

geographic variation in male aggressive vocalizations. International Journal of Animal Sound and its 

Recording 10:287-307. 

Sergeant, D.E. 1991. Harp Seals, Man and Ice. Canadian Special Publications of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 114.

Sarti-M., L., S.A. Eckert, N. Garcia-T., and A.R. Barragan. 1996. Decline of the world's largest nesting 

assemblage of leatherback turtles. Marine Turtle Newsletter 74:2-5.

Sathasivam, K. 2004. Marine Mammals of India. Hyderabad, Universities Press, New Delhi, India.

Sauerland, M. and G. Dehnhardt. 1998. Underwater audiogram of a tucuxi (Sotalia fluviatilis guianensis). 

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 103:1199-1204.

Saulitis, E., C. Matkin, L. Barrett-Lennard, K. Heise, and G. Ellis. 2000. Foraging strategies of sympatric 

killer whale (Orcinus orca) populations in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Marine Mammal Science 

16:94-109.

SAUP. 2010. Sea Around Us Project. www.seaaroundus.org. 

Scarff, J. E. 1991. Historic distribution and abundance of the right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in the 

North Pacific, Bering Sea, Sea of Okhotsk and Sea of Japan from the Maury Whale Charts. Report of 

the International Whaling Commission 41:467-489.

Shellert, A.M. and A.N. Popper. 1992. Functional aspects of the evolution of the auditory system of 

actinoperygian fish. Pages 295-323 in B.D. Webster, R.R. Fay, and A.N. Popper, eds. Evolutionary 

Biology of Hearing. Springer-Verlag, New York. 

Schilling, M.R., I. Seipt, M.T. Weinrich, S.E. Frohock, A.E. Kuhlberg, and P.J. Clapham. 1992. Behavior 

of individually-identified sei whales Balaenoptera borealis during an episodic influx into the 

southern Gulf of Maine in 1986. Fishery Bulletin 90:749-755.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-68

Schlundt, C.E., J.J. Finneran, D.A. Carder, and S.H. Ridgway. 2000. Temporary shift in masking hearing 

thresholds of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, and white whales, Delphinapterus leucas, after 

exposure to intense tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 107:3496-3508.

Scholik, A.R. and H.Y. Yan. 2002. Effects of boat engine noise on the auditory sensitivity of the fathead 

minnow, Pimepheles promelas. Environmental Biology of Fishes 63:203-209.

Schroeder, B. 1987. 1986 Annual report Annual report of the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network, 

Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States, January – December 1986. Miami Laboratory Coastal 

Resources Division Contribution Number CRD-87/88-12. National Marine Fisheries Service, Coastal 

Resources Division, Miami, FL.

Schroeder, B.A. and A.A. Warner. 1988. 1987 Annual report of the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage 

Network, Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States, January – December 1987. Miami Laboratory 

Coastal Resources Division Contribution Number CRD-87/88-28. National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Coastal Resources Division, Miami, FL.

Schuijf, A. 1981. Models of acoustic localization. Pages 267-310 in W.N. Tavolga, A.N. Popper, and 

R.R. Fay, R.R., eds. Hearing and Sound Communication in Fishes. Springer-Verlag New York, NY.

Schulman, A. 1984. Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) sighting off Los Angeles Harbor, 

Southern California. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 83:157-162.

Scott, N. and J. A. Horrocks. 1993. Sea Turtle Recovery Action Plan for St. Vincent and the Grenadines. 

CEP Technical Report No. 27. UNEP Caribbean Environment Program, Kingston, Jamaica. 

Schroeder, D.M., and M.S. Love. 2002. Recreational fishing and marine fish populations in California. 

California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations Reports 43:182–189.

Schusterman, R., D. Kastak, B. Southall, and C. Kastak. 2000. Underwater temporary threshold shifts in 

pinnipeds: tradeoffs between noise intensity and duration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America 108:2515-2516.

Schwarz, A.L. and G.L. Greer. 1984. Responses of Pacific herring, Clupea harengus pallasi, to some 

underwater sounds. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 41:1183-1192.

Seal Conservation Society. 2006. Pinniped species information pages. 

http://www.pinnipeds.org/species/species.htm. Accessed 20 July.

Sea Otter Recovery Team. 2004. National Recovery Strategy for the Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris) in Canada. 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 

Seminoff, J.A., A Resendiz, B. Resendiz, and W.J. Nichols. 2004. Occurrence of loggerhead sea turtles 

(Caretta caretta) in the Gulf of California, Mexico: Evidence of life-history variation in the Pacific 

Ocean. Herpetological Review 35:25-27.

Serrano, A. and J.M. Terhune. 2001. Within-call repetition may be an anti-masking strategy in underwater 

calls of harp seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus). Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:1410-1413.

Serrano, A. and J.M. Terhune. 2002. Antimasking aspects of harp seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus) 

underwater vocalizations. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 112:3083-3090.

Shimada, H. and T. Miyashita. 2001. Report of the sightings surveys for winter distribution of large 

cetaceans in the low latitudinal waters of the western North Pacific, 1999-2001. Paper SC/53/RMP10 

presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, July 2001, London.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-69

Sigurjonsson, J. 1995. On the life history and autecology of North Atlantic rorquals. In A.S. Blix, L. 

Walloe, and O. Ultang, eds. Developments in Marine Biology, 4. Whales, Seals, Fish, and Man. 

International Symposium on the Biology of Marine Mammals in the Northeast Atlantic, Tromso, 

Norway.

Sigurjonsson, J. and G.A. Vikingsson. 1997. Seasonal abundance of and estimated food consumption by 

cetaceans in Icelandic and adjacent waters. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 22:271-

287. 

Simard, Y., F. Samaran, and N. Roy. 2005. Measurement of whale and seismic sounds in the Scotian 

Gully and adjacent canyons in July 2003. Page 97-115 in K. Lee, H. Bain and C.V. Hurley, eds. 

Acoustic Monitoring and Marine Mammal Surveys in The Gully and Outer Scotian Shelf Before and 

During Active Seismic Surveys. Environmental Studies Research Funds Report 151.

Simmonds, M.P., S.J. Dolman, and L. Weilgart, eds. 2006. Oceans of Noise 2004: A WDCS Science 

Report. Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, Chippenham, UK.

Simon, M., M. Wahlberg, and L.E. Miller. 2007. Echolocation clicks from killer whales (Orcinus orca) 

feeding on herring (Clupea harengus) (L). Journal of the Acoustical Society ofAmerica 121:749-752.

Sinclair, E.H., S.E. Moore, N.A. Friday, T.K. Zeppelin, and J.M. Waite. 2005. Do patterns of Steller sea 

lion (Eumetopias jubatus) diet, population trend and cetacean occurrence reflect oceanographic 

domains from the Alaska Peninsula to the central Aleutian Islands? Fisheries Oceanography 14:223-

242.

Siniff, D. B. and K. Ralls. 1991. Reproduction, survival and tag loss in California sea otters. Marine 

Mammal Science 7:211-229.

SIO. 2004. Marine Mammal Monitoring during a Seismic Survey in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean 

by the Research Vessel ROGER REVELLE, September 2003 and January 2004. Prepared by Ship 

Operations & Marine Technial Support, La Jolla, CA. May.

SIO. 2005a. Ships. http://shipsked.ucsd.edu/ships. Accessed 15 September.

SIO. 2005b. Request by Scripps Institution of Oceanography for an Incidental Harassment Authorization 

to Allow the Incidental Take of Marine Mammals during a Low-Energy Marine Seismic Survey in 

the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, March - April 2006. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental 

research associates, King City, ONT. 30 September.

SIO. 2005c. Marine Mammal Monitoring during a Low-Energy Seismic Survey by the Scripps Institution 

of Oceanography Vessel R/V Melville in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, February – March 2005.

Prepared by Ship Operations & Marine Technial Support, La Jolla, CA.

SIO. 2006. Marine Mammal Monitoring during a Low-Energy Seismic Survey by the Scripps Institution 

of Oceanography Vessel R/V Roger Revelle in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, March-April 

2006. Prepared by Ship Operations & Marine Technical Support, La Jolla, CA.

SIO. 2007. Marine Mammal Monitoring during a Low-Energy Seismic and OBS Survey in the NE Pacific 

Ocean by Scripps Institution of Oceanography, on board the OSU Research Vessel WECOMA, 

September 5-11 2007. Prepared by Shipboard Technical Support, La Jolla, CA.

SIO. 2009. Marine Mammal Monitoring during a Low-Energy Marine Seismic Survey in the Santa 

Barbara Channel by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography Research Vessel Melville, November 

2008. Prepared by Shipboard Technical Support, La Jolla, CA. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-70

SIO and NSF. 2003. Environmental Assessment of a Planned Low-Energy Marine Seismic Survey by the 

Scripps Institution of Oceanography Vessel R/V Roger Revelle in the Southern Gulf of California, 

May 2004. LGL Report TA2923-1. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King 

City, ONT. 2 December. 

SIO and NSF. 2004. Environmental Assessment of a Planned Low-Energy Marine Seismic Survey by the 

Scripps Institution of Oceanography Vessel R/V Melville in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, FebruaryMarch 2005. LGL Report TA4060-1. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King 

City, ONT. 30 September.

SIO and NSF. 2005. Environmental Assessment of a Planned Low-Energy Marine Seismic Survey by the 

Scripps Institution of Oceanography on the Louisville Ridge in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, JanuaryFebruary 2006. LGL Report TA4133-1. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, 

King City, ONT. June.

SIO and NSF. 2006a. Environmental Assessment of a Planned Low-Energy Marine Seismic Survey by 

the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the South Pacific Ocean, December 2006 – January 2007. 

LGL Report TA4301-1. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT. 

20 July.

SIO and NSF. 2006b. Environmental Assessment of a Planned Low-Energy Marine Seismic Survey by 

the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the Northeast Indian Ocean, May-July 2007. LGL Report 

TA4410-1. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT. 21 December.

SIO and NSF. 2007. Environmental Assessment of a Planned Low-energy Marine Seismic Survey by the 

Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the Northeast Pacific Ocean, September 2007. LGL Report 

TA4470-1. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT. 20 April.

SIO and NSF. 2008. Environmental Assessment of a Marine Geophysical Survey by the R/V Melville in 

the Santa Barbara Channel, November 2008. LGL Report TA4643-1. Prepared by LGL Ltd. 

environmental research associates, King City, ONT. 24 June.

SIO and NSF. 2009. Environmental Assessment of a Planned Low-Energy Marine Seismic Survey by the 

Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the Northeast Pacific Ocean, July 2009. LGL Report TA4779-

1. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT. 31 March.

Skalski, J.R., W.H. Pearson, and C.I. Malme. 1992. Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device 

on catch-per-unit-effort in a hook-and-line fishery for rockfish (Sebastes spp.). Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Science 49:1357-1365.

Skov, H., T. Gunnlaugsson, J. Horne, L. Nøttestad, E. Olsen, H. Søiland, G. Vikingsson, and G. Waring. 

2005. Small-scale variability of cetaceans associated with oceanographic and topographic features 

along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Page 263 in Abstracts of the 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology 

of Marine Mammals, 12-16 December 2005, San Diego, CA.

Slocum, C.J., R. Schoelkopf, S. Tulevech, M. Stevens, S. Evert, and M. Moyer. 1999. Seal populations

wintering in New Jersey (USA) have increased in abundance and diversity. Pages 174-175 in

Abstracts of the 13th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 28 November-3 

December 1999, Wailea, Maui, HI.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-71

Slotte, A., K. Hansen, J. Dalen, and E. Ona. 2004. Acoustic mapping of pelagic fish distribution and 

abundance in relation to a seismic shooting area off the Norwegian west coast. Fisheries Research 

67:143-150.

Smith, M.E., A.S. Kane, and A.N. Popper. 2004a. Acoustical stress and hearing sensitivity in fishes: does 

the linear threshold shift hypothesis hold water. Journal of Experimental Biology 207:3591-3602.

Smith, M.E., A.S. Kane, and A.N. Popper. 2004b. Noise-induced stress and hearing loss in the goldfish 

(Carassius auratus). Journal of Experimental Biology 207:427-435.

Smith. M.E., A.B. Coffin, D.L. Miller, and A.N. Popper. 2006. Anatomical and functional recovery in the 

goldfish (Carassius auratus) ear following noise exposure. Journal of Experimental Biology 

209:4193-4202.

Smith, T.D., J. Allen, P.J. Clapham, P.S. Hammond, S. Katona, F. Larsen, J. Lien, D. Mattila, P. Palsbøll, 

J. Sigjónsson, P.T. Stevick, and N. Øien. 1999. An ocean-basin-wide mark-recapture study of the 

North Atlantic humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). Marine Mammal Science 15:1-32.

Smith, T.G., D.J. St. Aubin, and J.R. Geraci, eds. 1990. Advances in research on the beluga whale, 

Delphinapterus leucas. Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 224. 

Smultea, M.A. 1994. Segregation by humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) cows with a calf in 

coastal habitat near the island of Hawaii. Canadian Journal of Zoology 72:805-811.

Smultea, M.A. and M. Holst. 2003. Marine mammal monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth 

Observatory's seismic study in the Hess Deep area of the Eastern Equatorial Tropical Pacific, July 

2003. LGL Report TA2822-16. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, 

ONT, for L-DEO, Columbia University, Palisades, NY, and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 

Smultea, M.A. and M. Holst. 2008. Marine Mammal Monitoring during a University of Texas Institute 

for Geophysics Seismic Survey in the Northeast Pacific Ocean, July 2008. LGL Report TA4584-2. 

Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT, for University of Texas,

Institute for Geophysics, Austin, TX; L-DEO, Columbia University, Palisades, NY, and NMFS, 

Silver Spring, MD. 

Smultea, M.A., M. Holst, W.R. Koski, and S. Stoltz. 2004. Marine mammal monitoring during LamontDoherty Earth Observatory's seismic program in the Southeast Caribbean Sea and adjacent Atlantic 

Ocean, April-June 2004. LGL Report TA2822-26. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research 

associates, King City, ONT, for L-DEO, Columbia University, Palisades, NY, and NMFS, Silver 

Spring, MD.

Smultea, M.A., W.R. Koski, and T.J. Norris. 2005. Marine mammal monitoring during Lamont-Doherty 

Earth Observatory‘s marine seismic study of the Blanco Fracture Zone in the Northeastern Pacific 

Ocean, October-November 2004. LGL Report TA2822-29. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental 

research associates, King City, ONT, for L-DEO, Columbia University, Palisades, NY, and NMFS, 

Silver Spring, MD.

Sobolevsky, Y.I. and O.A. Mathisen. 1996. Distribution, abundance, and trophic relationships of Bering 

Sea cetaceans. Pages 265-275 in O.A. Mathisen and K.O. Coyle, eds. Ecology of the Bering Sea: A 

Review of Russian Literature. Alaska Sea Grant Report 96-01. University of Alaska-Fairbanks, 

Fairbanks, AK. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-72

Sodal, A. 1999. Measured underwater acoustic wave propagation from a seismic source. Proceedings of 

the Airgun Environmental Workshop, 6 July, London, UK. 

Song, J., D.A. Mann, P.A. Cott, B.W. Hanna, and A.N. Popper. 2008. The inner ears of Northern 

Canadian freshwater fishes following exposure to seismic air gun sounds. Journal of the Acoustical 

Society of America 124:1360-1366.

Southall, B.L., R.J. Schusterman, and D. Kastak. 2000. Masking in three pinnipeds: underwater, lowfrequency critical ratios. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 108:1322-1326.

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 33:411-521.

South Pacific Whale Research Consortium. 2004. Report of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the South Pacific 

Whale Research Consortium, 2-6 April 2004, Byron Bay, NSW, Australia. Paper SC/55/SH7 

presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, IWC Annual Meeting, 19-22 July, Sorrento, Italy. 

Southwood, A.L., R.D. Reina, V.S. Jones, and D.R. Jones. 2003. Seasonal diving patterns and body 

temperatures of juvenile green turtles at Heron Island, Australia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 

81:1014-1024.

Spotila, J.R., M.P. O‘Connnor, and F.V. Paladino. 1997. Thermal Biology. Pages 297-314 in P.L. Lutz 

and J.A. Musick, eds. The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Spraker, T.R., L.F. Lowry, and K.J. Frost. 1994. Gross necropsy and histopathological lesions found in 

harbor seals. Pages 281-311 in T.R. Loughlin, ed. Marine Mammals and the Exxon Valdez. 

Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 

Springer, A.M., J.A. Estes, G.B. van Vliet, T.M. Williams, D.F. Doak, E.M. Danner, K.A. Forney, and B. 

Pfister. 2003. Sequential megafaunal collapse in the North Pacific Ocean: an ongoing legacy of 

industrial whaling? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 100:12223-12228.

Stafford, K.M. 2003. Two types of blue whale calls recorded in the Gulf of Alaska. Marine Mammal 

Science 19:682-693.

Stafford, K.M., S.E. Moore, and C.G. Fox. 2005. Diel variation in blue whale calls recorded in the eastern 

tropical Pacific. Animal Behaviour 69: 951–958.

Stanley, K. M., E.K. Stabeneau, and A. M. Landry. 1988. Debris ingestion by sea turtles along the Texas 

coast. Pages 119-121 in B.A. Schroeder, compiler. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Workshop on 

Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-214. NMFS, 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, FL.

Starbird, C., A. Baldridge, and J.T. Harvey. 1993. Seasonal occurrence of leatherback sea turtles 

(Dermochelys coriacea) in the Monterey Bay Region, with notes on other sea turtles, 1986–1991. 

California Fish and Game 79:54-62.

State of Queensland, Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Conservation and Management of the 

Dugong in Queensland 1999-2004. Conservation Plan Series. 

St. Aubin, D.J., R.H. Stinson and J.R. Geraci. 1984. Aspects of the structure and composition of baleen, 

and some effects of exposure to petroleum hydrocarbons. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 62:193-198.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-73

Stedman, S-M. and J. Hanson. 2006. Habitat Connections: Wetlands, Fisheries and Economics, Part Five 

– Mid-Atlantic. NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatconservation/publications/habitatconections/num5.htm. 

Accessed June 2006.

Stemp, R. 1985. Observations of the effects of seismic exploration on seabirds. Pages 217-233 in G.D. 

Green, F.R. Engelhardt, and R.J. Patterson, eds. Proceedings of a workshop on effects of explosives 

use in the marine environment, January 1985, Halifax, NS. Technical Report Number 5. Canadian Oil 

and Gas Lands Administration, Environmental Protection Branch, Ottawa.

Sternberg, J. 1981. The worldwide distribution of sea turtle nesting beaches. Sea Turtle Rescue Fund, 

Center for Environmental Education, Washington, DC. 

Stewart, B.S. and H.R. Huber. 1993. Mirounga angustirostris. Mammalian Species 449:1-10.

Stinson, M.L. 1984. Biology of sea turtles in San Diego Bay, California, and in the northeastern Pacific 

Ocean. Thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA.

Stone, C.J. 2003. The effects of seismic activity on marine mammals in UK waters 1998-2000. JNCC 

Report 323. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Aberdeen, Scotland. 

Stone, C.J. and M.L. Tasker. 2006. The effects of seismic airguns on cetaceans in UK waters. Journal of 

Cetacean Research and Management 8:255-263.

Stone, G.S., S.K. Katona, and E.B. Tucker. 1987. History, migration and present status of humpback 

whales Megaptera novaeangliae at Bermuda. Biological Conservation 42:133-145.

Sutcliffe, W.H. and P.F. Brodie. 1977. Whale distribution in Nova Scotia Waters. Fisheries and Marine 

Service Technical Report 722. Fisheries and Marine Service, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, 

Dartmouth, NS, Canada.

Sverdrup, A., E. Kjellsby, P.G. Krüger, R. Fløysand, F.R. Knudsen, P.S. Enger, G. Serck-Hanssen, and 

K.B. Helle. 1994. Effects of experimental seismic shock on vasoactivity of arteries, integrity of the 

vascular endothelium and on primary stress hormones of the Atlantic salmon. Journal of Fish Biology 

45:973-995.

Swartz, S.L., A. Martinez, T. Cole, P.J. Clapham, M.A. McDonald, J.A. Hildebrand, E.M. Oleson, C. 

Burks, and J. Barlow. 2001. Visual and acoustic survey of humpback whales (Megaptera

novaeangliae) in the eastern and southern Caribbean Sea: preliminary findings. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-456. NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, FL.

Swartz, S.L., T. Cole, M.A. McDonald, J.A. Hildebrand, E.M. Oleson, A. Martinez, P.J. Clapham, J. 

Barlow, and M.L. Jones. 2003. Acoustic and visual survey of humpback whale (Megaptera

novaeangliae) distribution in the eastern and southeastern Caribbean Sea. Caribbean Journal of 

Science 39:195-208.

Sybesma, J. 1992. WIDECAST Sea Turtle Recovery Action Plan for the Netherlands Antilles. CEP 

Technical Report No. 11. UNEP Caribbean Environment Program, Kingston, Jamaica. 

Tavolga, W. N. and J. Wodinsky. 1963. Auditory capacities in fishes: Pure tone thresholds in nine

species of marine teleosts. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 126:177-240.

Tavolga, W. N. and J. Wodinsky. 1965. Auditory capacity in fishes: threshold variability in the bluestriped grunt, Haemulon sciurus. Animal Behaviour 13:301-311.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-74

Teachout, E. 2006. Evaluating and minimizing the effects of impact pile driving on the marbled murrelet 

(Brachyramphus marmoratus), a threatened seabird (Abstract). Page 32 in C.L. Irwin, P. Garrett, and 

K.P. McDermott, eds. Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Ecology and

Transportation, August 25 -September 2, 2005, San Diego, CA. Center for Transportation and the 

Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

Teas, W.G. and A. Martinez. 1989. 1988 Annual report of the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network, 

Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States, January – December 1988. Miami Laboratory Coastal 

Resources Division Contribution Number CRD-87/89-19. NMFS, Coastal Resources Division, 

Miami, FL. 

Terhune, J.M. 1994. Geographical variation of harp seal underwater vocalizations. Canadian Journal of 

Zoology 72:892-897.

Terhune, J.M. 1999. Pitch separation as a possible jamming-avoidance mechanism in underwater calls of 

bearded seals, Erignathus barbatus. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:1025-1034.

Thompson, D., M. Sjöberg, E.B. Bryant, P. Lovell, and A. Bjørge. 1998. Behavioural and physiological 

responses of harbour (Phoca vitulina) and grey (Halichoerus grypus) seals to seismic surveys. Page 

134 in Abstracts of the World Marine Mammal Conference, 20-24 January, Monte Carlo, Monaco.

Thompson, P.M. 1993. Harbour seal movement patterns. Symposium of the Zoological Society of 

London 66:225-240.

Thompson, T. J., H.E. Winn, and P.J. Perkins. 1979. Mysticete sounds. Pages 403-431 in H. E Winn and 

B. L. Olla Perseus, eds. Behavior of Marine Animals. Plenum Publishing, Cambridge, MA.

Thomsen, B. 2002. An experiment on how seismic shooting affects caged fish. Thesis, Faroese Fisheries 

Laboratory, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland. 16 August.

Thomson, D.H., J.W. Lawson, and A. Muecke. 2001. Proceedings of a workshop to develop 

methodologies for conducting research on the effects of seismic exploration on the Canadian east 

coast fishery, Halifax, Nova Scotia, 7-8 September 2000. ESRF Report No. 139. Environmental 

Studies Research Funds, Calgary, AB. 

Tillman, M.F. 1977. Estimates of population size for the North Pacific sei whale. Report of the 

International Whaling Commission Special Issue 1:98-106.

Timm, R.M., R.M. Salazar, and A.T. Peterson. 1997. Historical distribution of the extinct tropical seal, 

Monachus tropicalis (Carnivora: Phocidae). Conservation Biology 11:549-551.

Tolstoganova, L.K. 2002. Acoustical behaviour in king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus). Pages 247-254 

in A.J. Paul, E.G. Dawe, R. Elner, G.S. Jamieson, G.H. Kruse, R.S. Otto, B. Sainte-Marie, T.C. 

Shirley, and D. Woodby, eds. Crabs in Cold Water Regions: Biology, Management, and Economics. 

University of Alaska Sea Grant, AK-SG-02-01. Fairbanks, AK.

Tolstoy, M., J. Diebold, L. Doermann, S. Nooner, S.C. Webb, D.R. Bohnenstiehl, T.J. Crone, and R.C. 

Holmes. 2009. Broadband calibration of the R/V Marcus G. Langseth four-string seismic sources. 

Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems 10(8):1-15. 

Tougaard, J., J. Carstensen, H. Skov, and J. Teilmann. 2005. Behavioural reactions of harbour porpoises 

to underwater noise from pile drivings. Page 282 in Abstracts of the 16th Biennial Conference on the 

Biology of Marine Mammals, San Diego, CA, 12-16 December 2005. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-75

Tremel, D.P., J.A. Thomas, K.T. Ramirez, G.S. Dye, W.A. Bachman, A.N. Orban and K.K. Grimm. 

1998. Underwater hearing sensitivity of a Pacific white-sided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus obliquidens. 

Aquatic Mammals 24:63-69.

Trites, A.W., V.B. Deecke, E.J. Gregr, J.K.B. Ford, and P.F. Olesiuk. 2007. Killer whales, whaling, and 

sequential megafaunal collapse in the North Pacific: a comparative analysis of the dynamics of 

marine mammals in Alaska and British Columbia following commercial whaling. Marine Mammal

Science 23:751-765.

Turnpenny, A.W.H. and J.R. Nedwell. 1994. Consultancy Report: The Effects on Marine Fish, Diving 

Mammals and Birds of Underwater Sound Generated by Seismic Surveys. FCR 089/94. Prepared by 

Fawley aquatic research laboratories, Ltd. for the UK Offshore Operators Association (UKOOA).

Tyack, P.L. 2009. Human-generated sound and marine mammals. Physics Today 62(11, Nov.):39-44.

Tyack, P., M. Johnson, and P. Miller. 2003. Tracking responses of sperm whales to experimental 

exposures of airguns. Pages 115-120 in A.E. Jochens and D.C. Biggs, eds. Sperm whale seismic study 

in the Gulf of Mexico/Annual Report: Year 1. OCS Study MMS 2003-069. Prepared by Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX, for MMS, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA.

Tyack, P.L., M.P. Johnson, P.T. Madsen, P.J. Miller, and J. Lynch. 2006. Biological significance of 

acoustic impacts on marine mammals: examples using an acoustic recording tag to define acoustic 

exposure of sperm whales, Physeter catodon, exposed to airgun sounds in controlled exposure 

experiments. Eos Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 87(36), Joint Assembly 

Supplement, Abstract OS42A-02. 23-26 May, Baltimore, MD.

Tynan, C. 1999. Redistribution of cetaceans in the southeast Bering Sea relative to anamolous

oceanographic conditions during the 1997 El Niño. In H.J. Freeland, W.T. Peterson, and A. Tyler, 

eds. Proceedings of the 1998 Science Board Symposium on the Impacts of the 1997-1998 El Niño 

Event on the North Pacific Ocean and its Marginal Seas. PICES Scientific Report No. 10. North 

Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES), Sidney, BC, Canada.

Tynan, C.T., D.P. DeMaster, and W.T. Peterson. 2001. Endangered right whales on the southeastern 

Bering Sea shelf. Science 294:1894.

UAF and NSF. 2005. Environmental Assessment of a Marine Geophysical Survey by the Coast Guard 

Cutter Healy across the Arctic Ocean, August – September 2005. LGL Report 4122-1. Prepared by 

LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., Anchorage, AK, and LGL Ltd. environmental research 

associates, King City, ONT. 24 March.

UNEP. 2006. World Conservation Monitoring Center: Marine Mammals. http://sea.unepwcmc.org/isdb/marine_mammals/Taxonomy/. Accessed 23 June.

University of Delaware. 2004. How many ships travel the Delaware River and Bay, and what cargo do 

they carry? http://www.ocean.udel.edu/oilspill/shipping.html. Accessed July 2006.

University of Hawaii. 2005. Ships: R/V Kilo Moana. http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/UMC/KiloMoana.htm. 

Accessed 15 November.

University of Washington. 2003. R/V Thomas G. Thompson (AGOR 23). 

http://martech.ocean.washington.edu/tgt.html. Last updated 16 February 2003, accessed 15 November 

2005.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-76

UNOLS. 2010. UNOLS Research Vessels. http://www.unols.org/index.html. Last updated 19 January; 

accessed 25 January.

Urick, R.J. 1983. Principles of Underwater Sound: Chapter 7 – The Noise Background of the Sea: 

Ambient Noise Level. 3

rd Edition. Peninsula Publishing, Los Altos, CA. 

Urick, R.J. 1984. Ambient Noise in the Sea. Undersea Warfare Technology Office, Naval Sea Systems 

Command, Department of the Navy, Washington, DC. 

USACE. 2006a. Waterborne Commerce of the United States: Calendar Year 2004, Part 1 – Waterways 

and Harbors, Atlantic Coast. http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/wcsc/pdf/wcusatl04.pdf. 

USACE. 2006b. Waterborne Commerce of the United States: Calendar Year 2004, Part 4 – Waterways 

and Harbors, Pacific Coast, Hawaii, and Alaska. 

http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/wcsc/pdf/wcuspac04.pdf. 

USCG. 2001. USCGC Healy Cruise Planning Guide. http://www.uscg.mil/pacarea/healy/. Last updated 2 

April 2001, accessed 15 November 2005.

USFWS. 2000. Notice of designation of the northern sea otter in the Aleutian Islands as a candidate 

species. Federal Register 65:67343-67345. 

USFWS. 2001. Florida manatee recovery plan. Third revision. Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA. 

USFWS. 2003a. Final revised recovery plan for the southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis). Portland, 

OR.

USFWS. 2003b. Species Accounts: West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus), from Endangered and 

Threatened Species of the Southeastern United States (The Red Book). Region 4, Atlanta, GA. 

August. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/i/a/saa0c.html. 

USFWS. 2004. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; listing the southwest Alaska distinct 

population segment of the northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) as threatened. Federal Register 

69:6600-6621.

USFWS. 2005a. Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta). 

http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/Turtle%20Factsheets/loggerhead-sea-turtle.htm. Last 

updated 29 December 2005, accessed June 2006.

USFWS. 2005b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status and 

Special Rule for the Southwest Alaska Distinct Population Segment of the Northern Sea Otter 

(Enhydra lutris kenyoni); Final Rule and Proposed Rule. Federal Register 70:46366-46386.

USFWS. 2010. Species Information: Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html. Accessed 10 June.

USGS. 2005. Mapping Benthic Habitat around Oil Platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel, California. 

http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2004/11/fieldwork3.html. Last updated 7 October 2005, accessed 21 June 

2006.

USGS. 2010a. Personal communication re: previous USGS seismic survey cruises, via email from D. 

Hutchinson, Research Geophysicist, USGS, Woods Hole Science Center, Woods Hole, MA to R. 

Spaulding, PM, TEC, Bainbridge Island, WA. 13 April.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-77

USGS. 2010b. Sea Otter Studies at WERC: Spring 2010 Mainland California Sea Otter Survey Results. 

http://www.werc.usgs.gov/ProjectSubWebPage.aspx?SubWebPageID=16&ProjectID=91&List=Sub

WebPages&Web=Project_91&Title=Sea Otter Studies at WERC. Accessed September 1.

U.S. National Ocean Bottom Seismograph Instrument Pool. 2006. Instrumentation: Short Period. 

http://www.obsip.org/index.html. Accessed 25 May.

U.S. Navy. 2000. San Diego Bay Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. Prepared by Tierra 

Data Systems, Escondido, CA, for Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command and 

the San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego, CA.

U.S. Navy. 2001. Final Overseas Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Statement 

for Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) Sonar. 

Volume 1 of 2. January.

U.S. Navy. 2002. Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement, 

Point Mugu Sea Range. Prepared by Naval Air Systems Command, Naval Air Warfare Center 

Weapons Division, Point Mugu, CA. March. 

U.S. Navy. 2005. Marine Resources Assessment for the Northeast Operating Areas: Atlantic City, 

Narragansett Bay, and Boston. Final Report. February.

U.S. Navy. 2007. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Surveillance Towed Array 

Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) Sonar. Chief of Naval Operations, 

Washington, DC. April.

UTA and NSF. 2006. Environmental Assessment of a Marine Geophysical Survey by the USCG Healy of 

the Western Canada Basin, Chukchi Borderland and Mendeleev Ridge, Arctic Ocean, July–August 

2006. LGL Report TA4285-3. Prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., Anchorage, AK, 

and LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT. November. 

Van Bergeijk, W.A. 1967. The evolution of vertebrate hearing. Pages 1-49 in W.D. Neff, ed. 

Contributions to Sensory Physiology. Academic Press, New York, NY.

Van Blaricom, G.R., A.N. Zerbini, D.P. DeMaster, A. Andriolo, M.P. Heidi-Jorgensen, and B.M. Blaud. 

2005. Precautionary regression-based determination of protective boundaries for migratory corrdiors 

of large whales. Page 290 in Abstracts of the 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine 

Mammals, San Diego, CA, 12-16 December 2005. 

Van Waerebeek, K., A.N. Baker, F. Félix, J. Gedamke, M. Iñiguez, G. P. Sanino, E. Secchi, D. Sutaria, 

A. van Helden, and Y. Wang. 2006. Vessel collisions with small cetaceans worldwide and with large 

whales in the Southern Hemisphere; building a standardized database. IWC Scientific Document 

SC/58/BC6.

Vasconcelos, R.O., M.C.P. Amorim, and F. Ladich. 2007. Effects of ship noise on the detectability of 

communication signals in the Lusitanian toadfish. Journal of Experimental Biology 210:2104-2112.

Vaughan, D.S., C.M. Manooch III, and J.C. Potts. 2001. Assessment of the wreckfish fishery on the Blake 

Plateau. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 25: 105-120.

Víkingsson, G.A, D. Olafsdóttir, and H. Gunnlaugsson. 2004. Iceland. Progress report on cetacean 

research, April 2003 to April 2004 with statistical data for the calendar year 2003. Paper 

SC/56/Prog.Rep.Iceland presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, IWC Annual Meeting, 19-22 

July, Sorrento, Italy.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-78

Wada, S., M. Oishi, and T.K. Yamada. 2003. A newly discovered species of living baleen whale. Nature 

426:278-281.

Wade, P.R. and T. Gerrodette. 1993. Estimates of cetacean abundance and distribution in the eastern 

tropical Pacific. Report of the International Whaling Commission 43:477-493.

Wade, P.R., J.W. Durban, J.M. Waite, A.N. Zerbini, and M.E. Dahlheim. 2003. Surveying killer whale 

abundance and distribution in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands. AFSC Quarterly Report 

October-November-December. 

Wade, P., M.P. Heide-Jorgensen, J. Barlow, J. Carretta, C. Stinchcomb, R. LeDuc, K. Shelden, L. 

Munger, A. Sauter, and J. Durban. 2005. Satellite tagging and acoustic detection leads to discovery of 

unprecedented concentration of rare North Pacific right whales. Page 295 in Abstracts of the 16th

Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 December 2005, San Diego, CA. 

Wade, P.R., V.N. Burkanov, M.E. Dahlheim, N.A. Friday, L.W. Fritz, T.R. Loughlin, S.A. Mizroch, 

M.M. Muto, D.W. Rice, L.G. Barrett-Lennard, N.A. Black, A.M. Burdin, J. Calambokidis, S. 

Cerchio, J.K.B. Ford, J.K. Jacobsen, C.O. Matkin, D.R. Matkin, A.V. Mehta, R.J. Small, J.M. Straley, 

S.M. McCluskey, G.R. VanBlaricom and P.J. Clapham. 2007. Killer whales and marine mammal 

trends in the North Pacific -- a re-examination of evidence for sequential megafauna collapse and the 

prey-switching hypothesis. Marine Mammal Scienc3e 23:766-802.

Wahlberg, M. 2002. The acoustic behaviour of diving sperm whales observed with a hydrophone array. 

Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 281:53-62.

Waite, J.W., K. Wynne, and D.K. Mellinger. 2003. Documented sighting of a North Pacific right whale in 

the Gulf of Alaska and post-sighting acoustic monitoring. Northwestern Naturalist 84:38-43.

Wakefield, E.D. 2001. The distribution and vocal behaviour of common dolphin (Delphinus delphis L.) in 

the Celtic sea and adjacent waters, with particular reference to the effects of seismic surveying. 

Thesis, University of Wales, Bangor.

Wallace, N. 1985. Debris entanglement in the marine environment: A review. Pages 259-277 in R.S. 

Shomura and H.O. Yoshida, eds. Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine 

Debris. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54. NMFS, Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center, La Jolla, CA. 

Wardle, C.S., T.J. Carter, G.G. Urquhart, A.D.F. Johnstone, A.M. Ziolkowski, G. Hampson, and D. 

Mackie. 2001. Effects of seismic airguns on marine fish. Continental Shelf Research 21:1005-1027.

Waring, G.T., T. Hamazaki, D. Sheehan, G. Wood, and S. Baker, S. 2001. Characterization of beaked 

whale (Ziphiidae) and sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) summer habitat in shelf-edge and 

deeper waters off the northeast U.S. Marine Mammal Science 17:703-717.

Waring, G.T., Quintal, J.M. and Fairfield, C.P., eds. 2002. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessments – 2002. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-169. 

Waring,G.T., R.M. Pace, J.M. Quintal, C.P. Fairfield, and K. Maze-Foley. 2004. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf 

of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments – 2003. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE182. NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA.

Waring, G.T., L. Nøttestad, E. Olsen, and H. Skov. 2005a. Distribution and density estimates of cetaceans 

along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge during summer 2004. Page 301 in Abstracts of the 16th Biennial 

Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 December 2005, San Diego, CA.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-79

Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, C.P. Fairfield, and K. Maze-Foley. 2005b. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

Marine Mammal Stock Assessments – 2005. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-194. 

NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA.

Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, C.P. Fairfield, and K. Maze-Foley. 2006. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

Marine Mammal Stock Assessments – 2005. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-194. 

NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. 

Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, C.P. Fairfield, and K. Maze-Foley. 2009. US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico

Marine Mammal Stock Assessments 2008. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-210. 

February.

Wartzok, D. and R.R. Ketten. 1999. Marine mammal sensory systems. Pages 117-175 in J.E. Reynolds III 

and S. Rommel, eds. Biology of Marine Mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Wartzok, D., A.N. Popper, J. Gordon, and J. Merrill. 2004. Factors affecting the responses of marine 

mammals to acoustic disturbance. Marine Technology Society Journal 37(4):6-15.

Watkins, W.A. 1977. Acoustic behavior of sperm whales. Oceanus 20:50-58.

Watkins, W.A. 1986. Whale reactions to human activities in Cape Cod waters. Marine Mammal Science 

2:251-262.

Watkins, W.A. and W.E. Schevill. 1975. Sperm whales (Physeter catadon) react to pingers. Deep-Sea 

Research 22:123-129.

Watkins, W A. and W.E. Schevill. 1979. Distinctive characteristics of underwater calls of the harp seal, 

Phoca groenlandica, during the breeding season. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 

66:983-988.

Watkins, W.A., K.E. Moore, and P. Tyack. 1985. Sperm whale acoustic behaviors in the southeast 

Caribbean. Cetology 49:1-15.

Watkins, W.A., M.A. Daher, N.A. DiMarzio, A. Samuels, D. Wartzok, K.M. Fristrup, D.P. Gannon, P.W. 

Howey, R.R. Maeiefski, and T.R. Spradlin. 1999. Sperm whale surface activity from tracking by 

radio and satellite tags. Marine Mammal Science 15:1158-1180.

Watkins, W.A., M.A. Daher, G.M. Reppucci, J.E. George, D.L. Martin, N.A. DiMarzio, and D.P. 

Gannon. 2000a. Seasonality and distribution of whale calls in the North Pacific. Oceanography 13:62-

67.

Watkins, W.A., J.E. George, M.A. Daher, K. Mullin, D.L. Martin, S.H. Haga, and N.A. DiMarzio. 2000b. 

Whale call data from the North Pacific, November 1995 through July 1999: Occurrence of calling 

whales and source locations from SOSUS and other acoustic systems. Technical Report WHOI-00-

02. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA. 

Watkins, W.A., M.A. Daher, N.A. DiMarzio, A. Samuels, D. Wartzok, K.M. Fristrup, P.W. Howey, and 

R.R. Maeiefski. 2002. Sperm whale dives tracked by radio tag telemetry. Marine Mammal Science 

18:55-68.

Watson, J.C. 1993. The effects of sea otter foraging on shallow rocky communities off northwestern 

Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-80

Watson, J.C. 2000. The effects of sea otters (Enhydra lutris) on abalone (Haliotis spp.) populations. Pages 

123-132 in A. Campbell, ed. Workshop on rebuilding abalone stocks in British Columbia. Canadian 

Special Publications in Fisheries and Aquatic Science 130.

Webb, J.F., R.R. Fay, and A.N. Popper, eds. 2008. Fish Bioacoustics. Springer Handbook of Auditory 

Research Volume 32. Springer Science+Business Media, New York, NY.

Weber, M. 1995. Kemp‘s Ridley Sea Turtle, Lepidochelys kempii. Pages 109-122 in P.T. Plotkin, ed. 

Status Reviews of Sea Turtles Listed Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973: Loggerhead Turtle, 

Caretta caretta; East Pacific Green Turtle, Chelonia mydas; Leatherback Turtle, Dermochelys 

coriacea; Hawksbill Turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata; Kemp‘s Ridley Turtle, Lepidochelys kempii; 

Olive Ridley Turtle, Lepidochelys olivacea. NMFS, Silver Spring, MD, and USFWS, Washington, 

DC.

Wehle, D.H.S. and F.C. Colemar. 1983. Plastics at sea. Natural History 92:20-26.

Weilgart, L., editor. 2010. Report of the Workshop on Alternative Technologies to Seismic Airgun 

Surveys for Oil and Gas Exploration and Their Potential for Reducing Impacts on Marine Mammals. 

Held by Okeanos – Foundation for the Sea. 31 August-1 September 2009, Monterey, CA. 

Weinrich, M.T., M. Martin, R. Griffiths, J. Bove, and M. Schilling. 1997. A shift in distribution of 

humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in response to prey in the southern Gulf of Maine. 

Fishery Bulletin 95:826-836.

Weir, C.R. 2007. Observations of marine turtles in relation to seismic airgun sound off Angola. Marine 

Turtle Newsletter 116:17-20.

Weir, C.R. 2008. Overt responses of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), sperm whales 

(Physeter macrocephalus), and Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella frontalis) to seismic exploration 

off Angola. Aquatic Mammals 34:71-83.

Weir, C.R., S.J. Dolman, and M.P. Simmonds. 2006. Marine mammal mitigation during seismic surveys 

and recommendations for worldwide standard mitigation guidance. Paper SC/58/E12 presented to the 

IWC Scientific Committee, IWC Annual Meeting, 1-13 June, St. Kitts and Nevis. 

Welch, L., ed. 1988. Marine Log. Florida Sea Grant College Program. October:3.

Weller, D.W., Y.V. Ivashchenko, 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. Working Paper 

SC/54/BRG14, International Whaling Commission Western Gray Whale Working Group Meeting, 

Ulsan, South Korea, 22-25 October 2002. 

Weller, D.W., G.A. Tsidulko, Y.V. Ivashchenko, A.M. Burdin, and R.L. Brownell, Jr. 2006. A reevaluation of the influence of 2001 seismic surveys on western gray whales off Sakhalin Island, 

Russia. Paper SC/58/E5 presented to IWC Scientific Committee, IWC Annual Meeting, 1-13 June, St. Kitts 

and Nevis.

Wendell, F.E., R.A. Hardy, and J.A. Ames. 1985. Assessment of the accidental take of sea otters, 

Enhydra lutris, in gill and trammel nets. Unpublished report. Marine Resource Branch, California 

Department of Fish and Game.

Wenzel, F., D.K. Mattila, and P.J. Clapham. 1988. Balaenoptera musculus in the Gulf of Maine. Marine 

Mammal Science 4:172-175.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-81

Weston, D.E. and P.A. Ching. 1989. Wind effects in shallow-water acoustic transmission. Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America 86:1530-1545.

Wezensky, E.M., G.H. Mitchell, C.D. MacLeod, R.J. Barton, R.C. Tyce, P.M. Scheifele, and W.N. 

Lange. 2005. Oceanographic effects on mid-frequency sound propagation in beaked whale 

environments. Page 302 in Abstracts of the 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine 

Mammals, 12-16 December 2005, San Diego, CA. 

Whitehead, H.P. 1982. Populations of humpback whales in the western North Atlantic. Report of the 

International Whaling Commission 32:345-353.

Whitehead, H. 2002. Estimates of the current global population size and historical trajectory for sperm 

whales. Marine Ecology Progress Series 242:295-304.

Whitehead, H. 2003. Sperm Whales: Social Evolution in the Ocean. University of Chicago 

Press, Chicago, IL.

Whiting, S.D. 1997. Observations of a nesting olive ridley turtle. Herpetofauna 27:39-42. 

Whiting, S.D., M. Guinea, and G.D. Pike. 2000. Sea turtles nesting in the Australian Territory of 

Ashmore and Cartier Islands, Eastern Indian Ocean. Pages 86-93 in Proceedings of the 2nd ASEAN 

Symposium and Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. 

WHOI. 2005. Marine Operations, Research Vessels: R/V Knorr. 

http://www.whoi.edu/marops/research_vessels/knorr/. Accessed 15 November.

Wiese, F.K., W.A. Montevecchi, and G.K. Davoren, F. Huettmann, A.W. Diamond, and J. Linke. 2001. 

Seabirds at risk around offshore oil platforms in the north-west Atlantic. Marine Pollution Bulletin 

42:1285–90.

Wieting, D. 2004. Background on development and intended use of criteria. Page 20 in S. Orenstein, L. 

Langstaff, L. Manning, and R. Maund, eds. Advisory Committee on Acoustic Impacts on Marine 

Mammals, Final Meeting Summary. Second Meeting, April 28-30, 2004, Arlington, VA. Sponsored 

by the Marine Mammal Commission. 10 August.

Williams, R. and L. Thomas. 2007. Distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the coastal waters 

of British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 9:15-28.

Wilson, B., K. Rivera, S. Fitzgerald, and C. Rose. 2004. Discussion paper on seabird interactions with 

trawl vessel gear. Protected Resources Report No. 2. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 

Anchorage, AK.

Wilson, D.E., M.A. Bogan, R.L. Brownell, Jr., A.M. Burdin, and M.K. Maminov. 1991. Geographic 

variation in sea otters, Enhydra lutris. Journal of Mammalogy 72:22-36.

Wilson, J., L. Rotterman, and D. Epperson. 2006. Minerals Management Service overview of seismic 

survey mitigation and monitoring on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. Paper SC/58/E8 presented to 

IWC Scientific Committee, IWC Annual Meeting, 1-13 June, St. Kitts and Nevis.

Winn, H.E. and N.E. Reichley. 1985. Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae (Borowski, 1781). 

Pages 241-273 in S.H. Ridgway and R. Harrison. eds. Handbook of Marine Mammals, Vol. 3. The 

Sirenians and Baleen Whales. Academic Press, London, UK. 

Winsor, M.H. and B.R. Mate. 2006. Seismic survey activity and the proximity of satellite tagged sperm 

whales. IWC Working Paper SC/58/E16.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-82

Witzell, W.N. 1998. Long-term tag returns from juvenile Kemp‘s ridleys. Marine Turtle Newsletter 

79:20.

Witzell, W.N. 1999. Distribution and relative abundance of sea turtles caught incidentally by the U.S. 

pelagic longline fleet in the western North Atlantic Ocean, 1992-1995. Fisheries Bulletin 97:200-211.

Wright, A.J., N. Aguilar Soto, A.L. Baldwin, M. Bateson, C.M. Beale, C. Clark, T. Deak, E.F. Edwards, 

A. Fernández, A. Godinho, L.T. Hatch, A. Kakuschke, D. Lusseau, D. Martineau, L.M. Romero, L.S. 

Weilgart, B.A. Wintle, G. Notarbartolo-di-Sciara, and V. Martin. 2007a. Do marine mammals 

experience stress related to anthropogenic noise? International Journal of Comparative Psychology 

20:274-316.

Wright, A.J., N. Aguilar Soto, A.L. Baldwin, M. Bateson, C.M. Beale, C. Clark, T. Deak, E.F. Edwards, 

A. Fernández, A. Godinho, L.T. Hatch, A. Kakuschke, D. Lusseau, D. Martineau, L.M. Romero, L.S. 

Weilgart, B.A. Wintle, G. Notarbartolo-di-Sciara and V. Martin. 2007b. Anthropogenic noise as a 

stressor in animals: A multidisciplinary perspective. International Journal of Comparative 

Psychology 20: 250-273.

Wright, S.D., B.B. Ackerman, R.K. Bonde, C.A. Beck, and D.J. Banowetz. 1995. Analysis of watercraftrelated mortality of manatees in Florida, 1979-1991. Pages 259-268 in T.J. O'Shea, B.B. Ackerman, 

and H.F. Percival, eds. Population Biology of the Florida Manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris). 

Information and Technology Report 1. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service, 

Washington, DC.

Würsig, B. 1990. Cetaceans and oil: ecologic perspectives. Pages 129-165 in J.R. Geraci and D.J. St. 

Aubin, eds. Sea Mammals and Oil: Confronting the Risks. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 

Würsig, B., S.K. Lynn, T.A. Jefferson, and K.D. Mullin. 1998. Behaviour of cetaceans in the northern 

Gulf of Mexico relative to survey ships and aircraft. Aquatic Mammals 24:41-50.

Wyneken, J. 1997. Sea Turtle Locomotion: Mechanics, Behavior, and Energetics. Pages 165-198 in P.L. 

Lutz and J.A. Musick, eds. The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 

Wysocki, L.E., J.P. Dittami, and F. Ladich. 2006. Ship noise and cortisol secretion in European 

freshwater fishes. Biological Conservation 128:501-508.

Yamaguchi, M., H. Suganuma, F. Sato, and Y. Matsuzawa. 2005. The increasing trend in sighting 

numbers of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) off the west coastal waters of Chichi-jima, 

Ogasawara (Bonin) Islands, Japan. Page 314 in Abstracts of the 16th Biennial Conference on the 

Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 December 2005, San Diego, CA.

Yazvenko, S.B., T.L. McDonald, S.A. Blokhin, S.R. Johnson, S.K. Meier, H.R. Melton, M.W. 

Newcomer, R.M. Nielson, V.L. Vladimirov and P.W. Wainwright. 2007a. Distribution and 

abundance of western gray whales during a seismic survey near Sakhalin Island, Russia. 

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 134:45-73.

Yazvenko, S.B., T.L. McDonald, S.A. Blokhin, S.R. Johnson, H.R. Melton, M.W. Newcomer, R.M. 

Nielson and P.W. Wainwright. 2007b. Feeding of western gray whales during a seismic survey near 

Sakhalin Island, Russia. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 134:93-106.

Yochem, S.K., and S. Leatherwood. 1985. Blue whale. Pages 193-240 in S.H. Ridgway and R. Harrison, 

eds. Handbook of Marine Mammals, Volume 3: The Sirenians and Baleen Whales. Academic Press, 

NY.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-83

Yoder, J.A. 2002. Declaration James A. Yoder in opposition to plaintiff‘s motion for temporary 

restraining order, 28 October. Civ. No. 02-05065-JL. U.S. District Court, Northern District of 

California, San Francisco Division.

Zavalaga, C.B. and J. Jahncke. 1997. Maximum dive depths of the Peruvian diving petrel. Condor 

99:1002-1004.

Zerbini, A.N., P.R. Wade, and J.M. Waite. 2003. Abundance and distribution of fin, humpback and minke 

whales from the Kenai Fjords to the Central Aleutian Islands, Alaska: Summer 2001-2002. Paper 

SC/55/O9 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, IWC Annual Meeting, 16-19 June, Berlin, 

Germany.

Zerbini, A.N., P.R. Wade, and J.M. Waite. 2004a. Summer abundance and distribution of cetaceans in 

coastal waters of the western Gulf of Alaska and the eastern and central Aleutian Islands. Page 179 in

Abstract Book, ASLO/TOS 2004 Ocean Research Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, 15-20 Feb. 2004.

Zerbini, A.N., A. Andriolo, J.M. Da Rocha, P.C. Simões-Lopes, S. Siciliano, J.P. Pizzorno, J.M. Waite, 

D.P. Demaster, and G.R. VanBlaricom. 2004b. Winter distribution and abundance of humpback 

whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) off northeastern Brazil. Journal of Cetacean Research and 

Management 6:101-107.

Zerbini, A.N., A. Andriolo, M.P. Heide-Jørsen, J.L. Pizzorno, Y.G. Maia, G.R. VanBlaricom, D.P. 

DeMaster, P.C. Simões-Lopes, S. Moreira, and C. Bethlem. 2006. Satellite-monitored movements of 

humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae in the Southwest Atlantic Ocean. Marine Ecology

Progress Series 313:295-304.

Zhang, G.S., T. Hiraishi, K. Motomatsu, K. Yamamoto and K. Nashimoto. 1998. Auditory threshold of 

marbled sole Pleuronectes yokohamae. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 64:211-215. (English abstract)

Zimmer, W.M.X., P.L. Tyack, P.T. Madsen, M.P. Johnson, and V. Teloni. 2005. On the multi-pulse 

structure of sperm whale usual clicks. Page 315 in Abstracts of the 16th Biennial Conference on the 

Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 December 2005, San Diego, CA.

Ziolkowski, A. 1970. A method for calculating the output pressure waveform from an air gun. Geophys. 

J. R. astr. Soc. 21:137–161.

Zoidis, A.M., M.A. Smultea, D. Fertl, A.J. Day, D. DenDanto, A.S. Ertl, J. Hayes, and A.D. Whitt. 2005. 

Can you hear me now? Social sounds and underwater behavior of Hawaiian humpback whale 

(Megaptera novaeangliae) calves. Page 315 in Abstracts of the 16th Biennial Conference on the 

Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 December 2005, San Diego, CA.

Zoidis, A.M., M.A. Smultea, A.S. Frankel, J.L. Hopkins, A. Day, S. Ertl, A. Whitt, and D. Fertl. 2008. 

Sounds attributed to humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) calves recorded in Hawaii. Journal 

of the Acoustical Society of America 123:1737-1746.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

5-84

[This page intentionally left blank.]
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

6-1

CHAPTER 6

LIST OF PREPARERS

TEC Inc. (TEC)

Richard Heiderstadt, PROJECT DIRECTOR

Masters in City and Regional Planning

Jim Hunt, PROJECT MANAGER

MS, Civil Engineering

Rick Spaulding, PROJECT MANAGER

MS, Wildlife and Fisheries Science

Erika Fuery, SOCIOECONOMICS

MS, Environmental Science

Jaclyn Johnson, SOCIOECONOMICS

BS, Ecology

Kathleen Riek-Miller, CULTURAL RESOURCES AND SOCIOECONOMICS (TASK MANAGER)

BS, Biology

Kathy Rose, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SPECIALIST

MS, Forest Resource Management

Deirdre Stites, GRAPHIC DESIGN

AA, Geology

Lori Thursby, CULTURAL RESOURCES

MAH, Architectural History

Bob Wardwell, QUALITY ASSURANCE

MS, Environmental Science and MBA, Transportation/Logistics

Jen Weitkamp, MARINE FISH AND INVERTEBRATES

BS, Fisheries Biology

LGL Ltd. environmental research associates (LGL)

W. John Richardson, MARINE MAMMALS AND BIOACOUSTICS

PhD, Animal Behavior

Mari A. Smultea, MARINE MAMMALS AND BIOACOUSTICS

MS, Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences

William Koski, MARINE MAMMALS AND BIOACOUSTICS

MS, Wildlife Biology

Robert Bocking, MARINE FISH AND INVERTEBRATES

MRM, Natural Resources Management

John Christian, INVERTEBRATES AND MARINE FISH

MS, Marine Biology

William Cross, SEA TURTLES AND MARINE MAMMALS 

MS, Marine Sciences

Mike Demarchi, SEABIRDS

MS, Wildlife Ecology
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

6-2

Michelle Gilders, SEA TURTLES AND MARINE MAMMALS

MA, Pure and Applied Biology

Meike Holst, MARINE MAMMALS

MS, Marine Biology

Sonya Meier, MARINE MAMMALS

MS, Biogeography

Heather Patterson, MARINE MAMMALS

MS, Biology and Geography

Carl Schilt, MARINE FISH AND BIOACOUSTICS

MS, Marine Science

JASCO Research Ltd. (JASCO)

Scott Carr, ACOUSTIC MODELING (TASK MANAGER)

ME, Acoustics

Isabelle Gaboury, ACOUSTIC MODELING

MS, Earth and Ocean Sciences

Marjo Laurinolli, ACOUSTIC MODELING

MS, Physical & Biological Oceanography

Alex MacGillivray, ACOUSTIC MODELING

MS, Earth and Ocean Sciences

Stephen Turner, ACOUSTIC MODELING

BE, Electrical Engineering

Mikhail Zykov, ACOUSTIC MODELING

PhD, Earth and Ocean Sciences

Marine Acoustics, Inc. (MAI)

Adam Frankel, ACOUSTIC MODELING (TASK MANAGER)

PhD, Biological Oceanography

Bill Ellison, ACOUSTIC MODELING

PhD, Acoustics

Kathleen Vigness-Raposa, ACOUSTIC MODELING

PhD, Natural Resources Science

Environmental BioAcoustics

Arthur Popper, MARINE INVERTEBRATES, FISH, AND SEA TURTLES

PhD, Biology
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

7-1

CHAPTER 7

DISTRIBUTION LIST

FEDERAL AGENCIES

USEPA

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Activities

EIS Filing Section

Mail Code 2252-A, Room 7241

Ariel Rios Building (South Oval Lobby)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

U.S. EPA – Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street, 13th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

U.S. Department of State

John Field

U.S. Department of State

7203 Central Ave.

Takoma Park, MD 20912

BOEMRE

Jill Lewandowski, Protected Species 

Biologist

Environmental Assessment Branch

BOEMRE

381 Elden Street

Herndon, VA 20170

Casey Rowe

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region

BOEMRE

1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard (MS 5412)

New Orleans, LA 70123–2394

James Price

Marine Mammals Env. Studies Coordinator

BOEMRE

381 Elden Street, MS 4041

Herndon, VA 20170-4817

Deborah Epperson

BOEMRE

1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard (MS 5432)

New Orleans, LA 70123–2394

Wayne Crayton

BOEMRE

3801 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 500

Anchorage, AK 99503
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

7-2

USGS

Esther Eng

Chief, Environmental Management 

Branch

U.S. Geological Survey

MS-207

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive

Reston VA 20192

James Devine

Senior Advisor for Science Applications

U.S. Geological Survey Headquarters

MS-106

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive

Reston, VA 20192

John Haines

Coordinator for Coastal & Marine 

Geology

U.S. Geological Survey Headquarters

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Mail Stop 

915B

Reston, VA 20192-0002

Navy

John Quinn

Deputy Director 

Environmental Readiness Division 

(OPNAV N45)

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway

Suite 2000

Arlington, VA 22202

James E. Eckman

Marine Mammals & Biological 

Oceanography Program

Office of Naval Research – Code 322 

One Liberty Center, Rm 1073

875 N. Randolph St.

Arlington, VA 22203-1995

Michael J. Weise

Marine Mammals & Biological 

Oceanography Program

Office of Naval Research - Code 32

One Liberty Center, Rm 1068

875 N. Randolph St.

Arlington, VA 22203-1995

USFWS

John Fay

Division of Endangered Species

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

420 ARLSQ

4401 N. Fairfax Drive

Arlington, VA 22203
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

7-3

NOAA-NMFS

Steve Leathery, National NEPA 

Coordinator

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

1315 East-West Highway, Room 14555

Silver Spring, MD 20910

James Lecky, Director

Office of Protected Resources

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

1315 East West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20901

Angela Somma, Chief Endangered 

Species Division

Office of Protected Resources

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

1315 East West Hwy

Silver Spring, MD 20901

Karen Abrams

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

1315 East-West Highway

SSMC3, 14th Floor F/HC

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Brad Smith

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

222 W. 7th St.

Box 43

Anchorage, AK 99513

Jolie Harrison

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Jay Barlow

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

8604 La Jolla Shores Dr.

La Jolla, CA 92038

MMC

Tim Ragen

Marine Mammal Commission

4340 East-West Highway, Suite 700

Bethesda, MD 20814

STATE AGENCIES

Clyde W. Namu‘o, Administrator

State of Hawai‘i

Office of Hawaiian Affairs

711 Kapi‘olani Blvd., Suite 500

Honolulu, HI 96813

Mark Delaplaine

Federal Consistency Supervisor

California Coastal Commission

45 Fremont St., Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94105
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-funded & USGS Marine Seismic Research Final June 2011

7-4

OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES

Jessica Bertenshan

9500 Gilman Dr.

UC-San Diego

La Jolla, CA 92093

John Collins

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

MS-34

360 Woods Hole Rd.

Woods Hole, MA 02543

Pat Cooper

School of Ocean and Earth Sciences and 

Technology

University of Hawaii

1680 East-West Road, POST 802

Honolulu HI 96822

Meagan Cummings

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

P.O. Box 1000

61 Route 9W

Palisades, NY 10964-1000

John Eastlund

IODP

1000 Discovery Dr.

College Station, TX 77845

Benny Gallaway

LGL

1410 Cavitt St.

Bryan, TX 77801

Roger Gentry

Joint Industry Program

1750 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500

West Lobby

Washington, DC 20006

David Goldberg

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

P.O. Box 1000

61 Route 9W

Palisades, NY 10964-1000

Jessica Gribbon

EarthTech

675 N. Washington St.

Alexandria, VA 22307

Sean Higgins

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

P.O. Box 1000

61 Route 9W

Palisades, NY 10964-1000

R.D. Hofman

Chevy Chase, MD 20815

Cara Horowitz

Natural Resources Defense Council

1314 Second St.

Santa Monica, CA 90401

Art Jung

Metcalf and Eddy

2751 Prospect Ave., Suite 200

Fairfax, VA 22031

George Krasnick

TEC Inc.

1003 Bishop St., Suite 1550

Pauahi Tower

Honolulu, HI 96813

Bill Lang

Mandeville, LA 70448

James Lima

Anchorage, AK 99501

Michael Link

LGL Alaska

1101 E 76th Ave., Suite B

Anchorage, AK 99513

Jeff McGuire

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

MS-24

360 Woods Hole Rd.

Woods Hole, MA 02543
APPENDIX A:

AGENCY AND PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE/COORDINATION

Notice of Intent (NOI) and Public Scoping

55630 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Notices 

respond: It is estimated that 255 persons 

submit 1,106 completed DEA Forms 

250, at 1 hour per form, for an annual 

burden of 1,106 hours. It is estimated 

that 25 companies submit information 

pertaining to new drug applications or 

abbreviated new drug applications, at 2 

hours per response, for an annual 

burden of 50 hours. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: It is estimated that the total 

annual burden associated with this 

information collection is 1,156 hours. 

If additional information is required 

contact: Brenda E. Dyer, Department 

Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice, Justice 

Management Division, Policy and 

Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, 

Suite 1600, 601 D Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20530, or by e-mail at 

brenda.e.dyer@usdoj.gov. 

Dated: September 16, 2005. 

Brenda E. Dyer, 

Department Clearance Officer, Department of 

Justice. 

[FR Doc. 05–18903 Filed 9–21–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Notice of Intent To Prepare a 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement/Overseas Environmental 

Impact Statement for the National 

Science Foundation To Address 

Potential Impacts on the Marine 

Environment Related to the Use of 

Seismic Sources in Support of NSFFunded Research by U.S. Academic 

Scientists. 

AGENCY: National Science Foundation. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) 

of the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) of 1969, as implemented by 

the Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), 

the National Science Foundation (NSF) 

announces its intent to prepare a 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement/Overseas Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS/OES) to evaluate 

the potential environmental impacts 

associated with the use of seismic 

sources in support of NSF-funded 

research by U.S. academic scientists. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS), a part of the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, is 

being invited to be a cooperating agency 

in the preparation of the Programmatic 

EIS/OES. 

Publication of this notice begins the 

official scoping process that will help 

identify alternatives and determine the 

scope of environmental issues to be 

addressed in the Programmatic EIS/ 

OEIS. This notice requests public 

participation in the scoping process and 

provides information on how to 

participate. 

ADDRESSES AND DATES: Public-scoping 

meetings will be held at the following 

dates, times, and locations: 

1. Wednesday, October 5, 2005, 1–5 

p.m., Silver Spring Metro Center 

Building 4, Science Center, 1301 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 

2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5–9 

p.m., J. Erick Jonhhon Center of the 

National Academy of Sciences, Carriage 

House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods 

Hole, MA; 

3. Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5–9 

p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, 

Texas A&M University, College Station, 

TX; 

4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5–9 p.m., 

Egan Civic and Convention Center, 555 

West Fifth Avenue, Anchorage, AK; 

5. Monday, October 17, 2005, 5–9 

p.m., 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, 

Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La 

Jolla, CA; and 

6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5–9 

p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at 

these meetings as well as during the 

scoping period, and can be mailed to 

NSF by October 28, 2005 (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Written statements and questions 

regarding the scoping process should be 

mailed to Dr. Alexander Shor, Program 

Director, Oceanographic 

Instrumentation and Technical Services, 

Division of Ocean Sciences, National 

Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 

Boulevard, Suite 725, Arlington, VA 

22230; voice (703) 292–8583 or e-mail at 

OCE-EIS@nsf.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the last 

2 years, NSF has prepared 16 

environmental assessments (EAs) on the 

impact of seismic noise on endangered 

species and marine mammals during 

planned marine research projects 

concerning the geology and geophysics 

of the seafloor. The EAs were prepared 

for various worldwide, academic 

research cruises that required the use of 

various marine seismic sources. These 

EAs were intended to address 

regulations and public concern over 

anthropogenic noise in the marine 

environment and its possible, negative 

impacts on marine life. They were 

prepared to address U.S. laws and 

regulations, including NEPA; the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 

(MMPA); the endangered Species Act of 

1973 (ESA); and Executive Order (EO) 

12114 (1979), Environmental Effects 

Abroad of Major Federal Actions. In 

some cases they have also been used as 

background information to address 

foreign regulations, especially where 

research has been carried out entirely or 

partially within territorial waters or 

Exclusive Economic Zone waters 

surrounding a foreign nation. 

In each case, the NSF EA and a 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) has been used as the basis for 

consultation with NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources (OPR) under 

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, and in each 

case for which an action is finalized, 

NMFS OPR has issued a Biological 

Opinion and a related Incidental Take 

Statement authorizing the proposed 

project to be undertaken, and indicating 

any mitigation measures needed to 

reduce impacts on endangered species. 

In parallel with this effort, a separate 

application has been submitted for each 

cruise to apply for an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization (IHA) under 

the MMPA from NMFS OPR, and an 

IHA has also been issued by NMFS for 

each of the projects. Increasingly over 

the past 2 years, public comments have 

expressed concern that by evaluating 

individual projects in isolation, the 

cumulative impacts of NSF-funded 

seismic activities on the marine 

environment are not being adequately 

addressed. NSF and NMFS OPR 

personnel have examined this concern 

and have concluded that a 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS could provide 

both the holistic view of cumulative 

impacts, as well as provide the principal 

technical and environmental foundation 

to form the basis of evaluating 

environmental impacts of most NSFfunded seismic efforts. 

The Programmatic EIS/OEIS will take 

a view of the planned program as a 

whole and thereby assemble and 

analyze the broadest range of direct, 

indirect, and cumulative impacts 

associated with the entire program 

rather than assessing individual cruises 

separately. This approach will also 

address possible concerns that NSF is 

analyzing their research program in 

segments, rather than holistically where 

the true cumulative impacts of the 

entire program can be identified. 

Further, the parent Programmatic EIS/ 

OEIS will provide a broad analytical 

backdrop within which NSF, using 

tiered documents, will be able to 

analyze cruise-specific issues relevant 

for analysis and decision. Additionally, 

it will streamline the preparation of 

subsequent environmental documents 

for the individual cruises and also 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Notices 55631 

enable NSF to identify any prudent 

conservation practices and mitigation 

measures that may be applied across the 

entire program. The site-specific 

information is required by NMFS (and 

sometimes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service) for purposes of preparing 

Biological Opinions and Incidental Take 

Statements required by ESA. 

The main focus of the Programmatic 

EIS/OEIS will be on the seismic 

operations to be conducted from NSF’s 

primary seismic ship, soon to be the 

R/V Marcus G. Langseth. The 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS will address the 

variety of airgun configurations to be 

operated from the Langseth, as well as 

the multi-beam bathymetric sonar, subbottom profiler, and other acoustic 

sources to be deployed as standard 

equipment. In addition, the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS will deal with 

the generally small airgun sources 

occasionally operated from other vessels 

under NSF sponsorship. 

Major environmental issues that will 

be addressed in the Programmatic EIS/ 

OEIS include marine biological 

resources including Essential Fish 

Habitat (EFH), acoustic impacts to 

marine mammals, fish, sea turtles, 

invertebrates, and threatened and 

endangered species; cultural resources; 

human health and safety; 

socioeconomics and land use (i.e., 

commercial, private, and recreational 

uses of the marine environment); and 

water quality. 

NSF is initiating this scoping process 

for the purpose of determining the 

extent of issues to be addressed and 

identifying the significant issues related 

to this action. NSF will hold public 

scoping meetings as identified in the 

DATES AND ADDRESSES section of this 

notice. These meetings will also be 

advertised in area newspapers. NSF and 

NMFS representatives will be available 

at these meetings to receive comments 

from the public regarding issues of 

concern to the public. Federal, state, 

and local agencies and interested 

individuals are encouraged to take this 

opportunity to identify environmental 

concerns that should be addressed 

during the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. Agencies and 

the public are also invited and 

encouraged to provide written 

comments on scoping issues in addition 

to, or in lieu of, oral comments at the 

public meeting. To be most helpful, 

scoping comments should clearly 

describe issues or topics that the 

commenter believes the Programmatic 

EIS/OEIS should address. 

We invite you to learn about the NSF 

seismic research program at an 

informational open house, and to assist 

NSF in defining the alternatives and the 

scope of environmental issues related to 

the seismic research program. All our 

public meeting locations are 

wheelchair-accessible. If you plan to 

attend a scoping meeting/open house, 

and need special assistance such as sign 

language interpretation or other 

reasonable accommodation, please 

notify NSF (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 3 

business days in advance. Include your 

contact information as well as 

information about your specific needs. 

We request public comments or other 

relevant information on environmental 

issues related to the NSF seismic 

research program. The public meetings 

are not the only opportunity you have 

to comment. In addition to or in place 

of attending a meeting, you can submit 

comments to Dr. Alexander Shor by 

October 28, 2005 (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). We will consider 

all comments received during the 

comment period. We request that you 

include in your comments: 

• Your name and address (especially 

if you would like to receive a copy of 

the Draft Programmatic EIS/OEIS upon 

completion); 

• An explanation for each comment; 

and 

• Include any background materials 

to support your comments as you feel 

necessary. 

You may mail, e-mail, or hand deliver 

your comments to NSF (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). All comment 

submissions must be unbound, no larger 

than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, and suitable for 

copying and electronic scanning. Please 

note that regardless of the method used 

for submitting comments or material, all 

submissions will be publicly available 

and, therefore, any personal information 

you provide in your comments will be 

open for public review. In addition, if 

you wish to receive a copy of the Draft 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS, please indicate 

this in your comment. No decision will 

be made to implement any alternative 

until the NEPA process is completed. 

Dated: September 19, 2005. 

Alexander Shor, 

Program Director, Division of Ocean Sciences, 

National Science Foundation. 

[FR Doc. 05–18962 Filed 9–21–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Sunshine Act Meeting 

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: National 

Science Foundation, National Science 

Board and its Subdivisions 

DATE AND TIME: September 28–29, 2005. 

September 28, 2005, 8:15 a.m.–5 p.m. 

Sessions: 

8:15 a.m.–9 a.m., Open; 

9 a.m.–9:30 a.m., Closed; 

9:30 a.m.—10:30 a.m., Open; 

10:30 a.m.–11 a.m., Open; 

11 a.m.–11:45 a.m., Open; 

11:45 a.m.–12:05 p.m., Open; 

12:05 p.m.–12:15 p.m., Closed; 

12:45 p.m.–12:55 p.m., Closed; 

12:55 p.m.–3 p.m., Open; 

3 p.m.–5 p.m., Open. 

September 29, 2005, 8 a.m.–3:30 p.m., 

Sessions: 

8:30 a.m.–10 a.m., Open; 

10 a.m.–10:30 a.m., Closed; 

10:30 a.m.–11 a.m., Open; 

11 a.m.–11:15 a.m., Closed; 

1 p.m.–1:15 p.m., Executive Closed; 

1:15 p.m.–1:30 p.m., Closed; 

1:30 p.m.–3:30 p.m., Open. 

PLACE: National Science Foundation, 

4201 Wilson Blvd, Room 1235, 

Arlington, VA 22230. 

PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDANCE: All visitors 

must report to the NSF’s visitor’s desk 

at the 9th and N. Stuart Streets entrance 

to receive a visitor’s badge. 

CONTACT INFORMATION: Please refer to the 

National Science Board Web site 

(www.nsf.gov/nsb) for updated 

schedule. NSB Office: (703) 292–7000. 

STATUS: Part of this meeting will be 

closed to the public. Part of this meeting 

will be open to the public. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 

Open 

Committee on Programs and Plans 

Subcommittee on Polar Issues (8:15 

a.m.–9 a.m.), Room 1235 

• Chair’s Remarks and Approval of 

Minutes 

• OPP Director’s Report 

• Update on Icebreaker Issues 

• Antarctic Geological Drilling Project 

• Collaboration of Researchers with 

Native Communities: King Island, 

Alaska 

Education and Human Resources 

Subcommittee on S&E Indicators 

(9:30 a.m.–10:30 a.m.), Room 1235 

• Approval of Minutes 

• Chairman’s Remarks 

• Brief Progress Report on Science 

and Engineering Indicators 2006 

• Discussion of Draft Companion 

Piece 

• Contractor Presentation on 

Indicators 

Committee on Programs and Plans Task 

Force on Transformative Research 

(10:30 a.m.–11 a.m.), Room 1235 

• Approval of Minutes 

• Brief Overview of Workshop I: 

August 12, 2005 







September 29, 2005 

USFWS Headquarters 

1849 C St. NW 

Washington, DC 20242 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Marvin Moriarty 

Field Supervisor (Regional Director) 

USFWS 

300 Westgate Center Dr 

Hadley, MA 1035 

Dear Mr. Moriarty, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Sue Hamilton 

Field Supervisor (Regional Director) 

USFWS 

1875 Century Blvd 

Atlanta, GA 30345 

Dear Ms. Hamilton, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

William Seawell 

Field Supervisor (Regional Director) 

USFWS 

10711 Burnet Road, Ste. 200 

Austin, TX 78758 

Dear Mr. Seawell, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Steve Thompson 

Field Supervisor (Regional Director) 

USFWS 

2800 Cottage Way Suite W2606 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

Dear Mr. Thompson, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Dave Allen 

Field Supervisor (Regional Director) 

USFWS 

911 NE 11th St 

Portland, OR 97232 

Dear Mr. Allen, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Tauline Davis 

Field Supervisor (Regional Director) 

USFWS 

1011 East Tudor Rd 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

Dear Ms. Davis, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Ted Swem 

Wildlife Biologist 

USFWS 

101 12th Avenue, Box 19 

Fairbanks, AK 99701 

Dear Mr. Swem, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Craig Perham 

Wildlife Biologist 

USFWS 

1011 East Tudor Rd 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

Dear Mr. Perham, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Maggie Ahmaogak 

Executive Director 

AEWC 

P.O. Box 570 

Barrow, AK 99723 

Dear Ms. Ahmaogak, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Craig George 

Wildlife Biologist 

DWM 

Department of Wildlife Management, North Slope Borough, PO Box 69 

Barrow, AK 99723 

Dear Mr. George, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Charles Brower 

Director 

Department of Wildlife Management 

North Slope Borough, PO Box 69 

Barrow, AK 99723 

Dear Mr. Brower, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

NOAA/NMFS Headquarters 

14th St. & Consitution Ave Rm 6217 

Washington, DC 20230 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Patricia A. Kurkul 

Regional Administrator 

NOAA/NMFS 

One Blackburn Drive 

Gloucester, MA 1930 

Dear Ms. Kurkul, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Dr. Roy E. Crabtree 

Regional Administrator 

NOAA/NMFS 

236 13th Avenue South 

St. Petersburg , FL 33701 

Dear Dr. Crabtree, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Rodney McInnis 

Regional Administrator 

NOAA/NMFS 

501 W. Ocean Blvd 

Long Beach, CA 90802 

Dear Mr. McInnis, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Bob Lohn 

Regional Administrator 

NOAA/NMFS 

7600 Sand Point Way NE 

Seattle, WA 98115 

Dear Mr. Lohn, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

James Balsiger 

Regional Administrator 

NOAA/NMFS 

PO Box 21668 

Juneau, AK 99802 

Dear Mr. Balsiger, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Joseph Montgomery 

Director NEPA Compliance, Off. of Federal Activities 

USEPA 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW (6403J) 

Washington , DC 20460 

Dear Mr. Montgomery, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Robert W. Varney 

Regional Administrator 

USEPA 

1 Congress St 

Boston, MA 

Dear Mr. Varney, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Alan J. Steinburg 

Regional Administrator 

USEPA 

290 Broadway, 26th Floor 

New York, NY 10007 

Dear Mr. Steinburg, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Donald S. Welsh 

Regional Administrator 

USEPA 

1650 Arch St 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Dear Mr. Welsh, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

J.I. Palmer, Jr 

Regional Administrator 

USEPA 

61 Forsyth Street, SW 

Atlanta, GA 30303 

Dear Mr. Palmer, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Thomas V. Skinner 

Regional Administrator 

USEPA 

77 West Jackson Blvd 

Chicago, IL 60604 

Dear Mr. Skinner, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Richard Greene 

Regional Administrator 

USEPA 

1445 Ross Avenue 

Dallas , TX 75202 

Dear Mr. Greene, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

James B. Gulliford 

Regional Administrator 

USEPA 

901 N. 5th Street 

Kansas City, KS 66101 

Dear Mr. Gulliford, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Robbie Roberts 

Regional Administrator 

USEPA 

999-18th St. Suite 300 

Denver, CO 80202 

Dear Mr. Roberts, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Wayne Nastri 

Regional Administrator 

USEPA 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Dear Mr. Nastri, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Ron Kreizenbeck 

Regional Administrator 

USEPA 

1200 Sixth Avenue 

Seattle, WA 98101 

Dear Mr. Kreizenbeck, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Tony MacDonald 

Executive Director 

Coastal States Organization 

444 N. Capitol, NW 

Washington, DC 20001 

Dear Mr. MacDonald, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Minerals Management Service 

Environmental Branch 

1849 C Street NW 

Washington, DC 20240 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

G. Ed Richardson 

Minerals Management Service 

139 Deerlake Drive 

Asheville, NC 28803 

Dear Mr. Richardson, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

James Bennett 

Minerals Management Service/Environmental Branch 

381 Elden Street, MS 4023 

Herndon, VA 20170 

Dear Mr. Bennett, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Minerals Management Service 

Environmental Branch 

770 Paseo Camarillo 

Camarillo, CA 93010 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

David Moore 

Minerals Management Service 

381 Elden Street 

Herndon, VA 21071 

Dear Mr. Moore, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Alaska Intertribal Council 

431 West 7th Ave Suite 201 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

National Congress of American Indians 

1300 Connecticut Ave Suite 200 

Washignton, DC 20036 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Office of Hawaiian Affairs 

711 Kapi`olani Blvd. Suite 500 

Honolulu, HI 96813 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Council 

6730 Martin Way E. 

Olympia, WA 98516 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 
September 29, 2005 

National Tribal Environmental Council 

2501 Rio Grande Blvd. NW, Suite A 

Albuquerque, NM 87104 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced its intention to prepare a Programmatic 

EIS/Overseas EIS to address potential impacts on the marine environment related to the use of 

seismic sources in support of NSF-funded research by U.S. academic scientists. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be invited to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS. 

To begin the process, NSF is holding a series of public scoping meetings. Public scoping 

meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Wednesday, October 5, 

2005, 1-5 P.M., Silver Spring Metro Center Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5-9 p.m., J. Erik Jonsson Center of 

the National Academy of Sciences, Carriage House, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, MA; 3. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Room C126, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX; 4. Friday, October 14, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Egan Civic and 

Convention Center, Space 1, 13-14, 555 West Fifth Ave. Anchorage, AK; 5. Monday, October 

17, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 100 Vaughn Hall, Discovery Way, La 

Jolla, CA; and 6. Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5-9 p.m., Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson 

Drive, Honolulu, HI. 

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and 

can be sent to NSF by October 28, 2005. Information on addressing comments and details on 

NSF's proposal is available in the September 22, 2005 Federal Register. 

for Alexander Shor 

Program Director 

Oceanographic Instrumentation and Technical Services 

Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Phone: (703) 292-7711 (Direct Line) 

Phone: (703) 292-8583 (Program Assistant) 

Fax: (703) 292-9085; Email: ashor@nsf.gov 


United States Department of the Interior

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Reston, VA 20192

In Reply Refer To: October 28, 2005

Mail Stop 423

ER 05/833

Dr. Alexander Shor, Program Director

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 725

Arlington, VA 22230

RE: Review of Notice of Intent to Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact 

 Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for the National Science Foundation 

 to Address Potential Impacts on the Marine Environment Related to the Use of Seismic 

 Sources in Support of NSF-Funded Research by U.S. Academic Scientists

Dr. Alexander:

The U.S. Geological Survey has reviewed the programmatic/overseas environmental impact 

statements and has no comments.

Sincerely,

/Signed/

Lloyd H. Woosley, Jr., P.E.

Chief, Environmental Affairs Program

Cc: EAP Chron, MS 423

USGS:WRD:LWOOSLEY:bjjohnso:x6832:10/28/05









APPENDIX B: 

ACOUSTIC MODELING REPORT

APPENDIX B:

ACOUSTIC MODELING REPORT

Prepared by:

Scott A. Carr, Isabelle Gaboury, Marjo Laurinolli, Alex O. MacGillivray,

Stephen P. Turner, and Mikhail Zykov

JASCO Research Ltd.

Halifax, Nova Scotia

Adam S. Frankel, William T. Ellison, and Kathleen Vigness-Raposa

Marine Acoustics, Inc.

Arlington, Virginia

and

W. John Richardson, Mari A. Smultea, and William R. Koski

LGL Ltd., environmental research associates

King City, Ontario

Submitted to:

TEC Inc.

Annapolis, Maryland

February 2011
Acronyms and Abbreviations

2-D two-dimensional

3-D three-dimensional

AASM Airgun Array Source Model

AIM Acoustic Integration Model

BC British Columbia

bsf below the sea floor

DAA Detailed Analysis Area

dB decibel(s)

dB re 1 Pa-1 m decibels referenced 1 microPascal

at 1 meter

dB re 1 Pa2∙ s decibels referenced 1 microPascal

squared second

DSDP Deep Sea Drilling Project

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ft foot/feet

g/cm3grams per cubic centimeter

GDEM Generalized Digital Environmental Model

GI generator injector

HF high-frequency

hr hour(s)

Hz hertz

in3cubic inches

J Joule(s)

kHz kilohertz

km kilometer(s)

L-DEO Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

LF low-frequency

m meter(s)

MAI Marine Acoustics, Inc.

MF mid-frequency

min minute(s)

MMO marine mammal observer

MONM Marine Operations Noise Model

ms millisecond(s)

m/s meters per second

N North/Northern

nmi nautical mile(s)

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NSF National Science Foundation

NW Northwestern

ODP Ocean Drilling Program

OEIS Overseas Environmental Impact Statement

QAA Qualitative Analysis Area

RAM Range Dependent Acoustic Model

RL received level

rms root mean square

R/V Research Vessel

S South/Southern

s second(s)

SEL sound exposure level

SL source level

SPL sound pressure level

spp. species

SW Southwestern

TL transmission loss

U.S. United States

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

W West/Western
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-i

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH.....................................................................................1

2 MAJOR FACTORS AFFECTING UNDERWATER SOUND PROPAGATION..................4

2.1 Spreading.................................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Absorption.................................................................................................................................. 4

2.3 Refraction................................................................................................................................... 4

2.4 Scattering.................................................................................................................................... 6

2.5 Bathymetry ................................................................................................................................. 6

2.6 Bottom Loss ............................................................................................................................... 7

2.7 Shear Waves............................................................................................................................... 8

3 CLASSIFICATION OF OCEAN REGIONS...........................................................................9

3.1 Ocean Basin................................................................................................................................ 9

3.2 Continental Shelf ........................................................................................................................ 9

4 SEISMIC SURVEY OVERVIEW.......................................................................................... 10

4.1 Airgun Operating Principles...................................................................................................... 10

4.2 Airgun Array SLs ..................................................................................................................... 11

5 MODELING METHODOLOGY: RECEIVED SOUND LEVELS ..................................... 13

5.1 Airgun Array Source Model (AASM) ....................................................................................... 13

5.1.1 Research Vessel Marcus G. Langseth (Langseth) Airgun Arrays................................. 14

5.2 Sound Propagation Model: MONM.......................................................................................... 17

5.2.1 Estimating 90% rms SPL from SEL............................................................................ 17

5.2.2 M-Weighting for Marine Mammal Hearing Abilities................................................... 18

6 MONM PARAMETERS ........................................................................................................ 20

6.1 Survey Source Locations – DAAs............................................................................................. 20

6.2 Sound Speed Profiles................................................................................................................ 20

6.3 Model Receiver Depths............................................................................................................. 21

6.4 Bathymetry and Acoustic Environment of DAAs ...................................................................... 22

6.4.1 S California ................................................................................................................ 22

6.4.2 Caribbean ................................................................................................................... 22

6.4.3 Galapagos Ridge......................................................................................................... 23

6.4.4 W Gulf of Alaska........................................................................................................ 23

6.4.5 NW Atlantic ............................................................................................................... 24

6.5 Acoustic Environment of QAAs................................................................................................ 25

6.5.1 Mid-Atlantic Ridge..................................................................................................... 26

6.5.2 North Atlantic/Iceland (N Atlantic/Iceland)................................................................. 27

6.5.3 Mariana Islands (Marianas)......................................................................................... 27

6.5.4 Sub-Antarctic ............................................................................................................. 27

6.5.5 Western India (W India) ............................................................................................. 27

6.5.6 Western Australia (W Australia)................................................................................. 27

6.5.7 Southwest Atlantic Ocean (SW Atlantic) .................................................................... 28

6.5.8 British Columbia Coast (BC Coast) ............................................................................ 28

7 ACOUSTIC INTEGRATION MODEL (AIM)...................................................................... 29

7.1 Rationale .................................................................................................................................. 29

7.2 Introduction to AIM.................................................................................................................. 30

7.3 Programmatic EIS/OEIS-Specific Modeling Methods ............................................................... 30

7.4 Data Convolution to Create Animat Exposure Histories ............................................................ 31
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-ii Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

7.5 Simulation of Monitoring and Mitigation .................................................................................. 32

7.6 Numbers of Mammals Exposed................................................................................................. 37

7.7 Marine Mammal Density Values............................................................................................... 38

7.7.1 S California ................................................................................................................ 38

7.7.2 Caribbean ................................................................................................................... 38

7.7.3 Galapagos Ridge......................................................................................................... 38

7.7.4 W Gulf of Alaska........................................................................................................ 38

7.7.5 NW Atlantic ............................................................................................................... 38

8 RESULTS................................................................................................................................ 39

8.1 Sound Propagation Modeling – MONM.................................................................................... 39

8.1.1 S California ................................................................................................................ 40

8.1.2 Caribbean ................................................................................................................... 40

8.1.3 Galapagos Ridge......................................................................................................... 41

8.1.4 W Gulf of Alaska........................................................................................................ 41

8.1.5 NW Atlantic ............................................................................................................... 42

8.2 SELs and 90% RMS SPLs........................................................................................................ 42

8.3 Comparison with Free-field Models .......................................................................................... 43

8.3.1 TL Estimates .............................................................................................................. 43

8.3.2 Near-field vs. Far-field Estimates................................................................................ 44

8.4 Marine Mammal Exposure Modeling – AIM............................................................................. 44

8.4.1 S California ................................................................................................................ 46

8.4.3 Caribbean ................................................................................................................... 49

8.4.4 Galapagos Ridge......................................................................................................... 52

8.4.5 W Gulf of Alaska........................................................................................................ 55

8.4.6 NW Atlantic ............................................................................................................... 58

10 LITERATURE CITED........................................................................................................... 61

ANNEX 1: FAR-FIELD SL COMPUTATION.............................................................................. 67

ANNEX 2: AIRGUN ARRAY 1/3-OCTAVE BAND SLS............................................................... 69

ANNEX 3: SOURCE LOCATIONS AND STUDY AREAS.......................................................... 75

ANNEX 4: MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES AND ASSOCIATED DENSITIES AND 

ANIMAT DEPTH RESTRICTIONS INCLUDED IN AIM MODELING ................ 81

ANNEX 5: NOISE MAPS............................................................................................................... 85

ANNEX 6: PREDICTED RANGES TO VARIOUS RLS.............................................................. 99
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-iii

List of Tables

Table B-1. Descriptions of R/V Langseth Standard Airgun Array Configurations................................... 15

Table B-2. Marine Mammal Functional Hearing Groups and Associated Auditory Bandwidths.............. 19

Table B-3. Source Coordinates and Array Axis Orientation ................................................................... 20

Table B-4. Injury and Behavior Exposure Criteria for Cetaceans and Pinnipeds ..................................... 29

Table B-5. Summary of Modeled Marine Mammal Level A Exposure Criteria Radii for DAAs ............. 32

Table B-6. Assumed P(detect) Values for Different Species................................................................... 33

Table B-7. Nominal Example of Exposure Calculation .......................................................................... 37

Table B-8. Summary of Predicted Marine Mammal Exposure Criteria Radii for the S California Sites... 40

Table B-9. Summary of Predicted Marine Mammal Exposure Criteria Radii for the Caribbean Sites...... 40

Table B-10. Summary of Predicted Marine Mammal Exposure Criteria Radii for the Galapagos 

Ridge Sites .................................................................................................................................... 41

Table B-11. Summary of Predicted Marine Mammal Exposure Criteria Radii for the W Gulf of 

Alaska Sites................................................................................................................................... 41

Table B-12. Summary of Predicted Marine Mammal Exposure Criteria Radii for the NW Atlantic 

Sites .............................................................................................................................................. 42

Table B-13. Real World Exposure Predictions for S California Site under Alternatives A and B ............ 48

Table B-14. Real World Exposure Predictions for the Caribbean Site under Alternatives A and B.......... 51

Table B-15. Real World Exposure Predictions for the Galapagos Ridge Site under Alternatives A 

and B............................................................................................................................................. 54

Table B-16. Real World Exposure Predictions for the W Gulf of Alaska Site under Alternatives A 

and B............................................................................................................................................. 57

Table B-17. Real World Exposure Predictions for the NW Atlantic Site under Alternatives A and B...... 60

List of Figures

B-1. Generic Sound Speed Profiles with Some Common Terms Depicted ................................................5

B-2. Sensitivity of Propagation to Sound Speed .......................................................................................6

B-3. Examples of Estimates of Bottom Loss Curves ................................................................................7

B-4. Overpressure Signature for a Single Airgun, Showing the Primary Peak and the Bubble Pulse ....... 11

B-5. Diagram of R/V Langseth Standard 1,650 in3Subarray Design for 2-D and 3-D Reflection or 

Refraction Surveys ........................................................................................................................ 15

B-6. Computed Broadside and Endfire Overpressure Signatures, with Associated Frequency Spectra, for 

R/V Langseth Airgun Arrays based on AASM............................................................................... 16

B-7. Plots of Sound Speed Profiles vs. Depth from the GDEM Database for Each Modeling Site........... 21
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-iv Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

B-8. Exemplary QAAs .......................................................................................................................... 25

B-9. Plots of Sound Speed Profiles vs. Depth from the GDEM Database for Proposed Exemplary 

QAAs and Seasons ........................................................................................................................ 26

B-10. Illustration of Pressure-based Exposure or ―Take‖ Methodology (not to scale) ............................. 30

B-11. Example of Decreasing and Increasing Range between a Source Vessel and a Single Whale 

Animat over Time, in Relation to the Mitigation Distance (red line) ............................................ 34

B-12. Time History of Predicted RL of the Whale Animat in Figure B-11.............................................. 35

B-13. Ping-o-gram of First 2,500 Animats over 270 Minutes ................................................................. 36

B-14. Ping-o-gram of First 2,500 Animats over 270 Minutes but with Successful Mitigation 

Implemented from Minute 130 to Minute 160.............................................................................. 36

B-15. Stylized Diagram Showing Approximate Regions of Applicability of the MONM and 

Free-field Models........................................................................................................................ 43

B-16. Distribution of Modeled Sound Exposures for Common Dolphin in the S California Site ............. 46

B-17. Distribution of Modeled Sound Exposures for California Sea Lion in the S California Site ........... 47

B-18. Distribution of Modeled Sound Exposures for Bottlenose Dolphin in the Caribbean Site .............. 49

B-19. Distribution of Modeled Sound Exposures for Pantropical Spotted Dolphin in the Caribbean 

Site ............................................................................................................................................. 50

B-20. Distribution of Modeled Sound Exposures for Bryde‘s Whale in the Galapagos Ridge Site .......... 52

B-21. Distribution of Modeled Sound Exposures for Pantropical Spotted Dolphin in the Galapagos 

Ridge Site ................................................................................................................................... 53

B-22. Distribution of Modeled Sound Exposures for Fin Whale in the W Gulf of Alaska Site ................ 55

B-23. Distribution of Modeled Sound Exposures for Steller‘s Sea Lion in the W Gulf of Alaska Site..... 56

B-24. Distribution of Modeled Sound Exposures for Bottlenose Dolphin in the NW Atlantic Site .......... 58

B-25. Distribution of Modeled Sound Exposures for Sperm Whale in the NW Atlantic Site ................... 59

List of Figures – Annex 1

A1-1. Plan View Diagram of the Far-field Summation Geometry for an Airgun Array........................... 67

List of Figures – Annex 2

A2-1. Directionality of the Airgun Array Source Levels (dB re μPa2∙ s) (R/V Langseth 2-D 

Reflection, 2 x 1, 650 in3, 6 m tow depth).................................................................................... 69

A2-2. Directionality of the Airgun Array Source Levels (dB re μPa2∙ s) (R/V Langseth 2-D 

Reflection, 4 x 1, 650 in3, 6 m tow depth).................................................................................... 70

A2-3. Directionality of the Airgun Array Source Levels (dB re μPa2∙ s) (R/V Langseth 2-D 

Refraction, 4 x 1, 650 in3, 12 m tow depth).................................................................................. 71
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-v

A2-4. Directionality of the Airgun Array Source Levels (dB μPa2∙ s) (R/V Langseth 2-D High 

Resolution, 2 x GI, 2.5 m tow depth)........................................................................................... 72

A2-5. Directionality of the Airgun Array Source Levels (dB μPa2∙ s) (R/V Langseth 3-D High 

Resolution, 2 x GI, 2.5 m tow depth)........................................................................................... 73

List of Figures – Annex 3

A3-1. Locations of S California Modeling Sites..................................................................................... 75

A3-2. Locations of Caribbean Modeling Sites........................................................................................ 76

A3-3. Locations of Galapagos Ridge Modeling Sites ............................................................................. 77

A3-4. Locations of W Gulf of Alaska Modeling Sites ............................................................................ 78

A3-5. Locations of NW Atlantic Modeling Sites.................................................................................... 79

List of Tables – Annex 4

A4-1. Species and Densities Modeled at the Caribbean Site ................................................................... 81

A4-2. Species and Densities Modeled at the NW Atlantic Site ............................................................... 82

A4-3. Species and Densities Modeled at the Galapagos Ridge Site......................................................... 82

A4-4. Species and Densities Modeled at the S California Site ................................................................ 83

A4-5. Species and Densities Modeled at the W Gulf of Alaska Site........................................................ 84

List of Figures – Annex 5

A5-1. Predicted SELs for S California Modeling Sites........................................................................... 86

A5-2. Predicted SELs for S California Modeling Sites (zoomed-in from Figure A5-1)........................... 87

A5-3. Predicted SELs for Caribbean Modeling Sites.............................................................................. 88

A5-4. Predicted SELs for Caribbean modeling sites (zoomed-in from Figure A5-3)............................... 89

A5-5. Predicted SELs for Galapagos Ridge Modeling Sites ................................................................... 90

A5-6. Predicted SELs for Galapagos Ridge Modeling Sites (zoomed-in from Figure A5-5) ................... 91

A5-7. Predicted SELs for W Gulf of Alaska Modeling Sites 1 and 3 ...................................................... 92

A5-8. Predicted SELs for W Gulf of Alaska Modeling Site 2 ................................................................. 93

A5-9. Predicted SELs for W Gulf of Alaska Modeling Sites (zoomed-in from Figure A5-7 and 

Figure A5-8 ................................................................................................................................. 94

A5-10. Predicted SELs for NW Atlantic Modeling Sites........................................................................ 95

A5-11. Predicted SELs for NW Atlantic Modeling Sites (zoomed in from Figure A5-10)....................... 96

A5-13. Predicted SELs for Caribbean Site #2 (deep water), for Transects in the Aft Endfire (middle 

panel) and Port Broadside (right panel) Directions .................................................................... 97
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-vi Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

A5-14. Predicted SELs for Caribbean Site #3 (slope), for Transects in the Forward Endfire (2nd panel), 

Aft Endfire (3rd panel), and Starboard Broadside (4th panel) Directions...................................... 98

List of Tables – Annex 6

A6-1. Predicted Maximum Marine Mammal Exposure Criteria Radii at the S California Sites ............... 99

A6-2. Predicted Maximum Marine Mammal Exposure Criteria Radii at the Caribbean Sites ................ 100

A6-3. Predicted Maximum Marine Mammal Exposure Criteria Radii at the Galapagos Ridge Sites...... 100

A6-4. Predicted Maximum Marine Mammal Exposure Criteria Radii at the W Gulf of Alaska Sites..... 101

A6-5. Predicted Maximum Marine Mammal Exposure Criteria Radii at the NW Atlantic Sites ............ 101
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-1

1 Introduction and Approach

This report provides technical information in support of the Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement/Overseas EIS (EIS/OEIS) prepared by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) concerning their marine seismic research operations. In particular, this report 

describes the procedures used to estimate the airgun sound fields that would occur around the seismic 

vessel during five exemplary seismic surveys and the numbers of marine mammals that might be exposed 

to specified levels of underwater sound during those surveys.

The five exemplary cruises analyzed here are within five Detailed Analysis Areas (DAAs) that 

are analyzed in the EIS/OEIS for potential impacts on the human and natural environment with 

implementation of marine seismic surveys funded by NSF or conducted by the USGS. The five DAAs 

consist of the Western Gulf of Alaska (W Gulf of Alaska), Southern California (S California), Galapagos 

Ridge, Caribbean Sea (Caribbean), and northwest Atlantic Ocean (NW Atlantic) (see Annex 3 to this 

report). These areas include a wide variety of water depths, sound propagation conditions, and types of 

marine mammals. Also, the five exemplary seismic surveys involve a wide variety of airgun sources, 

ranging from a small two generator injector (GI)-gun configuration to a large 36-airgun configuration. 

The EIS/OEIS also considers, in a qualitative way, eight additional exemplary cruises to other geographic 

regions or qualitative analysis areas (QAAs). However, those are not considered in this technical analysis 

of the anticipated sound fields and numbers of marine mammals exposed to specified sound levels.

To estimate the sound fields expected to exist during the surveys in the five DAAs, two 

quantitative acoustic models were applied in sequence. First, for each configuration of airguns planned for 

use in one or more of the DAAs, an Airgun Array Source Model (AASM) was used to predict the amount 

of sound that would be projected in each direction. This model takes account of the specific sizes and 

positions of the individual airguns relative to one another, along with the depths of the airguns below the 

water surface. The model predicts the sound output, in each direction, by 1⁄3-octave frequency band (see 

Section 5.1 for details).

The second acoustic model that was used is the Marine Operations Noise Model (MONM), 

described in Section 5.2. This model predicts the received levels (RLs) of airgun sound as a function of 

bearing, distance, and depth in the water column. This model was run for two to four representative 

locations within each of the five DAAs. The MONM takes account of the frequency-specific source levels 

predicted by the AASM for the particular airgun configuration to be used in each DAA. It also takes 

account of the best available site-specific information about environmental factors that would affect the 

propagation and attenuation of that sound as it travels outward from the airgun array. These include 

bathymetry, sub-bottom conditions, and the sound velocity profile of the water column (see Section 6).

MONM predicted the received sound field around the various representative locations for each 1⁄3-octave 

band. The predicted values were, for each location in the sound field, the received energy level for an 

individual pulse, in decibels reference 1 microPascal squared second (dB re 1 Pa2∙ s). This energy value 

is commonly referred to as the sound exposure level (SEL).

Since the mid-1990s, the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has specified that 

marine mammals should not be exposed to pulsed sounds with RLs exceeding 180 or 190 dB re 1 Pa 

(rms). Here rms, or root mean square, refers to a particular method of measuring the average sound 

pressure over the approximate duration of an individual sound pulse. Since 2000, the ―do not exceed‖ 

levels have been specified as 180 dB re 1 Pa (rms) for cetaceans and 190 dB (rms) for pinnipeds (NMFS

2000). NMFS also considers that both cetaceans and pinnipeds exposed to levels ≥160 dB re 1 Pa (rms) 

may be disturbed. 

The 180- and 190-dB (rms) ―do-not-exceed‖ criteria were determined before there was any 

specific information about the RLs of underwater sound that would cause temporary or permanent hearing 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-2 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

damage in marine mammals. Subsequently, data on RLs that cause the onset of temporary threshold shift 

(TTS) have been measured for certain toothed whales and pinnipeds (Kastak et al. 1999; Finneran et al. 

2002, 2005). There are no specific data concerning the levels of underwater sound necessary to cause 

permanent hearing damage (permanent threshold shift or PTS) in any species of marine mammal. 

However, data from terrestrial mammals provide a basis for estimating the difference between the 

(unmeasured) PTS thresholds and the measured TTS thresholds. A group of specialists in marine mammal 

acoustics, the ―Noise Criteria Group‖, has recently recommended new criteria, based on current scientific 

knowledge, to replace the somewhat arbitrary 180 and 190 dB (rms) ―do-not-exceed‖ criteria. The 

primary measure of sound used in the new criteria is the received sound energy, not just in the single 

strongest pulse, but accumulated over time. On that basis, the received sound levels above which some 

auditory damage (PTS) might occur were determined by the Noise Criteria Group to be 198 dB re 1 

Pa2∙ sec for any cetacean, and 186 dB re 1 Pa2∙ sec for pinnipeds. 

A further recommendation from the Noise Criteria Group is that allowance should be given to the 

differential frequency responsiveness of various marine mammal groups and use what are known as Mweighted curves (Southall et al. 2007). This is important when considering airgun sounds: the energy in 

airgun sounds is predominantly at low frequencies (below 500 hertz [Hz]), with diminishing amounts of 

energy at progressively higher frequencies (Greene and Richardson 1988; Goold and Fish 1998). Baleen 

whales (mysticetes) are most sensitive to low-frequency sounds, and not very sensitive to high-frequency 

sounds. On the other hand, odontocetes or toothed whales (including dolphins and porpoises) are quite 

insensitive to low frequencies but very sensitive to high frequencies (Richardson et al. 1995). As 

compared with other odontocetes, porpoises, river dolphins, and the Southern-Hemisphere genus 

Cephalorhynchus are even less sensitive to low frequencies than are other odontocetes. Pinnipeds are 

intermediate between baleen and toothed whales. However, the recommendations from the Noise Criteria 

Group have not yet been adopted by NMFS. Therefore, the analysis considered both M-weighted and 

unweighted (flat) RLs, and produced take estimates for both.

The Noise Criteria Group has proposed that, in calculating the effective SELs, frequency 

weighting functions should be applied (Southall et al. 2007). These so-called ―M-weighting‖ curves deemphasize the high-frequency energy when dealing with baleen whales, and de-emphasize the lowfrequency energy when dealing with odontocetes. For pinnipeds, there is some de-emphasis of both the 

low-and high-frequency energy, but the low frequencies are weighted more heavily than for odontocetes, 

and the high frequencies are weighted more heavily than for mysticetes. The shapes of the M-weighting 

curves are similar to those of C-weighting curves that are widely used when considering effects of strong 

pulsed sounds on human hearing. However, the M-weighting curves are shifted downward in frequency 

for baleen whales and upward in frequency for toothed whales. In this analysis, the M-weighting curves 

were applied when estimating effective received energy levels. This was done by applying the M-weights 

to MONM‘s estimates of the received energy levels in each 1⁄3-octave frequency band before 

accumulating across bands to derive the overall received energy level.

To estimate the number of marine mammals of each species or species-group that would receive 

various amounts of sound energy, we applied the Acoustic Integration Model (AIM) developed by Marine 

Acoustics Inc. (MAI) (Frankel et al. 2002). For each species or group in each DAA, AIM simulated the 

three-dimensional (3-D) motion of the mammal population, taking account of existing knowledge of 

diving and swimming behavior. At short intervals of time, AIM predicted the bearing and distance of each 

simulated animal from the (moving) seismic source, along with the depth of the animal. The expected RL

of airgun sound at that bearing, distance and depth was determined from JASCO‘s MONM results for the

most representative acoustic modeling site. For each simulated animal, the time-history of received 

energy levels was predicted for the full duration of the simulated seismic cruise. From these individual 

time-histories, the total received sound energy was determined for the 24-hour (hr) period centered on the 

time when the received sound was strongest. By considering all the simulated animals, AIM could then 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-3

estimate how many marine mammals would, over the course of the seismic survey, receive any specified 

amount of sound energy in at least one 24-hr period.

A further feature built into the AIM process was to take account of mitigation strategies. 

Implementation of either Alternative A or Alternative B involved shutting down the airguns if a cetacean 

or pinniped is detected within the 180- or 190-dB (rms) radius, respectively (a mitigation strategy that has 

been used by NSF in the past.). The airguns were assumed to remain off for a specified period after each 

shutdown, during which time none of the simulated mammals would be receiving airgun sound.

The 180- and 190-dB (rms) radii used in simulating the mitigation process were derived from the 

MONM modeling with the additional assumption that, for airgun pulses, rms RLs measured in dB re 1 

Pa average about 10 dB higher than SEL (energy) values in dB re 1 Pa2∙ s (Greene 1997; McCauley et 

al. 1998; Blackwell et al. 2006; MacGillivray and Hannay 2007). Also, the 180- and 190-dB (rms) radii 

used as assumed mitigation distances included M-weighting, so were smaller for pinnipeds and especially 

for odontocetes than for baleen whales. These factors caused the 180- and 190-dB (rms) radii to vary 

widely depending on airgun configuration, water depth, and type of animal.

This report and its Annexes describe the acoustic modeling and AIM simulation processes in 

some detail, and present the results for the five DAAs. The results are used in the EIS/OEIS to help assess 

the potential impacts on marine mammals of NSF-funded or USGS marine seismic research.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-4 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

2 Major Factors Affecting Underwater Sound Propagation

Knowledge of the properties of the surrounding environment is necessary for the study of 

underwater acoustics. Some of the factors that affect sound propagation in the ocean, such as spreading

and directivity, are well understood and predictable. However, scattering of sound from the surface and 

bottom boundaries and from other objects is difficult to quantify (due to its dependence on fine-scale 

features of the local environment), and unfortunately scattering is extremely important in characterizing 

and understanding the sound field. These factors need to be taken into account when using a numerical 

model to predict sound propagation losses and RLs in water.

2.1 Spreading

Spreading refers to the geometric distribution of sound energy as it leaves a source. For sound 

propagating from an omnidirectional source in the absence of boundaries, the received sound level 

decreases with the square of the distance from the source as the transmitted energy is distributed over the 

expanding spherical wave front. The transmission loss (TL) in decibels (dB) from spherical spreading in 

this scenario is 20 log10 R (where R = range). This formula can be applied at short range from an 

omnidirectional source. However, as R increases, boundary interactions begin to focus the sound (e.g., by 

reflection from the surface and sea floor) and the factor 20 changes to 10 or even 5. The situation is also 

more complex for a directional source (e.g., an airgun), for which spreading may occur primarily in a few 

preferred directions.

2.2 Absorption

As sound waves propagate, they interact at a molecular level with the constituents of sea water 

through a range of mechanisms, resulting in absorption of sound energy (Francois and Garrison 1982a, b; 

Medwin 2005). This occurs even in completely particulate-free waters, and is in addition to scattering that 

may occur from objects such as zooplankton or suspended sediments (see Section 2.4). The absorption of 

sound energy by water contributes to the TL linearly with range and is given by an attenuation coefficient 

in units of decibels per kilometer (dB/km). This absorption coefficient is computed from empirical 

equations and increases with the square of frequency. For example, for typical open-ocean values 

(temperature of 10°C, pH of 8.0, and a salinity of 35 practical salinity units [psu]), the equations 

presented by Francois and Garrison (1982a, b) yield the following values for attenuation near the sea 

surface: 0.001 dB/km at 100 Hz, 0.06 dB/km at 1 kilohertz (kHz), 0.96 dB/km at 10 kHz, and 33.6 dB/km 

at 100 kHz. Thus, low frequencies are favored for long-range propagation.

2.3 Refraction

Refraction refers to a change of direction in a propagating wave due to spatial variations in sound 

speed within the medium. As a wave travels across a sound speed interface or gradient, portions of the 

wave front travel at different speeds, resulting in bending of the ray path (Medwin 2005). By affecting 

travel paths within the medium, refraction controls the angle of arrival of the sound at a receiver as well 

as the angle of incidence upon boundaries (e.g., the sea floor).

The fundamental requirement for refraction calculations is knowledge of the sound speed 

profile. Figure B-1 shows a generic profile of sound speed as a function of depth, as might occur in 

temperate waters. Because of the strong influence of temperature, sound speed varies the most near the 

surface both seasonally and daily. If the wind has mixed the water to a constant temperature near the 

surface, then the increase in speed with depth (pressure) will result in upward refraction of propagating 

sound waves. Sound will tend to be channeled in the near-surface layer, referred to as a surface duct, as it 

is repeatedly reflected downward from the air-sea interface and refracted upward by the positive sound 

speed gradient (Medwin 2005). In the thermocline, temperature and sound speed decline, but below this, 

the temperature is constant and sound speed begins to increase again with depth. The sound speed 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-5

minimum results in refraction toward the depth at which the minimum occurs. This allows sound to 

travel without reflection from the bottom, significantly reducing TL (see Section 2.6). The deep sound 

channel is an important stable channel for long-range propagation, allowing low-frequency sound to 

travel thousands of kilometers (Medwin 2005). In cold polar waters, the minimum sound speed is usually 

at the surface and below that, the sound speed increases with depth, favoring refraction toward the 

surface.

Figure B-1. Generic Sound Speed Profiles with Some Common Terms Depicted

In shallow continental shelf regions, the water depth is not sufficient to form a deep sound 

channel and sound speed (and hence sound propagation) is strongly affected by seasonal and daily 

temperature changes. Short-term variations in the sound speed profile associated with the local weather 

(e.g., cloud clover and wind speed), are superimposed on seasonal changes in the water column (e.g., 

water temperature, seasonally varying wind speed and storm frequency). As an example of short-term 

variations, the following set of data demonstrates the impact that changes in sound speed profiles make in 

shallow water. The left hand portion of Figure B-2 displays some measured sound speed profiles taken 

over a shallow water shelf area at a spacing of 2.4 km over a period of 6 days. The profiles are displaced 

by 10 meters per second (m/s) to portray the range sampling separation. These data display the variability 

that can occur temporally and spatially near the sea surface. In the right hand portion of Figure B-2, the 

TL through the region (computed from the sound speed profiles using a parabolic equation for a 

frequency of 400 Hz) is shown for each of the 6 days. The differences between these single-frequency 

transmission loss curves are as high as 20 dB. Broadband transmission loss (i.e., summed over multiple 

frequencies) would be much less sensitive to environmental variations. Averaged historical sound speed 

profiles are often used to estimate typical sound propagation conditions for different locations and times 

of year.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-6 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

Figure B-2. Sensitivity of Propagation to Sound Speed

Left: Measured shallow water profiles taken over a 6-day period on a spatial sampling grid 2.4 km apart. Sound 

speed (in m/s) is shown on the x-axis and depth (in m) on the y-axis. On each day‘s graph, the profiles are 

offset by 10 m/s to represent the sample spacing. 

Right: 400 Hz TL as a function of range computed for each day of the 6-day experiment (McCammon 2000).

2.4 Scattering

Scattering is a general term that covers several types of interactions arising from the interaction of 

a propagating wave front with inhomogeneities in the medium (e.g., suspended particulates, bubbles, 

buried objects, air-sea or sea-sediment interfaces). Sound energy arriving at an object may bend around it 

(diffraction) and/or be scattered back toward the source (backscattering) or in some other direction. For 

sound incident upon an interface such as the sea floor, some of the energy is reflected, while some of the 

energy is transmitted across the interface (with refraction); see also Section 2.6 below. For complex 

objects (e.g., a rough sea floor), the nature of these interactions can be quite complicated, as individual 

portions of a wave front are scattered differently (Medwin 2005). However, if the acoustic wavelength is 

much greater than the scale of the seabed non-uniformities (as is most often the case for low-frequency 

sounds) then the effect of scattering on propagation loss is negligible.

2.5 Bathymetry

Water depth is very influential on sound propagation, particularly at frequencies less than a few 

kilohertz. In shallow water (less than ~100m depth) propagation loss is dominated by reflection and 

scattering of sound from the seabed. In deep water (greater than ~1 km depth) sound propagation is 

dominated by refraction in the water column. At intermediate depths, propagation loss is influenced by a 

combination of these two factors. 

As discussed above, sound arriving at an interface such as the sea floor is both reflected from the 

interface and transmitted into the lower medium with refraction. The proportion of the sound energy that 

is reflected or refracted depends both on the sound speed in each medium and on the angle of incidence 

upon the interface, with greater reflection for shallower angles of incidence (Medwin 2005). Thus, water 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Range (km)

TL (dB)

TL each day
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-7

depth has a very large influence on underwater sound propagation, especially at low to mid frequencies 

(less than a few kilohertz) where scattering losses are low.

2.6 Bottom Loss

Considering a sound pulse that has traveled from a source to a receiver (where both are above the 

bottom) by reflecting from the bottom, bottom loss refers to the decrease in signal strength that occurs 

from the bottom reflection. Computation of this value in real life is difficult, due to the complexity of 

sound propagation at the water-sediment interface. Sound energy arriving at the sea floor may be 

reflected, scattered in many different directions by surface roughness, or transmitted into the sea floor. 

Transmitted sound is refracted and undergoes attenuation within the sediments. Furthermore, the same 

processes of reflection and refraction may occur at the interfaces between different sediment layers, 

possibly returning some of the sound energy to the water column.

Because sound penetrates sediments readily, especially at low frequencies (Clay and Medwin

1977; Hamilton 1980), knowledge of the bottom loss is a critical factor in modeling sound transmission. 

This requires information on the composition and internal structure of the sediments. However, unlike 

sound speed or bathymetry, there are no easy ways to measure or compute this quantity. Specialized 

sampling is generally employed to characterize the bottom at different grazing angles and frequencies to 

try to discover its composition and layering. A great deal of effort has been made recently to characterize 

sediments by their physical properties of density, speed, and attenuation (both compressional and shear) 

and to provide theoretical calculations that will convert these physical quantities (called geoacoustic 

parameters) into acoustic bottom loss. However the efforts have been only partially successful and this is 

still an ongoing area of research. 

In Figure B-3, theoretical estimates for bottom loss from mud (left) and sand (right) are shown. 

Note the vertical scale change between the figures. The mud bottom can be over twice as lossy as the sand

due to greater transmission of sound into the sediments, reflecting differences in the speed of sound 

within the two sediment types (Hamilton 1980). Furthermore, there are differences between hard packed 

sand, sand and shell, and loose sand, as well as many other sediment types not shown in these figures. 

Bottom loss is a complex and only partly understood phenomenon.

Figure B-3. Examples of Estimates of Bottom Loss Curves

Note: The left curves are for mud bottoms while the right curves are for sand.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-8 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

2.7 Shear Waves

The above discussion of sound propagation in sea water has dealt only with compressional waves, 

(i.e., waves where particles vibrate along the direction of travel of the wave). In addition to compressional 

waves, solids are able to support shear waves, where the particles vibrate in a direction that is 

perpendicular to the direction of travel (these cannot travel through liquids or gases). Both types of waves 

may be reflected and refracted as discussed above. In addition, sound waves may be converted from one 

type to another at a boundary between water and sediment or between different types of sediments 

(Robinson and Çoruh 1988). Many semi-consolidated and consolidated bottom sediments support both 

compressional and shear waves; the sound speed and attenuation associated with each wave type is 

determined by the physical properties of the sediments (Hamilton 1980). Although only pressure waves 

can propagate through water, the ability of shear waves to reflect from sub-bottom layers and be 

converted (in part) back to pressure waves makes it necessary to model shear wave propagation in the 

sub-bottom. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-9

3 Classification of Ocean Regions

3.1 Ocean Basin

In deep water (greater than 2,000 m), the deep sound channel allows refracted sounds to travel 

long distances without losses from reflection at the bottom due to the upward-refracting sound speed 

profile below the deep sound channel. The depth of this channel is around 1,000 m at mid-latitudes and 

close to the surface at high latitudes. 

The surface mixed layer of isothermal water extends to ~25 m in the summer and ~75 m in the 

winter at mid-latitudes. If there is a sound speed minimum in the mixed layer at the sea-surface then the 

result is a surface duct. Sound from a shallow source, such as an airgun array, will become trapped in the 

surface duct by continual refraction and reflection from the sea-surface. If the sea-surface is rough, sound 

will be scattered out of the surface duct; scattering loss at the surface will increase with sea state. A 

shadow zone is created below the duct where the intensity of the sound is much less than inside the duct. 

Low frequency sounds, whose wavelength is greater than ~4 times the size of the duct, will not be trapped 

inside a surface duct. The existence of a strong surface duct is unusual, however, because of the uniform 

properties of seawater in the mixed layer.

3.2 Continental Shelf

In shallow water (less than 200 m), sound speed profiles tend to be downward refracting or nearly 

constant with depth, resulting in repeated bottom interaction. Long-range sound propagation, at distances 

of more than a few kilometers, is complicated and difficult to predict due to spatially and temporally 

varying water and bottom properties. Low frequencies (less than 1 kHz) are the most affected by bottom 

loss and high frequencies (above 10 kHz) by scattering loss. There is less bottom interaction in the winter 

than in the summer since the surface waters are less warm and thus sound speed is lower. The optimum 

frequency for propagation in shallow water is highly dependent on depth, partially dependent on sound 

speed profile, and weakly dependent on bottom type. In 100-m water, frequencies of 200-800 Hz would 

likely travel the farthest. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-10 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

4 Seismic Survey Overview

Marine seismic airgun surveys are capable of producing high-resolution 3-D images of 

stratification within the Earth‘s crust, down to several kilometers depth, and have thus become an 

essential tool for geophysicists studying the Earth‘s structure. Seismic airgun surveys may be divided into 

two types, two-dimensional (2-D) and 3-D, according to the type of data that they acquire. 2-D surveys 

provide a 2-D cross-sectional image of the Earth‘s structure and are operationally characterized by large 

spacing between survey lines, on the order of kilometers or tens of kilometers. 3-D surveys, on the other 

hand, employ very dense line spacing, of the order of a few hundred meters, to provide a 3-D volumetric 

image of the Earth‘s structure.

A typical airgun survey, either 2-D or 3-D, is operated from a single survey ship that tows both 

the seismic source and receiver apparatus. The seismic source is an airgun array consisting of many 

individual airguns that are fired simultaneously in order to project a high-amplitude seismo-acoustic pulse 

into the ocean bottom. The receiver equipment often consists of one or more streamers, often several 

kilometers in length, that contain hundreds of sensitive hydrophones for detecting echoes of the seismic 

pulse reflected from sub-bottom features. In other cases, the receiving equipment consists of 

seismometers placed on the ocean bottom. For some seismic surveys, both streamers and ocean-bottom 

seismometers are used.

The majority of the underwater sound generated by a seismic survey is due to the airgun array; in 

comparison, the survey vessel itself contributes very little to the overall sound field. Airgun arrays 

produce sound energy over a wide range of frequencies, from under 10 Hz to over 5 kHz (Richardson et 

al. 1995: Figure 6-20). Most of the energy, however, is concentrated at low frequencies below 200 Hz. 

For deep surveys, the array consists of many airguns that are configured in such a way as to project the 

maximum amount of seismic energy vertically into the seafloor. A significant portion of the sound energy 

from the array, nonetheless, is emitted at off-vertical angles and propagates into the surrounding 

environment. The frequency spectrum of the sound propagating near-horizontally can differ markedly 

from that of the sound directed downward. There can also be substantial differences in the amount and 

frequency spectrum of sound projected in different horizontal directions. During 3-D surveys, it is 

common for the ship to tow two identical airgun arrays displaced laterally from one another; these are 

discharged alternately. For shallow surveys designed to characterize the sub-bottom layers within 10s or 

100s of meters below the seafloor, the energy source can be a smaller array of airguns, or just a single 

airgun. These smaller sources emit less sound, but can have less downward directivity.

4.1 Airgun Operating Principles

An airgun is a pneumatic sound source that creates predominantly low-frequency acoustic 

impulses by generating bubbles of compressed air in water. The rapid release of highly compressed air 

(typically at pressures of ~2,000 pounds per square inch) from the airgun chamber creates an oscillating 

air bubble in the water. The expansion and oscillation of this air bubble generates a strongly-peaked, highamplitude acoustic impulse that is useful for seismic profiling. The main features of the pressure signal 

generated by an airgun, as shown in Figure B-4, are the strong initial peak and the subsequent bubble 

pulses. The amplitude of the initial peak depends primarily on the firing pressure and chamber volume of 

the airgun, whereas the period and amplitude of the bubble pulse depends on the volume and firing depth 

of the airgun.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-11

Figure B-4. Overpressure Signature for a Single Airgun, Showing the Primary Peak and the Bubble 

Pulse

Zero-to-peak source levels (SLs) for individual airguns are typically between 220 and 

235 decibels referenced 1 microPascal at 1 m (dB re 1 μPa-1 m) (~1–6 bar ·m)1, with larger airguns 

generating higher peak pressures than smaller ones. The peak pressure of an airgun, however, only 

increases with the cubic root of the chamber volume. Furthermore, the amplitude of the bubble pulse also 

increases with the volume of the airgun — and for the geophysicist the bubble pulse is an undesirable 

feature of the airgun signal since it smears out sub-bottom reflections. In order to increase the pulse 

amplitude (to ―see‖ deeper into the Earth), geophysicists generally combine multiple airguns together into 

arrays. Airgun arrays provide several advantages over single airguns for deep geophysical surveying:

 The peak pressure of an airgun array in the vertical direction increases nearly linearly with 

the number of airguns (Parkes and Hatton 1986:25).

 The geometric lay-out of airgun arrays can be optimized to project maximum peak levels 

toward the seabed (i.e., directly downward). While a single airgun produces nearly 

omnidirectional sound (arising from the release and oscillations of a single air bubble), 

interactions between the bubbles produced by the multiple airguns in an array can generate a 

highly directional signal.

 By utilizing airguns of several different volumes, airgun arrays can be ―tuned‖ to increase the 

amplitude of the primary peak and simultaneously decrease the relative amplitude of the 

bubble pulses.

4.2 Airgun Array SLs

In discussing source levels associated with an airgun array, it is important to distinguish between 

the near-field and far-field regions. In the near field, the signatures from the array elements do not add 

coherently, and the RL at any given point in the vicinity of the array will vary depending on location 

relative to the array elements. The maximum extent of the near field is given by the expression:

4

2

L

Rnf 

 

1

Source level in dB re 1 Pa-1 m = 20 log (pressure in bar ·m) + 220
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-12 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

where λ is the sound wavelength and L is the longest dimension of the array (Lurton 2002). Beyond this 

range, it can be assumed that an array radiates like a directional point source, where the source level and 

directionality are determined by the array geometry. It is this far-field source level that is used for 

propagation modeling.

The far-field pressure generated by a seismic airgun array is substantially greater than that of an 

individual airgun. However, because of the interactions between the individual sources within the array, 

the far-field pressure is also strongly angle dependent relative to the array axis. An array of 30 guns, for 

example, may have a zero-to-peak SL of 255 dB re 1 μPa-1 m (~56 bar · m) in the vertical direction. This 

source level is the level that one might theoretically expect to occur 1 m below a point source emitting the 

same total amount of energy as is emitted from all the airguns in the distributed array. Because the array 

is designed to maximize the signal in the downward direction, toward the sea floor, this apparently high 

value for the SL can lead to erroneous conclusions about the impact on marine mammals and fish for the 

following reasons:

 Peak SLs for seismic survey sources are usually quoted relative to the vertical direction; 

however, due to the directional dependence of the radiated sound field, SLs off to the sides of 

the array are generally lower.

 Far-field SLs do not apply in the near field of the array where the individual airguns do not 

add coherently. As discussed above, sound levels in the near field are lower than would be 

expected from far-field estimates; there is no location in the water where the RL is as high as 

the theoretical source level.

The acoustic SL of a seismic airgun array varies considerably in both the horizontal and vertical 

directions due to the complex interaction between the signals from the component airguns. One must 

account for this variability in order to correctly predict the sound field generated by an airgun array. If the 

source signatures of the individual airguns are known (taking into account both the characteristics of each 

airgun and interactions with neighboring elements), then it is possible to accurately compute the SL of an 

array in any direction by summing the contributions of the array elements with the appropriate time 

delays, according to their relative positions. This is the basis for the airgun array source model discussed 

in the next chapter.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-13

5 Modeling Methodology: Received Sound Levels

Two complementary models are used in this work to forecast the underwater acoustic fields 

resulting from the operation of the seismic array in a particular area. The Airgun Array Source Model 

(AASM) described in Section 5.1 predicts the directional SL of a seismic airgun array. An acoustic 

propagation model is then used to estimate the acoustic field at any range from the source. Sound 

propagation modeling uses acoustic parameters appropriate for the specific geographic region of interest, 

including the expected water column sound speed profile, the bathymetry, and the bottom geoacoustic 

properties, to produce site specific estimates of the radiated noise field as a function of range and depth. 

The Marine Operations Noise Model (MONM), described in section 5.2, is used to predict the directional 

TL footprint from source locations corresponding to trial sites for experimental measurements. The RL at 

any 3-D location away from the source is calculated by combining the SL and TL, both of which are 

direction dependent, using the following relation:

RL = SL - TL

Acoustic TL and RLs are a function of depth, range, bearing, and environmental properties. The 

RLs estimated by MONM, like the SLs from which they are computed, are equivalent to the SEL over the 

duration of a single source pulse. SEL is expressed in units of dB re 1 μPa2·s.

The safety and disturbance criteria currently applied to marine seismic surveys by the NMFS are 

based on the rms sound pressure level (SPL) metric as adapted for impulsive sound sources. Therefore, a 

method is required to convert the modeled SEL levels to rms SPL. The conversion estimate used in this 

study is discussed in Section 5.2.1.

5.1 Airgun Array Source Model (AASM)

The current study makes use of a full-waveform AASM, developed by JASCO Research Ltd. 

(JASCO), to compute the SL and directionality of airgun arrays. The airgun model is based on the physics 

of the oscillation and radiation of airgun bubbles, as described by Ziolkowski (1970). The model solves, 

in parallel, a set of coupled differential equations that govern the airgun bubble oscillations.

In addition to the basic bubble physics, the source model also accounts for non-linear pressure 

interactions between airguns, port throttling, bubble damping, and GI-gun behavior, as described by 

Dragoset (1984), Laws et al. (1990), and Landro (1992). The source model includes four empirical 

parameters that are parameterized so that the model output matches observed airgun behavior. The model 

parameters were fitted to a large library of real airgun data using a ―simulated annealing‖ global 

optimization algorithm. These airgun data were obtained from a previous study (Racca and Scrimger 

1986) that measured the signatures of Bolt 600/B guns ranging in volume from 5 in3to 185 in3.

The AASM requires several inputs, including the array layout, volumes, towing depths, and firing 

pressure. The output of the source model is a set of ―notional‖ signatures for the array elements. The 

notional signatures are the pressure waveforms of the individual airguns, compensated for the interaction 

with other airguns in the array, at a standard reference distance of 1 m. After the source model is 

executed, the resulting notional signatures are summed together with the appropriate phase delays to 

obtain the far-field source signature of the array. The far-field array signature, in turn, is filtered into 1/3-

octave pass bands to compute the SL of the array as a function of frequency band, fc, and propagation 

azimuth, θ:

SL = SL(fc, θ)

The interaction between the signals from individual airguns creates a directionality pattern in the overall 

acoustic emission from the array. This directionality is particularly prominent at frequencies in the mid-
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-14 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

range of several tens to several hundred Hz: at lower frequencies the array appears omni-directional, 

while at higher frequencies the pattern of lobes becomes too finely spaced to resolve. 

The sound propagation model, discussed in Section 5.2, calculates TL from an equivalent pointlike acoustic source to receiver locations at various distances, depths, and bearings. However, as 

discussed in Section 4.2, an airgun array consists of many sources and so the point-source assumption is 

not valid in the near field, where the array elements do not add coherently. For example, the 4-string (36-

airgun) array described in the next sub-section is approximately 29 m in length along its diagonal, and so 

the maximum near-field range is 140 m at 1 kHz (Rnf is less for lower frequencies; see the equation in 

Section 4.2). This range decreases for the smaller arrays, down to approximately 43 m for a single string 

(9 guns) and approximately 28 m for the pair of GI guns used for 2-D reflection surveys. Beyond these 

ranges the arrays can be treated as directional point sources for the purpose of propagation modeling.

5.1.1 Research Vessel Marcus G. Langseth (Langseth) Airgun Arrays

The R/V Langseth will employ seven standard airgun array configurations for different 

geophysical survey applications. The standard Langseth array configurations include both conventional 

(Bolt) airguns as well as GI-guns in their designs. Large arrays of conventional airguns, consisting of 20–

40 elements, are used primarily for deep 2-D and 3-D reflection and refraction surveys. Small arrays of 

two or four GI-guns are used for shallow, high-resolution profiling.

The Langseth’s 2-D and 3-D array configurations are all based on a single, standard 1,650 in3

subarray design (Figure B-5) which is composed of 10 Bolt airguns (9 active and 1 spare). All of the 

Langseth’s 2-D and 3-D arrays are made up of two or more of these 1,650 in3subarrays; the source 

wavelet of the array is adjusted to the particular application by varying the tow-depth and spacing of the 

subarrays. The Langseth’s high-resolution arrays are made up of identical 45/105 in3 GI-guns (i.e., with 

45 in3generator volume and 105 in3injector volume).

Table B-1 lists all seven of the Langseth’s planned standard array airgun configurations, each

with its total volume, number of guns, array layout, and nominal tow depth. Note that the firing volume 

for many of the arrays is less than the total volume of guns in the water. This is because some guns are 

used as spares (in case of a dropout) and also because the 3-D arrays are fired in ―flip-flop‖ fashion, 

where only half the array volume is fired for each shot. For example, each of the two 4-string 3-D 

reflection arrays listed in Table B-1 consists of two 2-string sub-arrays fired in alternation, and is

equivalent to the 2-string 2-D reflection array in terms of the sound field generated.

Each of the arrays listed in Table B-1 was modeled using the JASCO AASM to compute notional 

source signatures and also 1/3-octave band SLs as a function of azimuth angle. For each of the Langseth

airgun arrays, computed broadside (perpendicular to the tow direction) and endfire (along the tow 

direction) overpressure signatures and corresponding power spectrum levels are shown in Figure B-6. 

Note that most of the energy output by the array is concentrated at low frequencies. Horizontal 1/3-octave 

band directionality plots for the Langseth arrays are provided in Annex 2. Three of these arrays were 

input as sources to the sound propagation model described in the next section, based on the sources 

associated with each DAA (see Chapter 2): the 2-string, 2-D reflection array (18 guns) (Galapagos Ridge 

and W Gulf of Alaska); the 2 GI gun, 2-D high-resolution array (S California, NW Atlantic); and the 4-

string, 2-D refraction array (36 guns) (Caribbean). 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-15

2x360 40 2x180

(1 spare) 90 120 60 2x220

16 m

Figure B-5. Diagram of R/V Langseth Standard 1,650 in3Subarray Design for 2-D and 3-D

Reflection or Refraction Surveys

Note: Volumes of individual airguns are shown in in3. Note that one of the 180-in3guns is an inactive spare (in case of an airgun 

dropout) and so the nominal firing volume of the subarray is actually 1,470 in3.

Table B-1. Descriptions of R/V Langseth Standard Airgun Array Configurations.

Array description

No.

guns

Total vol.

(in3)

Shot vol.

(in3) Array configuration

Tow depth

(m)

2-string array for 2-D reflection 18(20) 3,300 2,940 2 x 1,650 in3subarray 6

4-string array for 2-D reflection 36(40) 6,600 5,880 4 x 1,650 in3subarray 6

4-string array for 2-D refraction 36(40) 6,600 5,880 4 x 1,650 in3subarray 12

2-string GI array for 2-D high resolution 2 300 300 2 x 45/105 in3 GI-gun 2.5

2-string GI-array for 3-D high resolution 4 600 300 4 x 45/105 in3 GI-gun 2.5

4-string array for 3-D reflection 36(40) 6,600 2,940 4 x 1,650 in3subarray 6

4-string array for wide 3-D reflection 36(40) 6,600 2,940 4 x 1,650 in3subarray 6

Note: Parentheses in second column indicate total number of active guns plus spares. 3-D arrays are fired as dual ―flip-flop‖ 

arrays, where only half the total active array volume is fired for a single shot.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-16 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

Figure B-6. Computed Broadside and Endfire Overpressure Signatures, with Associated Frequency 

Spectra, for R/V Langseth Airgun Arrays based on AASM

Note: The array volume given in the plot annotations is the shot volume, not the total array volume.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-17

5.2 Sound Propagation Model: MONM

The modeled directional 1⁄3-octave SLs for the airgun array were used as input for the acoustic 

propagation software MONM, which computes the sound field radiated from the source. MONM, a 

proprietary application developed by JASCO, is an advanced modeling package whose algorithmic 

engine is a modified version of the widely-used the Range Dependent Acoustic Model (RAM) (Collins et 

al. 1996). 

RAM is based on the parabolic equation method using the split-step Padé algorithm to efficiently 

solve range dependent acoustic problems. RAM assumes that outgoing reflected and refracted sound 

energy dominates scattered sound energy and computes the solution for the outgoing (one-way) wave 

equation. At low frequencies, the contribution of scattered energy is very small compared with the 

outgoing sound field. An uncoupled azimuthal approximation is used to provide 2-D TL values in range 

and depth. RAM has been enhanced by JASCO to approximately model shear wave conversion at the sea 

floor using the equivalent fluid complex density approach of Zhang and Tindle (1995).

Because the modeling takes place over radial planes in range and depth, volume coverage is 

achieved by creating a fan of radials that is sufficiently dense to provide the desired tangential resolution. 

This n  2-D approach is modified in MONM to achieve greater computational efficiency by not oversampling the region close to the source.

The desired coverage is obtained through a process of tessellation, whereby the initial fan of 

radials has a fairly wide angular spacing (5 degrees was used in this study), but the arc length between 

adjacent radials is not allowed to increase beyond a preset limit (1.5 km for this study) before a new radial 

modeling segment is started, bisecting the existing ones. The new radial need not extend back to the 

source because its starting acoustic field at the bisection radius is ―seeded‖ from the corresponding range 

step of its neighboring traverse. The tessellation algorithm also allows the truncation of radials along the 

edges of a bounding quadrangle of arbitrary shape, further contributing to computational efficiency by 

enabling the modeling region to be more closely tailored to an area of relevance. 

MONM has the capability of modeling sound propagation from multiple directional sources at 

different locations and merging their acoustic fields into an overall RL at any given location and depth. 

This feature was not required in the present single-source study. The received sound levels at any location 

within the region of interest are computed from the 1⁄3-octave band SLs by subtracting the numerically 

modeled TL at each 1⁄3-octave band center frequency, and summing incoherently across all frequencies to 

obtain a broadband value. The RLs, like the SLs from which they are computed, are equivalent to SEL 

over the duration of a single pulse or equivalently the rms level over a fixed 1-s time window.

The acoustic environment in MONM is defined by a vertical sound speed profile in the water 

column as well as by fundamental physical properties of the sediment, such as density, P-wave velocity, 

P-wave attenuation, S-wave velocity, and S-wave attenuation. The physical properties are defined as 

vertical profiles (i.e., can vary with depth). The profiles that describe the physical properties of the 

sediment are referred to as geoacoustic model parameters.

5.2.1 Estimating 90% rms SPL from SEL

Existing U.S. safety radius requirements for impulsive sound sources are based on the rms sound 

pressure level metric. An objective definition of pulse duration is needed when measuring the rms level 

for a pulse. Following suggestions by Malme et al. (1986), Greene et al. (1997), and McCauley et al. 

(1998), pulse duration is conventionally taken to be the interval during which 90% of the pulse energy is 

received. Although one can measure the 90% rms SPL in situ, this metric is difficult to model in general 

since the adaptive integration period, implicit in the definition of the 90% rms level, is highly sensitive to 

the specific multipath arrival pattern from an acoustic source. Multipath reflections result in temporal 

spreading of the received seismic pulse, changing the pulse duration, rms estimates, and safety radii. To 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-18 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

accurately predict the 90% rms level it is necessary to model full-waveform acoustic propagation, which 

for low frequencies in highly range dependent environments is currently computationally prohibitive at 

any significant range from the source.

Despite these issues associated with the pulse duration, accurate estimates of airgun array safety 

ranges must take into account the acoustic energy that is returned to the water column by bottom and 

surface reflections. This is especially important in the case of shallow water, where multiple reflections 

are likely. The MONM algorithm does not attempt to predict the pulse duration or rms pressure directly; 

rather it models the propagation of acoustic energy in 1⁄3-octave bands in a realistic, range-dependent 

acoustic environment. As a result, the effects of the environment on energy propagation can be taken into 

account without the computational overhead involved in modeling the pulse length. When the 1⁄3-octave 

band levels are summed, the result is a broadband level that is equivalent to the sound exposure for a 

single airgun array pulse over a nominal time window of 1 s. For in situ measurements the SEL, pulse 

duration, and 90% rms SPL can all be measured, and SPL is related to SEL via a simple relation that 

depends only on the rms integration period T:

SPLrms90 = SEL – 10log(T) – 0.458

Here the last term accounts for the fact that only 90% of the acoustic pulse energy is delivered over the 

standard integration period. In the absence of in situ measurements, however, the integration period is 

difficult to predict with any reasonable degree of accuracy, for the reasons outlined above. The best that 

can be done is to use a heuristic value of T, based on field measurements in similar environments, to 

estimate an rms level from the modeled SEL. Safety radii estimated in this way are approximate since the 

true time spreading of the pulse has not actually been modeled. For this study, the integration period T has 

been assumed equal to a pulse width of ~0.1 s resulting in the following approximate relationship 

between rms SPL and SEL:

SPLrms90 = SEL + 10

In various studies where the SPLrms90, SEL, and duration have been determined for individual airgun 

pulses, the average offset between SPL and SEL has been found to be 5 to 15 dB, with considerable 

variation dependent on water depth and geo-acoustic environment (Greene et al. 1997; Austin et al. 2003; 

Blackwell et al. 2007; MacGillivray and Hannay 2007). 

5.2.2 M-Weighting for Marine Mammal Hearing Abilities

In order to take into account the differential hearing capabilities of various groups of marine 

mammals, the M-weighting frequency weighting approach described by Southall et al. (2007) is 

commonly applied. The M-weighting filtering process is similar to the C-weighting method that is used 

for assessing impacts of loud impulsive sounds on humans. It accounts for sound frequencies extending 

above and below the most sensitive hearing range of marine mammals within each of five functional 

groups: low frequency (LF-), mid-frequency (MF-), and high-frequency (HF-) cetaceans; pinnipeds in 

water; and pinnipeds in air (Table B-2). The filter weights Mwi, for frequency band i with center 

frequency fi. are defined by:

  

















 

  2 2 2 2

2 2

1 0 20log

i lo i h i

i h i

i

f f f f

f f

Mw

Here flo and fhi are as listed in Table B-2.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-19

Table B-2. Marine Mammal Functional Hearing Groups and Associated Auditory Bandwidths

Functional hearing group Members

Estimated auditory bandwidth*

flo fhi

LF-cetaceans Mysticetes 7 Hz 22 kHz

MF-cetaceans Lower-frequency odontocetes 150 Hz 160 kHz

HF-cetaceans Higher-frequency odontocetes 200 Hz 180 kHz

Pinnipeds Pinnipeds 75 Hz 75 kHz

Note: *Only the in-water bandwidth is shown for pinnipeds. 

Source: Southall et al. 2007.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-20 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

6 MONM Parameters

6.1 Survey Source Locations – DAAs

The geographic location of each source point used for the modeling runs, the orientation of the 

airgun array tow axis (aligned with the survey track), and the array tow depth are listed in Table B-3. . 

Modeled source locations and proposed survey tracks are also shown on the maps in Annex 3:.

Table B-3. Source Coordinates and Array Axis Orientation

DAA Site No.

Water Depth

(m)

Latitude

(°N)

Longitude

(°W)

Array Heading

(° rel UTM N)

Array Depth

(m)

S California 1 100-1,000 34.250 119.667 90 2.5

2 100-1,000 34.288 120.037 130 2.5

Caribbean

1 <100 12.000 70.750 35 12

2 >1,000 11.330 67.720 190 12

3 100-1,000 11.110 64.670 165 12

4 >1,000 13.330 64.330 123 12

Galapagos Ridge 1 >1,000 -4.000 103.417 0 6

1 >1,000 -4.000 103.417 90 6

W Gulf of Alaska

1 <100 55.300 157.750 69 6

2 100-1,000 54.850 157.500 69 6

3 >1,000 53.750 157.750 69 6

NW Atlantic

1 <100 39.383 72.683 139.2 2.5

2 100-1,000 39.250 72.317 139.2 2.5

3 >1,000 39.117 72.183 139.2 2.5

4 100-1,000 39.517 72.367 139.2 2.5

The NSF EIS/OEIS Team selected five exemplary DAAs for which modeling would be 

conducted: NW Atlantic; Caribbean, Galapagos Ridge, W Gulf of Alaska, and S California. Each of 

these sites meets two main criteria: (1) provides multiple habitats for a wide variety of marine mammal 

species, and (2) represents an area that may potentially be used for NSF-funded marine seismic research

using a seismic airgun array. After reviewing current marine mammal research, biologists with LGL, Ltd. 

and MAI, determined which marine mammal species are most likely to occur at the modeling sites during 

the exemplary season. Lists of these animals, and their assumed densities, are contained in Annex 4. 

6.2 Sound Speed Profiles

Sound speed profiles in the ocean for each modeling location were derived from the US Naval 

Oceanographic Office‘s Generalized Digital Environmental Model (GDEM) database (Teague et al. 

1990). The latest release of the GDEM (version 3.0) provides average monthly profiles of temperature 

and salinity for the world‘s oceans on a latitude/longitude grid with 0.25 degree resolution. Profiles in 

GDEM are provided at 78 fixed depth points up to a maximum depth of 6,800 m. The current version of 

the GDEM is based on historical observations of global temperature and salinity from the 1986 version of 

the US Navy‘s Master Oceanographic Observational Data Set (MOODS), supplemented by additional 

holdings at the Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO) (Teague et al. 1990). These data sources 

encompass 66 years of observations, such that year-to-year variations are averaged out in the GDEM 

profiles..

For each acoustic model scenario, a single temperature/salinity profile was extracted from the 

GDEM database for the appropriate season and source location and converted to speed of sound in 

seawater using the equations of Coppens (1981):
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-21

/10

/1000(1 0.0026cos 2 )

16.3 0.18

(1.333 0.126 0.009 )( 35)

( , , ) 1449.05 45.7 5.21 0.23

2

2

2 3

t T

Z z

Z Z

t t S

c z T S T t t



 

  

     

   



where z is depth in m, T is temperature in degrees Celsius, S is salinity in psu and φ is latitude. For 

continental shelf sites, where the water depth at the source was less than the maximum modeling depth, 

sound speed profiles were extrapolated to the maximum modeling depth by splicing data points from 

neighboring grid cells.

Figure B-7 shows all of the sound speed profiles, extracted from GDEM, which were used for 

modeling each of the five survey locations. The important characteristics of the sound speed profiles at 

each of these five sites are discussed in the following sub-sections.

Figure B-7. Plots of Sound Speed Profiles vs. Depth from the GDEM Database for Each Modeling 

Site

6.3 Model Receiver Depths

From the chosen source positions, the model can generate a grid of acoustic levels over any 

desired area as well as at any depth in the water column. For the sites in this study, sound levels were 

calculated at each of the depths in the list generated from the following equation: 

z = 2i1.5, where i=1,2,3,...,132

In this equation, z is the receiver depth in meters and i is an integer index corresponding to the 132 

receiver depths. The result is a vector of depths ranging from 2 m below the surface to a maximum of just 

over 3,000 m, with greater resolution near the surface (and hence near the source depth). For the purposes 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-22 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

of generating maps and tables of noise level contours, this modeled acoustic field was typically 

maximized over all relevant depths (up to the maximum modeled depth or local bottom depth, whichever 

is less). Maximizing RL over depth ensured that the modeled radii represented the largest possible (and 

therefore most precautionary) distance to any given SPL threshold at each site.

6.4 Bathymetry and Acoustic Environment of DAAs

6.4.1 S California

6.4.1.1 Bathymetry and Geoacoustic Properties

The proposed track lines cover the Santa Barbara Basin. The depths inside the survey area vary 

from 100 m to 500 m (Figure A3-1 in Annex 3). Based on the bathymetry, two modeling sites were 

proposed. The first one is in the center of the Santa Barbara Basin in the vicinity of Ocean Drilling 

Program (ODP) Site 893 (water depth 580 m). The second is in the Santa Barbara Channel with water 

depth about 180 m.

In November 1992, a drilling survey was conducted in the Santa Barbara Basin that provided 

some information on the sediment properties to a depth of 190 m below the sea floor (bsf) (Shore-based 

Scientific Party 1994). The sediment column is composed of silty clay and clayey silt. The density of the 

sediments immediately below the seafloor is quite low, which is explained by a high sedimentation rate. 

The density profile starts from 1.26 grams per cubic centimeter (g/cm3). The porosity is very high at the 

top of the sediment column, about 80%, and decreases to 60% at 50 m bsf. The high porosity results in 

very low shear wave speed and a low attenuation factor for the compressional wave. The compressional 

velocity of the surficial sediments is about 1,510 m/s according to Reid (2005). The velocity stays the 

same for at least the first 200 m, according to the sonic velocity well-log at ODP Site 893. The 

compressional velocity and attenuation factors were chosen according to the known physical properties 

(P-wave velocity, density, porosity, grain size) using Hamilton (1980).

Modeling location #2 was chosen in shallower waters, approximately 30 km to the east of 

modeling location #1, and also in the Santa Barbara Channel. According to core studies (Valent and Lee 

1971), the sediment content is coarser here, with a greater sand component. The average grain size 

distribution, sand-silt-clay, is 40-40-20%. The reported density for the surficial sediments is about 1.5 

g/cm3, which increases to about 1.75 g/cm3at 1 m bsf. The porosity decreases from about 70% at the 

surface to 50% at the 1 m depth (Valent and Lee 1971). The compressional velocity for the surficial 

sediments at the location is about 1,500 m/s according to Reid (2005).

6.4.1.2 Sound Speed Profiles

The spring sound speed profile off S California has a single sound channel at 700 m depth (Figure 

B-7). In deeper water, beyond the continental shelf-break, acoustic energy from an airgun array may be 

trapped in this sound channel (see Sections 2.3 and 3.1), since the sound speed at the water surface is less 

than at the seabed.

6.4.2 Caribbean

6.4.2.1 Bathymetry and Geoacoustic Properties

The proposed tracks cover a vast variety of environments in terms of bathymetry as well as 

geoacoustic properties of the sea floor, due to the presence of different geological provinces within the 

survey area. Four sites are proposed for modeling (see Figure A3-2 in Annex 3).

Modeling site #1 is located in the Gulf of Venezuela, where depths are in the range of 100–200 

m. The sedimentation here is affected by material coming from Lake Maracaibo and El Tablazo Bay. The 

surficial sediments are expected to be similar to the ones in El Tablazo bay, where the sandy component 

is at a level of 50% of the total sediment volume (Morales and Godoy 1996). The geoacoustic profile was 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-23

constructed using the above information and average values listed by Hamilton (1980) for shallow shelf 

environments.

Modeling site #2 is situated in the middle of the deep basin located between the continent and the 

Antilles Islands chain. The sediments at this site are expected to have somewhat similar properties to 

those in the Cariaco Basin, where ODP wells 147 and 1002 were drilled. The well logs report a silty clay 

sediment type with a porosity of about 80% immediately below the sediment surface, and a density of 

about 1.3 g/cm3. The porosity rapidly decreases in the first few tens of meters, which results in greater 

density and higher sonic velocity. The surficial sediment sonic velocity was estimated to be 1,500 m/s 

according to Einwich (1981).

Modeling site #3 is located in the abyssal part of the Caribbean Sea, West of the Aves Ridge. The 

sediments at this location are expected to be similar to the typical abyssal plain environment. Also, some 

similarity to site #2 is believed to be present. In addition, information from Deep Sea Drilling Project 

(DSDP) wells 148, 150, and 153 put more constraints on the geoacoustic parameters at the site. The sonic 

velocity of the surficial sediments is expected to be 1,520 m/s (Einwich 1981).

6.4.2.2 Sound Speed Profiles

The spring sound speed profile in the Caribbean has a pronounced sound channel at 800 m depth, 

and the sound speed gradient in the thermocline is strongly down-refracting (Figure B-7). Thus, acoustic 

energy from an airgun array will tend to be focused within the sound channel at deep ocean-basin 

locations, as discussed in Sections 2.3 and 3.

6.4.3 Galapagos Ridge

6.4.3.1 Bathymetry and Geoacoustic Properties

The proposed site for the seismic survey is located in deep water approx. 1,400 km west of the 

Galapagos Islands (see Figure A3-3 in Annex 3). It covers the midoceanic ridge between the Pacific and 

Nazca plates. Due to close proximity to the spreading center, the age of the oceanic crust at the location is 

very low; thus the thickness of the sediments accumulated on the basalt bedrock is very small as well. 

According to the global map of total sediment thickness (Divins 2006), the bedrock surface is at about 20 

m bsf. For the purpose of modeling, the thickness of the sediment cover was set to 20 m. The geoacoustic 

properties for the sediments and the bedrock were estimated based on data available from ODP legs 203 

and 206, which were drilled on the Pacific and Cocos plates (Shipboard Scientific Party 2003a, b).

6.4.3.2 Sound Speed Profiles

The winter sound speed profile at the Galapagos Ridge site has a sound channel at 1 km depth

(Figure B-7); however the sound speed in the mixed layer, where the airguns operate, is too high to 

effectively ensonify this sound channel. Thus ducted sound propagation is not expected to be significant 

at this site.

6.4.4 W Gulf of Alaska

6.4.4.1 Bathymetry and Geoacoustic Properties

The proposed tracks in this region are located between Kodiak Island and the Shumagin Islands.

The tracks are positioned perpendicular to the shore and cover the shelf, continental slope, Aleutian 

Terrace, and Aleutian Trench (see Figure A3-4 in Annex 3). The water depths vary from less than a 

100 m to more than 6,000 m. Three modeling locations are being proposed in the area and are designated 

according to water depth: on the shelf, on the slope, and in deep waters.

Only a few reports on surficial sediment properties are available for this area, yielding a general 

description of the sediment type at the location. The sediment type for the shelf province is clayey silt 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-24 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

with less than 2% sand and a silt component of about 60%. Based on this information, the geoacoustic 

properties of the sediment section for the site were approximated based on the average parameters and 

empirical equations described by Hamilton (1980). The total sediment thickness at the site is about 500 m 

(Divins 2006).

The sediment properties for the continental slope site are believed to be the same as for the shelf 

site. The bedrock surface is located deeper at this site, at 600 m bsf. The deep water site is believed to 

have more clayey content. The sediment thickness is about 500 m. 

6.4.4.2 Sound Speed Profiles

The summer sound speed profile in the W Gulf of Alaska has a strong sound channel at 70 m 

depth (Figure B-7). This shallow sound channel is expected to trap much of the acoustic energy from an 

airgun array at the surface, resulting in ducted propagation and lower TL at this site (see Sections 2.3 and 

3).

6.4.5 NW Atlantic

6.4.5.1 Bathymetry and Geoacoustic Properties

The survey proposed off-shore of New Jersey over the Hudson canyon covers an area with water 

depths from less than 100 m to greater than 1,500 m (see Figure A3-5 in Annex 3). The majority of the 

survey area lies over the shelf, with water depths being less than 200 m. The southeastern part of the 

survey extends over the continental slope to the abyssal plain. Four sites for modeling are proposed based 

on bathymetric features (shelf, slope, deep water, and Hudson canyon). Two ODP drilling experiments 

took place in the vicinity of the modeling sites, with ODP legs 150 (site 904) and 174 (sites 1072 and 

1073) providing some information on the sediment properties. 

Modeling Site #1 for the shelf province is placed near ODP well 1072. A very detailed well log is 

available for this well that contains information on the P-wave velocity as well as density (Shipboard 

Scientific Party 1998). The P-wave velocity profile starts with relatively high values of 1,700–1,750 m/s 

near the sediment surface and varies with depth between 1,650 and 2,000 m/s. The density profile is 

almost flat with an average value of 2.1 g/cm3. Also, there are in situ measurements of compressional 

wave velocity and compressional attenuation for the subsurface sediments at several locations around the 

drill site (Goff et al. 2004). The P-wave velocity measurements from these two sources are in good 

agreement with each other. The shear wave velocity profile and attenuation factors for P- and S-wave 

energy (0.2 and 1.0 respectively) were taken from the AMCOR-10 site (Carey et al. 1995), which is 

placed at approximately the same distance from the shelf edge, but 50 km to the southwest. Adjustments 

were made to the AMCOR-10 data for the absence of a porous layer at the very top of the sediment 

section at the modeling location. 

Modeling Site #2 is located on the shelf slope. The location for it was chosen to be in the vicinity 

of ODP site 1073. The compressional wave velocity and the densities were taken from the ODP leg 174 

report (Shipboard Scientific Party 1998). The shear wave velocity profile and attenuation coefficient 

profiles for P- and S-wave energy were constructed using information from the AMCOR-10 site, with 

consideration of the presence of a porous layer at the top and an overall lower average compressional 

wave velocity down the sediment section.

Less information is available for modeling Site #3, which is located in the deepest part of the area 

covered by the survey lines. The water depths there are about 1,500 m. In this deep environment the 

influence of the bottom properties on the sound propagation in the water column drops dramatically and 

geoacoustic parameters can be estimated with greater uncertainty without increasing the overall 

uncertainty of the modeling. The geoacoustic profiles were constructed using available information from 

modeling Site #2 and data obtained at ODP drill site 904 (Guerin 2000).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-25

Similar to Site #3, Site #4 is located in the Hudson canyon and lacks direct measurements of 

geoacoustic parameters in its vicinity. However, sediment properties may be extrapolated by considering 

the nature of the canyon, which was formed due to erosion of the continental shelf. The geoacoustic 

property profiles for Site #4 are based on those for site #2 with portions of the profiles between 20 m and

170 m taken out to account for erosion). The profiles were also simplified by removing local anomalies 

from them.

6.4.5.2 Sound Speed Profiles

The summer sound speed profile at the NW Atlantic site exhibits two sound channels, one at 50 

m depth and the other at 600 m depth (Figure B-7). However, the high sound speed in the mixed layer, 

caused by solar heating at the sea-surface, means that an airgun array is unlikely to ensonify either of 

these sound channels in deep water.

6.5 Acoustic Environment of QAAs

The following subsections discuss the acoustic environment at each of seven proposed exemplary QAAs

(Figure B-8). The associated sound speed profiles, extracted from GDEM, are shown in Figure B-9 and 

are discussed below.

Figure B-8. Exemplary QAAs
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-26 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

Figure B-9. Plots of Sound Speed Profiles vs. Depth from the GDEM Database for Proposed 

Exemplary QAAs and Seasons

Note: The y-axis limits vary from site to site, depending on local water depths. The month indicated was chosen to be 

representative of the season modeled.

6.5.1 Mid-Atlantic Ridge

The Mid-Atlantic ridge is a deep water site with water depths greater than 3,000 m. The site is 

located in the vicinity of a spreading center where new oceanic crust is being formed. As such, the 

sediment column geoacoustic profile is believed to be similar to that at the Galapagos Ridge site, with a 

layer of clayey sediments overlying basalt bedrock (Herzig et al. 1998; Becker et al. 2001). However, as a 

result of the much slower spreading velocities at this site compared with the Galapagos Ridge site, the 

thickness of the sediments covering the basaltic bedrock is estimated to be closer to 100 m (Divins 2006). 

The summer sound speed profile at this site features a pronounced sound channel at 

approximately 1,000 m depth and a downward-refracting stratified surface layer (Figure B-9). Similar to 

the profile at the Caribbean Site, these features are expected to result in channeling of the acoustic energy 

from an airgun array. Spring and fall sound speed profiles are almost identical to the one shown for mid-
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-27

summer; the only significant difference being that sound speeds are almost constant with depth in a 50-

120 m mixed layer in the spring and fall. 

6.5.2 North Atlantic/Iceland (N Atlantic/Iceland)

The Reykjanes ridge is the part of the Mid-Atlantic ridge structure in the northern part of the 

Atlantic Ocean. As a result, the same geoacoustic profiles are expected in the area as in the above region,

with 50–100 m of sediment on top of the basaltic bedrock in the center of the ridge. The thickness of the 

sediment cover increases to several hundred meters at 300 km distance away from the ridge (Divins 

2006). A portion of the survey covers the shelf part of Iceland. The sediments on the shelf are expected to 

have a greater sandy component. Typical sonic velocities of 1,500-1,550 m/s and densities of 1.5–

1.6 g/cm3 were detected in ODP well 409 logs for the subsurface sediments. The water depths measured 

on the shelf are about 30-500 m.

The summer sound speed profile in this region is downward-refracting near the surface, with a 

weak sound channel at approximately 100 m depth which may trap a portion of the acoustic energy from 

the airgun array (Figure B-9). 

6.5.3 Mariana Islands (Marianas)

The Mariana Islands represent a typical example of an island arc located above a subduction 

zone. The proposed survey area is located in the back-arc basin. The bedrock surface is found at about 

100 m below the sediment surface (Divins 2006). According to the ODP wells 456 and 455 the grain size 

distribution is 30%, 60%, and 10% between sand, silt, and clay components, respectively. The porosity of 

the surficial sediments is about 60%, the sonic velocity is about 1,500 m/s, and the density is about 

1.6 g/cm3. The physical properties do not change for the first 50 m bsf. Below this depth mark a layer 

with higher sonic velocity and density values can be found.

The sound speed profile near the Mariana Islands in spring reaches a minimum value near 

1,000 m depth (Figure B-9). However, similar to the Galapagos Ridge site, the near-surface sound speed 

is sufficiently high that ducted sound propagation is not expected to be significant.

6.5.4 Sub-Antarctic

The survey area is located in the abyssal part of the ocean. The sediment coverage at the site is 

rather thin, only 100 m (Divins 2006). The geoacoustic properties profiles for the sediments at this 

location are expected to be similar to those at other deep-sea sites, such as the Mid-Atlantic ridge and N 

Atlantic/Iceland sites. A broad sound speed minimum occurs between approximately 200 and 1,200 m 

during austral summer at this site (Figure B-9), likely resulting in channeling of sound in this layer.

6.5.5 Western India (W India)

This site is also located in deep water, within the Indus Fan. Deep cores at DSDP site 222 and 

ODP site 720 revealed primarily detrital silty clays, with a higher porosity near the sediment surface 

(Prell et al. 1989). The total sediment thickness is approximately 2 km (Divins 2006). 

The summer sound speed profile at this site exhibits a sound speed minimum at approximately 

1,800 m depth (Figure B-9). However, sound speeds below this minimum are not high enough to result in 

significant channeling of sound in this layer. 

6.5.6 Western Australia (W Australia)

The proposed location for the seismic survey is located offshore of the northwestern Australia, 

within the outer ramp portion of the Canning Basin (James et al. 2004). The overall sediment thickness is 

approximately 1,200 m, overlying Cretaceous sedimentary rocks (James et al. 2004; Divins 2006). 

Surficial sediments consist of a carbonate-rich mix of gravel, sand, and silt, with wind and wave action on 

the sediment surface favoring slightly coarser sediments (James et al. 2004).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-28 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

The spring sound speed profile during the austral spring (and the austral fall) for the relatively 

shallow W Australia location decreases with depth from the surface to the sea floor (Figure B-9), favoring 

refraction of sound toward the bottom.

6.5.7 Southwest Atlantic Ocean (SW Atlantic)

The properties of the sediments at this location are influenced by the material brought by the 

Amazon River. Some information on physical sediment properties is available from the ODP drilling 

experiment (legs 154 and 155). The main portion of the sediments is represented by the clay component 

(about 60-80%) (Pirmez et al. 1997). According to the well logs the velocity at the surface is about 

1500 m/s and gradually increases with depth, reaching 2,000 m/s at the 350 m bsf. For the same range of 

depths the density varies from 1.3 g/cm3to 1.8 g/cm3. This location is similar to site #3 at the NW 

Atlantic site.

Similarly to the Marianas site in April, the sound speed profile at the SW Atlantic site exhibits a 

mid-water sound speed minimum, in this case near 700 m depth (Figure B-9), as well as a relatively high 

near-surface sound speed. As a result, ducted propagation is not expected to occur. Note that while the 

curve shown in Figure B-9 is based on January data, the profile remains similar year-round.

6.5.8 British Columbia Coast (BC Coast)

The B.C. Coast site is located in the southern portion of the Queen Charlotte Basin, in 

approximately 200 m of water. Surficial sediment type and thickness in this region are variable, ranging 

from thicker sands and muds to thinner sand, gravel, and glacial till (Barrie and Bornhold 1989; 

MacGillivray 2000). For the purposes of modeling, an average profile may be constructed consisting of 

approximately 20 m of silty sand (density of 1.77 g/cm3, sound speed at the surface approximately 1,600 

m/s) overlying lithified sediments (density of 2.20 g/cm3, sound speed at the sediment/bedrock interface 

approximately 2,200 m/s) (MacGillivray 2000). Below the near-surface mixed layer, water column sound 

speed during autumn decreases with depth (Figure B-9). As a result, channeling of sound is not expected 

either near the surface or mid-water.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-29

7 Acoustic Integration Model (AIM)

7.1 Rationale

The overall goal of this modeling effort was to predict the number of animals at each of the 

modeling locations within each DAA that would be exposed to sound levels in excess of regulatory 

thresholds. Visual observers are routinely used at sea to detect marine mammals within the mitigation

range. The probability of visual detection (Pdetect) by shipboard observers varies among species; cryptic 

species such as the harbor porpoise have a low Pdetect value while large whales have a high Pdetect value. 

When animals are detected within a mitigation zone, the airguns are turned off to limit the acoustic 

exposure of marine animals. Mitigation strategy under both alternatives is based upon a mitigation range 

corresponding to the 180-dB (rms) and 190-dB (rms) isopleths for cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively. 

That range is predicted with an acoustic propagation model for each modeled DAA based upon the source 

configuration, local physical environment, and the species potentially present. This is the Preferred 

Alternative of the EIS/OEIS. The modeling reported here produced sound exposure histories for animals 

with mitigation measures implemented under Alternative A or Alternative B (Preferred Alternative). 

Thus, when an individual animal was detected within the mitigation distance, the resulting shutdown 

resulted in no exposures to any animals within or beyond the mitigation distance during the period of 

shutdown. A detailed explanation of this process is provided below. 

Based on the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act, two different categories of ―taking‖ are 

recognized: Level A takes, involving injury, and Level B takes, involving disturbance or ―harassment‖. 

In predicting the occurrence of Level A takes, two different exposure or ―take‖ criteria were employed, 

one based on the maximum rms sound pressure level received by the mammal, and the other based on the 

accumulated acoustic energy received by the animal. The former (pressure) criteria are the precautionary 

criteria that have been recognized by NMFS for several years. The latter (cumulative energy exposure) 

criteria are those recently proposed by the Noise Criteria Group (Southall et al. 2007). The Noise Criteria 

Group also recommends a "do not exceed" peak pressure criterion, but under field conditions the SEL 

criterion is the one that would be exceeded first and thus would be the operative criterion. In predicting 

the occurrence of Level B takes, only pressure criteria (as recognized by NMFS for the past several years) 

are available. The criteria employed in the analysis conducted for this report are shown in Table B-4. and 

the pressure criteria are illustrated in Figure B-10. In this analysis, we integrated the total energy received

by each modeled animal during the 24-hr period surrounding the time when the maximum sound level 

was received, and compared this accumulated energy level with the energy-based metrics.

Table B-4. Injury and Behavior Exposure Criteria for Cetaceans and Pinnipeds

Level A (Injury) Level B (Behavior)

Group

Pressure

(dB re 1 μPa rms)

Energy

(dB re 1 μPa2∙ sec)

Pressure

(dB re 1 μPa rms)

Cetaceans 180 198 160

Pinnipeds 190 186 160

Sources: NMFS 2000, 2005; Haley 2006; Southall et al. 2007.

As shown in Figure B-10 a sound source is surrounded by a zone of high sound level (orange) 

and (generally more distant) zone with lower sound level (yellow). The orange zone corresponds to Level 

A exposure and the yellow represents Level B. Three example theoretical marine mammal tracks are 

shown, depicting the relative motion of the mammal and the sound source as the source passes the 

mammal. The top track in Figure B-10 passes outside the yellow zone and does not represent a Level B

exposure or ―take‖. The second track passes through the yellow zone only, and represents a Level B take. 

The bottom-most track first enters the yellow zone and then continues into the orange zone. This animal 

would be reported as a Level A take. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-30 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

Level B Isopleth 

(e.g.,160 dB) Level A Isopleth 

(e.g., 180 dB)

No “take”

Level B “take”

Level A “take”

Sound 

Source

Figure B-10. Illustration of Pressure-based Exposure or “Take” Methodology (not to scale)

7.2 Introduction to AIM

AIM is a Monte Carlo-based statistical model, strongly based on two earlier models: a whale 

movement and tracking model developed for the census of the bowhead whale (Ellison et al. 1987; 

Frankel et al. 2002), and an underwater acoustic back-scattering model for a moving sound source in an 

under-ice Arctic environment (Bishop et al. 1987). Because the exact positions of sound sources and 

animals (sound receivers for the purpose of this analysis) in any given simulation cannot be known, 

multiple runs of realistic predictions are used to provide statistical validity. The movement and/or 

behavioral patterns of sources and receivers can be modeled based on measured field data, and these 

patterns can be incorporated into the model. Each source and/or receiver is modeled via the ―animat‖ 

concept, where each has parameters that control its speed and direction in three dimensions. In the case of 

the source, it is also imbued with the parameters describing its source operation over time (i.e. SL, signal 

duration, and pulse interval). Thus, it is possible to recreate the type of diving pattern that an animal 

shows in the real world. Furthermore, the movement of the animat can be programmed to respond to 

environmental factors, such as water depth and sound level (this latter feature was not used in this 

analysis). In this way, species that normally inhabit specific environments can be constrained in the model 

to stay within that habitat. 

Once the behavior of the animats has been programmed, the model is run. The run consists of a 

user-specified number of steps forward in time. For each time step, each animat is moved according to the 

rules describing its behavior. For each time step of the model run, the received sound levels values at each 

receiver (i.e., a marine mammal) animat are calculated. For this analysis, AIM returns the movement 

patterns of the animats, and the received sound levels are calculated separately, using the acoustic 

propagation predictions provided by MONM.

At the end of each time step, each animat evaluates its environment including its 3-D location, the 

time and received sound level (if present). If an environmental variable has exceeded the user-specified 

boundary value (e.g., water too shallow), then the animat will alter its course to react to the environment. 

These responses to the environment are entitled  ̳aversions‘. There are a number of potential aversion 

variables that can be used to build an animat‘s behavioral pattern.

7.3 Programmatic EIS/OEIS-Specific Modeling Methods

The creation of each modeling simulation began with the creation of a movement pattern for the 

seismic source vessel (e.g., R/V Langseth). EIS/OEIS personnel reviewed each vessel-source track to 

ensure that they were representative of actual ship movements that would be expected at that site, and 

covered a range of potential marine animal habitats within each modeling site. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-31

The next step in the modeling procedure was to assign species- or group-specific behavioral 

values to each AIM model animat. Behavioral values that were used in modeling animal movement were 

dive depth, surfacing and dive durations, swimming speed, and course change. A minimum and 

maximum value for each of these parameters was specified. Data from the MAI behavioral database, 

which was updated with a review of current research, provided these values (Frankel and Vigness-Raposa 

2006). These data were used to simulate movements and dive characteristics of individual animats for 

each species or species group relative to the simulated vessel source tracks at each of the five DAAs. 

These also included limits on the depth of water into which an animat was constrained. These constraints 

were to keep the marine mammals in the water throughout the simulation, and where appropriate, to keep 

animals from moving into deep water where they are not normally found. These depth restriction data are 

presented in Annex 4. The amount of data available for some individual species were sparse. In these 

cases, species were combined in a surrogate sense along phylogenetic or ecological dimensions into 

modeling groups (e.g., all Stenella species were modeled with a single Stenella animat). 

After the animats were created, they were randomly distributed over each simulation area. The 

simulation area was delineated by four boundaries, composed of a combination of latitude and longitude 

lines, and in some cases by shoreline. These boundaries are shown in Annex 3 and extend at least 1 

degree of latitude or longitude beyond the extent of the vessel track to insure an adequate number of 

animats in all directions. Each simulation had ~4,000 animats representing each species or species group. 

In most cases, this represents a higher density of animats in the simulation than occurs in the real 

environment. This ―over-population‖ allowed the calculation of smoother distribution tails, and in the 

final analysis all results were normalized back to actual predicted population counts by species. (This was 

done based on the ratio of the real densities, from Annex 4, to the animat densities.) During the AIM 

modeling, animats were programmed to remain within the simulation area boundaries. This behavior was 

incorporated to prevent the animats from diffusing out of the simulation, the result of which, if allowed, 

would be a systematic decrease in animat density over time. Thus, the simulations modeled the animals as 

a closed population with a high residency factor. This approach is clearly conservative in terms of 

allowing for more prolonged exposures than would be expected from species with a lower residency 

factor.

The duration of each simulation was determined by the length of the vessel track, divided by the 

modeled vessel speed of 8 km per hr (~4 knots). The duration of each simulation ranged from 1,540 to 

16,355 minutes (min) (Table B-5). The vessel speed was based on the typical speed at which NSF seismic

research vessels operate while conducting seismic operations.

7.4 Data Convolution to Create Animat Exposure Histories

The AIM simulations created realistic animal movement tracks for each animat and were based 

on the best available animal behavioral data. It was assumed that, collectively, the ~4,000 animat tracks 

derived for each simulation were a reasonable representation of the movements of the animals in the 

population under consideration. Animat positions along each of these tracks were converted to polar 

coordinates (range and bearing) from the source (vessel) to the receivers (animals). These data, along with 

the depth of the receiver, were used to extract RL estimates from the acoustic propagation modeling 

results provided by JASCO (see Section 8). For each sampling time, we considered the RL predictions for 

the most appropriate of the acoustic modeling sites plotted in Annex 3. For each bearing, distance, and 

depth from the source when it was operating at that site, the RL values were expressed as SELs with units 

of dB re 1μPa2-s. These SEL values were computed separately for flat-weighted (unweighted) and Mweighted RLs. The M-weighted values were calculated for LF-, MF-, and HF-cetaceans, and for 

pinnipeds in water, based on the M-weighting functions described by Southall et al. (2007). M-weighting 

is a filter function (most akin to human C-weighting) that is applied to the acoustic signal to account for 

the differential hearing capabilities of different species groups. The final result was a time history of 

acoustic exposures for each individual animat every 30 seconds.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-32 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

7.5 Simulation of Monitoring and Mitigation

Simulated source and receiver data were processed to simulate the effect of marine mammal 

monitoring and mitigation. During an actual seismic survey, marine mammal observers (MMOs) monitor 

the mitigation zone for the presence of marine mammals and sea turtles. If they are detected within the 

mitigation zone, then the airguns would be turned off to mitigate the effect of the airgun impulses on the 

animals. Airguns would be shutdown for 30 min following the last sighting of a mysticete or sperm 

whale, or 15 min following the last sighting of another odontocete or pinniped. The mitigation distances 

are based upon the species group, airgun array size, and configuration as well as the local physical 

environment. Thus separate mitigation radii are used for flat-weighted (unweighted) RLs as well as for 

each of the four M-weighting species groups in order to reflect their differential hearing abilities. 

Furthermore, larger sources would have larger mitigation radii, and sources operating in shallow water 

would have a larger mitigation radius than the same source operating in deep water. Table B-5 

summarizes, for each DAA, the mitigation radius assumed for each species group and water-depth 

category. Flat- or un-weighted mitigation radii are in Chapter 8, Tables B-8 thru B-12. The boundary 

between the shallow and deep zones was taken to be the 1,000 m depth contour. 

Table B-5. Summary of Modeled Marine Mammal Level A Exposure Criteria Radii for DAAs

DAA

Modeling Site Source

Duration

(min)

Shallow/Deep Mitigation Radii (m)*

LF

Cetaceans

MF

Cetaceans

HF

Cetaceans Pinnipeds

Caribbean

Full refraction 36 guns,

6,600 in3, 4 arrays, 12-m 

tow depth

16,355 1,338/

741

533/

234

447/

182

262/

102

NW Atlantic

High resolution 3-D, 1 pair 

of 45/105 in3 GI guns, 2.5-

m tow depth

9,990 64/

36

28/

14

28/

14

14/

<10

S California

1 pair 45/105 in3 GI guns 

for the high resolution 

surveys, 2.5-m tow depth

1,540 64/

NA

30/

NA

30/

NA

14/

NA

Galapagos

2 strings of 9 airguns (18 

guns), 3,300 in3(times two, 

shot in flip-flop), 6-m tow 

depth

8,760 NA/

345

NA/

180

NA/

140

NA/

81

W Gulf of

Alaska

2 strings of 9 airguns (18 

guns), 3,300 in3(not flipflop), 6-m tow depth9,900 1,012/

342

478/

177

398/

139

196/

76

Notes: *NA = not applicable. Radii for cetaceans are estimated 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) radii, with M-weighting. Radii for 

pinnipeds are estimated 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) radii, with M-weighting. 

Mitigation radii were based on the acoustic modeling results. JASCO produced a summary table 

of Level A mitigation radii (predicted 180 and 190 dB (rms) distances) for each modeling location within 

each DAA. These radii were M-weighted for each of the four species groups: LF-, MF-, and HFcetaceans and pinnipeds in water. These radii (Table B-5) were used to simulate Level A mitigation for 

Alternatives A and B. Flat- or un-weighted mitigation radii are listed in Chapter 8, Tables B-8 thru B-12.

The monitoring simulation program was then run on all of the data. The movement data were 

examined at each time step to determine if any of the animats were within the mitigation zone. If so, then 

a procedure was run to model whether or not the animat would have been detected by an MMO. In this 

procedure, a random number was generated and compared with the probability of detection for the species 

being modeled (P(detect)) (Table B-6). If the random number was less than the P(detect) value then the 

animal was considered to have been detected. Conversely, if the random number was greater than the 

P(detect) value, the animal was modeled as undetected. For example, if there was a 75% probability of 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-33

detection of a given species (P(detect) = 0.75), and the random number generator returned 0.5, then the 

animal would be considered to be detected. If an animat was detected, then the program would simulate 

the effect of the airgun source being shut down by setting the received sound levels of ALL animats in the 

run to 0 for the next 15 min (for pinnipeds and most odontocetes) or 30 min (for mysticetes and sperm 

whales). 

Table B-6. Assumed P(detect) Values for Different Species

Group Size

Species 1-16 17-60 >60

Odontocetes

Harbor porpoise 0.055 0.090 0.090

Dall's porpoise 0.055 0.090 0.090

Pacific white-sided dolphin 0.309 0.524 0.926

Risso's dolphin 0.309 0.524 0.926

Striped dolphin 0.309 0.524 0.926

Common dolphin 0.309 0.524 0.926

N right whale dolphin 0.309 0.524 0.926

Short-finned pilot whale 0.309 0.524 0.926

Spinner dolphin 0.309 0.524 0.926

Spotted dolphin 0.309 0.524 0.926

Rough-toothed dolphin 0.309 0.524 0.926

Killer whale 0.309 0.524 0.926

False killer whale 0.309 0.524 0.926

Cuvier's beaked whale 0.244 NA NA

Baird's beaked whale 0.244 NA NA

Blainville's beaked whale 0.244 NA NA

Pygmy sperm whale 0.055 0.090 0.090

Dwarf sperm whale 0.055 0.090 0.090

Sperm whale 0.259 NA NA

Mysticetes

N right whale 0.259 0.259 NA

Humpback whale 0.259 0.259 NA

Gray whale 0.259 0.259 NA

Blue whale 0.259 0.259 NA

Fin whale 0.259 0.259 NA

Sei whale 0.259 0.259 NA

Bryde's whale 0.259 0.259 NA

Minke whale 0.244 0.244 NA

Pinnipeds

N elephant seal 0.309 0.524 0.926

California sea lion 0.309 0.524 0.926

Harbor seal 0.309 0.524 0.926

N fur seal 0.309 0.524 0.926

Steller‘s sea lion 0.309 0.524 0.926

Notes: Values used for mitigation simulation in this study are highlighted in tan. This determination 

was based on typical group size data from Frankel and Vigness-Raposa (2006). NA = group 

sizes that are not expected to occur.

The procedure to calculate P(detect) was based on published sighting data from line-transect 

survey studies. Specifically, it was calculated from the f(0) values obtained from Koski et al. (1998), 

Barlow (1999), and Thomas et al. (2002). The details of the conversion from the f(0) parameters to 

P(detect) are as follows: 

 1/f(0) is the ―effective strip width‖.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-34 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

 The effective strip width was divided by the truncation distance used to calculate f(0).

 This value is P(detect) or the average probability that a whale would be seen within the truncation 

distance from the vessel. 

 For cryptic species where only sea states 0 to 2 were used to calculate f(0), P(detect) was arbitrarily 

divided by 3 to account for the higher probability that animals would be missed during the survey 

whenever sea states were >2.

 Different P(detect) values were calculated for groups with 1-16, 17-60 and >60 individuals based 

on the different f(0) values for those group sizes.

 The mean group size for the species or guild determined the appropriate P(detect) that was used for 

that guild.

Figure B-11 illustrates this procedure by showing the approach of the vessel and a whale toward 

each other. The blue line is the separation distance between a whale and a vessel. The distance between 

the whale and the vessel decreased at first. There is then a closest point of approach of ~370 m at ~130 

min, followed by an increasing distance between the whale and vessel with time. The red line indicates 

the mitigation distance, which was 741 m for this example. When the whale entered the mitigation zone 

(i.e. distance less than <741 m), it was assumed to be visually detected (i.e. the random number generated

at that point was less than the P(detect) value), and the airguns were turned off (in the simulation).

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

110 120 130 140 150

Time (minutes)

Distance (km)

Figure B-11. Example of Decreasing and Increasing Range between a Source Vessel and a Single 

Whale Animat over Time, in Relation to the Mitigation Distance (red line)

Figure B-12 shows the predicted RL for this example as a function of time. These data are plotted 

twice, both with and without mitigation. The red line illustrates the predicted exposure without mitigation 

(i.e., without turning the airguns off). The predicted maximum RL to which the animal would have been 

exposed in the absence of mitigation was 186 dB re 1 μPa (rms). However, the blue line shows that, since 

the animal was detected somewhat earlier, at a distance of 740 m at 130 min, the airguns were turned off 

during the period when the whale was closest, and the predicted maximum RL to which the animal would 

have been exposed was 165 dB re 1 μPa (rms).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-35

0 5 0 100 150 200 250

130

140

150

160

170

180

Time (minutes)

Received Sound Level (dB re 1 microPa)

Unmitigated

Mitigated

Figure B-12. Time History of Predicted RL of the Whale Animat in Figure B-11

To illustrate further, Figure B-13 and Figure B-14 show the ―ping-o-gram‖ of the first 2,500 (of 

the original ~4,000) animats over the same 270 min. Each horizontal line in the ping-o-gram illustrates 

the data for a single animat (e.g., the data shown in Figure B-12) and the sound level is represented by the 

color of the line. In Figure B-13, the unbroken horizontal lines indicate continuing exposure of the 

animats with no mitigation. The color of the lines indicates the RLs (e.g., red ≈ 160 dB while yellow ≈ 

100 dB). For the many animats that are never close to the operating airguns during the 270-min period 

depicted, the RLs never are high enough to be depicted in a color other than dark blue.

In Figure B-14, the successful mitigation is seen at the vertical blue bar, representing the time 

when at least one animal was detected and the source was shut down. Therefore, the RLs for all of the 

animats in the simulation during the shutdown period were set to 0. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-36 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

Time (minutes)

Animat Number

0 5 0 100 150 200 250

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

140

160

Figure B-13. Ping-o-gram of First 2,500 Animats over 270 Minutes

Note: Color scale represents dB re 1 μPa

Time (minutes)

Animat Number

0 5 0 100 150 200 250

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

140

160

Figure B-14. Ping-o-gram of First 2,500 Animats over 270 Minutes but with Successful Mitigation 

Implemented from Minute 130 to Minute 160

Note: Color scale represents dB re 1 μPa
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-37

The simulations were created assuming around-the-clock seismic exploration activity. However, 

the simulated mitigation was applied only during daylight hours when continuous and at least partially 

effective visual monitoring would be conducted during seismic operations. Daylight was considered to be

12 hr a day. Based on prior experience, it was assumed that any nighttime visual monitoring that might be 

conducted, with or without night vision devices, would have a low probability of detecting marine 

mammals. Also, the passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) system, as deployed on the R/V Maurice Ewing

in the past and planned for use during some future NSF operations, does not (currently) have sufficient 

capabilities to function as an effective mitigation tool. Thus, for the purposes of AIM, no effective

detection-dependent mitigation was assumed to occur during darkness. 

7.6 Numbers of Mammals Exposed

Once the effect of mitigation had been considered, the modified exposure history of each animat 

was analyzed using both pressure and energy units. The JASCO-provided SEL RLs for each airgun shot 

were converted to rms values by adding 10 dB (i.e., rms = SEL + 10) (see Section 5.2.1). 

The maximum rms RL for each animat was then determined, and these values were used to 

predict the number of modeled ―takes‖ or ―exposures‖ using the traditional NMFS-endorsed exposure 

criteria (i.e., rms pressure levels). Level A exposure estimates for cetaceans were those that exceeded 180 

dB re 1 μPa (rms) while Level B exposures were those that exceeded 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms). The criteria 

used for pinnipeds and fissipeds (sea otter) were 190 and 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for Level A and B, 

respectively. Note that the exposure numbers at this step are based upon the modeled density of the 

animats; these numbers are scaled later to represent real-world animal densities. 

In addition to these maximum pressure-based exposure estimates, an energy-based metric was 

calculated. The acoustic exposures that occurred during the 12 hr preceding and following the maximum 

sound exposure were integrated to produce the energy-based exposure metric for each animat. The 

exposure thresholds for this energy-based metric were 198 dB re 1 Pa2· s SEL for all three groups of 

cetaceans and 186 dB re 1 Pa2· s SEL for pinnipeds in water (LGL 2006). These were calculated for 

flat-weighted (unweighted) RLs as well as the M-weighted RLs.

It should be noted that the maximum value of both metrics was calculated for each animat. 

Therefore each animat in the model can be considered to be taken only once. It is possible that over the 

course of a simulation an animal might exceed the thresholds more than once. However, an informal 

examination of the distribution of exposures for individual animats rarely found a  ̳secondary‘ peak of 

exposures within the duration of the simulation that would suggest a second threshold exceedance.

The final step was to scale the number of modeled exposures by the ratio of modeling density to 

real animal density. Individual species density estimates were used for shallow water depths (< 1,000 m) 

and deep water (> 1,000 m). To illustrate, consider an example of one simulation that had 20 exposures 

above a threshold, 10 of which occurred in shallow water and 10 in adjacent deep water. In this example, 

the over-populated modeling density of 4,000 animats resulted in an overall average density of 0.1 

animats/square km (km2), whereas the shallow water density of real word animals is 0.025 animals/ km2,

and the adjacent deep water density is 0.01 animals/ km2(Table B-7). This diversity by regional animal 

density is accommodated in developing actual, real world exposure estimates. Thus, the number of 

predicted exposures in each area is different, reflecting the differences in animal abundance.

Table B-7. Nominal Example of Exposure Calculation

Area

Modeled

Exposures

Model

Density

Real World

Density

Real World

Exposures

Shallow Water 10 0.1 0.025 2.5

Deep Water 10 0.1 0.01 1.0
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-38 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

7.7 Marine Mammal Density Values

7.7.1 S California

The target date for the nominal S California cruise was identified as late spring to early summer. 

Therefore real world marine mammal density data for the May–July period were obtained from Table A-1 

in Koski et al. (1998) for use in the exposure estimates in this report. Since there are several strata listed 

within this table, data for strata 2, 3, 4, and 6 (which include the Santa Barbara Channel and surrounding 

waters with similar water depths) were combined for the purposes of this analysis.

7.7.2 Caribbean

Marine mammal density values were taken from Tables 4.11 and 4.12 in Smultea et al. (2004). 

These tables present density calculations based on sighting data from non-seismic conditions in waters 

100 to 1,000 m deep and >1,000 m deep collected in the same region during spring 2004. Unidentified 

animals have been assigned among species that are expected to occur there based on a literature review 

(i.e., including some species that were not sighted during the surveys of Smultea et al. [2004]). The basis 

for assigning unidentified species was Table 4.12 in Smultea et al. (2004). Note that these tables 

originally reported their values as animals/1,000 km2. These values have been scaled to conform to AIM‘s 

use of densities in animals/km2by dividing the originally reported densities by 1,000.

7.7.3 Galapagos Ridge

Marine mammal density values were taken from Table 4 in Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory 

(L-DEO) and NSF (2003). This table was produced from data in Ferguson and Barlow (2001) and the 

appendix to that report. The values from Block 142 in Ferguson and Barlow (2001) and adjacent blocks 

were used to compute the mean densities that appear in Table 4 of L-DEO and NSF (2003). 

7.7.4 W Gulf of Alaska

Cetacean density values were taken directly from Table 8 in L-DEO and NSF (2004) 

supplemented with densities for killer whales from strata 9 and 10 in Zerbini et al. (2006). The density 

value for pinnipeds are based on the densities recorded by Brueggeman et al. (1987 , 1988) adjusted for 

changes in population size as described in L-DEO and NSF (2004). 

7.7.5 NW Atlantic

The densities used for the NW Atlantic site were the average of the Shelf W and Shelf C strata in 

Palka (2006). These data were collected during ship surveys in 1998 and aerial surveys in 2004.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-39

8 Results

8.1 Sound Propagation Modeling – MONM

The MONM propagation model was run in the full n  2-D sense as described in Section 5.2 for 

third-octave frequency bands between 10 and 2,000 Hz. Because the airgun arrays are predominantly lowfrequency sources (see Section 5.1.1), this frequency range is sufficient to capture essentially all of the 

energy output by the arrays. Geographically rendered maps of the received sound levels in dB re μPa2· s 

are shown in Annex 5 for each of the modeled source locations, along with range-depth plots for selected 

sites. The tables of Annex 6 and in the following sub-sections summarize the results of the acoustic 

modeling in terms of radii to threshold values of 170 dB and 180 dB SEL re 1 Pa2· s (approx. 180 dB 

and 190 dB re 1 Pa [rms]). Radii are shown both for unweighted (flat-weighted) RLs and for various Mweightings, as described in Sections 5.2.2 and 7.4. Note that the radial resolution of the model runs was 

10 m for the ranges involved in calculation of these radii.

The acoustic level values in the model output represent the SEL metric, a suitable measure of the 

impact of an impulsive sound because it reflects the total acoustic energy delivered over the duration of 

the event at a receiver location. In order to determine the rms SPLs required in defining safety radii and 

exposure estimates, a pulse duration of 0.1 s was assumed, resulting in a conversion factor of +10 dB. 

Thus, rms levels (in dB re 1 Pa) were taken to be 10 dB higher than SEL values in dB re 1 Pa2· s.

For each sound level threshold, two different statistical estimates of the safety radii are provided 

in the tables in Annex 6 the 95% radius and the maximum endfire radius. Given a regularly gridded 

spatial distribution of modeled RLs, the 95% radius is defined as the radius of a circle that encompasses 

95% of the grid points whose value is equal to or greater than the threshold value. This definition is 

meaningful in terms of potential impact to an animal because, regardless of the geometrical shape of the 

noise footprint for a given threshold level, it always provides a range beyond which no more than 5% of a 

uniformly distributed population would be exposed to sound at or above that level. The maximum endfire

radius is the radius of a 60 degree angular sector, centered on the along-track axis of the array, that 

encompasses all grid points whose value is equal to or greater than the threshold value. The greater of the 

two metrics for each of the modeling cases is shown in the tables of sections 8.1.1 to 8.1.5. Modeled 

sound levels were sampled at several depths at each site, up to the lesser of 2,000 m or the seafloor depth. 

This was done on the assumption that, at sites deeper than 2,000 m, marine mammals would not dive 

deeply enough to be exposed to sounds at greater depths. The tables list radii based on maximum RLs

over these ranges of depths. In all cases, however, the maximum radii actually occurred within the upper 

500 m of the water column.

Comparison of measured and modeled sound level values in the past has indicated that a 

precautionary adjustment of 3 dB should be added to the MONM results in some shallow water situations, 

particularly where the bottom type is not well known (MacGillivray and Hannay 2007). This will 

minimize the likelihood of encountering situations where measured values will exceed predicted values. 

As such, model predictions for the shallow and slope sites are shown both with and without this 

adjustment in the tables of Annex 6:. In this and the following sections, the corrected model predictions 

are typically presented, unless otherwise indicated. 

The number of predicted exposures in each area is different, reflecting the differences in animal 

abundance. Note that this separation was done for pressure-based exposure estimates because they are 

based upon a single sound exposure that can easily be located within these depth bins. The energy-based 

exposure metric is calculated over a 24-hr period, and it is possible that an animal could move back and 

forth between the shallow and deep water areas during the 24-hr period. Therefore, energy-based 

exposure estimates were not stratified by water depth, and the higher of the two animal density numbers 

were used to scale from modeled to real world exposure numbers.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-40 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

8.1.1 S California

Table B-8. Summary of Predicted Marine Mammal Exposure Criteria Radii for the S California 

Sites

Water Depth Radius (m)*

Site (m) M-weighting 180 dB rms 190 dB rms

Unweighted 45 20

LF cetaceans 50 20

1 100-1,000 MF cetaceans 30 10

HF cetaceans 30 10

Pinnipeds 40 10

Unweighted 64 14

LF cetaceans 64 14

2 100-1,000 MF cetaceans 28 <10

HF cetaceans 22 <10

Pinnipeds 42 14

Notes: *Radii shown are the more conservative (larger) of the values for each site in the tables of Annex 6, and 

represent a maximum over all modeled depths, up to the lesser of 2,000 m or seafloor depth, with a 3-dB 

precautionary factor added to the raw model output for sites with a water depth less than 1,000 m. Source is 

a pair of 45/105 in3 GI guns, at a depth of 2.5 m.

8.1.2 Caribbean

Table B-9. Summary of Predicted Marine Mammal Exposure Criteria Radii for the Caribbean 

Sites

Water Depth Radius (m)*

Site (m) M-weighting 180 dB rms 190 dB rms

Unweighted 1,379 380

LF cetaceans 1,338 366

1 <100 MF cetaceans 533 117

HF cetaceans 447 81

Pinnipeds 815 262

Unweighted 806 252

LF cetaceans 741 226

2 >1,000 MF cetaceans 232 71

HF cetaceans 182 61

Pinnipeds 326 102

Unweighted 524 272

LF cetaceans 508 260

3 100-1,000 MF cetaceans 342 104

HF cetaceans 257 82

Pinnipeds 446 149

Unweighted 802 247

LF cetaceans 738 229

4 >1,000 MF cetaceans 234 72

HF cetaceans 180 58

Pinnipeds 326 102

Notes: *Radii shown are the more conservative (larger) of the values for each site in the tables of Annex 6 and 

represent a maximum over all modeled depths, up to the lesser of 2,000 m or seafloor depth, with a 3 

dB precautionary factor added to the raw model output for sites with a water depth less than 1,000 m. 

Source is a 36-gun array (6,600 in3), at a depth of 12 m.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-41

8.1.3 Galapagos Ridge

Table B-10. Summary of Predicted Marine Mammal Exposure Criteria Radii for the Galapagos 

Ridge Sites

Water depth Radius (m)*

Site (m) M-weighting 180 dB rms 190 dB rms

Unweighted 360 110

LF cetaceans 345 110

1-0° >1,000 MF cetaceans 180 60

HF cetaceans 140 50

Pinnipeds 260 81

Unweighted 357 110

LF cetaceans 345 110

1-90° >1,000 MF cetaceans 180 60

HF cetaceans 140 50

Pinnipeds 260 81

Notes: *Radii shown are the more conservative (larger) of the values for each site in the tables of Annex 6, and 

represent a maximum over all modeled depths, up to the lesser of 2,000 m or seafloor depth, with a 3 dB 

precautionary factor added to the raw model output for sites with a water depth less than 1,000 m. Source is 

an 18-gun array (3,300 in3), at a depth of 6 m.

8.1.4 W Gulf of Alaska

Table B-11. Summary of Predicted Marine Mammal Exposure Criteria Radii for the W Gulf of 

Alaska Sites

Water Depth Radius (m)*

Site (m) M-weighting 180 dB rms 190 dB rms

Unweighted 1,012 206

LF cetaceans 1,012 209

1 <100 MF cetaceans 478 139

HF cetaceans 398 63

Pinnipeds 885 196

Unweighted 595 155

LF cetaceans 541 152

2 100-1,000 MF cetaceans 262 76

HF cetaceans 202 63

Pinnipeds 390 114

Unweighted 347 104

LF cetaceans 342 103

3 >1,000 MF cetaceans 177 54

HF cetaceans 139 45

Pinnipeds 264 76

Notes: *Radii shown are the more conservative (larger) of the values for each site in the tables of Annex 6, and represent a 

maximum over all modeled depths, up to the lesser of 2,000 m or seafloor depth, with a 3 dB precautionary factor 

added to the raw model output for sites with a water depth less than 1,000 m. Source is an 18-gun array (3,300 in3), 

at a depth of 6 m.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-42 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

8.1.5 NW Atlantic

Table B-12. Summary of Predicted Marine Mammal Exposure Criteria Radii for the NW Atlantic 

Sites

Water Depth Radius (m)*

Site (m) M-weighting 180 dB rms 190 dB rms

Unweighted 64 14

LF cetaceans 64 14

1 <100 MF cetaceans 28 <10

HF cetaceans 28 <10

Pinnipeds 42 14

Unweighted 57 14

LF cetaceans 57 14

2 100-1,000 MF cetaceans 28 <10

HF cetaceans 28 <10

Pinnipeds 42 14

Unweighted 36 14

LF cetaceans 36 14

3 >1,000 MF cetaceans 14 <10

HF cetaceans 14 <10

Pinnipeds 28 <10

Unweighted 57 14

LF cetaceans 57 14

4 100-1,000 MF cetaceans 28 <10

HF cetaceans 22 <10

Pinnipeds 42 14

Notes: *Radii shown are the more conservative (larger) of the values for each site in the Annex 6 tables. They represent a 

maximum over all modeled depths, up to the lesser of 2,000 m or seafloor depth, with a 3-dB precautionary factor added 

to the raw model output for sites with a water depth < 1,000 m. Source is a pair of 45/105 in3 GI guns, 2.5 m depth.

8.2 SELs and 90% RMS SPLs

The acoustic levels predicted by the model output are expressed as SEL values. SEL is a suitable 

measure of the potential impact of an impulsive noise because it reflects the total acoustic energy 

delivered over the duration of the event at a receiver location. An impact threshold based on the SEL 

metric provides a consistent and readily applicable criterion useful with either measured or modeled noise 

levels. The Noise Criteria Group has concluded that, under most conditions, an energy-based metric such 

as SEL would be a better predictor of auditory injury than is pressure (Southall et al. 2007). For this 

reason, this analysis (see Section 8.4, below) concentrates on predicting the numbers of marine mammals 

that might be exposed to various received energy levels. The Noise Criteria Group also recommends a 

―do not exceed‖ peak pressure criterion, but under field conditions the SEL criterion is the one that would 

be exceeded first and thus would be the operative criterion (Southall et al. 2007).

However, regulatory practice in the U.S., insofar as impulsive underwater sounds are concerned, 

has to date been based on rms sound pressure level. Thus, there is also interest in predicting the rms RLs 

of airgun pulses. As discussed in Section 5.2.1, while existing safety radii regulations in the U.S. are 

based on the 90% rms SPL metric for impulsive noise sources, the sensitivity of rms levels to the specific 

multipath arrival patterns involved is such that model predictions of rms levels at any significant distance 

from the source are less accurate than are predicted SEL values. As such, the MONM algorithm does not 

attempt to directly model the rms level, but instead models the propagation of acoustic energy in 1/3-

octave bands in a realistic, range-dependent acoustic environment. The rms values may then be estimated 

from predicted SEL values based on heuristic estimates of the pulse length. However, the rms estimates 

are less reliable than the SEL estimates, as the relationship between the two can vary considerably with 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-43

range and propagation conditions. Site-specific field measurements would be necessary to resolve this 

uncertainty.

8.3 Comparison with Free-field Models

Seismic industry estimates of the sound fields around airgun arrays are typically based on ―freefield‖ sound level calculations that assume uniform sound spreading in an infinite, homogenous ocean. 

These free-field estimates neglect specific environmental effects, such as water column refraction and 

bottom reflections, both of which are taken into account in MONM. In interpreting the results from this 

modeling study against sound level and safety range predictions provided by free-field models used in 

designing and optimizing airgun arrays, it must always be kept in mind that there are fundamental 

differences between these modeling approaches that strongly affect the conditions of their applicability. 

Specifically, as discussed in the subsections below, free-field models are valid only in the near field, in

close proximity to the source, whereas the MONM is valid in the far field and only for shallow 

propagation angles (Figure B-15). These differences in how MONM and free-field estimates are obtained 

and the regions in which they are appropriate must be taken into account when comparing the sound level 

predictions provided by the current study to free-field estimates.

Figure B-15. Stylized Diagram Showing Approximate Regions of Applicability of the MONM and 

Free-field Models

8.3.1 TL Estimates

In deep water and for a source close to the sea surface (Figure B-15), acoustic TL may be 

described by the ―Lloyd-mirror‖ effect — the interference of a sound source with its surface reflection or 

―ghost‖ — and simple free-field spherical spreading. An advantage of the free-field Lloyd-mirror model 

is its simplicity: acoustic TL is modeled by spherical spreading with a simple phase delay for the ghost. 

However, the Lloyd-mirror description is only valid at very short ranges from the source (less than a 

single water depth) where bottom reflections and water column refraction are unimportant.

In order to accurately predict received sound levels at longer ranges one must take into account 

reflection and absorption of sound by the sea-bottom and sound refraction in the water column. MONM 

satisfies this requirement by applying a variant of the numerical acoustic TL model RAM (based on the 

parabolic equation solution to the wave equation) to accurately account for these effects in a realistic 

environment. This increase in accuracy, however, comes at a significant computational cost and so two 

simplifications are necessary to make the hundreds of kilometers of TL computations feasible:

 MONM models sound transmission for an equivalent point-like acoustic source combined with 

an azimuthal directivity function, and

 MONM models transmission of acoustic energy in 1/3-octave bands. 

Approximating the airgun array as an omnidirectional source results in under-estimation of RLs 

directly underneath the array (for the reasons outlined in Section 4.2), where free-field models produce 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-44 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

more accurate results. However, beyond a very short range, the vertically projected component of the 

array‘s acoustic energy contributes negligibly to the RL at shallow propagation angles. Thus, MONM is 

able to predict TL as longer ranges, where the free-field model is not applicable. As discussed in Section 

5.2, although the 1/3-octave band approach cannot be used to replicate the acoustic signal in the timedomain, it is widely used in the acoustics community to characterize the energy of the sound field 

produced by broadband sources.

As long as environmental conditions are well defined, RAM provides physically accurate 

predictions of transmission loss for long-range propagation. This is borne out by numerical comparisons 

of RAM with benchmark acoustic propagation models (Collins et al. 1996; Hannay and Racca 2005).

8.3.2 Near-field vs. Far-field Estimates

An airgun array consists of multiple sources and therefore the first simplification above is not 

valid in the near field, close to the array. In the far field, on the other hand, an array radiates as a single 

acoustic source whose SL is dependent only on the propagation angle (both horizontal and vertical) from 

the array (see also Sections 4.2 and 5.1). The acoustic model RAM only computes acoustic transmission 

from a point-like, non-directional acoustic source; therefore, for each propagation bearing, MONM uses a 

different SL based on the horizontal directivity pattern of the airgun array to compute the RL. This 

approximation is valid for propagation at shallow vertical angles, but is not applicable in the region 

immediately above and below the array as shown in Figure B-15, as discussed above. Conversely, while 

the Lloyd-mirror approximation is only valid close to the array, in that region it does properly account for 

near-field interference effects between array elements. 

Note that if we were to neglect the propagation modeling component of MONM, the source 

modeling component alone produces results that are consistent with free-field models.

8.4 Marine Mammal Exposure Modeling – AIM

Table B-4 shows the predicted mitigation radii under Alternative A and Alternative B (Preferred 

Alternative) for shallow and deep portions of each modeled DAA. For each of the five DAAs, two 

examples are provided of the modeled population exposure distributions. These graphs show the numbers 

of animats predicted to be exposed to various rms levels. These distributions are shown separately for the 

shallow and deep portions of each modeling area. Only the portions of these distributions above 155 dB 

re 1 μPa (rms) are shown, to provide greater detail in the portion of the distribution that includes the RLs

that lead to Level A and Level B exposures. If the entire distribution was presented, the much larger 

number of lower RLs would obscure the relevant portion of the distribution (e.g., above 155 dB). It 

should be noted that the numbers of exposures in the figures are for the modeled population. 

In addition, for the tables of predicted exposures in both SPL and SEL levels, JASCO provided 

transmission loss in units of M-weighted SEL that were normalized to a 1-second duration. These were 

converted to dB rms for the pressure exposure results. Under this methodology, the maximum value for 

each animat was selected to represent the exposure of that animat. This value was then compared against 

the appropriate thresholds to determine if each individual exposure would be considered a ―pressure 

take‖. 

The procedure to estimate the energy-based exposure began with determining the maximum 

pressure level, as above. Once the time of that maximum pressure exposure was determined, all exposures 

that occurred 12 hours prior to, and following, the maximum exposure were selected. These were 

converted from decibels to a linear pressure squared metric. All of the measures from the 24-hour period 

were then summed and converted back to a decibel metric.

The difference in the values in the pressure and energy take tables is largely due to the differences 

in the threshold values. To illustrate, the pressure threshold for mysticete cetaceans was 180 db re 1 Pa 

(rms), whereas the energy threshold was 198 dB re 1Pa2∙ sec. Therefore a single 181 dB re 1Pa
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-45

exposure would qualify as a pressure-based take. At the same RL, the animal would need to experience 

63 exposures to accumulate sufficient energy to qualify as an energy-based take.

To estimate the actual numbers of marine mammals that would be exposed to sounds at specified 

levels, the AIM model results for each of the five DAAs were then scaled by the ratio of animat densities 

in the model to the real world animal densities. These real-world exposure estimates are provided in table 

form for Alternatives A and B. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-46 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

8.4.1 S California

Figure B-16. Distribution of Modeled Sound Exposures for Common Dolphin in the S California

Site

Notes: Only the predicted shallow-water sound exposure distributions are shown for Alternatives A and B, since there was no 

deep water for this modeling location. See Table B-13 for predicted numbers of real-world exposures.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-47

Figure B-17. Distribution of Modeled Sound Exposures for California Sea Lion in the S California

Site

Notes: Only the predicted shallow-water sound exposure distributions are shown for Alternatives A and B, since there was no 

deep water for this modeling location. See Table B-13 for predicted numbers of real-world exposures.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-48 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

Table B-13. Real World Exposure Predictions for S California Site under Alternatives A and B

Real World Resident

Pressure Exposures (Shallow)

Real World Resident

Pressure Exposures (Deep)

Real World

Energy Exposures

M-weighted Unweighted M-weighted Unweighted M-weighted and Unweighted

Species Level A Level B Level A Level B Level A Level B Level A Level B Level A

Odontocetes

Gervais‘ beaked whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Blainville‘s beaked whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rough-toothed dolphin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bottlenose dolphin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pantropical spotted dolphin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Spinner dolphin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Clymene dolphin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Striped dolphin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Common dolphin 0.0 270.4 0.0 1,802.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

False killer whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Short-finned pilot whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Northern right whale dolphin 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Harbor porpoise 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dall's porpoise 0.0 13.5 3.4 45.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pacific white-sided dolphin 3.2 12.9 3.2 71.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Killer whale 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Kogia spp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mysticetes

Humpback whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Minke whale 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bryde‘s whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sei whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Fin whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Gray whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Blue whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pinnipeds

Harbor seal 0.0 38.5 0.0 50.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

N. elephant seal 0.0 137.1 0.0 185.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

California sea lion 0.0 2,371.6 0.0 3,613.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Steller‘s sea lion 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Guadalupe fur seal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Northern fur seal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-49

8.4.2 Caribbean

Figure B-18. Distribution of Modeled Sound Exposures for Bottlenose Dolphin in the Caribbean 

Site

Notes: The predicted shallow- and deep-water sound exposure distributions are shown for Alternatives A and B. See Table B-14

for predicted numbers of real-world exposures.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-50 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

Figure B-19. Distribution of Modeled Sound Exposures for Pantropical Spotted Dolphin in the 

Caribbean Site

Notes: The predicted shallow- and deep-water sound exposure distributions are shown for Alternatives A and B. See Table B-14

for predicted numbers of real-world exposures.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-51

Table B-14. Real World Exposure Predictions for the Caribbean Site under Alternatives A and B

Real World Resident

Pressure Exposures (Shallow)

Real World Resident

Pressure Exposures (Deep)

Real World

Energy Exposures

M-weighted Unweighted M-weighted Unweighted M-weighted Unweighted

Species Level A Level B Level A Level B Level A Level B Level A Level B Level A

Odontocetes

Gervais‘ beaked whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Blainville‘s beaked whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rough-toothed dolphin 0.4 8.1 1.7 14.0 0.3 3.0 0.4 12.9 0.0 0.0

Bottlenose dolphin 1.6 43.5 9.8 83.6 0.4 3.6 1.1 10.8 0.0 0.0

Pantropical spotted dolphin 0.7 7.2 1.7 10.5 0.2 2.5 0.4 2.3 0.0 0.1

Atlantic spotted dolphin 10.3 105.3 24.8 152.7 0.7 8.3 1.3 7.8 0.0 2.1

Spinner dolphin 0.1 0.8 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0

Clymene dolphin 0.1 0.8 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0

Striped dolphin 0.1 0.8 0.2 1.2 1.2 14.9 2.4 14.1 0.0 0.4

Long-beaked common dolphin 2.7 22.4 9.0 55.6 0.3 4.2 0.8 8.1 0.0 0.0

Fraser‘s dolphin 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0

Risso‘s dolphin 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0

Melon-headed whale 0.0 0.6 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pygmy killer whale 0.0 0.6 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

False killer whale 0.0 0.6 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Short-finned pilot whale 0.3 6.8 1.7 18.0 0.1 4.0 1.3 10.5 0.0 0.0

Killer whale 0.0 1.0 0.2 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sperm whale 0.0 0.4 0.2 2.9 0.0 2.0 0.3 14.2 0.0 0.0

Kogia spp. 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mysticetes

Humpback whale 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.004 0.0

Minke whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bryde‘s whale 0.3 1.4 0.3 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.019 0.0

Sei whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Fin whale 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.006 0.0

Blue whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-52 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

8.4.3 Galapagos Ridge

Figure B-20. Distribution of Modeled Sound Exposures for Bryde’s Whale in the Galapagos Ridge 

Site

Notes: Only the predicted deep-water sound exposure distributions are shown for Alternatives A and B, since there was no 

shallow water for this modeling location. See Table B-15 for predicted numbers of real-world exposures.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-53

Figure B-21. Distribution of Modeled Sound Exposures for Pantropical Spotted Dolphin in the 

Galapagos Ridge Site

Notes: Only the predicted deep-water sound exposure distributions are shown for Alternatives A and B, since there was no 

shallow water for this modeling location. See Table B-15 for predicted numbers of real-world exposures.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-54 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

Table B-15. Real World Exposure Predictions for the Galapagos Ridge Site under Alternatives A and B

Real World Resident

Pressure Exposures (Shallow)

Real World Resident

Pressure Exposures (Deep)

Real World

Energy Exposures

M-weighted Unweighted M-weighted Unweighted M-weighted Unweighted

Species Level A Level B Level A Level B Level A Level B Level A Level B Level A

Odontocetes

Sperm Whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 5.7 0.025 0.0

Pygmy sperm whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dwarf sperm whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.8 3.0 145.3 0.0 0.0

Cuvier‘s beaked whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 36.2 0.0 0.0

Longman‘s beaked whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pygmy beaked whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Blainville‘s beaked whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mesoplodon spp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 17.7 0.0 0.0

Rough-toothed dolphin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 130.9 0.0 0.0

Bottlenose dolphin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 10.1 1.0 69.5 0.0 0.0

Pantropical spotted dolphin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6 325.7 67.1 2,232.0 0.0 0.0

Spinner dolphin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 174.0 32.9 1,095.4 0.0 0.0

Costa Rican spinner dolphin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Clymene dolphin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Striped dolphin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 141.5 29.1 969.5 0.0 0.0

Short-beaked common dolphin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.9 0.6 22.5 0.0 0.0

Fraser‘s dolphin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.2 0.6 11.0 0.0 0.0

Risso‘s dolphin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.7 56.3 0.0 0.0

Melon-headed whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.5 25.7 0.0 0.0

Pygmy killer whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.8 44.8 0.0 0.0

False killer whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.3 13.5 0.0 0.0

Short-finned pilot whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.9 1.9 100.8 0.0 0.0

Killer whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0

Mysticetes

Humpback whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Minke whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bryde‘s whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 16.8 0.6 21.1 0.0 0.0

Sei whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Fin whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Blue whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-55

8.4.4 W Gulf of Alaska

Figure B-22. Distribution of Modeled Sound Exposures for Fin Whale in the W Gulf of Alaska Site

Notes: The predicted shallow- and deep-water sound exposure distributions are shown for Alternatives A and B. See Table B-16

for predicted numbers of real-world exposures.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-56 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

Figure B-23. Distribution of Modeled Sound Exposures for Steller’s Sea Lion in the W Gulf of 

Alaska Site

Notes: The predicted shallow- and deep-water sound exposure distributions are shown for Alternatives A and B. See Table B-16

for predicted numbers of real-world exposures.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-57

Table B-16. Real World Exposure Predictions for the W Gulf of Alaska Site under Alternatives A and B

Real World Resident

Pressure Exposures (Shallow)

Real World Resident

Pressure Exposures (Deep)

Real World

Energy Exposures

M-weighted Unweighted M-weighted Unweighted M-weighted Unweighted

Species Level A Level B Level A Level B Level A Level B Level A Level B Level A

Odontocetes

Sperm whale 0.0 2.5 0.3 4.8 0.0 0.4 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0

Cuvier‘s beaked whale 0.4 12.6 1.0 25.8 0.0 1.1 0.1 16.9 0.0 0.1

Baird‘s beaked whale 0.1 3.9 0.3 7.9 0.0 0.3 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0

Stejneger‘s beaked whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Beluga whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pacific white-sided dolphin 0.1 7.3 1.1 14.0 0.1 4.0 0.3 12.3 0.0 0.0

Risso‘s dolphin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Killer whale 0.2 8.9 1.2 18.6 0.0 3.0 0.8 7.1 0.0 0.0

Short-finned pilot whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Harbor porpoise 0.5 61.7 15.1 137.4 0.0 17.9 4.3 27.0 0.0 0.0

Dall's porpoise 9.5 482.2 133.7 1,269.8 0.0 176.6 33.4 377.1 0.0 0.0

Mysticetes

N Pacific right whale 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0

Gray whale 9.8 115.6 9.3 119.6 2.7 35.1 2.7 32.9 0.0 0.0

Humpback whale 13.6 154.8 14.3 163.7 5.5 31.4 4.8 23.9 0.0 0.0

Minke whale 2.2 36.9 1.9 38.3 0.8 9.5 0.8 7.9 0.0 0.0

Sei whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Fin whale 13.7 122.9 12.7 131.4 0.5 39.6 1.1 34.3 0.0 0.0

Blue whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pinnipeds

N fur seal 0.1 9.0 1.3 10.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0

California sea lion 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Steller‘s sea lion 0.0 86.3 6.1 109.9 0.9 23.1 0.9 16.1 0.4 0.0

Pacific walrus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bearded seal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Harbor seal 1.4 142.3 13.5 203.2 1.4 32.6 4.2 29.0 1.4 0.0

Spotted seal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ringed seal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ribbon seal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

N elephant seal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-58 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

8.4.5 NW Atlantic

Figure B-24. Distribution of Modeled Sound Exposures for Bottlenose Dolphin in the NW Atlantic 

Site

Notes: The predicted shallow- and deep-water sound exposure distributions are shown for Alternatives A and B. See Table B-17

for predicted numbers of real-world exposures.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-59

Figure B-25. Distribution of Modeled Sound Exposures for Sperm Whale in the NW Atlantic Site

Notes: The predicted shallow- and deep-water sound exposure distributions are shown for Alternatives A and B. See Table B-17

for predicted numbers of real-world exposures.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-60 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

Table B-17. Real World Exposure Predictions for the NW Atlantic Site under Alternatives A and B

Real World Resident

Pressure Exposures (Shallow)

Real World Resident

Pressure Exposures (Deep)

Real World

Energy Exposures

M-weighted Unweighted M-weighted Unweighted M-weighted and Unweighted

Species Level A Level B Level A Level B Level A Level B Level A Level B Level A

Odontocetes

Sperm whale 0.3 13.3 0.3 37.9 0.0 0.7 0.3 1.0 0.0

Kogia spp. 0.1 7.8 0.1 20.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0

Bottlenose whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Unidentified beaked whale 0.0 3.1 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bottlenose dolphin 2.1 134.9 2.1 341.6 0.0 2.1 0.0 4.2 0.0

Spotted dolphin 0.0 50.6 0.9 117.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.9 0.0

Spinner dolphin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Striped dolphin 0.0 251.9 4.3 581.9 0.0 4.3 0.0 4.3 0.0

Common dolphin 8.0 378.3 8.0 1,118.7 0.0 24.1 0.0 32.2 0.0

Whitesided dolphin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Harbor porpoise 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pilot whale 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mysticetes 0.0

Right whale 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Humpback whale 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Minke whale 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sei whale 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Fin whale 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-61

9 Literature Cited

Austin, M.E., A.O. MacGillivray, D.E. Hannay, and S.A. Carr. 2003. Acoustic Monitoring of Marathon 

Canada Petroleum ULC 2003 Courland/Empire Seismic Program. Marathon Canada Petroleum ULC, 

by JASCO Research Ltd.

Barlow, J. 1999. Trackline detection probability for long-diving whales. Pages 209-221 in G.W. Garner, 

S.C. Amstrup, J.L. Laake, B.F.J. Manly, L.L. McDonald, and D.G. Robertson, eds. Marine Mammal 

Survey and Assessment Methods. A.A Balkema, Brookfield, VT.

Barrie, J.V. and B.D. Bornhold. 1989. Surficial geology of Hecate Strait, British Columbia continental 

shelf. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 26:1241-1254.

Becker, K., A. Bartetzko, and E.E. Davis. 2001. Leg 174B synopsis: revisiting Hole 395A for logging 

and long-term monitoring of off-axis hydrothermal processes in young oceanic crust. In K. Becker 

and M.J. Malone, eds. Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results, Volume 174B. 

Available from http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/174B_SR/synopsis/synopsis.htm.

Bishop, G.C., W.T. Ellison, and L.E. Mellberg. 1987. A simulation model for high-frequency under-ice 

reverberation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 82:275-285.

Blackwell, S.B., R.G. Norman, C.R. Greene Jr. and W.J. Richardson. 2007. Acoustic measurements. 

Pages 4-1 – 4-52 in Marine mammal monitoring and mitigation during open water seismic

exploration by Shell Offshore Inc. in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, July-September 2006: 90-day 

report. LGL Report P891-1. Prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates Inc., Anchorage, AK, 

and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Shell Offshore Inc., Houston, TX, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK. 

Brueggeman, J.J., G.A. Green, R.A. Grotefendt, and D.G. Chapman. 1987. Aerial surveys of endangered 

cetaceans and other marine mammals in the northwestern Gulf of Alaska and southeastern Bering 

Sea. Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program, Final Report, Principal 

Investigation 61(1989):1-124. OCS Study MMS 89-0026. Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, 

AK. 

Brueggeman, J.J., G.A. Green, R.W. Tressler, and D.G. Chapman. 1988. Shipboard surveys of 

endangered cetaceans in the northwestern Gulf of Alaska. OCS Environmental Assessment Program 

Final Report, Principal Investigation 61(1989):125-188. OCS Study MMS 89-0026. Prepared by

Envirosphere Company for Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Office and NOAA, Office of 

Oceanography and Marine Assessment, Alaska Office.

Buogo, S. and G.B. Cannelli. 2002. Implosion of an underwater spark-generated bubble and acoustic 

energy evaluation using the Rayleigh model. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 111:2594-

2600.

Carey, W.M., J. Doutt, R.B. Evans, and L.M. Dillma. 1995. Shallow-water sound transmission 

measurements on the New Jersey continental shelf. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering 20:321-

336.

Clay, C.S. and H. Medwin. 1977. Acoustical Oceanography. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Collins, M.D., R.J. Cederberg, D.B. King, and S.A. Chin-Bing. 1996. Comparison of algorithms for 

solving parabolic wave equations. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 100:178-182.

Coppens, A.B. 1981. Simple equations for the speed of sound in Neptunian waters. Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America 69:862–863.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-62 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

Divins, D.L. 2006. NGDC Total Sediment Thickness of the World's Oceans & Marginal Seas. 

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/sedthick/sedthick.html. Accessed November.

Dragoset, W.H. 1984. A comprehensive method for evaluating the design of airguns and airgun arrays. 

16th Annual Proceedings of Offshore Technology Conference 3:75-84.

Edgerton, H.E. and G.G. Hayward. 1964. The  ̳Boomer‘ sonar source for seismic profiling. Journal of 

Geophysical Research 69:3033-3042.

Einwich, A.E. 1981. Geology related to Acoustic transmission: Eastern Caribbean. Naval Ocean 

Research and Development Activity, NSTL Station, MS.

Ellison, W.T., R.M. Sonntag, and C.W. Clark. 1987. Comparison of measured bowhead whale, Balaena

mysticetus, migration parameters with results from the tracking algorithm. Reports of the 

International Whaling Commission 37:309-311.

Ferguson, M.C. and J. Barlow. 2001. Spatial Distributions and Density of Cetaceans in the Eastern 

Tropical Pacific Ocean Based on Summer/Fall Research Vessel Surveys in 1986-96. National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, CA.

Finneran, J.J., C.E. Schlundt, R. Dear, D.A. Carder, and S.H. Ridgway. 2002. Temporary shift in masked 

hearing thresholds in odontocetes after exposure to single underwater impulses from a seismic 

watergun. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 111:2929-2940.

Finneran, J.J., D.A. Carder, C.E. Schlundt, and S.H. Ridgway. 2005. Temporary threshold shift in 

bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) exposed to mid-frequency tones. Journal of the Acoustical 

Society of America 118:2696-2705.

Francois, R.E. and G.R. Garrison. 1982a. Sound absorption based on ocean measurements. Part I: Pure 

water and magnesium sulfate contributions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 72:896-907.

Francois, R.E. and G.R. Garrison. 1982b. Sound absorption based on ocean measurements. Part II: Boric 

acid contribution and equation for total absorption. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 

72:1879-1890.

Frankel A.S. and K.V. Vigness-Raposa. 2006. Marine Animal Behavioral Analysis. Marine Acoustics, 

Inc., Annapolis, MD.

Frankel, A.S., W.T. Ellison, and J. Buchanan. 2002. Application of the Acoustic Integration Model (AIM) 

to predict and minimize environmental impacts. Pages 1438-1443 in Oceans '02, Vol. 3. Marine 

Technology Society & IEEE.

Goff, J.A., B.J. Kraft, L.A. Mayer, S.G. Schock, C.K. Sommerfield, H.C. Olson, S.P.S. Gulick, and S. 

Nordfjord. 2004. Seabed characterization on the New Jersey middle and outer shelf: correlatability 

and spatial variability of seafloor sediment properties. Marine Geology 209:147–172.

Goold, J.C. and P.J. Fish. 1998. Broadband spectra of seismic survey air-gun emissions, with reference to 

dolphin auditory thresholds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 103:2177-2184.

Greene, C.R., Jr. and W.J. Richardson. 1988. Characteristics of marine seismic survey sounds in the 

Beaufort Sea. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 83:2246-2254.

Greene, C.R., Jr., J.S. Hanna, and R.W. Blaylock. 1997. Physical acoustics measurements. Pages 3-1 – 3-

63 in W.J. Richardson, ed. Northstar Marine Mammal Monitoring Program, 1996: Marine Mammal 

and Acoustical Monitoring of a Seismic Program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. LGL Rep. 2121-2. 

Prepared by LGL Ltd., King City, ON, and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for BP 

Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Anchorage, AK, and NMFS, Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-63

Guerin, G. 2000. Acoustic and Thermal Characterization of Oil Migration, Gas Hydrates Formation and 

Silica Diagenesis. Dissertation, Columbia University, NY.

Haley, B. 2006. Marine mammal monitoring during University of Texas at Austin‘s marine geophysical

survey of the Western Canada Basin, Chukchi Borderland and Mendeleev Ridge, Arctic Ocean, July–

August 2006. LGL Rep. TA4285-3. Prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates Inc., Anchorage, 

AK, and LGL Ltd., King City, ONT, for University of Texas at Austin Institute for Geophysics, 

Austin, TX; NMFS, Silver Spring, MD; and USFWS, Anchorage, AK. November.

Hamilton, E.L. 1980. Geoacoustic modeling of the sea floor. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

68:1313-1340.

Hannay, D.E. and R.G. Racca. 2005. Acoustic model validation. Technical report prepared by JASCO 

Research Ltd. for Sakhalin Energy Investment Company. 18 February. Available at 

http://www.sakhalinenergy.com/en/documents/doc_33_jasco.pdf. 

Herzig, P.M., S.E. Humphris, D.J. Miller, and R.A. Zierenberg, Eds. 1998. Proceedings of the Ocean 

Drilling Program, Scientific Results, Volume 158. College Station, TX.

Holland, C.W. 2003. Seabed reflection measurement uncertainty. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America 114:1861-1873.

Hutchins, R.W., D.L. McKeown, and L.H. Kind. 1976. A deep-tow high resolution seismic system for 

continental shelf mapping. Geoscience Canada 3:95-100.

James, N.P., Y. Bone, T.K. Kyser, G.R. Dix, and L.B. Collins. 2004. The importance of changing 

oceanography in controlling late Quaternary carbonate sedimentation on a high-energy, tropical, 

oceanic ramp: north-western Australia. Sedimentology 51:1179-1205.

Kastak, D., R.J. Schusterman, B.L. Southall, and C.J. Reichmuth. 1999. Underwater temporary threshold 

shift induced by octave-band noise in three species of pinniped. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America 106:1142-1148.

Keenan, R.E., D.F. McCammon, E. Holmes, and M.S. Moustafa. 2001. Resolution and Accuracy of 

Environmental Parameters Required for Precise Acoustic Predictions. N774C Report.

Koski, W.R., J.W. Lawson, D.H. Thomson, and W.J. Richardson. 1998. Marine Mammal Technical 

Report. Point Mugu Sea Range Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact 

Statement. Prepared by LGL Ltd., environmental research associates, King City, ONT, and Ogden 

Environmental and Energy Services, Santa Barbara, CA, for Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons 

Division, Point Mugu, CA. December.

Landro, M. 1992. Modeling of GI gun signatures. Geophysical Prospecting 40:721-747. 

Laws, M., L. Hatton, and M. Haartsen. 1990. Computer modeling of clustered airguns. First Break 8:331–

338.

L-DEO and NSF. 2003. Environmental Assessment of a Marine Seismic Survey by the R/V Maurice

Ewing in the Hess Deep Area of the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean. Prepared by LGL Ltd., 

environmental research associates, King City, ONT. LGL Report TA2822-4. 18 March.

L-DEO and NSF. 2004. Environmental Assessment of a Marine Geophysical Survey by the R/V Kilo

Moana around the Aleutian Islands, June–July 2005. LGL Report 4089-1. Prepared by LGL, Ltd., 

environmental research associates, King City, ONT. 20 December. 

Lurton, X. 2002. An Introduction to Underwater Acoustics: Principles and Applications. Springer, 

Chichester, UK.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-64 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

MacGillivray, A.O. 2000. An Acoustic Modeling Study of Seismic Airgun Noise in Queen Charlotte 

Basin. Thesis, University of Victoria, BC.

MacGillivray, A.O. and D. Hannay. 2007. Chapter 3: Summary of noise assessment. Pages 3-1 – 3-21 in

Marine mammal monitoring and mitigation during open water seismic exploration by ConocoPhillips 

Alaska, Inc. in the Chukchi Sea, July-October 2006. LGL Report P903-2. Prepared by LGL Alaska 

Research Associates Inc., Anchorage, AK, and JASCO Research Ltd., Victoria, BC, for 

ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc., Anchorage, AK, and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 

Malme, C.I., P.W. Smith, and P.R. Miles. 1986. Characterisation of geophysical acoustic survey sounds. 

Prepared by BBN Laboratories Inc., Cambridge, for Battelle Memorial Institute to the Minerals

Management Service, Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Region, Los Angeles, CA.

McCammon, D.F. 2000. Capturing Uncertainty: Uncertainty in Propagation Loss Calculations. ONR 

Uncertainty Workshop.

McCauley, R.D., M.-N. Jenner, C. Jenner, K.A. McCabe, and J. Murdoch. 1998. The response of 

humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to offshore seismic survey noise: preliminary results of 

observations about a working seismic vessel and experimental exposures. APPEA Journal 38:692-

707.

Medwin, H. 2005. Sounds in the Sea: From Ocean Acoustics to Acoustical Oceanography. Cambridge 

University Press, NY.

Morales, F.E. and G. Godoy. 1996. Sediment distribution in El Tablazo bay, Maracaibo system, 

Venezuela. IEEE 3:1492–1496.

Mosher, D.C. and P.G. Simpkin. 1999. Status and trends of marine high-resolution seismic reflection 

profiling: data acquisition. Geoscience Canada 26:174-188.

NMFS. 2000. Small takes of marine mammals incidental to specified activities; marine seismic-reflection 

data collection in southern California. Federal Register 65:16374-16379.

NMFS. 2005. Endangered Fish and Wildlife; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement. Federal Register 70:1871-1875.

Palka, D.L. 2006. Summer abundance estimates of cetaceans in US North Atlantic Navy Operating Areas. 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 06-03. NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science 

Center, Woods Hole, MA.

Parkes, G.E. and L. Hatton. 1986. The Marine Seismic Source. Springer, NY

Pirmez, C., R.D. Flood, J. Baptiste, H. Yin, and P.L. Manley. 1997. Clay content, porosity and velocity of 

Amazon Fan sediments determined from ODP Leg 155 core and wireline logs. Geophysical Research 

Letters 24:317–320.

Prell, W.L., N. Niitsuma, et al. 1989. Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Volume 117, Initial 

Reports. Ocean Drilling Program, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. Available at: 

http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/117_IR/117ir.htm. 

Racca, R.G. and J.A. Scrimger. 1986. Underwater Acoustic Source Characteristics of Air and Water 

Guns. Contractor report by JASCO Research Ltd., Victoria, BC, for DREP. Contract No. 06SB 

97708-5-7055.

Reid, J.A. 2005. Point Coverage SCASMPL: Sediment sample data for the Channel Islands and Santa 

Barbara Channel Region. U.S. Geological Survey.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-65

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine mammals and noise. 

Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 

Roberts, R.W. 1976. Bottom sediment granulometric data for the Continental margins of the Bering, 

Chukchi East Siberian, Laptev, and Beaufort Seas. Special Report #70. University of Washington, 

Seattle, WA.

Robinson, E.S. and C.S. Çoruh. 1988. Basic Exploration Geophysics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New 

York.

Shore-based Scientific Party. 1994. Site 893, Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Project, Initial Reports, 

Vol. 146 (Part 2). J.P. Kennett, J.G. Baldauf, et al., eds. Ocean Drilling Program, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX.

Shipboard Scientific Party. 1998. Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Initial Reports, Vol. 174A. 

J.A. Austin, Jr., N. Christie-Blick, M.J. Malone, et al., eds. Ocean Drilling Program, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX.

Shipboard Scientific Party. 2003a. Leg 203 Summary, Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Initial 

Reports, Vol. 203. J.A. Orcutt, A. Schultz, T.A. Davies, et al., eds. Ocean Drilling Program, Texas 

A&M University, College Station, TX.

Shipboard Scientific Party. 2003b. Leg 206 Summary, Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Initial 

Reports, Vol. 206. D.S. Wilson, D.A.H. Teagle, G.D. Acton, et al., eds. Ocean Drilling Program, 

Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

Smultea, M.A., M. Holst, W.R. Koski, and S. Stoltz. 2004. Marine mammal monitoring during LamontDoherty Earth Observatory's seismic program in the Southeast Caribbean Sea and adjacent Atlantic 

Ocean, April-June 2004. LGL Rep. TA2822-26. Prepared by LGL Ltd., King City, ONT, for LamontDoherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY. 

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 33:411-521.

Teague, W.J., M.J. Carron, and P.J. Hogan. 1990. A comparison between the generalized digital 

environmental model and Levitus climatologies. Journal of Geophysical Research 95(C5):7167-7183.

Thomas, T.A., W.R. Koski, and W.J. Richardson. 2002. Correction factors to calculate bowhead whale 

numbers from aerial surveys of the Beaufort Sea. Pages 12-1 – 12-38 in W.J. Richardson and D.H.

Thomson, eds. OCS Study MMS 2002-012. U.S. Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, AK, and 

Herndon, VA.

Valent, P.J. and H.J. Lee. 1971. NCEL core data – Santa Barbara Channel area, Report #1. Naval Civil 

Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, CA.

Zerbini, A.N., A. Andriolo, M.P. Heide-Jørsen, J.L. Pizzorno, Y.G. Maia, G.R. VanBlaricom, D.P. 

DeMaster, P.C. Simões-Lopes, S. Moreira, and C. Bethlem. 2006. Satellite-monitored movements of 

humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae in the Southwest Atlantic Ocean. Marine Ecology

Progress Series 313:295-304.

Zhang, Z. and C. Tindle. 1995. Improved equivalent fluid approximations for a low shear speed ocean 

bottom. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 98:3391-3396. 

Ziolkowski, A. 1970. A method for calculating the output pressure waveform from an air gun. 

Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 21:137–161.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-66 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

[This page intentionally left blank.]
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-67

Annex 1: Far-field SL Computation

The 1/3-octave band SLs for each modeling azimuth were computed from the horizontally 

propagating far-field signature of the array. The far-field signature, sff(t) is the sum of the notional 

signatures of the individual guns, si(t), time delayed according to their relative position and the 

propagation angle:

    

n

ff i i

s (t) s t  (,)

where τi is its time-delay of the i

th gun in the angular direction (θ, 

). For horizontal sound propagation 

  0

and the time delay is only a function of the azimuthal angle, θ:

x y  c  i

  icos  isin

where (xi, yi) is the position of gun i in the plane of the array and c is the speed of sound. A plan view 

diagram, illustrating the geometry of the far-field summation, is shown in Figure A1-1. It is often more 

convenient to perform this calculation in the frequency domain by utilizing the Fourier transform shift 

theorem, which states that a time delay of τ corresponds to a phase delay of 2πfτ, so that:

 











 

n

ff i i i

x y

c

j f

S f S f ( cos sin )

2

( , ) ( )exp  





where f is frequency and S(f) denotes the Fourier transform of s(t). The far-field signature is then filtered 

into 1⁄3-octave pass-bands to generate frequency dependent SLs:

df

f

f

SL f S f

hi

lo c ff

2

( , ) 2 ( , )



   

where SL(fc, θ) is the SL in a 1/3-octave band with centre frequency fc, in the azimuthal direction θ. Note 

that the limits of integration in this equation, flo and fhi, are the lower and upper frequency bounds of the 

1

/3-octave band. Source levels, computed in this way, are suitable for combining with TL output by a 

propagation model to compute received sound levels in the far field. airgun

(x

i, yi)

 = 0

i

Figure A1-1. Plan View Diagram of the Far-field Summation Geometry for an Airgun Array
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-68 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

Airgun Model Optimization

A collection of high-quality airgun signature data, obtained from a DREP technical report by 

Racca and Scrimger [1986], was used to determine optimal values for four empirical model parameters, α, 

β, γ and κ. The airgun data were collected by DREP in Jarvis Inlet aboard the CFAV Endeavor as part of 

a study of the source characteristics of seismic airguns and water-guns. The dataset contains a collection 

of 38 back-propagated source signatures for five different Bolt 600/B airguns. The volumes of the airguns 

in the dataset are 5 in3, 10 in3, 40 in3, 80 in3and 185 in3and the firing depths of the airguns range from 

0.5 m to 10 m.

Best-fit values for the model parameters were obtained using a simulated annealing global 

optimization algorithm to fit the airgun model to the experimental source signature data.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-69

Annex 2: Airgun Array 1/3-Octave Band SLs

Figure A2-1. Directionality of the Airgun Array Source Levels (dB re μPa2∙ s) (R/V Langseth 2-D 

Reflection, 2 x 1, 650 in3, 6 m tow depth); also 3-D Reflection, two sub-arrays fired in “flip-flop” 

fashion).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-70 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

Figure A2-2. Directionality of the Airgun Array Source Levels (dB re μPa2∙ s) (R/V Langseth 2-D

Reflection, 4 x 1, 650 in3, 6 m tow depth)
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-71

Figure A2-3. Directionality of the Airgun Array Source Levels (dB re μPa2∙ s) (R/V Langseth 2-D

Refraction, 4 x 1, 650 in3, 12 m tow depth)
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-72 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

Figure A2-4. Directionality of the Airgun Array Source Levels (dB μPa2∙ s) (R/V Langseth 2-D

High Resolution, 2 x GI, 2.5 m tow depth)
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-73

Figure A2-5. Directionality of the Airgun Array Source Levels (dB μPa2∙ s) (R/V Langseth 3-D

High Resolution, 2 x GI, 2.5 m tow depth)
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-74 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

[This page intentionally left blank.]
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-75

Annex 3: Source Locations and Study Areas

The locations of modeling sites within each of the five study areas under consideration are shown 

in Figure A3-1 through Figure A3-5. In each case, the proposed ship‘s track and AIM modeling 

boundaries are also shown. 

Figure A3-1. Locations of S California Modeling Sites
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-76 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

Figure A3-2. Locations of Caribbean Modeling Sites
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-77

Figure A3-3. Locations of Galapagos Ridge Modeling Sites
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-78 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

Figure A3-4. Locations of W Gulf of Alaska Modeling Sites
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-79

Figure A3-5. Locations of NW Atlantic Modeling Sites
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-80 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

[This page intentionally left blank.]
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-81

Annex 4: Marine Mammal Species and Associated Densities 

and Animat Depth Restrictions Included in AIM 

Modeling

This annex includes tables of species modeled for each of the exemplary DAAs. Species that 

were combined for modeling are highlighted in tan. Refer to Appendix C of the EIS/OEIS for scientific 

names. See Section 7.7 of this Appendix for sources of marine mammal density information that were 

considered for each DAA.

Table A4-1. Species and Densities Modeled at the Caribbean Site

Species

Shallow Density

(number/km2)

Deep Density

(number/km2)

Depth Constraint

Min (m) Max (m)

ODONTOCETES

Gervais‘ beaked whale <0.0001 0.0000 -30

Blainville‘s beaked whale <0.0001 0.0000 -30

Rough-toothed dolphin 0.0022 0.0010 -194

Bottlenose dolphin 0.0082 0.0014 -25

Pantropical spotted dolphin 0.0014 0.0007 -10

Atlantic spotted dolphin 0.0206 0.0022 -10

Spinner dolphin 0.0002 0.0001 -10

Clymene dolphin 0.0002 0.0001 -10

Striped dolphin 0.0002 0.0040 -10

Long-beaked common dolphin 0.0448 0.0050 -100 -1,000

Fraser‘s dolphin 0.0001 <0.0001 -100

Risso‘s dolphin 0.0001 <0.0001 -100

Melon-headed whale 0.0002 0.0000 -200

Pygmy killer whale 0.0002 0.0000 -200

False killer whale 0.0002 0.0000 -200

Short-finned pilot whale 0.0028 0.0012 -200

Kogia spp. <0.0001 0.0000 -117

Sperm Whale 0.0003 0.0011 -200

Killer whale 0.0002 0.0000 -10

MYSTICETES

Humpback whale <0.0001 0.0000 -25

Minke whale 0.0000 0.0000 -30

Bryde‘s whale 0.0002 0.0000 -50

Sei whale 0.0000 0.0000 -50

Fin whale <0.0001 0.0000 -30

Blue whale 0.0000 0.0000 -50
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-82 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

Table A4-2. Species and Densities Modeled at the NW Atlantic Site

Species Shallow Density

(number/km2)

Deep Density

(number/km2)

Depth Constraint

Min (m) Max (m)

ODONTOCETES

Sperm whale 0.0170 0.0171 -100

Kogia spp. 0.0068 0.0068 -100

Bottlenose whale 0.0000 0.0000 -100

Bottlenose dolphin 0.1054 0.1054 -30

Spotted dolphin 0.0436 0.0436 -10

Spinner dolphin 0.0000 0.0000 -10

Striped dolphin 0.2171 0.2171 -10

Common dolphin 0.4024 0.4024 -100

White-sided dolphin 0.0000 0.0000 -50

Harbor porpoise 0.0000 0.0000 -10

Pilot whale 0.0000 0.0000 -100

MYSTICETES

Right whale <0.0001 <0.0001 -10

Humpback whale 0.0003 0.0003 -25

Minke whale <0.0001 <0.0001 -30

Sei whale <0.0001 <0.0001 -30

Fin whale 0.0013 0.0013 -30

Table A4-3. Species and Densities Modeled at the Galapagos Ridge Site

Species Shallow Density

(number/km2)

Deep Density

(number/km2)

Depth Constraint

Min (m) Max (m)

ODONTOCETES

Pygmy sperm whale 0.0000 0.0000 -100

Dwarf sperm whale 0.0247 0.0247 -100

Sperm Whale 0.0006 0.0006 -200

Cuvier‘s beaked whale 0.0053 0.0053 -100

Longman‘s beaked whale 0.0000 0.0000 -100

Blainville‘s beaked whale 0.0026 0.0026 -100

Rough-toothed dolphin 0.0053 0.0053 -194

Bottlenose dolphin 0.0000 0.0000 -30

Pantropical spotted dolphin 0.0026 0.0026 -10

Spinner dolphin 0.0093 0.0093 -10

Clymene dolphin 0.0062 0.0062 -10

Striped dolphin 0.2395 0.2395 -10

Short-beaked common dolphin 0.0024 0.0024 -100

Fraser‘s dolphin 0.0016 0.0016 -100

Risso‘s dolphin 0.0061 0.0061 -100

Melon-headed whale 0.0017 0.0017 -100

Pygmy killer whale 0.0030 0.0030 -100

False killer whale 0.0009 0.0009 -100

Short-finned pilot whale 0.0067 0.0067 -100

Killer whale 0.0003 0.0003 -10

MYSTICETES

Humpback whale 0.0000 0.0000 -25

Minke whale 0.0000 0.0000 -30

Bryde‘s whale 0.0016 0.0016 -30

Sei whale 0.0000 0.0000 -30

Fin whale 0.0000 0.0000 -30

Blue whale 0.0001 0.0001 -100
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-83

Table A4-4. Species and Densities Modeled at the S California Site

Species Shallow Density

(number/km2)

Deep Density

(number/km2)

Depth Constraint

Min (m) Max (m)

ODONTOCETES

Gervais‘ beaked whale 0.0000 0.0000 -100

Blainville‘s beaked whale 0.0000 0.0000 -100

Rough-toothed dolphin 0.0000 0.0000 -194

Bottlenose dolphin 0.0000 0.0000 -30

Pantropical spotted dolphin 0.0000 0.0000 -10

Spinner dolphin 0.0000 0.0000 -10

Clymene dolphin 0.0000 0.0000 -10

Striped dolphin 0.0000 0.0000 -10

Common dolphin 9.0130 9.0130 -100

False killer whale 0.0000 0.0000 -100

Short-finned pilot whale <0.0001 <0.0001 -100

Northern right whale dolphin 0.0216 0.0216 -50

Kogia spp. 0.0000 0.0000 -100

Harbor porpoise 0.0000 0.0000 -10

Dall's porpoise 0.1691 0.1691 -100

Pacific white-sided dolphin 0.3226 0.3226 -50

Killer whale 0.0039 0.0039 -10

MYSTICETES

Humpback whale 0.0000 0.0000 -25

Minke whale 0.0019 0.0019 -30

Bryde‘s whale 0.0000 0.0000 -30

Sei whale 0.0000 0.0000 -30

Fin whale 0.0000 0.0000 -30

Gray whale 0.0000 0.0000 -10 -200

Blue whale 0.0000 0.0000 -100

PINNIPEDS

Harbor seal 0.2960 0.2960 -10

N elephant seal 0.8064 0.8064 -10

California sea lion 11.2935 11.2935 -10

Steller‘s sea lion 0.0000 0.0000 -10

Guadalupe fur seal 0.0000 0.0000 -10

N fur seal 0.0000 0.0000 -10

FISSIPEDS S sea otter NA NA NA NA
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-84 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

Table A4-5. Species and Densities Modeled at the W Gulf of Alaska Site

Species Shallow Density

(number/km2)

Deep Density

(number/km2)

Depth Constraint

Min (m) Max (m)

ODONTOCETES

Sperm Whale 0.0005 0.0005 -100

Cuvier‘s beaked whale 0.0035 0.0035 -100

Baird‘s beaked whale 0.0011 0.0011 -100

Stejneger‘s beaked whale 0.0000 0.0000 -100

Beluga whale 0.0000 0.0000 -25

Pacific white-sided dolphin 0.0014 0.0014 -50

Risso‘s dolphin 0.0000 0.0000 -25

Killer whale 0.0018 0.0018 -25

Short-finned pilot whale 0.0000 0.0000 -100

Harbor porpoise 0.0135 0.0135 -10

Dall's porpoise 0.1193 0.1193 -10

MYSTICETES

N Pacific right whale 0.0000 0.0000 -10

Gray whale 0.0111 0.0111 -25

Humpback whale 0.0171 0.0171 -25

Minke whale 0.0039 0.0039 -30

Sei whale 0.0000 0.0000 -30

Fin whale 0.0132 0.0132 -30

Blue whale 0.0000 0.0000 -25

PINNIPEDS

N fur seal (shelf/deep) 0.0011 0.0011 -25/-300 -300

California sea lion 0.0000 0.0000 -25

Steller‘s sea lion 0.0109 0.0109 -25

Pacific walrus 0.0000 0.0000 -25

Harbor Seal 0.0177 0.0177 -25

N elephant seal 0.0000 0.0000 -25

FISSIPEDS S sea otter NA NA NA NA
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-85

Annex 5: Noise Maps

Sound field maps for each modeling region are shown in Figure A5-1 through Figure A5-11

below. At each point, maximum sound levels are calculated over all modeled depths, up to the lesser of 

2,000 m or seafloor depth. Raw model output (i.e., without a 3-dB precautionary factor or frequency 

weighting) is shown in all cases. Note that the geographic scale of the maps may change from figure to 

figure. In particular, zoomed-in plots such as those in Figure A5-2 were created using one of two scales: 

the sound fields from the larger arrays (18- and 36-gun arrays) are shown at a scale of 1:200,000, while 

those from the smaller arrays (GI guns) are shown at a scale of 1:20,000. This is indicated by the scale bar 

in the bottom right portion of each figure.

In addition, range-depth plots of the modeled sound field are shown in Figure A5-12 through 

Figure A5-14 for shallow, slope, and deep-water sites in the Caribbean. The Caribbean region represents 

an extreme case in terms of the associated sound speed profile and is characterized by a mid-water sound 

speed minimum near 750 m depth (see Section 6.4.2.2). The cross-sections in these figures were created 

by running the sound propagation model at a higher resolution along selected radials, typically in 

directions where the top-down views in Figure A5-1 and Figure A5-3 indicate that the sound field is most 

intense. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-86 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

Figure A5-1. Predicted SELs for S California Modeling Sites

Note: Source is a pair of 45/105 in3 GI guns, at a depth of 2.5 m. See also Figure A5-2 below. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-87

Figure A5-2. Predicted SELs for S California Modeling Sites (zoomed-in from Figure A5-1. 

Predicted SELs for S California Modeling Sites)

Note: Source is a pair of 45/105 in3 GI guns, at a depth of 2.5 m.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-88 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

Figure A5-3. Predicted SELs for Caribbean Modeling Sites

Note: Source is a 36-gun array (6,600 in3), at a depth of 12 m. See also Figure A5-4 below.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-89

Figure A5-4. Predicted SELs for Caribbean modeling sites (zoomed-in from Figure A5-3)

Note: Source is a 36-gun array (6,600 in3) at a depth of 12 m.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-90 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

Figure A5-5. Predicted SELs for Galapagos Ridge Modeling Sites

Notes: Source is an 18-gun array (3,300 in3), at a depth of 6 m. Only the results obtained for an array heading of 0° 

(northward-pointing) are shown. See also Figure A5-6 below.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-91

Figure A5-6. Predicted SELs for Galapagos Ridge Modeling Sites (zoomed-in from Figure A5-5)

Note: Source is an 18-gun array (3,300 in3) at a depth of 6 m.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-92 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

Figure A5-7. Predicted SELs for W Gulf of Alaska Modeling Sites 1 and 3

Notes: In order to avoid overlap, the sound field for site 2 is shown separately in Figure A5-8 below. Source is an 

18-gun array (3,300 in3) at a depth of 6 m. See also Figure A5-9 for zoomed-in views.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-93

Figure A5-8. Predicted SELs for W Gulf of Alaska Modeling Site 2

Notes: In order to avoid overlap, the sound fields for sites 1 and 3 are shown separately in Figure A5-7 above. 

Source is an 18-gun array (3,300 in3) at a depth of 6 m. See Figure A5-9 for zoomed-in views.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-94 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

Figure A5-9. Predicted SELs for W Gulf of Alaska Modeling Sites (zoomed-in from Figure A5-7

and Figure A5-8

Note: Source is an 18-gun array (3,300 in3) at a depth of 6 m.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-95

Figure A5-10. Predicted SELs for NW Atlantic Modeling Sites

Notes: Source is a pair of 45/105 in3 GI guns at a depth of 2.5 m. See also Figure A5-11 below.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-96 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

Figure A5-11. Predicted SELs for NW Atlantic Modeling Sites (zoomed in from Figure A5-10)

Note: Source is a pair of 45/105 in3guns at a depth of 2.5 m.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report B-97

Figure A5-12. Predicted SELs for Caribbean site #1 (shallow water), for Transects in the Aft 

Endfire (middle panel) and Starboard Broadside (right panel) Directions

Notes: Source is a 36-gun array (6,600 in3) at a depth of 12 m. The sound speed profile (downloaded from the 

GDEM database) is shown in the left panel. The bottom is outlined and shown in dark blue.

Figure A5-13. Predicted SELs for Caribbean Site #2 (deep water), for Transects in the Aft Endfire 

(middle panel) and Port Broadside (right panel) Directions

Notes: Source is a 36-gun array (6,600 in3), at a depth of 12 m. The sound speed profile (downloaded from the 

GDEM database) is shown in the left panel. The bottom is outlined and shown in dark blue.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-98 Appendix B: Acoustic Modeling Report

Figure A5-14. Predicted SELs for Caribbean Site #3 (slope), for Transects in the Forward Endfire 

(2

nd panel), Aft Endfire (3rd panel), and Starboard Broadside (4th panel) Directions

Notes: Source is a 36-gun array (6,600 in3), at a depth of 12 m. The sound speed profile (downloaded from the 

GDEM database) is shown in the 1

st panel. The bottom is outlined and shown in dark blue.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B: B-99

Acoustic Modeling Report

Annex 6: Predicted Ranges to Various RLs

Estimated safety radii are shown in the following tables for each of the DAAs. For each sound level threshold, two different statistical 

estimates of the safety radii are provided: the 95% radius and the maximum endfire radius (see also Section 8.1). Given a regularly gridded spatial 

distribution of modeled RLs, the 95% radius is defined as the radius of a circle that encompasses 95% of the grid points whose value is equal to or 

greater than the threshold value. The maximum endfire radius is the radius of a 60 degree angular sector, centered on the along-track axis of the 

array, that encompasses all grid points whose value is equal to or greater than the threshold value. The ―95% Range‖ and ―Endfire Range‖ 

columns in the following tables consider RLs at depths down to 2,000 m below the surface (deep sites) or, for other sites, to the deepest modeled 

depth. The radial resolution of the model runs is 10 m. Where appropriate (bottom depth less than 1,000 m), radii are shown for both the raw 

model output and for the ―corrected‖ sound field (in parentheses).

Table A6-1. Predicted Maximum Marine Mammal Exposure Criteria Radii at the S California Sites

Southern California: Two 45/105in3 GI guns, source depth 2.5 m.

Sit

e

Water

depth

(m)

SEL

(dB)

rms

SPL

(dB)

Unweighted LF Cetaceans MF Cetaceans HF Cetaceans Pinnipeds

95th

percentile

(m)

Endfire

max. (m)

95th

percentile

(m)

Endfire

max. (m)

95th

percentile

(m)

Endfire

max. (m)

95th

percentile

(m)

Endfire

max. (m)

95th

percentile

(m)

Endfire

max. (m)

1 100-

1,000

170 180 32 (45) 40 (60) 32 (50) 40 (60) 20 (30) 20 (30) 20 (30) 20 (30) 30 (40) 30 (50)

180 190 10 (20) 10 (20) 10 (20) 10 (20) <10 (10) <10 (10) <10 (10) <10 (10) 10 (10) 10 (10)

2 100-

1,000

170 180 32 (50) 36 (64) 32 (50) 36 (64) 14 (28) 14 (28) 14 (22) 14 (22) 28 (36) 28 (42)

180 190 14 (14) 14 (14) 14 (14) 14 (14) <10 (<10) <10 (<10) <10 (<10) <10 (<10) <10 (14) <10 (14)

Notes: SELs are in dB re μPa2 ·s, maximized over all modeled depths. Radii calculated from sound levels to which a 3-dB precautionary factor have been added are shown in 

parentheses for shelf and slope sites.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-100 Appendix B:

Acoustic Modeling Report

Table A6-2. Predicted Maximum Marine Mammal Exposure Criteria Radii at the Caribbean Sites

Caribbean: Full 2-D refraction array, 36 guns (6,600 in3), source depth 12 m.

Site

Water

depth

(m)

SEL

(dB)

rms

SPL

(dB)

Unweighted LF Cetaceans MF Cetaceans HF Cetaceans Pinnipeds

95th

percentile

(m)

Endfire

max. (m)

95th

percentile

(m)

Endfire

max. (m)

95th

percentile

(m)

Endfire

max. (m)

95th

percentile

(m)

Endfire

max. (m)

95th

percentile

(m)

Endfire

max. (m)

1 <100 170 180 779 (1,142) 949 (1,379) 739 (1,120) 891 (1,338) 425 (533) 208 (366) 344 (447) 122 (258) 505 (815) 416 (524)

180 190 248 (348) 294 (380) 227 (340) 275 (366) 81 (117) 36 (50) 58 (81) 14 (36) 114 (262) 86 (150)

2

>1,00

0

170 180 696 806 632 741 232 133 182 112 326 245

180 190 218 252 199 226 71 20 61 10 102 71

3

100-

1,000

170 180 410 (524) 444 (517) 396 (508) 424 (495) 235 (342) 133 (206) 190 (257) 114 (165) 338 (446) 247 (332)

180 190 191 (238) 221 (272) 181 (228) 209 (260) 73 (104) 41 (51) 51 (82) 10 (41) 112 (149) 73 (114)

4

>1,00

0

170 180 694 802 632 738 234 131 180 95 326 244

180 190 214 247 197 229 72 36 58 23 102 72

Notes: SELs are in dB re μPa2 ·s, maximized over all modeled depths. Radii calculated from sound levels to which a 3-dB precautionary factor have been added are shown in parentheses for shelf and 

slope sites.

Table A6-3. Predicted Maximum Marine Mammal Exposure Criteria Radii at the Galapagos Ridge Sites

Galapagos Ridge: 2-D reflection array, 18 guns (3,300 in3), source depth 6 m.

Site

Water

depth

(m)

SEL

(dB)

rms

SPL

(dB)

Unweighted LF Cetaceans MF Cetaceans HF Cetaceans Pinnipeds

95th

percentile

(m)

Endfire

max. (m)

95th

percentile

(m)

Endfire

max. (m)

95th

percentile

(m)

Endfire

max. (m)

95th

percentile

(m)

Endfire

max. (m)

95th

percentile

(m)

Endfire

max. (m)

1-0° >1,00

0

170 180 360 322 345 290 180 70 140 60 260 110

180 190 110 100 110 91 60 20 50 10 81 30

1-90° >1,00

0

170 180 357 323 345 290 180 70 140 60 260 110

180 190 110 95 110 90 60 20 50 10 81 30

Notes: SELs are in dB re μPa2 ·s, maximized over all modeled depths. Radii calculated from sound levels to which a 3-dB precautionary factor have been added are shown in parentheses for 

shelf and slope sites.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

Appendix B: B-101

Acoustic Modeling Report

Table A6-4. Predicted Maximum Marine Mammal Exposure Criteria Radii at the W Gulf of Alaska Sites

West Gulf of Alaska: 2-D reflection array, 18 guns (3,300 in3), source depth 6 m.

Site

Water

depth

(m)

SEL

(dB)

rms

SPL

(dB)

Unweighted LF Cetaceans MF Cetaceans HF Cetaceans Pinnipeds

95th

percentile

(m)

Endfire

max. (m)

95th

percentile

(m)

Endfire

max. (m)

95th

percentile

(m)

Endfire

max. (m)

95th

percentile

(m)

Endfire

max. (m)

95th

percentile

(m)

Endfire

max. (m)

1 <100 170 180 788 (1,012) 301 (418) 773 (1,012) 288 (383) 357 (478) 95 (202) 225 (398) 54 (149) 459 (885) 202 (256)

180 190 165 (206) 98 (143) 166 (209) 89 (130) 63 (139) 14 (32) 45 (63) 10 (22) 139 (196) 32 (63)

2

100-

1,000

170 180 383 (595) 320 (490) 364 (541) 288 (433) 180 (262) 67 (98) 143 (202) 54 (85) 266 (390) 117 (166)

180 190 108 (155) 89 (126) 104 (152) 82 (117) 54 (76) 14 (32) 45 (63) 10 (22) 76 (114) 32 (45)

3 >1,000 170 180 347 288 342 269 177 67 139 54 264 117

180 190 104 86 103 82 54 14 45 10 76 32

Notes: SELs are in dB re μPa2 ·s, maximized over all modeled depths. Radii calculated from sound levels to which a 3-dB precautionary factor have been added are shown in 

parentheses for shelf and slope sites.

Table A6-5. Predicted Maximum Marine Mammal Exposure Criteria Radii at the NW Atlantic Sites

NW Atlantic: Two 45/105 in3 GI guns, source depth 2.5 m

Site

Water

depth

(m)

SEL

(dB)

rms

SPL

(dB)

Unweighted LF Cetaceans MF Cetaceans HF Cetaceans Pinnipeds

95th

percentile

(m)

Endfire

max. (m)

95th

percentile

(m)

Endfire

max. (m)

95th

percentile

(m)

Endfire

max. (m)

95th

percentile

(m)

Endfire

max. (m)

95th

percentile

(m)

Endfire

max. (m)

1 <100 170 180 36 (50) 42 (64) 36 (57) 42 (64) 20 (28) 14 (28) 14 (22) 14 (28) 28 (36) 28 (42)

180 190 14 (14) 14 (14) 14 (14) 14 (14) <10 (<10) <10 (<10) <10 (<10) <10 (<10) <10 (14) <10 (14)

2

100-

1,000

170 180 36 (50) 42 (57) 32 (50) 36 (57) 14 (28) 14 (28) 14 (22) 14 (28) 28 (36) 28 (42)

180 190 14 (14) 14 (14) 14 (14) 14 (14) <10 (<10) <10 (<10) <10 (<10) <10 (<10) <10 (14) <10 (14)

3 >1,000 170 180 32 36 32 36 14 14 14 14 28 28

180 190 14 14 14 14 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

4

100-

1,000

170 180 32 (50) 36 (57) 32 (50) 36 (57) 14 (28) 14 (28) 14 (22) 14 (22) 28 (36) 28 (42)

180 190 14 (14) 14 (14) 14 (14) 14 (14) <10 (<10) <10 (<10) <10 (<10) <10 (<10) <10 (14) <10 (14)

Notes: SELs are in dB re μPa2 ·s, maximized over all modeled depths. Radii calculated from sound levels to which a 3-dB precautionary factor have been added are shown in 

parentheses for shelf and slope sites.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF & USGS Marine Seismic Research February 2011

B-102 Appendix B:Acoustic Modeling Report

[This page intentionally left blank.]
APPENDIX C: 

COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF FAUNAL SPECIES

DISCUSSED IN THE TEXT

Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Program June 2010

Appendix C: Species List C-1

Appendix C

Common and Scientific Names of Faunal Species Discussed in the Text

Common Name Scientific Name

INVERTEBRATES

American lobster Homarus americanus

Australian spiny lobster Panulirus cygnus

Balanoid barnacle Balanus amphirite

Blue crab Callinectes sapidus

Blue mussel Mytilus edulis

Blue swimming crab Portunus pelagicus

Brown shrimp Crangon crangon

California market squid Loligo opalescens

Caribbean spiny lobster Panulirus argus

Chilean nylon shrimp Heterocarpus reedi

Coonstripe shrimp Pandalus hypsinotus

Cuttlefish Sepia officinalis

Dana’s swimming crab Callinectes danae

Deep-sea lobster Panulirus waguersis

Dungeness crab Cancer magister

European lobster Homarus gammarus

Golden king crab Lithodes aequispinus

Grooved tanner crab Chionoecetes tanneri

Jumbo flying squid Dosidicus gigas

King crab Paralithodes camtschaticus

Longfin squid Loligo pealei

N giant Pacific octopus Octopus dofleini

Northern shortfin squid Illex illecebrosus

Northern shrimp Pandalus borealis

Norway lobster Nephrops norvegicus

Pink shrimp Farfantepenaeus duorarum

Red deepsea crab Geryon quinquedins

Red king crab Paralithodes camtschaticus

Rock lobster Jasus edwardsii

Scarlet king crab Lithodes couesi

Snapping shrimp Synalpheus parneomeris

Snow crab Chionoecetes opilio

Softshell red crab Paralomis granulosa

Southern calamari squid Sepioteuthis australis

Spot shrimp Pandalus platyceros

Tanner crab Chionoecetes bairdi

Toad crab Hyas coarctatus alutaceus

Triangle tanner crab Chionoecetes angulatus

Wellington flying squid Nototodarus sloanii

White abalone Haliotis sorenseni

Zebra mussels Dreissena spp.

FISH

Albacore Thunnus alalunga

Angular angel shark Squatina guggenheim

Arctic char Salvelinus alpinus alpinus

Arctic cisco Coregonus autumnalis

Arctic cod Boreogadus saida

Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus articus

Atlantic cod Gadus morhua

Atlantic halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus

Atlantic herring Clupea harengus

Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus

Atlantic salmon Salmo salar

Atlantic seabob Xiphopenaeus kroyeri

Atlantic wolffish Anarhichas lupus

Australian ruff Arripis georgianus

Baltic sturgeon Acipenser sturio

Banded eagle ray Aetomylaeus nichofii

Barndoor skate Dipterus laevis

Basking shark Cetorohinus maximus

Common Name Scientific Name

Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli

Big-belly seahorse Hippocampus abdominalis

Bigeye scad Selar crumenophthalmus

Bigeye tuna Thunnus obesus

Black sea bass Centropristis striata

Blue grenadier Macruronus novaezelanier

Blue runner Caranx crysos

Blue whiting Micromesistius poutassou

Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix

Bocaccio rockfish Sebastes paucispinus

Bombay duck Harpadon nehereus

Brazilian blind electric ray Benthobatis kreffti

Brazilian crownose ray Rhinoptera brasiliensis

Brazilian guitarfish Rhinobatos horkelii

Brazilian sardinella Sardinella brasiliensis

Broad whitefish Coregonus nasus

Brown stingray Dasyatis fluviorum

Brownstriped grunt Anisotremus moricandi

Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus

Burbot Lota lota

California halibut Paralichthys californicus

Capelin Mallotus villosus

Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

Chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta

Coelacanth Latimeria chalumnae

Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch

Common seahorse Hippocampus kuda

Common shovelnose ray Rhinobatos typus

Common skate Dipturus batis

Crucian carp Carassius carassius

Cubera snapper Lutjanus cyanopterus

Deepwater spiny dogfish Centrophorus squamosus

Dolly varden char Salvelinus malma

Dumb shark Centrophorus harrissoni

Dusky grouper Epinephelus marginatus

Dwarf sawfish Pristis clavata

Eastern angel shark Squatina sp. Nov. A

European plaice Pleuronectes platessa

Flat-faced seahorse Hippocampus trimaculatus

Fluke Paralichthys lethostigma

Fossil shark Hemipristis elongates

Freshwater sawfish Pristis microdon

Gag grouper Mycteroperca microlepis

Giant grouper Epinephelus lanceoltus

Giant sea bass Stereolepis gigas

Goliath grouper Epinephelus itajara

Goldstripe sardinella Sardinella gibbosa

Great white shark Carcharodon carcharias

Green sawfish Pristis zijsron

Green sturgeon Acipenser medirostris

Greenland halibut Reinhardtius hippoglossoides

Gulf grouper Mycteroperca jordani

Gulper shark Centrophorus granulosus

Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus

Hardwicke’s pipefish Solegnathus hardwickii

Hedgehog seahorse Hippocampus spinosissimus

Hogfish Lachnolaimus maximus

Humpback whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis

Humphead wrasse Cheilinus undulates

Inca scad Trachurus murphyi

Indian mackerel Rastrelliger kanagurta
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Program June 2010

C-2 Appendix C: Species List

Common Name Scientific Name

Indian oil sardine Sardinella longiceps

Kelp bass Paralabrax clathratus

Knifetooth sawfish Anoxypristis cuspidate

Lake chub Couesius plumbeus

Lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens

Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush

Largetooth sawfish Pristis perotteti

Least cisco Coregonus sardinella

Leopard grouper Mycteroperca rosacea

Leopard shark Stegostoma fasciatum

Lesser sand eel Ammodytes marinus

Lined seahorse Hippocampus erectus

Lizard catshark Schroederichthys saurisqualus

Mackerel Scomber scombrus

Marbled grouper Dermatolepsis inermis

Masked hamlet Hypoplectrus providencianus

Menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus

Monkfish Lophius americanus

Monterrey spanish mackerel Scomberomorus concolor

Mud skate Rhina ancylostoma

Mutton snapper Lutjanus analis

Nassau grouper Epinephelus striatus

New caledonia catshark Aulohalaelurus kanaorum

None Protemblemaria punctata

None Anthias regalis

None Anthias salmopunctatus

None Chaetodon obliquus

None Stegastes sanctipauli

Northern pike Esox lucius

Ocean perch Sebastes fasciatus

Onefin skate Gurgesiella dorsalifera

Pacific halibut Hippoglossus stenolepis

Pacific seahorse Hippocampus ingens

Pale dottyback Pseudochromis pesi

Pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha

Pink snapper Pagrus auratus

Pollock Pollachius virens

Pollock Pollachius pollachius

Pondicherry shark Carcharinus hemiodon

Porcupine ray Urogymnus asperrimus

Rainbow parrotfish Scarus guacamaia

Rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax dentex

Red porgy Pagrus pagrus

Redfish Sebastes fasciatus

Rockfish Sebastes spp.

Round sardinella Sardinella aurita

Round whitefish Prosopium cylindraceum

Sablefish Anoplopoma fimbria

Sailfin grouper Mycteroperca olfax

Saithe Pollachius virens

Sand tiger shark Carcharias taurus

Sawtail grouper Mycteroperca prionura

Scaled sardine Harengula aguana

School shark Galeorhinus galeus

Sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax

Sharptooth lemon shark Negaprion acutidens

Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum

Shortspine thornyhead Sebastolobus alascanus

Shorttail nurse shark Pseudoginglymostoma

brevicaudatum

Silky shark Carcharhinus falciformis

Silver hake Merluccius bilinearis

Skipjack tuna Katsuwonus pelamis

Smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata

Smoothback angel shark Squatina occulta

Common Name Scientific Name

Smoothnose wedgefish Rynchobatus laevis

Smoothtooth blacktip Carcharinus leiodon

Snowy grouper Epinephelus niveatus

Sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka

Southern bluefin tuna Thunnus maccoyii

Southern sawtail catshark Galeus mincaronei

Spanish sardine Sardinella aurita

Speckled hind Epinephelus drummondhayi

Spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias

Spotback skate Atlanoraja castelnaui

Squirefish Chrysophrys auratus

Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss

Striped bass Morone saxatilis

Striped dogfish Mustelus fasciatus

Swordfish Xiphias gladius

Tawny nurse shark Nebrius ferrugineus

Tayrona blenny Coralliozetus tayrona

Threadfin breams Nemipterus sp.

Tiger tail seahorse Hippocampus comes

Tomco Microgadus proximus

Torpedo scad Megalaspis cordyla

Venezuelan grouper Mycteroperca cidi

Warsaw grouper Epinephelus nigritus

Weakfish Cynoscion regalis

Whale shark Rhincodon typus

White-edged rockcod Epinephelus albomarginatus

White sea bass Atractoscion nobilis

White-spot giant guitarfish Rhynchobatus djiddensis

White-spotted guitarfish Rhynchobatus australiae

Wreckfish Polyprion americanus

Yellow-crowned butterflyfish Chaetodon flavocoronatus

Yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares

Yellowtail flounder Limanda ferruginea

REPTILES

Estuarine crocodile Crocodilus porosus

Flatback sea turtle Natator depressus

Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas

Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii

Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea

Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta

Marine iguana Amblyrinchus chrystatus

Olive ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys olivacea

SEABIRDS

Black-legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla

Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis

Common murre Uria aalge

Long-tailed duck Clangula hyemalis

Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus

Northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis

Rhinoceros auklet Cerorhinca monocerata

Roseate tern Sterna dougallii

Short-tailed albatross Phoebastria albatrus

Spectacled eider Somateria fischeri

Steller's eider Polysticta stelleri

Thick-billed murre Uria lomvia

MAMMALS

Alaskan sea otter Enhydra lutris lutris

Amazonian manatee Trichecus inunguis

Andrew’s beaked whale Mesoplodon bowdoini

Antarctic fur seal Arctocephalus gazella

Antarctic minke whale Balaenoptera bonaerensis

Antillean manatee Trichechus manatus manatus

Arabian common dolphin Delphinus tropicalis

Arnoux’s beaked whale Berardius arnuxii
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Program June 2010

Appendix C: Species List C-3

Common Name Scientific Name

Atlantic spotted dolphin Stenella frontalis

Atlantic walrus Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus

Atlantic white-sided dolphin Lagenorhynchus acutus

Australian sea lion Neophoca cinerea

Australian snubfin dolphin Orcaella heinsohni

Baird’s beaked whale Berardius bairdii

Bearded seal Erignathus barbatus

Beluga Delphinapterus leucas

Blainville’s beaked whale Mesoplodon densirostris

Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus

Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus

Bowhead whale Balaena mysticetus

Bryde's whale Balaenoptera brydei

Burmeister’s porpoise Phocoena spinipinnis

California sea lion Zalophus californianus

Caribbean monk seal Monachus tropicalis

Clymene dolphin Stenella clymene

Crabeater seal Lobodon carcinophaga

Cuvier’s beaked whale Ziphius cavirostris

Dall’s porpoise Phocoenoides dalli

Dugong Dugong dugon

Dusky dolphin Lagenorhynchus obscurus

Dwarf minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata

Dwarf sperm whale Kogia sima

Eden’s whale Balaenoptera edeni

False killer whale Pseudorca crassidens

Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus

Finless porpoise Neophocaena phocaenoides

Florida manatee Trichechus manatus latirostris

Fraser’s dolphin Lagenodelphis hosei

Gervais’ beaked whale Mesoplodon europaeus

Gingko-toothed beaked whale Mesoplodon gingkodens

Gray seal Halichoerus grypus

Gray’s beaked whale Mesoplodon grayi

Guadalupe fur seal Arctocephalus townsendi

Harbor porpoise Phocoena phocoena

Harbor seal Phoca vitulina

Harp seal Pagophilus groenlandicus

Hawaiian monk seal Monachus schauinslandi

Hector’s beaked whale Mesoplodon hectori

Hooded seal Cystophora cristata

Hourglass dolphin Lagenorhynchus cruciger

Hubb’s beaked whale Mesoplodon carlhubbsi

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae

Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin Tursiops aduncus

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin Sousa chinensis

Irrawaddy dolphin Orcaella brevirostris

Killer whale Orcinus orca

Leopard seal Hydrurga leptonyx

Long-beaked common dolphin Delphinus capensis

Long-finned pilot whale Globicephala melas

Longman’s beaked whale Indopacetus pacificus

Melon-headed whale Peponocephala electra

Minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata

Common Name Scientific Name

Northern Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis

Northern Pacific right whale Eubalaena japonica

Narwhal Monodon monoceros

Northern bottlenose whale Hyperoodon ampullatus

Northern elephant seal Mirounga angustirostris

Northern fur seal Callorhinus ursinus

Northern right whale dolphin Lissodelphis borealis

Northern sea otter Enhydra lutris kenyoni

Pacific gray whale Eschrichtius robustus

Pacific walrus Odobenus rosmarus divirgens

Pacific white-sided dolphin Lagenorhynchus obliquidens

Pantropical spotted dolphin Stenella attenuata

Peale’s dolphin Lagenorhynchus australis

Perrin’s beaked whale Mesoplodon perrini

Polar bear Ursus maritimus

Pygmy sperm whale Kogia breviceps

Pygmy beaked whale Mesoplodon peruvianus

Pygmy killer whale Feresa attenuata

Pygmy right whale Caperea marginata

Ribbon seal Histriophoca fasciata

Ringed seal Pusa hispida

Risso’s dolphin Grampus griseus

Rough-toothed dolphin Steno bredanensis

Saimaa seal Phoca hispida saimensis

Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis

Shepherd’s beaked whale Tasmacetus shepherdi

Short-beaked common dolphin Delphinus delphis

Short-finned pilot whale Globicephala macrorhynchus

Southern bottlenose whale Hyperoodon planifrons

Southern elephant seal Mirounga leonina

Southern right whale Eubalaena australis

Southern right whale dolphin Lissodelphis peronii

Southern sea otter Enhydra lutris nereis

Sowerby’s beaked whale Mesoplodon bidens

Spade-toothed whale Mesoplodon traversii

Spectacled porpoise Phocoena dioptrica

Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus

Spinner dolphin Stenella longirostris

Spotted seal Phoca largha

Stejneger’s beaked whale Mesoplodon stejnegeri

Steller’s sea lion Eumetopias jubatus

Strap-toothed whale Mesoplodon layardii

Striped dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba

Subantarctic fur seal Arctocephalus tropicalis

Tropical bottlenose whale Hyperoodon sp.

True’s beaked whale Mesoplodon mirius

Tucuxi dolphin Sotalia fluviatilis

West Indian manatee Trichecus manatus

West African manatee Trichechus senegalensis

White-beaked dolphin Lagenorhynchus albirostris

Sources: Lutz and Musick 1997; Rice 1998; Nelson et al. 2004; FishBase 2006; Peterson 2006.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Program June 2010

C-4 Appendix C: Species List

[This page intentionally left blank.]
APPENDIX D: 

REVIEW OF THE EFFECTS OF AIRGUN SOUNDS ON

MARINE INVERTEBRATES AND FISH

Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix D: D-1

Effects of Airguns on Marine Invertebrates & Fish

APPENDIX D:

REVIEW OF THE EFFECTS OF AIRGUN SOUNDS ON MARINE 

INVERTEBRATES(1)

AND FISH(2

1 This appendix provides a detailed summary of the limited data and literature available on the observed

2 effects (or lack of effects) of exposure to airgun sound on marine invertebrates and fish. Specific 

3 conditions and results of the studies including SELs and sound thresholds of responses are discussed 

4 when available. However, it is sometimes difficult to interpret studies on the effects of underwater sound 

5 on marine animals because authors often do not provide enough information, including received sound 

6 levels, source sound levels, and specific characteristics of the sound. Specific characteristics of the sound 

7 include units and references, whether the sound is continuous or impulsive, and its frequency range. 

8 Underwater sound pressure levels are typically reported as a number of dB referenced to a reference level, 

9 usually 1 micro-Pascal (μPa). However, the sound pressure dB number can represent multiple types of

10 measurements, including “zero to peak”, “peak to peak”, or averaged (“rms”). SELs may also be reported 

11 as dB. The SEL is the integration of all the acoustic energy contained within a single sound event. Unless 

12 precise measurement types are reported, it can be impossible to directly compare results from two or more 

13 independent studies.

)

14 Sound caused by underwater seismic survey equipment results in energy pulses with very high peak 

15 pressures (Richardson et al. 1995). This was especially true when chemical explosives were used for 

16 underwater surveys. Virtually all underwater seismic surveying conducted today uses airguns which 

17 typically have lower peak pressures and longer rise times than chemical explosives. However, sound 

18 levels from underwater airgun discharges might still be high enough to potentially injure or kill animals 

19 located close to the source. Also, there is a potential for disturbance of normal behavior upon exposure to 

20 airgun sound.

21 The following sections provide an overview of sound production and detection in marine invertebrates

22 and fish, and information on the effects of exposure to sound on marine invertebrates and fish, with an 

23 emphasis on seismic survey sound. DFOC has published two internal documents that provide a literature 

24 review of the effects of seismic and other underwater sound on invertebrates (Moriyasu et al. 2004; Payne 

25 et al. 2008). The potential effect of seismic sounds on fish has been studied with a variety of taxa, 

26 including marine, freshwater, and anadromous species (reviewed by Fay and Popper 2000; Ladich and 

27 Popper 2004; Hastings and Popper 2005; Popper and Hastings 2009a, b). The available information as 

28 reviewed in those documents and here includes results of studies of varying degrees of scientific rigor as 

29 well as anecdotal information.

30 D.1 MARINE INVERTEBRATES

31 D.1.1 Acoustic Capabilities

32 Much of the available information on acoustic abilities of marine invertebrates pertains to crustaceans, 

33 specifically lobsters, crabs and shrimps. Other acoustic-related studies have been conducted on 

34 cephalopods. Many invertebrates are capable of producing sound, including barnacles, amphipods, 

35 shrimp, crabs, and lobsters (Au and Banks 1998; Tolstoganova 2002). Invertebrates typically produce 

36 sound by scraping or rubbing various parts of their bodies, although they also produce sound in other 

 

(1)

By John R. Christian, LGL Ltd., environmental research associates (rev. Dec. 2009). (2)

By John R. Christian and R.C. Bocking, LGL Ltd., environmental research associates (rev. Feb. 2010).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

D-2 Appendix D:

Effects of Airguns on Marine Invertebrates & Fish

1 ways. Sounds made by marine invertebrates may be associated with territorial behavior, mating, 

2 courtship, and aggression. On the other hand, some of these sounds may be incidental and not have any 

3 biological relevance. Sounds known to be produced by marine invertebrates have frequencies ranging 

4 from 87 Hz to 200 kHz, depending on the species.

5 Both male and female American lobsters (Homarus americanus) produce a buzzing vibration with the

6 carapace when grasped (Pye and Watson 2004; Henninger and Watson 2005). Larger lobsters vibrate 

7 more consistently than smaller lobsters, suggesting that sound production may be involved with mating 

8 behavior. Sound production by other species of lobsters has also been studied. Among deep-sea lobsters, 

9 sound level was more variable at night than during the day, with the highest levels occurring at the lowest 

10 frequencies.

11 While feeding, king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) produce impulsive sounds that appear to stimulate 

12 movement by other crabs, including approach behavior (Tolstoganova 2002). King crab also appeared to 

13 produce ‘discomfort’ sounds when environmental conditions were manipulated. These discomfort sounds 

14 differ from the feeding sounds in terms of frequency range and pulse duration.

15 Snapping shrimp (Synalpheus parneomeris) are among the major sources of biological sound in temperate 

16 and tropical shallow-water areas (Au and Banks 1998). By rapidly closing one of its frontal chelae

17 (claws), a snapping shrimp generates a forward jet of water and the cavitation of fast moving water 

18 produces a sound. Both the sound and the jet of water may function in feeding and territorial behaviors of 

19 alpheidae shrimp. Measured source SPLs for snapping ship were 183–189 dB re 1 μPa · mp-p and 

20 extended over a frequency range of 2–200 kHz.

21 D.1.2 Sound Detection

22 There is considerable debate about the hearing capabilities of aquatic invertebrates. Whether they are able 

23 to hear or not depends on how underwater sound and underwater hearing are defined. In contrast to the 

24 situation in fish and marine mammals, no physical structures have been discovered in aquatic 

25 invertebrates that are stimulated by the pressure component of sound. However, vibrations (i.e., mechan26 ical disturbances of the water) are also characteristic of sound waves. Rather than being pressure27 sensitive, aquatic invertebrates appear to be most sensitive to the vibrational component of sound 

28 (Breithaupt 2002). Statocyst organs may provide one means of vibration detection for aquatic invert29 ebrates. 

30 More is known about the acoustic detection capabilities in decapod crustaceans than in any other marine 

31 invertebrate group, although cephalopod acoustic capabilities are now becoming a focus of study. 

32 Crustaceans appear to be most sensitive to sounds of low frequencies (i.e., <1000 Hz) (Budelmann 1992; 

33 Popper et al. 2001). A study by Lovell et al. (2005) suggests greater sensitivity of the prawn Palaemon 

34 serratus to low-frequency sound than previously thought. Lovell et al. (2006) showed that P. serratus is 

35 capable of detecting a 500 Hz tone regardless of the prawn’s body size and the related number and size of 

36 statocyst hair cells. Studies of American lobsters suggest that these crustaceans are more sensitive to 

37 higher frequency sounds than previously realized (Pye and Watson 2004). 

38 It is possible that statocyst hair cells of cephalopods are directionally sensitive in a way that is similar to 

39 the responses of hair cells of the vertebrate vestibular and lateral line systems (Budelmann and 

40 Williamson 1994; Budelmann 1996). Kaifu et al. (2008) provided evidence that the cephalopod Octopus 

41 ocellatus detects particle motion with its statocyst. Studies by Packard et al. (1990), Rawizza (1995) and 

42 Komak et al. (2005) have tested the sensitivities of various cephalopods to water-borne vibrations, some 

43 of which were generated by low-frequency sound. Using the auditory brainstem response (ABR) 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix D: D-3

Effects of Airguns on Marine Invertebrates & Fish

1 approach, Hu et al. (2009) showed that auditory evoked potentials can be obtained in the frequency ranges 

2 400 to 1500 Hz for the squid Sepiotheutis lessoniana and 400 to 1000 Hz for the octopus Octopus 

3 vulgaris, higher than frequencies previously observed to be detectable by cephalopods.

4 In summary, only a few studies have been conducted on the sensitivity of certain invertebrate species to 

5 underwater sound. Available data suggest that they are capable of detecting vibrations but they do not 

6 appear to be capable of detecting pressure fluctuations. 

7 D.1.3 Potential Seismic Effects

8 In marine invertebrates, potential effects of exposure to sound can be categorized as pathological, 

9 physiological, and behavioral. Pathological effects include lethal and sub-lethal injury to the animals, 

10 physiological effects include temporary primary and secondary stress responses, and behavioral effects 

11 refer to changes in exhibited behaviors (i.e., disturbance). The three categories should not be considered 

12 as independent of one another and are likely interrelated in complex ways. 

13 Pathological Effects

14 In water, acute injury or death of organisms as a result of exposure to sound appears to depend on two 

15 features of the sound source: (1) the received peak pressure, and (2) the time required for the pressure to 

16 rise and decay. Generally, the higher the received pressure and the less time it takes for the pressure to 

17 rise and decay, the greater the chance of acute pathological effects. Considering the peak pressure and 

18 rise/decay time characteristics of seismic airgun arrays used today, the associated pathological zone for 

19 invertebrates would be expected to be small (i.e., within a few meters of the seismic source, at most). Few 

20 studies have assessed the potential for pathological effects on invertebrates from exposure to seismic 

21 sound.

22 The pathological impacts of seismic survey sound on marine invertebrates were investigated in a pilot 

23 study on snow crabs (Chionoecetes opilio) (Christian et al. 2003, 2004). Under controlled field 

24 experimental conditions, captive adult male snow crabs, egg-carrying female snow crabs, and fertilized 

25 snow crab eggs were exposed to variable SPLs (191–221 dB re 1 μPa0-p) and SELs (<130–187 dB re 

1 μPa2 26 ·s). Neither acute nor chronic (12 weeks post-exposure) mortality was observed for the adult crabs. 

27 However, a significant difference in development rate was noted between the exposed and unexposed 

28 fertilized eggs/embryos. The egg mass exposed to seismic energy had a higher proportion of less29 developed eggs than did the unexposed mass. It should be noted that both egg masses came from a single 

30 female and any measure of natural variability was unattainable (Christian et al. 2003, 2004). 

31 In 2003, a collaborative study was conducted in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada, to investigate 

32 the effects of exposure to sound from a commercial seismic survey on egg-bearing female snow crabs 

33 (DFOC 2004). This study had design problems that impacted interpretation of some of the results 

34 (Chadwick 2004). Caged animals were placed on the ocean bottom at a location within the survey area 

35 and at a location outside of the survey area. The maximum received SPL was ~195 dB re 1 μPa0-p. The 

36 crabs were exposed for 132 hr of the survey, equivalent to thousands of seismic shots of varying received 

37 SPLs. The animals were retrieved and transferred to laboratories for analyses. Neither acute nor chronic 

38 lethal or sub-lethal injury to the female crabs or crab embryos was indicated. DFOC (2004) reported that 

39 some exposed individuals had short-term soiling of gills, antennules and statocysts, bruising of the 

40 hepatopancreas and ovary, and detached outer membranes of oocytes. However, these differences could 

41 not be linked conclusively to exposure to seismic survey sound. Boudreau et al. (2009) presented the 

42 proceedings of a workshop held to evaluate the results of additional studies conducted to answer some 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

D-4 Appendix D:

Effects of Airguns on Marine Invertebrates & Fish

1 questions arising from the original study discussed in DFOC (2004). Proceedings of the workshop did not 

2 include any more definitive conclusions regarding the original results.

3 Payne et al. (2007) recently conducted a pilot study of the effects of exposure to airgun sound on various 

4 health endpoints of the American lobster. Adult lobsters were exposed either 20 to 200 times to 202 dB re 

5 1μPap-p or 50 times to 227 dB re 1μPap-p, and then monitored for changes in survival, food consumption, 

6 turnover rate, serum protein level, serum enzyme levels, and serum calcium level. Observations extended 

7 over a period of a few days to several months. Results showed no delayed mortality or damage to the 

8 mechanosensory systems associated with animal equilibrium and posture (as assessed by turnover rate).

9 In a field study, Pearson et al. (1994) exposed Stage II larvae of the Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) to 

10 single discharges from a seven-airgun array and compared their mortality and development rates with 

11 those of unexposed larvae. No statistically significant differences were found in immediate survival, long12 term survival, or time to molt between the exposed and unexposed larvae, even those exposed within 1 m 

13 of the seismic source. 

14 In 2001 and 2003, there were two incidents of multiple strandings of the giant squid (Architeuthis dux) on 

15 the north coast of Spain, and there was speculation that the strandings were caused by exposure to 

16 geophysical seismic survey sounds occurring at about the same time in the Bay of Biscay (Guerra et al. 

17 2004). A total of nine giant squid, either stranded or moribund and floating at the surface, were collected 

18 at these times. However, Guerra et al. (2004) did not present any evidence that conclusively links the 

19 giant squid strandings and floaters to seismic activity in the area. Based on necropsies of seven (six 

20 females and one male) specimens, there was evidence of acute tissue damage. The authors speculated that 

21 one female with extensive tissue damage was affected by the impact of acoustic waves. However, little is 

22 known about the impact of strong airgun signals on cephalopods and the authors did not describe the 

23 seismic sources, locations, and durations of the Bay of Biscay surveys. In addition, there were no 

24 controls, the observations were circumstantial, and the examined animals had been dead long enough for 

25 commencement of tissue degradation.

McCauley et al. (2000a, b) exposed caged cephalopods to noise from a single 20-in3 26 airgun with 

27 maximum SPLs of >200 dB re 1 μPa0-p. Statocysts were removed and preserved, but at the time of 

28 publication, results of the statocyst analyses were not available. No squid or cuttlefish mortalities were 

29 reported as a result of these exposures.

30 Physiological Effects

31 Biochemical responses by marine invertebrates to acoustic exposure have also been studied to a limited 

32 degree. Such studies of stress responses could possibly provide some indication of the physiological 

33 consequences of acoustic exposure and perhaps any subsequent chronic detrimental effects. Stress 

34 responses could potentially affect animal populations by reducing reproductive capacity and adult 

35 abundance.

36 Stress indicators in the haemolymph of adult male snow crabs were monitored immediately after exposure 

37 of the animals to seismic survey sound (Christian et al. 2003, 2004) and at various intervals after 

38 exposure. No significant acute or chronic differences were found between exposed and unexposed 

39 animals in which various stress indicators (e.g., proteins, enzymes, cell type count) were measured. 

40 Payne et al. (2007), in their study of the effects of exposure of adult American lobsters to airgun sound, 

41 noted decreases in the levels of serum protein, particular serum enzymes and serum calcium, in the 

42 haemolymph of animals exposed to the sound pulses. Statistically significant differences (P=0.05) were 

43 noted in serum protein at 12 days post-exposure, serum enzymes at 5 days post-exposure, and serum 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix D: D-5

Effects of Airguns on Marine Invertebrates & Fish

1 calcium at 12 days post-exposure. During the histological analysis conducted 4 months post-exposure, 

2 Payne et al. (2007) noted more deposits of PAS-stained material, likely glycogen, in the hepatopancreas 

3 of some of the exposed lobsters. Accumulation of glycogen could be due to stress or disturbance of 

4 cellular processes.

5 Price (2007) found that blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) responded to a 10 kHz pure tone continuous signal 

6 by decreasing respiration. Smaller mussels did not appear to react until exposed for 30 min whereas larger 

7 mussels responded after 10 min of exposure. The oxygen uptake rate tended to be reduced to a greater 

8 degree in the larger mussels than in the smaller animals.

9 In general, the limited studies done to date on the effects of acoustic exposure on marine invertebrates 

10 have not demonstrated any serious pathological and physiological effects. 

11 Behavioral Effects

12 Christian et al. (2003) investigated the behavioral effects of exposure to airgun sound on snow crabs. 

13 Eight animals were equipped with ultrasonic tags, released, and monitored for multiple days prior to 

exposure and after exposure. Received SPL and SEL were ~191 dB re 1 μPa0-p and <130 dB re 1 μPa2 14 ·s, 

15 respectively. The crabs were exposed to 200 discharges over a 33-min period. None of the tagged animals 

16 left the immediate area after exposure to the seismic survey sound. Five animals were captured in the 

17 snow crab commercial fishery the following year, one at the release location, one 35 km from the release 

18 location, and three at intermediate distances from the release location.

19 Another study approach used by Christian et al. (2003) involved monitoring snow crabs with a remote 

20 video camera during their exposure to airgun sound. The caged animals were placed on the ocean bottom 

at a depth of 50 m. Received SPL and SEL were ~202 dB re 1 μPa0-p and 150 dB re 1 μPa2 21 ·s, 

22 respectively. The crabs were exposed to 200 discharges over a 33-min period. They did not exhibit any 

23 overt startle response during the exposure period.

24 Christian et al. (2003) also investigated the pre- and post-exposure catchability of snow crabs during a 

25 commercial fishery. Received SPLs and SELs were not measured directly and likely ranged widely 

26 considering the area fished. Maximum SPL and SEL were likely similar to those measured during the 

27 telemetry study. There were seven pre-exposure and six post-exposure trap sets. Unfortunately, there was 

28 considerable variability in set duration because of poor weather. Results indicated that the catch-per-unit29 effort did not decrease after the crabs were exposed to seismic survey sound.

30 Parry and Gason (2006) statistically analyzed data related to rock lobster (Jasus edwardsii) commercial 

31 catches and seismic surveying in Australian waters from 1978 to 2004. They did not find any evidence 

32 that lobster catch rates were affected by seismic surveys.

33 Caged female snow crabs exposed to airgun sound associated with a recent commercial seismic survey 

34 conducted in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada, exhibited a higher rate of ‘righting’ than those 

35 crabs not exposed to seismic survey sound (J. Payne, Research Scientist, DFOC, St. John’s, 

36 Newfoundland, pers. comm.). ‘Righting’ refers to a crab’s ability to return itself to an upright position 

37 after being placed on its back. Christian et al. (2003) made the same observation in their study.

38 Payne et al. (2007), in their study of the effects of exposure to airgun sound on adult American lobsters, 

39 noted a trend for increased food consumption by the animals exposed to seismic sound. 

40 Andriguetto-Filho et al. (2005) attempted to evaluate the impact of seismic survey sound on artisanal 

41 shrimp fisheries off Brazil. Bottom trawl yields were measured before and after multiple-day shooting of 

42 an airgun array. Water depth in the experimental area ranged between 2 and 15 m. Results of the study 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

D-6 Appendix D:

Effects of Airguns on Marine Invertebrates & Fish

1 did not indicate any significant deleterious impact on shrimp catches. Anecdotal information from 

2 Newfoundland, Canada, indicated that catch rates of snow crabs showed a significant reduction 

3 immediately following a pass by a seismic survey vessel (G. Chidley, Newfoundland fisherman, pers.

4 comm.). Additional anecdotal information from Newfoundland indicated that a school of shrimp observed 

5 via a fishing vessel sounder shifted downwards and away from a nearby seismic airgun sound source (H. 

6 Thorne, Newfoundland fisherman, pers. comm.). This observed effect was temporary. 

7 Caged brown shrimp (Crangon crangon) reared under different acoustical conditions exhibited differ8 ences in aggressive behavior and feeding rate (Lagardère 1982). Those exposed to a continuous sound 

9 source showed more aggression and less feeding behavior. It should be noted that behavioral responses by 

10 caged animals may differ from behavioral responses of animals in the wild.

11 McCauley et al. (2000a, b) provided the first evidence of the behavioral response of southern calamari 

12 squid (Sepioteuthis australis) exposed to seismic survey sound. They reported on the exposure of caged 

cephalopods (50 squid and 2 cuttlefish) to noise from a single 20-in3 13 airgun. The cephalopods were 

14 exposed to both stationary and mobile sound sources. The two-run total exposure times during the three 

15 trials ranged from 69 to 119 min. at a firing rate of once every 10–15 s. The maximum SPL was >200 dB 

16 re 1 μPa0-p. Some of the squid fired their ink sacs apparently in response to the first shot of one of the 

17 trials and then moved quickly away from the airgun. In addition to the above-described startle responses, 

18 some squid also moved towards the water surface as the airgun approached. McCauley et al. (2000a, b) 

reported that the startle and avoidance responses occurred at a received SPL of 174 dB re 1 μParms 19 . They 

20 also exposed squid to a ramped approach-depart airgun signal whereby the received SPL was gradually 

21 increased over time. No strong startle response (i.e., ink discharge) was observed, but alarm responses, 

22 including increased swimming speed and movement to the surface, were observed once the received SPL 

23 reached a level in the 156–161 dB re 1 μParms range. 

24 Komak et al. (2005) also reported the results of a study of cephalopod behavioral responses to local water 

25 movements. In this case, juvenile cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) exhibited various behavioral responses to 

26 local sinusoidal water movements of different frequencies between 0.01 and 1000 Hz. These responses 

27 included body pattern changing, movement, burrowing, reorientation, and swimming. Similarly, the 

28 behavioral responses of the octopus (Octopus ocellatus) to non-impulse sound have been investigated by 

29 Kaifu et al. (2007). The sound stimuli, reported as having levels 120 dB re 1 μPa rms, were at various 

30 frequencies: 50, 100, 150, 200 and 1000 Hz. The respiratory activity of the octopus changed when 

31 exposed to sound in the 50–150 Hz range but not for sound at 200–1,000 Hz. Respiratory suppression by 

32 the octopus might have represented a means of escaping detection by a predator.

33 Low-frequency sound (<200 Hz) has also been used as a means of preventing settling/fouling by aquatic 

34 invertebrates such as zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) (Donskoy and Ludyanskiy 1995) and 

35 balanoid barnacles (Balanus sp.) (Branscomb and Rittschof 1984). Price (2007) observed that blue 

36 mussels closed their valves upon exposure to 10 kHz pure tone continuous sound. 

37 Although not demonstrated in the invertebrate literature, masking can be considered a potential effect of 

38 anthropogenic underwater sound on marine invertebrates. Some invertebrates are known to produce 

39 sounds (Au and Banks 1998; Tolstoganova 2002; Latha et al. 2005). The functionality and biological 

40 relevance of these sounds are not understood (Jeffs et al. 2003, 2005; Lovell et al. 2005; Radford et al. 

41 2007). If some of the sounds are of biological significance to some invertebrates, then masking of those 

42 sounds or of sounds produced by predators, at least the particle displacement component, could 

43 potentially have adverse effects on marine invertebrates. However, even if masking does occur in some 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix D: D-7

Effects of Airguns on Marine Invertebrates & Fish

1 invertebrates, the intermittent nature of airgun sound is expected to result in less masking effect than 

2 would occur with continuous sound.

3 D.2 FISH

4 D.2.1 Acoustic Capabilities

5 Sensory systems – like those that allow for hearing – provide information about an animal’s physical, 

6 biological, and social environments, in both air and water. Extensive work has been done to understand 

7 the structures, mechanisms, and functions of animal sensory systems in aquatic environments (Atema et 

8 al. 1988; Kapoor and Hara 2001; Collin and Marshall 2003). All fish species have hearing and skin-based 

9 mechanosensory systems (inner ear and lateral line systems, respectively) that provide information about 

10 their surroundings (Fay and Popper 2000). Fay (2009) and some others refer to the ambient sounds to 

11 which fishes are exposed as ‘underwater soundscapes’. Anthropogenic sounds can have important 

12 negative consequences for fish survival and reproduction if they disrupt an individual’s ability to sense its 

13 soundscape, which often tells of predation risk, prey items, or mating opportunities. Potential negative 

14 effects include masking of key environmental sounds or social signals, displacement of fish from their 

15 habitat, or interference with sensory orientation and navigation.

16 Fish hearing via the inner ear is typically restricted to low frequencies. As with other vertebrates, fish

17 hearing involves a mechanism whereby the beds of hair cells (Howard et al. 1988; Hudspeth and Markin 

18 1994) located in the inner ear are mechanically affected and cause a neural discharge (Popper and Fay 

19 1999). At least two major pathways for sound transmittance between sound source and the inner ear have 

20 been identified for fishes. The most primitive pathway involves direct transmission to the inner ear’s 

21 otolith, a calcium carbonate mass enveloped by sensory hairs. The inertial difference between the dense 

22 otolith and the less-dense inner ear causes the otolith to stimulate the surrounding sensory hair cells. This 

23 motion differential is interpreted by the central nervous system as sound.

24 The second transmission pathway between sound source and the inner ear of fishes is via the swim 

25 bladder, a gas-filled structure that is much less dense than the rest of the fish’s body. The swim bladder,

26 being more compressible and expandable than either water or fish tissue, will differentially contract and 

27 expand relative to the rest of the fish in a sound field. The pulsating swim bladder transmits this 

28 mechanical disturbance directly to the inner ear (discussed below). Such a secondary source of sound 

29 detection may be more or less effective at stimulating the inner ear depending on the amplitude and 

30 frequency of the pulsation, and the distance and mechanical coupling between the swim bladder and the 

31 inner ear (Popper and Fay 1993). 

32 A recent paper by Popper and Fay (2010) discusses the designation of fishes based on sound detection 

33 capabilities. They suggest that the designations ‘hearing specialist’ and ‘hearing generalist’ no longer be 

34 used for fishes because of their vague and sometimes contradictory definitions, and that there is instead a 

35 range of hearing capabilities across species that is more like a continuum, presumably based on the 

36 relative contributions of pressure to the overall hearing capabilities of a species.

37 According to Popper and Fay (2010), one end of this continuum is represented by fishes that only detect 

38 particle motion because they lack pressure-sensitive gas bubbles (e.g., swim bladder). These species 

39 include elasmobranchs (e.g., sharks) and jawless fishes, and some teleosts including flatfishes. Fishes at 

40 this end of the continuum are typically capable of detecting sound frequencies below 1,500 Hz.

41 The other end of the fish hearing continuum is represented by fishes with highly specialized otophysic 

42 connections between pressure receptive organs, such as the swim bladder, and the inner ear. These fishes 

43 include some squirrelfish, mormyrids, herrings, and otophysan fishes (freshwater fishes with Weberian 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

D-8 Appendix D:

Effects of Airguns on Marine Invertebrates & Fish

1 apparatus, an articulated series of small bones that extend from the swim bladder to the inner ear). Rather 

2 than being limited to 1.5 kHz or less in hearing, these fishes can typically hear up to several kHz. One 

3 group of fish in the anadromous herring sub-family Alosinae (shads and menhaden) can detect sounds to 

4 well over 180 kHz (Mann et al. 1997, 1998, 2001). This may be the widest hearing range of any 

5 vertebrate that has been studied to date. While the specific reason for this very high frequency hearing is 

6 not totally clear, there is strong evidence that this capability evolved for the detection of the ultrasonic 

7 sounds produced by echolocating dolphins to enable the fish to detect, and avoid, predation (Mann et al. 

8 1997; Plachta and Popper 2003).

9 All other fishes have hearing capabilities that fall somewhere between these two extremes of the 

10 continuum. Some have unconnected swim bladders located relatively far from the inner ear (e.g., 

11 salmonids, tuna) while others have unconnected swim bladders located relatively close to the inner ear 

12 (e.g., Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua). There has also been the suggestion that Atlantic cod can detect 38 

13 kHz (Astrup and Møhl 1993). However, the general consensus was that this was not hearing with the ear; 

14 probably the fish were responding to exceedingly high pressure signals from the 38-kHz source through 

15 some other receptor in the skin, such as touch receptors (Astrup and Møhl 1998). 

16 It is important to recognize that the swim bladder itself is not a sensory end organ, but rather an 

17 intermediate part of the sound pathway between sound source and the inner ear of some fishes. The inner 

18 ear of fishes is ultimately the organ that translates the particle displacement component into neural signals 

19 for the brain to interpret as sound. 

20 A third mechanosensory pathway found in most bony fishes and elasmobranchs (i.e., cartilaginous fishes) 

21 involves the lateral line system. It too relies on sensitivity to water particle motion. The basic sensory unit 

22 of the lateral line system is the neuromast, a bundle of sensory and supporting cells whose projecting 

23 cilia, similar to those in the ears, are encased in a gelatinous cap. Neuromasts detect distorted sound 

24 waves in the immediate vicinity of fishes. Generally, fishes use the lateral line system to detect the 

25 particle displacement component of low frequency acoustic signals (up to 160 to 200 Hz) over a distance 

26 of one to two body lengths. The lateral line is used in conjunction with other sensory systems, including 

27 hearing (Sand 1981; Coombs and Montgomery 1999).

28 D.2.2 Potential Effects on Fishes

29 Review papers on the effects of anthropogenic sources of underwater sound on fishes have been 

30 published recently (Popper 2009; Popper and Hastings 2009a, b). These papers consider various sources 

31 of anthropogenic sound, including seismic airguns. For the purposes of this review, only the effects of 

32 seismic airgun sound are considered.

33 Marine Fishes

34 Evidence for airgun-induced damage to fish ears has come from studies using pink snapper (Pagrus 

35 auratus) (McCauley et al. 2000a, b, 2003). In these experiments, fish were caged and exposed to the 

36 sound of a single moving seismic airgun every 10 s over a period of 1 h and 41 min. The source SPL at 1 

37 m was about 223 dB re 1 μPa · mp-p, and the received SPLs ranged from 165 to 209 dB re 1 μPap-p. The 

38 sound energy was highest over the 20–70 Hz frequency range. The pink snapper were exposed to more 

39 than 600 airgun discharges during the study. In some individual fish, the sensory epithelium of the inner 

40 ear sustained extensive damage as indicated by ablated hair cells. Damage was more extensive in fish 

41 examined 58 days post-exposure compared to those examined 18 h post-exposure. There was no evidence 

42 of repair or replacement of damaged sensory cells up to 58 days post-exposure. McCauley et al. (2000a,

43 b, 2003) included the following caveats in the study reports: (1) fish were caged and unable to swim 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix D: D-9

Effects of Airguns on Marine Invertebrates & Fish

1 away from the seismic source, (2) only one species of fish was examined, (3) the impact on the ultimate 

2 survival of the fish is unclear, and (4) airgun exposure specifics required to cause the observed damage 

3 were not obtained (i.e., a few high SPL signals or the cumulative effect of many low to moderate SPL 

4 signals).

5 The fish exposed to sound from a single airgun in this study also exhibited startle responses to short range 

6 start up and high-level airgun signals (i.e., with received SPLs of 182 to 195 dB re 1 μParms (McCauley et 

7 al. 2000a, b). Smaller fish were more likely to display a startle response. Responses were observed above 

received SPLs of 156 to 161 dB re 1 μParms 8 . The occurrence of both startle response (classic C-turn 

9 response) and alarm responses (e.g., darting movements, flash school expansion, fast swimming) 

10 decreased over time. Other observations included downward distributional shift that was restricted by the 

11 10 m x 6 m x 3 m cages, increase in swimming speed, and the formation of denser aggregations. Fish 

12 behavior appeared to return to pre-exposure state 15–30 min after cessation of seismic firing. 

13 Pearson et al. (1992) investigated the effects of seismic airgun sound on the behavior of captive 

14 rockfishes (Sebastes sp.) exposed to the sound of a single stationary airgun at a variety of distances. The 

15 airgun used in the study had a source SPL at 1 m of 223 dB re 1 μPa · m0-p, and measured received SPLs 

16 ranged from 137 to 206 dB re 1 μPa0-p. The authors reported that rockfishes reacted to the airgun sounds 

17 by exhibiting varying degrees of startle and alarm responses, depending on the species of rockfish and the 

18 received SPL. Startle responses were observed at a minimum received SPL of 200 dB re 1 μPa0-p, and 

19 alarm responses occurred at a minimum received SPL of 177 dB re 1 μPa0-p. Other observed behavioral 

20 changes included the tightening of schools, downward distributional shift, and random movement and 

21 orientation. Some fishes ascended in the water column and commenced to mill (i.e., “eddy”) at increased 

22 speed, while others descended to the bottom of the enclosure and remained motionless. Pre-exposure 

23 behavior was reestablished from 20 to 60 min after cessation of seismic airgun discharge. Pearson et al. 

24 (1992) concluded that received SPL thresholds for overt and more subtle rockfish behavioral response are 

25 180 dB re 1 μPa0-p and 161 dB re 1 μPa0-p, respectively.

26 Using an experimental hook and line fishery approach, Skalski et al. (1992) studied the potential effects 

27 of seismic airgun sound on the distribution and catchability of rockfishes. The source SPL of the single 

28 airgun used in the study was 223 dB re 1 μPa · m 0-p, and the received SPLs at the bases of the rockfish 

29 aggregations ranged from 186 to 191 dB re 1 μPa0-p. Characteristics of the fish aggregations were 

30 assessed using echosounders. During long-term stationary seismic airgun discharge, there was an overall 

31 downward shift in fish distribution. The authors also observed a significant decline in total catch of 

32 rockfishes during seismic discharge. It should be noted that this experimental approach was quite 

33 different from an actual seismic survey, in that duration of exposure was much longer.

34 In another study, caged European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) were exposed to multiple discharges 

35 from a moving seismic airgun array with a source SPL of about 256 dB re 1 μPa · m 0-p (unspecified 

36 measure type) (Santulli et al. 1999). The airguns were discharged every 25 s during a 2-h period. The 

37 minimum distance between fish and seismic source was 180 m. The authors did not indicate any observed 

38 pathological injury to the sea bass. Blood was collected from both exposed fish (6 h post-exposure) and 

39 control fish (6 h pre-exposure) and subsequently analyzed for cortisol, glucose, and lactate levels. Levels 

40 of cortisol, glucose, and lactate were significantly higher in the sera of exposed fish compared to sera of 

41 control fish. The elevated levels of all three chemicals returned to pre-exposure levels within 72 h of 

42 exposure (Santulli et al. 1999).

43 Santulli et al. (1999) also used underwater video cameras to monitor fish response to seismic airgun 

44 discharge. Resultant video indicated slight startle responses by some of the sea bass when the seismic 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

D-10 Appendix D:

Effects of Airguns on Marine Invertebrates & Fish

1 airgun array discharged as far as 2.5 km from the cage. The proportion of sea bass that exhibited startle 

2 response increased as the airgun sound source approached the cage. Once the seismic array was within 

3 180 m of the cage, the sea bass were densely packed at the middle of the enclosure, exhibiting random 

4 orientation, and appearing more active than they had been under pre-exposure conditions. Normal 

5 behavior resumed about 2 h after airgun discharge nearest the fish (Santulli et al. 1999).

6 Boeger et al. (2006) reported observations of coral reef fishes in field enclosures before, during and after 

7 exposure to seismic airgun sound. This Brazilian study used an array of eight airguns that was presented 

8 to the fishes as both a mobile sound source and a static sound source. Minimum distances between the 

9 sound source and the fish cage ranged from 0 to 7 m. Received sound levels were not reported by Boeger 

10 et al. (2006). Neither mortality nor external damage to the fishes was observed in any of the experimental 

11 scenarios. Most of the airgun array discharges resulted in startle responses although these behavioral

12 changes lessened with repeated exposures, suggesting habituation.

13 Chapman and Hawkins (1969) investigated the reactions of free ranging whiting (silver hake) (Merluccius 

14 bilinearis), to an intermittently discharging stationary airgun with a source SPL of 220 dB re 1 μPa · m0-p. 

15 Received SPLs were estimated to be 178 dB re 1 μPa0-p. The whiting were monitored with an 

16 echosounder. Prior to any airgun discharge, the fish were located at a depth range of 25 to 55 m. In 

17 apparent response to the airgun sound, the fish descended, forming a compact layer at depths greater than 

18 55 m. After an hour of exposure to the airgun sound, the fish appeared to have habituated as indicated by 

19 their return to the pre-exposure depth range, despite the continuing airgun discharge. Airgun discharge 

20 ceased for a time and upon its resumption, the fish again descended to greater depths, indicating only 

21 temporary habituation. 

22 Hassel et al. (2003, 2004) studied the potential effects of exposure to airgun sound on the behavior of 

23 captive lesser sandeel (Ammodytes marinus). Depth of the study enclosure used to hold the sandeel was 

24 about 55 m. The moving airgun array had an estimated source SPL of 256 dB re 1 μPa · m (unspecified 

25 measure type). Received SPLs were not measured. Exposures were conducted over a 3-day period in a 10 

26 km × 10 km area with the cage at its center. The distance between airgun array and fish cage ranged from 

27 55 m when the array was overhead to 7.5 km. No mortality attributable to exposure to the airgun sound 

28 was noted. Behavior of the fish was monitored using underwater video cameras, echosounders, and 

29 commercial fishery data collected close to the study area. The approach of the seismic vessel appeared to 

30 cause an increase in tail-beat frequency although the sandeels still appeared to swim calmly. During 

31 seismic airgun discharge, many fish exhibited startle responses, followed by flight from the immediate 

32 area. The frequency of occurrence of startle response seemed to increase as the operating seismic array 

33 moved closer to the fish. The sandeels stopped exhibiting the startle response once the airgun discharge 

34 ceased. The sandeel tended to remain higher in the water column during the airgun discharge, and none of 

35 them were observed burying themselves in the soft substrate. The commercial fishery catch data were 

36 inconclusive with respect to behavioral effects.

37 Various species of demersal fishes, blue whiting, and some small pelagic fishes were exposed to a moving 

38 seismic airgun array with a source SPL of about 250 dB re 1 μPa · m (unspecified measure type) (Dalen 

39 and Knutsen 1986). Received SPLs estimated using the assumption of spherical spreading ranged from 

40 200 to 210 dB re 1 μPa (unspecified measure type). Seismic sound exposures were conducted every 10 s 

41 during a one week period. The authors used echosounders and sonars to assess the pre- and post-exposure 

42 fish distributions. The acoustic mapping results indicated a significant decrease in abundance of demersal 

43 fish (36%) after airgun discharge but comparative trawl catches did not support this. Non-significant 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix D: D-11

Effects of Airguns on Marine Invertebrates & Fish

1 reductions in the abundances of blue whiting and small pelagic fish were also indicated by post-exposure 

2 acoustic mapping.

3 La Bella et al. (1996) studied the effects of exposure to seismic airgun sound on fish distribution using 

4 echosounder monitoring and changes in catch rate of hake by trawl, and clupeoids by gill netting. The 

5 seismic array used was composed of 16 airguns and had a source SPL of 256 dB re 1 μPa · m 0-p. The shot 

6 interval was 25 s, and exposure durations ranged from 4.6 to 12 h. Horizontal distributions did not appear 

7 to change as a result of exposure to seismic discharge, but there was some indication of a downward shift 

8 in the vertical distribution. The catch rates during experimental fishing did not differ significantly 

9 between pre- and post-seismic fishing periods.

10 Wardle et al. (2001) used video and telemetry to make behavioral observations of marine fishes (primarily 

11 juvenile saithe, adult pollock, juvenile cod, and adult mackerel) inhabiting an inshore reef off Scotland 

12 before, during, and after exposure to discharges of a stationary airgun. The received SPLs ranged from 

13 about 195 to 218 dB re 1 μPa0-p. Pollock did not move away from the reef in response to the seismic 

14 airgun sound, and their diurnal rhythm did not appear to be affected. However, there was an indication of 

15 a slight effect on the long-term day-to-night movements of the pollock. Video camera observations 

16 indicated that fish exhibited startle responses (“C-starts”) to all received levels. There were also 

17 indications of behavioral responses to visual stimuli. If the seismic source was visible to the fish, they fled 

18 from it. However, if the source was not visible to the fish, they often continued to move toward it. 

19 The potential effects of exposure to seismic sound on fish abundance and distribution were also 

20 investigated by Slotte et al. (2004). Twelve days of seismic survey operations spread over a period of 1 

21 month used a seismic airgun array with a source SPL of 222.6 dB re 1 μPa · mp-p. The SPLs received by 

22 the fish were not measured. Acoustic surveys of the local distributions of various kinds of pelagic fish, 

23 including herring, blue whiting, and mesopelagic species, were conducted during the seismic surveys. 

24 There was no strong evidence of short-term horizontal distributional effects. With respect to vertical 

25 distribution, blue whiting and mesopelagics were distributed deeper (20 to 50 m) during the seismic 

26 survey compared to pre-exposure. The average densities of fish aggregations were lower within the 

27 seismic survey area, and fish abundances appeared to increase in accordance with increasing distance 

28 from the seismic survey area.

29 Fertilized capelin (Mallotus villosus) eggs and monkfish (Lophius americanus) larvae were exposed to 

30 seismic airgun sound and subsequently examined and monitored for possible effects of the exposure 

31 (Payne et al. 2009). The laboratory exposure studies involved a single airgun. Approximate received SPLs 

32 measured in the capelin egg and monkfish larvae exposures were 199 to 205 dB re 1 μPap-p and 205 dB re 

33 1 μPap-p, respectively. The capelin eggs were exposed to either 10 or 20 airgun discharges, and the 

34 monkfish larvae were exposed to either 10 or 30 discharges. No statistical differences in 

35 mortality/morbidity between control and exposed subjects were found at 1 to 4 days post-exposure in any 

36 of the exposure trials for either the capelin eggs or the monkfish larvae. 

37 In uncontrolled experiments, Kostyvchenko (1973) exposed the eggs of numerous fish species (anchovy, 

38 red mullet, crucian carp, blue runner) to various sound sources, including seismic airguns. With the 

39 seismic airgun discharge as close as 0.5 m from the eggs, over 75% of them survived the exposure. Egg 

40 survival rate increased to over 90% when placed 10 m from the airgun sound source. The range of 

41 received SPLs was about 215 to 233 dB re 1 μPa0-p. 

42 Eggs, yolk sac larvae, post-yolk sac larvae, post-larvae, and fry of various commercially important fish 

43 species (cod, saithe, herring, turbot, and plaice) were exposed to received SPLs ranging from 220 to 242 

44 dB re 1 μPa (unspecified measure type) (Booman et al. 1996). These received levels corresponded to 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

D-12 Appendix D:

Effects of Airguns on Marine Invertebrates & Fish

1 exposure distances ranging from 0.75 to 6 m. The authors reported some cases of injury and mortality but 

2 most of these occurred as a result of exposures at very close range (i.e., <15 m). The rigor of anatomical 

3 and pathological assessments was questionable.

4 Saetre and Ona (1996) applied a “worst-case scenario” mathematical model to investigate the effects of 

5 seismic sound on fish eggs and larvae. They concluded that mortality rates caused by exposure to seismic 

6 airgun sound are so low compared to the natural mortality that the impact of seismic surveying on 

7 recruitment to a fish stock must be regarded as insignificant.

8 Freshwater Fishes

9 Popper et al. (2005) tested the hearing sensitivity of three Mackenzie River fish species after exposure to 

10 five discharges from a seismic airgun. The mean received peak SPL was 205 to 209 dB re 1 μPa per 

discharge, and the approximate mean received SEL was 176 to 180 dB re 1 μPa2 11 · s per discharge. While 

12 the broad whitefish showed no TTS as a result of the exposure, adult northern pike and lake chub 

13 exhibited TTSs of 10 to 15 dB, followed by complete recovery within 24 h of exposure. The same 

14 animals were also examined to determine whether there were observable effects on the sensory cells of 

15 the inner ear as a result of exposure to seismic sound (Song et al. 2008). No damage to the ears of the 

16 fishes was found, including those that exhibited TTS.

17 In another part of the same Mackenzie River project, Jorgenson and Gyselman (2009) investigated the 

18 behavioral responses of arctic riverine fishes to seismic airgun sound. They used hydroacoustic survey 

19 techniques to determine whether fish behavior upon exposure to airgun sound can either mitigate or 

20 enhance the potential impact of the sound. The study indicated that fish behavioral characteristics were 

21 generally unchanged by the exposure to airgun sound. The tracked fish did not exhibit herding behavior in 

22 front of the mobile airgun array and, therefore, were not exposed to sustained high sound levels. 

23 Anadromous Fishes

24 In uncontrolled experiments using a very small sample of different groups of young salmonids, including 

25 Arctic cisco, fish were caged and exposed to various types of sound. One sound type was either a single 

firing or a series of four firings 10 to 15 s apart of a 300-in3 26 seismic airgun at 2000 to 2200 psi (Falk and 

27 Lawrence 1973). Swim bladder damage was reported but no mortality was observed when fish were 

28 exposed within 1 to 2 m of an airgun source with source level, as estimated by Turnpenny and Nedwell 

29 (1994), of ~230 dB re 1 μPa · m (unspecified measure).

30 Thomsen (2002) exposed rainbow trout and Atlantic salmon held in aquaculture enclosures to the sounds 

31 from a small airgun array. Received SPLs were 142 to 186 dB re 1 μPap-p. The fish were exposed to 124 

32 pulses over a 3-day period. In addition to monitoring fish behavior with underwater video cameras, the 

33 authors also analyzed cod and haddock catch data from a longline fishing vessel operating in the 

34 immediate area. Only 8 of the 124 shots appeared to evoke behavioral reactions by the salmonids, but 

35 overall impacts were minimal. No fish mortality was observed during or immediately after exposure. The 

36 author reported no significant effects on cod and haddock catch rates, and the behavioral effects were 

37 hard to differentiate from normal behavior.

38 Weinhold and Weaver (1972, cited in Turnpenny et al. 1994) exposed caged coho salmon smolts to 

impulses from 330 and 660-in3 39 airguns at distances ranging from 1 to 10 m, resulting in received levels 

40 estimated at ~214 to 216 dB (units not given). No lethal effects were observed.

41 It should be noted that, in a recent and comprehensive review, Hastings and Popper (2005) take issue with 

42 many of the authors cited above for problems with experimental design and execution, measurements, and 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix D: D-13

Effects of Airguns on Marine Invertebrates & Fish

1 interpretation. Hastings and Popper (2005) deal primarily with possible effects of pile-driving sounds 

2 (which, like airgun sounds, are impulsive and repetitive). However, that review provides an excellent and 

3 critical review of the impacts to fish from other underwater anthropogenic sounds.

4 D.2.3 Indirect Effects on Fisheries

5 The most comprehensive experimentation on the effects of seismic airgun sound on catchability of fishes 

6 was conducted in the Barents Sea by Engås et al. (1993, 1996). They investigated the effects of seismic 

7 airgun sound on distributions, abundances, and catch rates of cod and haddock using acoustic mapping 

8 and experimental fishing with trawls and longlines. The maximum source SPL was about 248 dB re 

9 1 μPa · m 0-p based on back-calculations from measurements collected via a hydrophone at depth 80 m. 

10 Nomeasurements of the received SPLs were made. Davis et al. (1998) estimated the received SPL at the 

11 sea bottom immediately below the array and at 18 km from the array to be 205 dB re 1 μPa0-p and 178 dB 

12 re 1 μPa0-p, respectively. Engås et al. (1993, 1996) concluded that there were indications of distributional 

13 change during and immediately following the seismic airgun discharge (45 to 64% decrease in acoustic 

14 density according to sonar data). The lowest densities were observed within 9.3 km of the seismic 

15 discharge area. The authors indicated that trawl catches of both cod and haddock declined after the 

16 seismic operations. While longline catches of haddock also showed decline after seismic airgun 

17 discharge, those for cod increased.

18 Løkkeborg (1991), Løkkeborg and Soldal (1993), and Dalen and Knutsen (1986) also examined the 

19 effects of seismic airgun sound on demersal fish catches. Løkkeborg (1991) examined the effects on cod 

20 catches. The source SPL of the airgun array used in his study was 239 dB re 1 μPa · m (unspecified 

21 measure type), but received SPLs were not measured. Approximately 43 h of seismic airgun discharge 

22 occurred during an 11-day period, with a 5-s interval between pulses. Catch rate decreases ranging from 

23 55 to 80% within the seismic survey area were observed. This apparent effect persisted for at least 24 h 

24 within about 10 km of the survey area. 

25 Turnpenny et al. (1994) examined results of these studies as well as the results of other studies on 

26 rockfish. They used rough estimations of received SPLs at catch locations and concluded that catchability 

27 is reduced when received SPLs exceed 160 to 180 dB re 1 μPa0-p. They also concluded that reaction 

28 thresholds of fishes lacking a swim bladder (e.g., flatfish) would likely be about 20 dB higher. Given the 

29 considerable variability in sound transmission loss between different geographic locations, the SPLs that 

30 were assumed in these studies were likely quite inaccurate.

31 Turnpenny and Nedwell (1994) also reported on the effects of seismic airgun discharge on inshore bass 

32 fisheries in shallow U.K. waters (5 to 30 m deep). The airgun array used had a source level of 250 dB re 1 

33 μPa · m0-p. Received levels in the fishing areas were estimated to be 163–191 dB re 1 μPa0-p. Using fish 

34 tagging and catch record methodologies, they concluded that there was not any distinguishable migration 

35 from the ensonified area, nor was there any reduction in bass catches on days when seismic airguns were 

36 discharged. The authors concluded that effects on fisheries would be smaller in shallow nearshore waters 

37 than in deep water because attenuation of sound is more rapid in shallow water. 

Skalski et al. (1992) used a 100-in3 38 airgun with a source level of 223 dB re 1 μPa · m0-p to examine the 

39 potential effects of airgun sound on the catchability of rockfishes. The moving airgun was discharged 

40 along transects in the study fishing area, after which a fishing vessel deployed a set line, ran three echo41 sounder transects, and then deployed two more set lines. Each fishing experiment lasted 1 h 25 min. 

42 Received SPLs at the base of the rockfish aggregations ranged from 186 to 191 dB re 1 μPa0-p. The catch43 per-unit-effort (CPUE) for rockfish declined on average by 52.4% when the airguns were operating. 

44 Skalski et al. (1992) believed that the reduction in catch resulted from a change in behavior of the fishes. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

D-14 Appendix D:

Effects of Airguns on Marine Invertebrates & Fish

1 The fish schools descended towards the bottom and their swimming behavior changed during airgun 

2 discharge. Although fish dispersal was not observed, the authors hypothesized that it could have occurred 

3 at a different location with a different bottom type. Skalski et al. (1992) did not continue fishing after 

4 cessation of airgun discharge. They speculated that CPUE would quickly return to normal in the experi5 mental area, because fish behavior appeared to normalize within minutes of cessation of airgun discharge. 

6 However, in an area where exposure to airgun sound might have caused the fish to disperse, the authors 

7 suggested that a lower CPUE might persist for a longer period.

8 European sea bass were exposed to sound from seismic airgun arrays with a source SPL of 262 dB re 1 

9 μPa · m0-p (Pickett et al. 1994). The seismic survey was conducted over a period of 4 to 5 months. The 

10 study was intended to investigate the effects of seismic airgun discharge on inshore bass fisheries. 

11 Information was collected through a tag and release program, and from the logbooks of commercial 

12 fishermen. Most of the 152 recovered fish from the tagging program were caught within 10 km of the 

13 release site, and it was suggested that most of these bass did not leave the area for a prolonged period. 

14 With respect to the commercial fishery, no significant changes in catch rate were observed (Pickett et al. 

15 1994).

D.3 Literature Cited

Andriguetto-Filho, J.M., A. Ostrensky, M.R. Pie, U.A. Silva, and W.A. Boeger. 2005. Evaluating the 

impact of seismic prospecting on artisanal shrimp fisheries. Continental Shelf Research 25:1720-

1727.

Atema, J., R.R. Fay, A.N. Popper, and W.N. Tavolga. 1988. The Sensory Biology of Aquatic Animals. 

Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 

Au, W.W.L. and K. Banks. 1998. The acoustics of snapping shrimp Synalpheus parneomeris in Kaneohe 

Bay. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 103:41-47.

Boeger, W.A., M.R. Pie, A. Ostrensky, and M.F. Cardoso. 2006. The effect of exposure to seismic 

prospecting on coral reef fishes. Brazilian Journal of Oceanography 54:235-239.

Booman, C., J. Dalen, H. Leivestad, A. Levsen, T. van der Meeren and K. Toklum. 1996. Effecter av 

luftkanonskyting på egg, larver og yngel. Fisken Og Havet 1996(3):1-83 (Norwegian with English 

summary).

Boudreau, M., S.C. Courtenay, and K. Lee, eds. 2009. Potential Impacts of Seismic Energy on Snow 

Crab: An Update to the September 2004 Review. Proceedings of a Workshop held 23 January 2007 

at the Gulf Fisheries Center. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2836.

Branscomb, E.S. and D. Rittschof. 1984. An investigation of low frequency sound waves as a means of 

inhibiting barnacle settlement. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 79:149-154.

Breithaupt, T. 2002. Sound perception in aquatic crustaceans. Pages 548-558 in K. Wiese, ed. The 

Crustacean Nervous System. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg, Germany.

Budelmann, B.U. 1992. Hearing in crustacea. Pages 131-139 in D.B. Webster, R.R. Fay, and A.N. 

Popper, eds. Evolutionary Biology of Hearing. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.

Budelmann, B.U. 1996. Active marine predators: the sensory world of cephalopods. Marine and

Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology 27:59-75.

Budelmann, B.U. and R. Williamson. 1994. Directional sensitivity of hair cell afferents in the octopus 

statocyst. Journal of Experimental Biology 187:245-259.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix D: D-15

Effects of Airguns on Marine Invertebrates & Fish

Chadwick, M. 2004. Proceedings of the Peer Review on Potential Impacts of Seismic Energy on Snow 

Crab. Gulf Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Science Advisory Secretariat

Proceedings Series 2004/045.

Chapman, C.J. and A.D. Hawkins. 1969. The importance of sound in fish behaviour in relation to capture 

by trawls. FAO Fisheries Report 62:717-729.

Christian, J.R., A. Mathieu, D.H. Thomson, D. White, and R.A. Buchanan. 2003. Effect of seismic energy 

on snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio). Environmental Studies Research Funds Report No. 144. Calgary, 

AB, Canada. November.

Christian, J.R., A. Mathieu, and R.A. Buchanan. 2004. Chronic effects of seismic energy on snow crab 

(Chionoecetes opilio). Environmental Studies Research Funds Report No. 158, Calgary, AB. March.

Collin, S.P. and N.J. Marshall, eds. 2003. Sensory Processing in Aquatic Environments. Springer-Verlag, 

New York, NY.

Coombs, S. and J.C. Montgomery. 1999. The enigmatic lateral line system. Pages 319-362 in R.R. Fay 

and A.N. Popper, eds. Comparative Hearing: Fish and Amphibians. Springer Handbook of Auditory 

Research 11. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.

Dalen, J. and G.M. Knutsen. 1986. Scaring effects in fish and harmful effects on eggs, larvae and fry by 

offshore seismic explorations. Symposium on Underwater Acoustics, Halifax.

Davis, R.A., D. Thomson, and C.I. Malme. 1998. Environmental assessment of seismic exploration of the 

Scotian Shelf. Unpublished Report by LGL Ltd., environmental research associates, King City, ON 

and Charles I. Malme, Engineering and Science Services, Hingham, MA for Mobil Oil Canada 

Properties Ltd, Shell Canada Ltd., and Imperial Oil Ltd. 

DFOC. 2004. Potential impacts of seismic energy on snow crab. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat 

Habitat Status Report 2004/003.

Donskoy, D.M. and M.L. Ludyanskiy. 1995. Low frequency sound as a control measure for zebra mussel 

fouling. Proceedings of the Fifth International Zebra Mussel and Other Aquatic Nuisance Organisms 

Conference, February 1995, Toronto, Canada.

Engås, A., S. Løkkeborg, A.V. Soldal and E. Ona. 1993. Comparative trials for cod and haddock using 

commercial trawl and longline at two different stock levels. Journal of the Northwest Atlantic Fishery

Science 19:83-90.

Engås, A, S. Løkkeborg, E. Ona, and A.V. Soldal. 1996. Effects of seismic shooting on local abundance 

and catch rates of cod (G. morhua) and haddock (M. aeglefinus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Science 53:2238-2249.

Falk, M.R. and M.J. Lawrence. 1973. Seismic exploration: its nature and effects on fish. Canada 

Technical Report Series No. CEN/T-73-9. Department of the Environment, Fisheries and Marine 

Service, Resource Management Branch, Fisheries Operations Directorate, Central Region 

(Environment), Winnipeg, MB.

Fay, R. 2009. Soundscapes and the sense of hearing of fishes. Integrative Zoology 4:26-32.

Fay, R.R. and A.N. Popper. 2000. Evolution of hearing in vertebrates: The inner ears and processing. 

Hearing Research 149:1-10.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

D-16 Appendix D:

Effects of Airguns on Marine Invertebrates & Fish

Guerra, A., A.F. González, and F. Rocha. 2004. A review of the records of giant squid in the northeastern Atlantic and severe injuries in Architeuthis dux stranded after acoustic explorations. Paper 

presented at the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Annual Science 

Conference, 22–25 September 2004, Vigo, Spain. ICES CM 2004/CC:29.

Hassel, A., T. Knutsen, J. Dalen, S. Løkkeborg, K. Skaar, Ø. Østensen, E.K. Haugland, M. Fonn, Å. 

Høines, and O.A. Misund. 2003. Reaction of sandeel to seismic shooting: A field experiment and 

fishery statistics study. Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway.

Hassel, A., T. Knutsen, J. Dalen, K. Skaar, S. Løkkeborg, O.A. Misund, O. Ostensen, M. Fonn, and E.K. 

Haugland. 2004. Influence of seismic shooting on the lesser sandeel (Ammodytes marinus). ICES 

Journal of Marine Science 61:1165-1173.

Hastings, M.C. and A.N. Popper. 2005. Effects of Sound on Fish. Prepared for Jones & Stokes, 

Sacramento, CA, for California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA. 28 January.

Henninger, H.P. and W.H. Watson, III. 2005. Mechanisms underlying the production of carapace 

vibrations and associated waterborne sounds in the American lobster, Homarus americanus. Journal 

of Experimental Biology 208:3421-3429.

Howard J, W.M. Roberts, and A.J. Hudspeth. 1988. Mechanoelectrical transduction by hair cells. Annual

Review of Biophysics and Chemistry 17:99-124.

Hu, M.Y., H.Y. Yan, W-S Chung, J-C Shiao, and P-P Hwang. 2009. Acoustically evoked potentials in 

two cephalopods inferred using the auditory brainstem response (ABR) approach. Comparative

Biochemistry and Physiology A 153:278-283.

Hudspeth, A.J. and V.S. Markin. 1994. The ear’s gears: mechanical transduction by hair cells. Physics 

Today 47(2):22-28.

Jeffs, A., N. Tolimieri, and J.C. Montgomery. 2003. Crabs on cue for the coast: the use of underwater 

sound for orientation by pelagic crab stages. Marine and Freshwater Research 54:841-845.

Jeffs, A.G., J.C. Montgomery, and C.T. Tindle. 2005. How do spiny lobster post-larvae find the coast? 

New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 39:605-617.

Jorgenson, J.K. and E.C. Gyselman. 2009. Hydroacoustic measurements of the behavioral response of

arctic riverine fishes to seismic airguns. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126:1598-1606.

Kaifu, K., S. Segawa, and K. Tsuchiya. 2007. Behavioral responses to underwater sound in the small 

benthic octopus Octopus ocellatus. Journal of the Marine Acoustical Society of Japan 34:46-53.

Kaifu, K., T. Akamatsu, and S. Segawa. 2008. Underwater sound detection by cephalopod statocyst. 

Fisheries Science 74:781-786.

Kapoor, B.G. and T.J. Hara, eds. 2001. Sensory Biology of Jawed Fishes: New Insights. Science 

Publishers, Inc., Enfield, NH.

Komak, S., J.G. Boal, L. Dickel, and B.U. Budelmann. 2005. Behavioural responses of juvenile cuttlefish 

(Sepia officinalis) to local water movements. Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology 

38:117-125.

Kostyvchenko, L.P. 1973. Effects of elastic waves generated in marine seismic prospecting on fish eggs 

in the Black Sea. Hydrobiological Journal 9:45-48.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix D: D-17

Effects of Airguns on Marine Invertebrates & Fish

La Bella, G., S. Cannata, C. Froglia, A. Modica, S. Ratti, and G. Rivas. 1996. First assessment of effects 

of air-gun seismic shooting on marine resources in the Central Adriatic Sea. Pages 227-238 in Society 

of Petroleum Engineers, International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment, New Orleans, 

Louisiana, 9-12 June. 

Ladich, F. and A.N. Popper. 2004. Parallel evolution in fish hearing organs. Pages 95-127 in G.A. 

Manley, A.N. Popper, and R.R. Fay, eds. Evolution of the Vertebrate Auditory System. SpringerVerlag, New York, NY.

Lagardère, J.P. 1982. Effects of noise on growth and reproduction of Crangon crangon in rearing tanks. 

Marine Biology 71:177-186.

Latha, G., S. Senthilvadivu, R. Venkatesan, and V. Rajendran. 2005. Sound of shallow and deep water 

lobsters: Measurements, analysis, and characterization (L). Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America 117: 2720-2723.

Løkkeborg, S. 1991. Effects of geophysical survey on catching success in longline fishing. Paper 

presented at the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Annual Science 

Conference. ICES CM B 40:1-9. 

Løkkeborg, S. and A.V. Soldal. 1993. The influence of seismic explorations on cod (Gadus morhua) 

behaviour and catch rates. ICES Marine Science Symposium 196:62-67.

Lovell, J.M., M.M. Findley, R.M. Moate, and H.Y. Yan. 2005. The hearing abilities of the prawn 

Palaemon serratus. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A 140:89-100.

Lovell, J.M., R.M. Moate, L. Christiansen, and M.M. Findlay. 2006. The relationship between body size 

and evoked potentials from the statocysts of the prawn Palaemon serratus. Journal of Experimental 

Biology 209:2480-2485.

Mann, D.A., Z. Lu, and A.N. Popper. 1997. A clupeid fish can detect ultrasound. Nature 389(6649):341.

Mann, D.A., Z. Lu, M.C. Hastings, and A.N. Popper. 1998. Detection of ultrasonic tones and simulated 

dolphin echolocation clicks by a teleost fish, the American shad (Alosa sapidissima). Journal

Acoustical Society of America 104:562-568.

Mann, D.A., D.M. Higgs, W.N. Tavolga, M.J. Souza, and A.N. Popper. 2001. Ultrasound detection by 

clupeiform fishes. Journal Acoustical Society of America 109:3048-3054.

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. 2000a. Marine seismic surveys: Analysis of airgun signals; 

and effects of air gun exposure on humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and squid. Report from Centre 

for Marine Science and Technology, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, for Australian 

Petroleum Production Association, Sydney, NSW. 

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. 2000b. Marine seismic surveys – a study of environmental 

implications. APPEA Journal 40:692-706.

McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, and A.N. Popper. 2003. High intensity anthropogenic sound damages fish 

ears. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113:638-642.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

D-18 Appendix D:

Effects of Airguns on Marine Invertebrates & Fish

Moriyasu, M., R. Allain, K. Benhalima, and R. Claytor. 2004. Effects of Seismic and Marine Noise on 

Invertebrates: A Literature Review. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Science. Canadian 

Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2004/126.

Packard, A., H.E. Karlsen, and O. Sand. 1990. Low frequency hearing in cephalopods. Jorunal of 

Comparative Physiology A 166: 501-505.

Parry, G.D. and A. Gason. 2006. The effect of seismic surveys on catch rates of rock lobsters in western 

Victoria, Australia. Fisheries Research 79:272-284.

Payne, J.F., C.A. Andrews, L.L. Fancey, A.L. Cook, and J.R. Christian. 2007. Pilot study on the effects of 

seismic air gun noise on lobster (Homarus americanus). Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 2712.

Payne, J.F., C. Andrews, L. Fancey, D. White, and J. Christian. 2008. Potential Effects of Seismic Energy 

on Fish and Shellfish: An Update since 2003. Fisheries and Oceans Canada Science, Canadian 

Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2008/060. 

Payne, J.F., J. Coady, and D. White. 2009. Potential effects of seismic airgun discharges on monkfish 

eggs (Lophius americanus) and larvae. Environmental Studies Research Funds Report 170. St. 

John’s, NL. 

Pearson, W.H., J.R. Skalski, and C.I. Malme. 1992. Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device 

on behavior of captive rockfish (Sebastes spp.). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 

49:1343-1356.

Pearson, W., J. Skalski, S. Sulkin, and C. Malme. 1994. Effects of seismic energy releases on the survival 

and development of zoeal larvae of Dungeness crab (Cancer magister). Marine Environmental 

Research 38:93-113.

Pickett, G.D., D.R. Eaton, R.M.H. Seaby, and G.P. Arnold. 1994. Results of bass tagging in Poole Bay 

during 1992. Laboratory Leaflet Number 74. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Directorate 

of Fisheries Research, Lowestoft, UK.

Popper, A.N. 2009. Are we drowning out fish in a sea of noise? Marine Scientist 27:18-20.

Popper, A.N. and R.R. Fay. 1993. Sound detection and processing by fish: critical review and major 

research questions. Brain Behavior and Evolution 41:14-38.

Popper, A.N. and R.R. Fay. 1999. The auditory periphery in fishes. Pages 43-100 in R.R. Fay and A.N. 

Popper, eds. Comparative Hearing: Fish and Amphibians. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research 

11. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 

Popper, A.N. and R.R. Fay. 2010. Rethinking sound detection by fishes. Hearing Research (in press). doi: 

10.1016/j.heares.2009.12.023.

Popper, A.N. and M.C. Hastings. 2009a. The effects of human-generated sound on fish. Integrative

Zoology 4:43-52.

Popper, A.N. and M.C. Hastings. 2009b. The effects of anthropogenic sources of sound on fishes. Journal 

of Fish Biology 75:455-489.

Popper, A.N., M. Salmon, and K.W. Horch. 2001. Acoustic detection and communication by decapod 

crustaceans. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 187:83-89.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix D: D-19

Effects of Airguns on Marine Invertebrates & Fish

Popper, A.N., M.E. Smith, P.A. Cott, B.W. Hanna, A.O. MacGillivray, M.E. Austin, and D.A. Mann. 

2005. Effects of exposure to seismic airgun use on hearing of three fish species. Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America 117:3958-3971.

Price, A. 2007. The effects of high frequency, high intensity underwater sound on the oxygen uptakes of 

Mytilus edulis (L.). B.S.(Hons.) Thesis, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland.

Pye, H.J., and W.H. Watson, III. 2004. Sound detection and production in the American lobster, Homarus 

americanus: sensitivity range and behavioral implications. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America 115 (Part 2):2486.

Radford, C.A., A.G. Jeffs, and J.C. Montgomery. 2007. Orientated swimming behavior of crab postlarvae 

in response to reef sound. Poster at First International Conference on Effects of Noise on Aquatic 

Life, Nyborg, Denmark, August 2007.

Rawizza, H.E. 1995. Hearing and associative learning in cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis. Hopkins Marine 

Station Student Paper. Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. 

Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 

Saetre, R. and E. Ona. 1996. Seismiske undersøkelser og skader på fiskeegg og -larver en vurdering av 

mulige effekter pa bestandsniv. [Seismic investigations and damages on fish eggs and larvae; an 

evaluation of possible effects on stock level] Fisken og Havet 1996:1-17, 1-8. (in Norwegian with 

English summary).

Sand, O. 1981. The lateral line and sound reception. Pages 459-478 in W.N. Tavolga, A.N. Popper, and 

R.R. Fay, eds. Hearing and Sound Communication in Fishes. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.

Santulli, A., C. Messina, L. Ceffa, A. Curatolo, G. Rivas, G. Fabi, and V. Damelio. 1999. Biochemical 

responses of European sea bass (Dicentrachus labrax) to the stress induced by offshore experimental 

seismic prospecting. Marine Pollution Bulletin 38:1105-1114.

Skalski, J.R., W.H. Pearson, and C.I. Malme. 1992. Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device 

on catch-per-unit-effort in a hook-and-line fishery for rockfish (Sebastes spp.). Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Science 49:1357-1365.

Slotte, A., K. Hansen, J. Dalen, and E. Ona. 2004. Acoustic mapping of pelagic fish distribution and 

abundance in relation to a seismic shooting area off the Norwegian west coast. Fisheries Research 

67:143-150.

Song, J., D.A. Mann, P.A. Cott, B.W. Hanna, and A.N. Popper. 2008. The inner ears of Northern 

Canadian freshwater fishes following exposure to seismic air gun sounds. Journal of the Acoustical

Society of America 124:1360-1366.

Thomsen, B. 2002. An experiment on how seismic shooting affects caged fish. Thesis, Faroese Fisheries 

Laboratory, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland. 16 August.

Tolstoganova, L.K. 2002. Acoustical behaviour in king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus). Pages 247-254 

in A.J. Paul, E.G. Dawe, R. Elner, G.S. Jamieson, G.H. Kruse, R.S. Otto, B. Sainte-Marie, T.C. 

Shirley, and D. Woodby, eds. Crabs in Cold Water Regions: Biology, Management, and Economics. 

University of Alaska Sea Grant, AK-SG-02-01. Fairbanks, AK.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

D-20 Appendix D:

Effects of Airguns on Marine Invertebrates & Fish

Turnpenny, A.W.H. and J.R. Nedwell. 1994. Consultancy Report: The Effects on Marine Fish, Diving 

Mammals and Birds of Underwater Sound Generated by Seismic Surveys. FCR 089/94. Prepared by 

Fawley aquatic research laboratories, Ltd. for the UK Offshore Operators Association (UKOOA).

Turnpenny, A.W.H., K.P. Thatcher, and J.R. Nedwell. 1994. Research Report: The Effects on Fish and 

Other Marine Animals of High-level Underwater Sound. FRR 127/94. Prepared by Fawley aquatic 

research laboratories, Ltd. for the Defence Research Agency.

Wardle, C.S., T.J. Carter, G.G. Urquhart, A.D.F. Johnstone, A.M. Ziolkowski, G. Hampson, and D. 

Mackie. 2001. Effects of seismic airguns on marine fish. Continental Shelf Research 21:1005-1027.
APPENDIX E: 

REVIEW OF THE EFFECTS OF SEISMIC AND OCEANOGRAPHIC SONAR 

SOUNDS ON MARINE MAMMALS

Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-1

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

APPENDIX E:

REVIEW OF THE EFFECTS OF SEISMIC AND OCEANOGRAPHIC 

SONAR SOUNDS ON MARINE MAMMALS1

1 The following subsections review relevant information concerning the potential effects of airgun and 

2 sonar sounds on marine mammals, with the sonar section being focused on sonar systems similar to those 

3 operated during marine seismic operations including MBES, SBPs, and pingers. This background 

4 material is little changed from corresponding subsections included in IHA applications and EAs 

5 submitted to NMFS for previous NSF-funded seismic surveys from 2003 to date. Much of this 

6 information has also been included in varying formats in other reviews, assessments, and regulatory 

7 applications prepared by LGL Ltd., environmental research associates. Because this review is intended to 

8 be of general usefulness, it includes references to types of marine mammals that will not be found in some 

9 specific regions.

10 E.1 CATEGORIES OF NOISE EFFECTS

11 The effects of noise on marine mammals are highly variable, and can be categorized as follows (adapted 

12 from Richardson et al. 1995):

13 1. The noise may be too weak to be heard at the location of the animal, i.e., lower than the prevail14 ing ambient noise level, the hearing threshold of the animal at relevant frequencies, or both;

15 2. The noise may be audible but not strong enough to elicit any overt behavioral response, i.e., the 

16 mammals may tolerate it, either without or with some deleterious effects (e.g., masking, stress);

17 3. The noise may elicit behavioral reactions of variable conspicuousness and variable relevance to 

18 the well being of the animal; these can range from subtle effects on respiration or other behaviors 

19 (detectable only by statistical analysis) to active avoidance reactions;

20 4. Upon repeated exposure, animals may exhibit diminishing responsiveness (habituation), or distur21 bance effects may persist; the latter is most likely with sounds that are highly variable in charac22 teristics, unpredictable in occurrence, and associated with situations that the animal perceives as a 

23 threat;

24 5. Any man-made noise that is strong enough to be heard has the potential to reduce (mask) the 

25 ability of marine mammals to hear natural sounds at similar frequencies, including calls from 

26 conspecifics, echolocation sounds of odontocetes, and environmental sounds such as surf noise or 

27 (at high latitudes) ice noise. However, intermittent airgun or sonar pulses could cause strong 

28 masking for only a small proportion of the time, given the short duration of these pulses relative 

29 to the inter-pulse intervals;

30 6. Very strong sounds have the potential to cause temporary or permanent reduction in hearing 

31 sensitivity, or other physical or physiological effects. Received sound levels must far exceed the 

32 animal’s hearing threshold for any temporary threshold shift to occur. Received levels must be 

33 even higher for a risk of permanent hearing impairment.

 1 By W. John Richardson and Valerie D. Moulton, with subsequent updates (to February 2010) by W. John Richardson, Valerie 

D. Moulton, Patrick Abgrall, William E. Cross, Meike Holst, and Mari A. Smultea, all of LGL Ltd., environmental research 

associates.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-2 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 E.2 HEARING ABILITIES OF MARINE MAMMALS

2 The hearing abilities of marine mammals are functions of the following (Richardson et al. 1995; Au et al. 

3 2000):

4 1. Absolute hearing threshold at the frequency in question (the level of sound barely audible in the 

5 absence of ambient noise). The “best frequency” is the frequency with the lowest absolute 

6 threshold.

7 2. Critical ratio (the signal-to-noise ratio required to detect a sound at a specific frequency in the 

8 presence of background noise around that frequency).

9 3. The ability to determine sound direction at the frequencies under consideration.

10 4. The ability to discriminate among sounds of different frequencies and intensities.

11 Marine mammals rely heavily on the use of underwater sounds to communicate and to gain information 

12 about their surroundings. Experiments and monitoring studies also show that they hear and may react to 

13 many man-made sounds including sounds made during seismic exploration (Richardson et al. 1995; 

14 Gordon et al. 2004; Nowacek et al. 2007; Tyack 2008). 

15 E.2.1 Baleen Whales (Mysticetes)

16 The hearing abilities of baleen whales have not been studied directly. Behavioral and anatomical evidence 

17 indicates that they hear well at frequencies below 1 kHz (Richardson et al. 1995; Ketten 2000). Frankel 

18 (2005) noted that gray whales reacted to a 21–25 kHz whale-finding sonar. Some baleen whales react to 

19 pinger sounds up to 28 kHz, but not to pingers or sonars emitting sounds at 36 kHz or above (Watkins 

20 1986). In addition, baleen whales produce sounds at frequencies up to 8 kHz and, for humpbacks, with 

21 components to >24 kHz (Au et al. 2006). The anatomy of the baleen whale inner ear seems to be well 

22 adapted for detection of low-frequency sounds (Ketten 1991, 1992, 1994, 2000; Parks et al. 2007b). 

23 Although humpbacks and minke whales (Berta et al. 2009) may have some auditory sensitivity to 

24 frequencies above 22 kHz, for baleen whales as a group, the functional hearing range is thought to be about 

25 7 Hz to 22 kHz and they are said to constitute the “low-frequency” (LF) hearing group (Southall et al. 

26 2007). The absolute sound levels that they can detect below 1 kHz are probably limited by increasing 

27 levels of natural ambient noise at decreasing frequencies (Clark and Ellison 2004). Ambient noise levels 

28 are higher at low frequencies than at mid frequencies. At frequencies below 1 kHz, natural ambient levels 

29 tend to increase with decreasing frequency.

30 The hearing systems of baleen whales are undoubtedly more sensitive to low-frequency sounds than are the 

31 ears of the small toothed whales that have been studied directly. Thus, baleen whales are likely to hear 

32 airgun pulses farther away than can small toothed whales and, at closer distances, airgun sounds may seem 

33 more prominent to baleen than to toothed whales. However, baleen whales have commonly been seen well 

34 within the distances where seismic (or other source) sounds would be detectable and often show no overt 

35 reaction to those sounds. Behavioral responses by baleen whales to seismic pulses have been documented, 

36 but received levels of pulsed sounds necessary to elicit behavioral reactions are typically well above the 

37 minimum levels that the whales are assumed to detect (see below). Baleen whales are also expected to hear 

38 sonar signals at frequencies within their functional hearing range if the whales are within the sonar beam.

39 E.2.2 Toothed Whales (Odontocetes)

40 Hearing abilities of some toothed whales have been studied in detail (reviewed in Chapter 8 of 

41 Richardson et al. [1995] and in Au et al. [2000]). Hearing sensitivity of several species has been 

42 determined as a function of frequency. The small to moderate-sized toothed whales whose hearing has 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-3

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 been studied have relatively poor hearing sensitivity at frequencies below 1 kHz, but extremely good 

2 sensitivity at, and above, several kHz. There are very few data on the absolute hearing thresholds of most 

3 of the larger, deep-diving toothed whales, such as the sperm and beaked whales. However, Cook et al. 

4 (2006) found that a stranded juvenile Gervais’ beaked whale showed evoked potentials from 5 kHz up to 

5 80 kHz (the entire frequency range that was tested), with the best sensitivity at 40–80 kHz. An adult 

6 Gervais’ beaked whale had a similar upper cutoff frequency (80–90 kHz; Finneran et al. 2009).

7 Most of the odontocete species have been classified as belonging to the “mid-frequency” (MF) hearing 

8 group, and the MF odontocetes (collectively) have functional hearing from about 150 Hz to 160 kHz 

9 (Southall et al. 2007). However, individual species may not have quite so broad a functional frequency 

10 range. Very strong sounds at frequencies slightly outside the functional range may also be detectable. The 

11 remaining odontocetes―the porpoises, river dolphins, and members of the genera Cephalorhynchus and 

12 Kogia―are distinguished as the “high-frequency” (HF) hearing group. They have functional hearing from 

13 about 200 Hz to 180 kHz (Southall et al. 2007).

14 Airguns produce a small proportion of their sound at mid- and high-frequencies, although at progressively 

15 lower levels with increasing frequency. In general, most of the energy in the sound pulses emitted by 

16 airgun arrays is at low frequencies; strongest spectrum levels are below 200 Hz, with considerably lower 

17 spectrum levels above 1000 Hz, and smaller amounts of energy emitted up to ~150 kHz (Goold and Fish 

18 1998; Sodal 1999; Goold and Coates 2006; Potter et al. 2007). 

19 Despite the relatively poor sensitivity of small odontocetes at the low frequencies that contribute most of 

20 the energy in pulses of sound from airgun arrays, airgun sounds are sufficiently strong, and contain 

21 sufficient mid- and high-frequency energy, that their received levels sometimes remain above the hearing 

22 thresholds of odontocetes at distances out to several tens of kilometers (Richardson and Würsig 1997). 

23 There is no evidence that most small odontocetes react to airgun pulses at such long distances. However, 

24 beluga whales do seem quite responsive at intermediate distances (10–20 km) where sound levels are well 

25 above the ambient noise level (see below).

26 In summary, even though odontocete hearing is relatively insensitive to the predominant low frequencies 

27 produced by airguns, sounds from airgun arrays are audible to odontocetes, sometimes to distances of tens 

28 of kilometers. Odontocetes are also expected to hear sonar signals from most types of oceanographic sonars 

29 (with the exception of the highest frequency units operating above 160–180 kHz) if the animals are within 

30 the sonar beam.

31 E.2.3 Seals and Sea Lions (Pinnipeds)

32 Underwater audiograms have been obtained using behavioral methods for three species of phocinid seals, 

33 two species of monachid seals, two species of otariids, and the walrus (reviewed in Richardson et al. 

34 1995:211ff; Kastak and Schusterman 1998, 1999; Kastelein et al. 2002, 2009). The functional hearing 

35 range for pinnipeds in water is considered to extend from 75 Hz to 75 kHz (Southall et al. 2007), although 

36 some individual species―especially the eared seals―do not have that broad an auditory range 

37 (Richardson et al. 1995). In comparison with odontocetes, pinnipeds tend to have lower best frequencies, 

38 lower high-frequency cutoffs, better auditory sensitivity at low frequencies, and poorer sensitivity at the 

39 best frequency.

40 At least some of the phocid seals have better sensitivity at low frequencies (≤1 kHz) than do odontocetes. 

41 Below 30–50 kHz, the hearing thresholds of most species tested are essentially flat down to ~1 kHz, and 

42 range between 60 and 85 dB re 1 μPa. Measurements for harbor seals indicate that, below 1 kHz, their 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-4 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 thresholds under quiet background conditions deteriorate gradually with decreasing frequency to ~75 dB 

2 re 1 μPa at 125 Hz (Kastelein et al. 2009). 

3 For the otariid (eared) seals, the high frequency cutoff is lower than for phocinids, and sensitivity at low 

4 frequencies (e.g., 100 Hz) is poorer than for seals (harbor seal). 

5 Pinnipeds are also expected to hear sonar signals at frequencies within their functional hearing range if the 

6 animals are within the sonar beam. Phocids and otariids would hear sonars operating at frequencies up to 

7 about 75 kHz and 35 kHz, respectively.

8 E.2.4 Manatees and Dugong (Sirenians)

9 The West Indian manatee can apparently detect sounds and low-frequency vibrations from 15 Hz to 46 

10 kHz, based on a study involving behavioral testing methods (Gerstein et al. 1999, 2004). A more recent 

11 study found that, in one Florida manatee, auditory sensitivity extended up to 90.5 kHz (Bauer et al. 2009). 

12 Thus, manatees may hear, or at least detect, sounds in the low-frequency range where most seismic 

13 energy is released. It is possible that they are able to feel these low-frequency sounds using vibrotactile 

14 receptors or because of resonance in body cavities or bone conduction. 

15 Based on measurements of evoked potentials, manatee hearing is apparently best around 1–1.5 kHz 

16 (Bullock et al. 1982). However, behavioral tests suggest that best sensitivities are at 6–20 kHz (Gerstein 

17 et al. 1999) or 8-32 kHz (Bauer et al. 2009). The ability to detect high frequencies may be an adaptation 

18 to shallow water, where the propagation of low frequency sound is limited (Gerstein et al. 1999, 2004). 

19 E.2.5 Sea Otter

20 No data are available on the hearing abilities of sea otters (Ketten 1998), although the in-air vocalizations 

21 of sea otters have most of their energy concentrated at 3–5 kHz (McShane et al. 1995; Thomson and 

22 Richardson 1995). Sea otter vocalizations are considered to be most suitable for short-range 

23 communication among individuals (McShane et al. 1995). However, Ghoul et al. (2009) noted that the in24 air “screams” of sea otters are loud signals (source level of 93–118 dB re 20 μPapk) that may be used over 

25 larger distances; screams have a frequency of maximum energy ranging from 2 to 8 kHz. In-air 

26 audiograms for two river otters indicate that this related species has its best hearing sensitivity at the 

27 relatively high frequency of 16 kHz, with some sensitivity from about 460 Hz to 33 kHz (Gunn 1988). 

28 However, these data apply to a different species of otter, and to in-air rather than underwater hearing. 

29 E.3 SEISMIC AIRGUN SOUNDS

30 E.3.1 Characteristics of Airgun Pulses

31 Airguns function by venting high-pressure air into the water. The pressure signature of an individual 

32 airgun consists of a sharp rise and then fall in pressure, followed by several positive and negative pressure 

33 excursions caused by oscillation of the resulting air bubble. The sizes, arrangement, and firing times of 

34 the individual airguns in an array are designed and synchronized to suppress the pressure oscillations 

35 subsequent to the first cycle. The resulting downward-directed pulse has a duration of only 10–20 ms, 

36 with only one strong positive and one strong negative peak pressure (Caldwell and Dragoset 2000). Most 

37 energy emitted from airguns is at relatively low frequencies. For example, typical high-energy airgun 

38 arrays emit most energy at 10–120 Hz. However, the pulses contain significant energy up to 500–1000 Hz 

39 and some energy at higher frequencies (Goold and Fish 1998; Potter et al. 2007). Studies in the Gulf of 

40 Mexico have shown that the horizontally-propagating sound can contain significant energy above the 

41 frequencies that airgun arrays are designed to emit (DeRuiter et al. 2006; Madsen et al. 2006; Tyack et al. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-5

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

2006a). Energy at frequencies up to 150 kHz was found in tests of single 60-in3 and 250-in3 1 airguns 

2 (Goold and Coates 2006). Nonetheless, the predominant energy is at low frequencies.

3 The pulsed sounds associated with seismic exploration have higher peak levels than other industrial 

4 sounds (except those from explosions) to which whales and other marine mammals are routinely exposed. 

5 The nominal source levels of the 2- to 36-airgun arrays used by L-DEO from the R/V Maurice Ewing

6 (now retired) and R/V Marcus G. Langseth are 236 to 265 dB re 1 μPap–p. These are the nominal source 

7 levels applicable to downward propagation. The effective source levels for horizontal propagation are 

8 lower than those for downward propagation when the source consists of numerous airguns spaced apart 

9 from one another. Explosions are the only man-made sources with effective source levels as high as (or 

10 higher than) a large array of airguns. However, high-power sonars can have source pressure levels as high 

11 as a small array of airguns, and signal duration can be longer for a sonar than for an airgun array, making 

12 the source energy levels of some sonars more comparable to those of airgun arrays.

13 Several important mitigating factors need to be kept in mind:

14 (1) Airgun arrays produce intermittent sounds, involving emission of a strong sound pulse for a small 

15 fraction of a second followed by several seconds of near silence. In contrast, some other sources 

16 produce sounds with lower peak levels, but their sounds are continuous or discontinuous but 

17 continuing for longer durations than seismic pulses. 

18 (2) Airgun arrays are designed to transmit strong sounds downward through the seafloor, and the 

19 amount of sound transmitted in near-horizontal directions is considerably reduced. Nonetheless, 

20 they also emit sounds that travel horizontally toward non-target areas. 

21 (3) An airgun array is a distributed source, not a point source. The nominal source level is an 

22 estimate of the sound that would be measured from a theoretical point source emitting the same 

23 total energy as the airgun array. That figure is useful in calculating the expected received levels in 

24 the far field, i.e., at moderate and long distances, but not in the near field. Because the airgun 

25 array is not a single point source, there is no one location within the near field (or anywhere else) 

26 where the received level is as high as the nominal source level.

27 The strengths of airgun pulses can be measured in different ways, and it is important to know which 

28 method is being used when interpreting quoted source or received levels. Geophysicists usually quote 

29 peak-to-peak (p-p) levels, in bar-meters or (less often) dB re 1 μPa · m. The peak (= zero-to-peak, or 0-p) 

30 level for the same pulse is typically ~6 dB less. In the biological literature, levels of received airgun 

31 pulses are often described based on the “average” or “root-mean-square” (rms) level, where the average is 

32 calculated over the duration of the pulse. The rms value for a given airgun pulse is typically ~10 dB lower 

33 than the peak level, and 16 dB lower than the peak-to-peak value (Greene 1997; McCauley et al. 1998, 

34 2000a). A fourth measure that is increasingly used is the energy, or Sound Exposure Level (SEL), in dB 

re 1 μPa2 35 · s. Because the pulses, even when stretched by propagation effects (see below), are usually <1 s 

36 in duration, the numerical value of the energy is usually lower than the rms pressure level. However, the 

units are different.2

 2 The rms value for a given airgun array pulse, as measured at a horizontal distance on the order of 0.1 km to 1–10 km in the 

units dB re 1 μPa, usually averages 10–15 dB higher than the SEL value for the same pulse measured in dB re 1 μPa2 ·s (e.g., 

Greene 1997). However, there is considerable variation, and the difference tends to be larger close to the airgun array, and less at 

long distances (Blackwell et al. 2007; MacGillivray and Hannay 2007a, b). In some cases, generally at longer distances, 

pulses are “stretched” by propagation effects to the extent that the rms and SEL values (in the respective units 

mentioned above) become very similar (e.g., MacGillivray and Hannay 2007a, b).

37 Because the level of a given pulse will differ substantially depending on which of 

38 these measures is being applied, it is important to be aware which measure is in use when interpreting any 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-6 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 quoted pulse level. In the past, NMFS has commonly referred to rms levels when discussing levels of 

2 pulsed sounds that might “harass” marine mammals. 

3 Seismic sound pulses received at any given point will arrive via a direct path, indirect paths that include 

4 reflection from the sea surface and bottom, and often indirect paths including segments through the 

5 bottom sediments. Sounds propagating via indirect paths travel longer distances and often arrive later than 

6 sounds arriving via a direct path. However, sound traveling in the bottom may travel faster than that in the 

7 water, and thus may, in some situations, arrive slightly earlier than the direct arrival despite traveling a 

8 greater distance. These variations in travel time have the effect of lengthening the duration of the received 

9 pulse, or may cause two or more received pulses from a single emitted pulse. Near the source, the 

10 predominant part of a seismic pulse is ~10–20 ms in duration. In comparison, the pulse duration as 

11 received at long horizontal distances can be much greater. For example, for one airgun array operating in 

12 the Beaufort Sea, pulse duration was ~300 ms at a distance of 8 km, 500 ms at 20 km, and 850 ms at 73 

13 km (Greene and Richardson 1988). 

14 The rms level for a given pulse (when measured over the duration of that pulse) depends on the extent to 

15 which propagation effects have “stretched” the duration of the pulse by the time it reaches the receiver 

16 (e.g., Madsen 2005). As a result, the rms values for various received pulses are not perfectly correlated 

17 with the SEL (energy) values for the same pulses. There is increasing evidence that biological effects are 

18 more directly related to the received energy (e.g., to SEL) than to the rms values averaged over pulse 

19 duration (Southall et al. 2007).

20 Another important aspect of sound propagation is that received levels of low-frequency underwater 

21 sounds diminish close to the surface because of pressure-release and interference phenomena that occur at 

22 and near the surface (Urick 1983; Richardson et al. 1995; Potter et al. 2007). Paired measurements of 

23 received airgun sounds at depths of 3 vs. 9 or 18 m have shown that received levels are typically several 

24 decibels lower at 3 m (Greene and Richardson 1988). For a mammal whose auditory organs are within 0.5 

25 or 1 m of the surface, the received level of the predominant low-frequency components of the airgun 

26 pulses would be further reduced. In deep water, the received levels at deep depths can be considerably 

27 higher than those at relatively shallow (e.g., 18 m) depths and the same horizontal distance from the 

28 airguns (Tolstoy et al. 2004a, b).

29 Pulses of underwater sound from open-water seismic exploration are often detected 50–100 km from the 

30 source location, even during operations in nearshore waters (Greene and Richardson 1988; Burgess and 

31 Greene 1999). At those distances, the received levels are usually low, <120 dB re 1 μPa on an 

32 approximate rms basis. However, faint seismic pulses are sometimes detectable at even greater ranges 

33 (e.g., Bowles et al. 1994; Fox et al. 2002). In fact, low-frequency airgun signals sometimes can be 

34 detected thousands of kilometers from their source. For example, sound from seismic surveys conducted 

35 offshore of Nova Scotia, the coast of western Africa, and northeast of Brazil were reported as a dominant 

36 feature of the underwater noise field recorded along the mid-Atlantic ridge (Nieukirk et al. 2004). 

37 E.3.2 Masking Effects of Seismic Surveys

38 Masking is the obscuring of sounds of interest by interfering sounds, generally at similar frequencies 

39 (Richardson et al. 1995). Introduced underwater sound will, through masking, reduce the effective 

40 communication distance of a marine mammal species if the frequency of the source is close to that used 

41 as a signal by the marine mammal, and if the anthropogenic sound is present for a significant fraction of 

42 the time (Richardson et al. 1995). If little or no overlap occurs between the introduced sound and the 

43 frequencies used by the species, communication is not expected to be disrupted. Also, if the introduced 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-7

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 sound is present only infrequently, communication is not expected to be disrupted much if at all. The duty 

2 cycle of airguns is low; the airgun sounds are pulsed, with relatively quiet periods between pulses. In 

3 most situations, strong airgun sound will only be received for a brief period (<1 s), with these sound 

4 pulses being separated by at least several seconds of relative silence, and longer in the case of deep5 penetration surveys or refraction surveys. A single airgun array might cause appreciable masking in only 

6 one situation: When propagation conditions are such that sound from each airgun pulse reverberates 

7 strongly and persists for much of or the entire interval up to the next airgun pulse (e.g., Simard et al. 

8 2005; Clark and Gagnon 2006). Situations with prolonged strong reverberation are relatively infrequent, 

9 in our experience. However, it is common for reverberation to cause some lesser degree of elevation of 

10 the background level between airgun pulses (e.g., Guerra et al. 2009), and this weaker reverberation 

11 presumably reduces the detection range of calls and other natural sounds to some degree.

12 Although masking effects of pulsed sounds on marine mammal calls and other natural sounds are 

13 expected to be limited, there are few specific studies on this. Some whales continue calling in the 

14 presence of seismic pulses and whale calls often can be heard between the seismic pulses (e.g., 

15 Richardson et al. 1986; McDonald et al. 1995; Greene et al. 1999a, b; Nieukirk et al. 2004; Smultea et al. 

16 2004; Holst et al. 2005a, b, 2006; Dunn and Hernandez 2009). However, there is one recent summary 

17 report indicating that calling fin whales distributed in one part of the North Atlantic went silent for an 

18 extended period starting soon after the onset of a seismic survey in the area (Clark and Gagnon 2006). It 

19 is not clear from that preliminary paper whether the whales ceased calling because of masking, or whether 

20 this was a behavioral response not directly involving masking. Also, bowhead whales in the Beaufort Sea 

21 may decrease their call rates in response to seismic operations, although movement out of the area might 

22 also have contributed to the lower call detection rate (Blackwell et al. 2009a, b). In contrast, Di Iorio and 

23 Clark (2010) found evidence of increased calling by blue whales during operations by a lower-energy 

24 seismic source―a sparker.

25 Among the odontocetes, there has been one report that sperm whales ceased calling when exposed to 

26 pulses from a very distant seismic ship (Bowles et al. 1994). However, but more recent studies of sperm 

27 whales found that they continued calling in the presence of seismic pulses (Madsen et al. 2002; Tyack et 

28 al. 2003; Smultea et al. 2004; Holst et al. 2006; Jochens et al. 2008). Madsen et al. (2006) noted that air29 gun sounds would not be expected to mask sperm whale calls given the intermittent nature of airgun 

30 pulses. Dolphins and porpoises are also commonly heard calling while airguns are operating (Gordon et 

31 al. 2004; Smultea et al. 2004; Holst et al. 2005a, b; Potter et al. 2007). Masking effects of seismic pulses 

32 are expected to be negligible in the case of the smaller odontocetes, given the intermittent nature of 

33 seismic pulses plus the fact that sounds important to them are predominantly at much higher frequencies 

34 than are the dominant components of airgun sounds. 

35 Pinnipeds, sirenians and sea otters have best hearing sensitivity and/or produce most of their sounds at 

36 frequencies higher than the dominant components of airgun sound, but there is some overlap in the 

37 frequencies of the airgun pulses and the calls. However, the intermittent nature of airgun pulses 

38 presumably reduces the potential for masking. 

39 A few cetaceans are known to increase the source levels of their calls in the presence of elevated sound 

40 levels, or to shift their peak frequencies in response to strong sound signals, or otherwise modify their 

41 vocal behavior in response to increased noise (Dahlheim 1987; Au 1993; reviewed in Richardson et al. 

42 1995:233ff, 364ff; Lesage et al. 1999; Terhune 1999; Nieukirk et al. 2005; Scheifele et al. 2005; Parks et 

43 al. 2007a, 2009; Hanser et al. 2009; Di Iorio and Clark 2010). It is not known how often these types of 

44 responses occur upon exposure to airgun sounds. However, blue whales in the St. Lawrence Estuary 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-8 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 significantly increased their call rates during sparker operations (Di Iorio and Clark 2010). The sparker, 

2 used to obtain seismic reflection data, emitted frequencies of 30–450 Hz with a relatively low source level 

3 of 193 dB re 1 μPapk-pk. If cetaceans exposed to airgun sounds sometimes respond by changing their vocal 

4 behavior, this adaptation, along with directional hearing and preadaptation to tolerate some masking by

5 natural sounds (Richardson et al. 1995), would all reduce the importance of masking by seismic pulses.

6 E.3.3 Disturbance by Seismic Surveys

7 Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle to conspicuous changes in behavior, movement, 

8 and displacement. In the terminology of the 1994 amendments to the MMPA, seismic noise could cause 

9 “Level B” harassment of certain marine mammals. Level B harassment is defined as “...disruption of 

10 behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 

11 sheltering.”

12 There has been debate regarding how substantial a change in behavior or mammal activity is required 

13 before the animal should be deemed to be “taken by Level B harassment”. NMFS has stated that,

14 “...a simple change in a marine mammal’s actions does not always rise to the level of disruption of 

15 its behavioral patterns. ... If the only reaction to the [human] activity on the part of the marine 

16 mammal is within the normal repertoire of actions that are required to carry out that behavioral 

17 pattern, NMFS considers [the human] activity not to have caused a disruption of the behavioral 

18 pattern, provided the animal’s reaction is not otherwise significant enough to be considered 

19 disruptive due to length or severity. Therefore, for example, a short-term change in breathing rates 

20 or a somewhat shortened or lengthened dive sequence that are within the animal’s normal range 

21 and that do not have any biological significance (i.e., do not disrupt the animal’s overall behavioral 

22 pattern of breathing under the circumstances), do not rise to a level requiring a small take 

23 authorization.” (NMFS 2001:9293). 

24 Based on this guidance from NMFS, and on NRC (2005), simple exposure to sound, or brief reactions 

25 that do not disrupt behavioral patterns in a potentially significant manner, do not constitute harassment or 

26 “taking”. In this analysis, we interpret “potentially significant” to mean in a manner that might have 

27 deleterious effects on the well-being of individual marine mammals or their populations.

28 Even with this guidance, there are difficulties in defining what marine mammals should be counted as 

29 “taken by harassment”. Available detailed data on reactions of marine mammals to airgun sounds (and 

30 other anthropogenic sounds) are limited to relatively few species and situations (see Richardson et al. 

31 1995; Gordon et al. 2004; Nowacek et al. 2007; Southall et al. 2007). Behavioral reactions of marine 

32 mammals to sound are difficult to predict in the absence of site- and context-specific data. Reactions to 

33 sound, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, time of 

34 day, and many other factors (Richardson et al. 1995; Wartzok et al. 2004; Southall et al. 2007; Weilgart 

35 2007). If a marine mammal reacts to an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small 

36 distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the stock or 

37 population. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding 

38 area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant. (e.g., Lusseau 

39 and Bejder 2007; Weilgart 2007). Also, various authors have noted that some marine mammals that show 

40 no obvious avoidance or behavioral changes may still be adversely affected by noise (Brodie 1981; 

41 Richardson et al. 1995:317ff; Romano et al. 2004; Weilgart 2007; Wright et al. 2009). For example, some 

42 research suggests that animals in poor condition or in an already stressed state may not react as strongly to 

43 human disturbance as would more robust animals (e.g., Beale and Monaghan 2004).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-9

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Studies of the effects of seismic surveys have focused almost exclusively on the effects on individual 

2 species or related groups of species, with little scientific or regulatory attention being given to broader 

3 community-level issues. Parente et al. (2007) suggested that the diversity of cetaceans near the Brazil 

4 coast was reduced during years with seismic surveys. However, a preliminary account of a more recent 

5 analysis suggests that the trend did not persist when additional years were considered (Britto and Silva 

6 Barreto 2009).

7 Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts of sound on marine 

8 mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many mammals would be present within a particular 

9 distance of human activities and/or exposed to a particular level of anthropogenic sound. In most cases, 

10 this approach likely overestimates the numbers of marine mammals that would be affected in some 

11 biologically important manner. One of the reasons for this is that the selected distances/isopleths are 

12 based on limited studies indicating that some animals exhibited short-term reactions at this distance or 

13 sound level, whereas the calculation assumes that all animals exposed to this level would react in a 

14 biologically significant manner.

15 The definitions of “taking” in the MMPA, and its applicability to various activities, were slightly altered 

16 in November 2003 for military and federal scientific research activities. Also, NMFS is proposing to 

17 replace current Level A and B harassment criteria with guidelines based on exposure characteristics that 

18 are specific to particular groups of mammal species and to particular sound types (NMFS 2005). 

19 Recently, a committee of specialists on noise impact issues has proposed new science-based impact 

20 criteria (Southall et al. 2007). Thus, for projects subject to U.S. jurisdiction, changes in procedures may 

21 be required in the near future.

22 The sound criteria used to estimate how many marine mammals might be disturbed to some biologically 

23 significant degree by seismic survey activities are primarily based on behavioral observations of a few 

24 species. Detailed studies have been done on humpback, gray, bowhead, and sperm whales, and on ringed 

25 seals. Less detailed data are available for some other species of baleen whales and small toothed whales, 

26 but for many species there are no data on responses to marine seismic surveys.

27 Baleen Whales

28 Baleen whales generally tend to avoid operating airguns, but avoidance radii are quite variable among 

29 species, locations, whale activities, oceanographic conditions affecting sound propagation, etc. (reviewed 

30 in Richardson et al. 1995 and Gordon et al. 2004). Whales are often reported to show no overt reactions to 

31 pulses from large arrays of airguns at distances beyond a few kilometers, even though the airgun pulses 

32 remain well above ambient noise levels out to much longer distances. However, baleen whales exposed to 

33 strong sound pulses from airguns often react by deviating from their normal migration route and/or 

34 interrupting their feeding and moving away. Some of the major studies and reviews on this topic are 

35 Malme et al. (1984, 1985, 1988); Richardson et al. (1986, 1995, 1999); Ljungblad et al. (1988); 

36 Richardson and Malme (1993); McCauley et al. (1998, 2000a, b); Miller et al. (1999, 2005); Gordon et al. 

37 (2004); Moulton and Miller (2005); Stone and Tasker (2006); Johnson et al. (2007); Nowacek et al. 

38 (2007) and Weir (2008a). Although baleen whales often show only slight overt responses to operating 

39 airgun arrays (Stone and Tasker 2006; Weir 2008a), strong avoidance reactions by several species of 

40 mysticetes have been observed at ranges up to 6–8 km and occasionally as far as 20–30 km from the 

41 source vessel when large arrays of airguns were used. Experiments with a single airgun showed that 

bowhead, humpback and gray whales all showed localized avoidance to a single airgun of 20–100 in3 42

43 (Malme et al. 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988; Richardson et al. 1986; McCauley et al. 1998, 2000a, b). 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-10 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Studies of gray, bowhead, and humpback whales have shown that seismic pulses with received levels of 

2 160–170 dB re 1 μParms seem to cause obvious avoidance behavior in a substantial portion of the animals 

3 exposed (Richardson et al. 1995). In many areas, seismic pulses from large arrays of airguns diminish to 

4 those levels at distances ranging from 4–15 km from the source. More recent studies have shown that 

5 some species of baleen whales (bowheads and humpbacks in particular) at times show strong avoidance at 

6 received levels lower than 160–170 dB re 1 μParms. The largest avoidance radii involved migrating 

7 bowhead whales, which avoided an operating seismic vessel by 20–30 km (Miller et al. 1999; Richardson 

8 et al. 1999). In the cases of migrating bowhead (and gray) whales, the observed changes in behavior 

9 appeared to be of little or no biological consequence to the animals—they simply avoided the sound 

10 source by displacing their migration route to varying degrees, but within the natural boundaries of the 

11 migration corridors (Malme et al. 1984; Malme and Miles 1985; Richardson et al. 1995). Feeding 

12 bowhead whales, in contrast to migrating whales, show much smaller avoidance distances (Miller et al. 

13 2005; Harris et al. 2007), presumably because moving away from a food concentration has greater cost to 

14 the whales than does a course deviation during migration.

15 The following subsections provide more details on the documented responses of particular species and 

16 groups of baleen whales to marine seismic operations.

17 Humpback Whales.—Responses of humpback whales to seismic surveys have been studied during 

18 migration as well as on the summer feeding grounds and on Angolan winter breeding grounds; there has 

19 also been discussion of effects on the Brazilian wintering grounds. McCauley et al. (1998, 2000a) studied 

20 the responses of migrating humpback whales off Western Australia to a full-scale seismic survey with a 

16-airgun 2678-in3 array, and to a single 20 in3 21 airgun with (horizontal) source level 227 dB re 1 

22 μPa·mp-p. They found that the overall distribution of humpbacks migrating through their study area was 

23 unaffected by the full-scale seismic program, although localized displacement varied with pod 

24 composition, behavior, and received sound levels. Observations were made from the seismic vessel, from 

25 which the maximum viewing distance was listed as 14 km. Avoidance reactions (course and speed 

26 changes) began at 4–5 km for traveling pods, with the CPA being 3–4 km at an estimated received level 

27 of 157–164 dB re 1 μParms (McCauley et al. 1998, 2000a). A greater stand-off range of 7–12 km was 

28 observed for more sensitive resting pods (cow-calf pairs; McCauley et al. 1998, 2000a). The mean 

29 received level for initial avoidance of an approaching airgun was 140 dB re 1 μParms for humpback pods 

30 containing females, and at the mean CPA distance the received level was 143 dB re 1 μParms. One startle 

31 response was reported at 112 dB re 1 μParms. The initial avoidance response generally occurred at 

32 distances of 5–8 km from the airgun array and 2 km from the single airgun. However, some individual 

33 humpback whales, especially males, approached within distances of 100–400 m, where the maximum 

34 received level was 179 dB re 1 μParms. The McCauley et al. (1998, 2000a, b) studies show evidence of 

35 greater avoidance of seismic airgun sounds by pods with females than by other pods during humpback 

36 migration off Western Australia.

37 Humpback whales on their summer feeding grounds in southeast Alaska did not exhibit persistent 

avoidance when exposed to seismic pulses from a 1.64-L (100 in3 38 ) airgun (Malme et al. 1985). Some 

39 humpbacks seemed “startled” at received levels of 150–169 dB re 1 μPa. Malme et al. (1985) concluded 

40 that there was no clear evidence of avoidance, despite the possibility of subtle effects, at received levels 

41 up to 172 re 1 μPa on an approximate rms basis. 

42 Among wintering humpback whales off Angola (n = 52 useable groups), there were no significant 

differences in encounter rates (sightings/hr) when a 24-airgun array (3,147 in3 or 5,085 in3 43 ) was operating 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-11

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 vs. silent (Weir 2008a). There was also no significant difference in the mean CPA of the humpback 

2 sightings when airguns were on vs. off (3050 m vs. 2700 m, respectively). 

3 It has been suggested that South Atlantic humpback whales wintering off Brazil may be displaced or even 

4 strand upon exposure to seismic surveys (Engel et al. 2004). The evidence for this was circumstantial and 

5 subject to alternative explanations (IAGC 2004). Also, the evidence was not consistent with subsequent 

6 results from the same area of Brazil (Parente et al. 2006), or with direct studies of humpbacks exposed to 

7 seismic surveys in other areas and seasons (see above). After allowance for data from subsequent years, 

8 there was “no observable direct correlation” between strandings and seismic surveys (IWC 2007:236).

9 Bowhead Whales.—Responsiveness of bowhead whales to seismic surveys can be quite variable 

10 depending on their activity (feeding vs. migrating). Bowhead whales on their summer feeding grounds in 

11 the Canadian Beaufort Sea showed no obvious reactions to pulses from seismic vessels at distances of 6–

12 99 km and received sound levels of 107–158 dB on an approximate rms basis (Richardson et al. 1986); 

13 their general activities were indistinguishable from those of a control group. However, subtle but 

14 statistically significant changes in surfacing–respiration–dive cycles were evident upon statistical 

15 analysis. Bowheads usually did show strong avoidance responses when seismic vessels approached within 

16 a few kilometers (~3–7 km) and when received levels of airgun sounds were 152–178 dB (Richardson et 

17 al. 1986, 1995; Ljungblad et al. 1988; Miller et al. 2005). They also moved away when a single airgun 

18 fired nearby (Richardson et al. 1986; Ljungblad et al. 1988). In one case, bowheads engaged in near19 bottom feeding began to turn away from a 30-airgun array with a source level of 248 dB re 1 μPa · m at a 

20 distance of 7.5 km, and swam away when it came within ~2 km; some whales continued feeding until the 

21 vessel was 3 km away (Richardson et al. 1986). This work and subsequent summer studies in the same 

22 region by Miller et al. (2005) and Harris et al. (2007) showed that many feeding bowhead whales tend to 

23 tolerate higher sound levels than migrating bowhead whales before showing an overt change in behavior. 

24 On the summer feeding grounds, bowhead whales are often seen from the operating seismic ship, though 

25 average sighting distances tend to be larger when the airguns are operating. Similarly, preliminary 

26 analyses of recent data from the Alaskan Beaufort Sea indicate that bowheads feeding there during late 

27 summer and autumn also did not display large-scale distributional changes in relation to seismic 

28 operations (Christie et al. 2009; Koski et al. 2009).However, some individual bowheads apparently begin 

29 to react at distances a few kilometers away, beyond the distance at which observers on the ship can sight 

30 bowheads (Richardson et al. 1986; Citta et al. 2007). The feeding whales may be affected by the sounds, 

31 but the need to feed may reduce the tendency to move away until the airguns are within a few kilometers. 

32 Migrating bowhead whales in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea seem more responsive to noise pulses from a 

33 distant seismic vessel than are summering bowheads. Bowhead whales migrating west across the Alaskan 

34 Beaufort Sea in autumn are unusually responsive, with substantial avoidance occurring out to distances of 

35 20–30 km from a medium-sized airgun source at received sound levels of around 120–130 dB re 1 μParms

36 (Miller et al. 1999; Richardson et al. 1999; see also Manly et al. 2007). Those results came from 1996–98, 

37 when a partially-controlled study of the effect of Ocean Bottom Cable (OBC) seismic surveys on 

38 westward-migrating bowheads was conducted in late summer and autumn in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. 

39 Aerial surveys showed that some westward-migrating whales avoided an active seismic survey boat by 

40 20–30 km, and that few bowheads approached within 20 km. Received sound levels at those distances 

were only 116–135 dB re 1 μParms 41 . At times when the airguns were not active, many bowheads moved 

42 into the area close to the inactive seismic vessel. Avoidance of the area of seismic operations did not 

43 persist beyond 12–24 h after seismic shooting stopped. Preliminary analysis of recent data on traveling 

44 bowheads in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea also showed a stronger tendency to avoid operating airguns than 

45 was evident for feeding bowheads (Christie et al. 2009; Koski et al. 2009).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-12 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Bowhead whale calls detected in the presence and absence of airgun sounds have been studied 

2 extensively in the Beaufort Sea. Early work on the summering grounds in the Canadian Beaufort Sea 

3 showed that bowheads continue to produce calls of the usual types when exposed to airgun sounds, 

4 although numbers of calls detected may be somewhat lower in the presence of airgun pulses (Richardson 

5 et al. 1986). Studies during autumn in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, one in 1996–1998 and another in 2007–

6 2008, have shown that numbers of calls detected are significantly lower in the presence than in the 

7 absence of airgun pulses (Greene et al. 1999a, b; Blackwell et al. 2009a, b; Koski et al. 2009; see also 

8 Nations et al. 2009). This decrease could have resulted from movement of the whales away from the area 

9 of the seismic survey or a reduction in calling behavior, or a combination of the two. However, concurrent 

10 aerial surveys showed that there was strong avoidance of the operating airguns during the 1996–98 study,

11 when most of the whales appeared to be migrating (Miller et al. 1999; Richardson et al. 1999). In contrast, 

12 aerial surveys during the 2007–08 study showed less consistent avoidance by the bowheads, many of 

13 which appeared to be feeding (Christie et al. 2009; Koski et al. 2009). The reduction in call detection rates 

14 during periods of airgun operation may have been more dependent on actual avoidance during the 1996–

15 98 study and more dependent on reduced calling behavior during the 2007–08 study, but further analysis 

16 of the recent data is ongoing.

17 There are no data on reactions of bowhead whales to seismic surveys in winter or spring. 

18 Gray Whales.—Malme et al. (1986, 1988) studied the responses of feeding eastern gray whales to pulses 

from a single 100-in3 19 airgun off St. Lawrence Island in the northern Bering Sea. They estimated, based on 

20 small sample sizes, that 50% of feeding gray whales stopped feeding at an average received pressure level 

21 of 173 dB re 1 μPa on an (approximate) rms basis, and that 10% of feeding whales interrupted feeding at 

22 received levels of 163 dB re 1 μParms. Malme at al. (1986) estimated that an average pressure level of 173 

23 dB occurred at a range of 2.6–2.8 km from an airgun array with a source level of 250 dB re 1 μPa0-p in the 

24 northern Bering Sea. These findings were generally consistent with the results of studies conducted on 

25 larger numbers of gray whales migrating off California (Malme et al. 1984; Malme and Miles 1985) and 

26 western Pacific gray whales feeding off Sakhalin, Russia (Würsig et al. 1999; Gailey et al. 2007; Johnson 

27 et al. 2007; Yazvenko et al. 2007a, b), along with a few data on gray whales off British Columbia (Bain 

28 and Williams 2006). 

29 Malme and Miles (1985) concluded that, during migration off California, gray whales showed changes in 

30 swimming pattern with received levels of ~160 dB re 1 μPa and higher, on an approximate rms basis. The 

31 50% probability of avoidance was estimated to occur at a CPA distance of 2.5 km from a 4000-in3 airgun 

32 array operating off central California. This would occur at an average received sound level of ~170 dB re 

33 1 μParms. Some slight behavioral changes were noted when approaching gray whales reached the 

34 distances where received sound levels were 140 to 160 dB re 1 μParms, but these whales generally 

35 continued to approach (at a slight angle) until they passed the sound source at distances where received 

36 levels averaged ~170 dB re 1 μParms (Malme et al. 1984; Malme and Miles 1985).

37 There was no indication that western gray whales exposed to seismic noise were displaced from their 

38 overall feeding grounds near Sakhalin Island during seismic programs in 1997 (Würsig et al. 1999) and in 

39 2001 (Johnson et al. 2007; Meier et al. 2007; Yazvenko et al. 2007a). However, there were indications of 

40 subtle behavioral effects among whales that remained in the areas exposed to airgun sounds (Würsig et al. 

41 1999; Gailey et al. 2007; Weller et al. 2006a). Also, there was evidence of localized redistribution of 

42 some individuals within the nearshore feeding ground so as to avoid close approaches by the seismic 

43 vessel (Weller et al. 2002, 2006b; Yazvenko et al. 2007a). Despite the evidence of subtle changes in some 

44 quantitative measures of behavior and local redistribution of some individuals, there was no apparent 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-13

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 change in the frequency of feeding, as evident from mud plumes visible at the surface (Yazvenko et al. 

2 2007b). It should be noted that the 2001 seismic program involved an unusually comprehensive 

3 combination of real-time monitoring and mitigation measures designed to avoid exposing western gray 

4 whales to received levels of sound above about 163 dB re 1 μParms (Johnson et al. 2007). The lack of 

5 strong avoidance or other strong responses was presumably in part a result of the mitigation measures. 

6 Effects probably would have been more significant without such intensive mitigation efforts.

7 Gray whales in British Columbia exposed to seismic survey sound levels up to ~170 dB re 1 μPa did not 

8 appear to be strongly disturbed. The few whales that were observed moved away from the airguns but 

9 toward deeper water where sound levels were said to be higher due to propagation effects (Bain and 

10 Williams 2006).

11 Rorquals.—Blue, sei, fin, and minke whales (all of which are members of the genus Balaenoptera) often 

12 have been seen in areas ensonified by airgun pulses (Stone 2003; MacLean and Haley 2004; Stone and 

13 Tasker 2006), and calls from blue and fin whales have been localized in areas with airgun operations 

14 (e.g., McDonald et al. 1995; Dunn and Hernandez 2009). Sightings by observers on seismic vessels 

15 during 110 large-source seismic surveys off the U.K. from 1997 to 2000 suggest that, during times of 

16 good sightability, sighting rates for mysticetes (mainly fin and sei whales) were similar when large arrays 

17 of airguns were shooting vs. silent (Stone 2003; Stone and Tasker 2006). However, these whales tended 

18 to exhibit localized avoidance, remaining significantly further (on average) from the airgun array during 

19 seismic operations compared with non-seismic periods (P = 0.0057; Stone and Tasker 2006). The average 

20 CPA distances for baleen whales sighted when large airgun arrays were operating vs. silent were about 

21 1.6 vs. 1.0 km. Baleen whales, as a group, were more often oriented away from the vessel while a large 

22 airgun array was shooting compared with periods of no shooting (P <0.05; Stone and Tasker 2006). In 

23 addition, fin/sei whales were less likely to remain submerged during periods of seismic shooting (Stone 

24 2003). 

25 In a study off Nova Scotia, Moulton and Miller (2005) found little difference in sighting rates (after 

26 accounting for water depth) and initial average sighting distances of balaenopterid whales when airguns 

27 were operating (mean = 1324 m) vs. silent (mean = 1303 m). However, there were indications that these 

28 whales were more likely to be moving away when seen during airgun operations. Baleen whales at the 

29 average sighting distance during airgun operations would have been exposed to sound levels (via direct 

path) of about 169 dB re 1 μPa 30 rms (Moulton and Miller 2005). Similarly, ship-based monitoring studies of 

31 blue, fin, sei and minke whales offshore of Newfoundland (Orphan Basin and Laurentian Sub-basin) 

32 found no more than small differences in sighting rates and swim directions during seismic vs. non-seismic 

periods (Moulton et al. 2005, 2006a, b). Analyses of CPA data yielded variable results.3

36 Minke whales have occasionally been observed to approach active airgun arrays where received sound 

37 levels were estimated to be near 170–180 dB re 1 μPa (McLean and Haley 2004). 

33 The authors of 

34 the Newfoundland reports concluded that, based on observations from the seismic vessel, some mysti35 cetes exhibited localized avoidance of seismic operations (Moulton et al. 2005, 2006a).

 3 The CPA of baleen whales sighted from the seismic vessels was, on average, significantly closer during non-seismic periods vs. 

seismic periods in 2004 in the Orphan Basin (means 1526 m vs. 2316 m, respectively; Moulton et al. 2005). In contrast, mean 

distances without vs. with seismic did not differ significantly in 2005 in either the Orphan Basin (means 973 m vs. 832 m, 

respectively; Moulton et al. 2006a) or in the Laurentian Sub-basin (means 1928 m vs. 1650 m, respectively; Moulton et al. 

2006b). In both 2005 studies, mean distances were greater (though not significantly so) without seismic.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-14 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Discussion and Conclusions.—Baleen whales generally tend to avoid operating airguns, but avoidance 

2 radii are quite variable. Whales are often reported to show no overt reactions to airgun pulses at distances 

3 beyond a few kilometers, even though the airgun pulses remain well above ambient noise levels out to 

4 much longer distances. However, studies done since the late 1990s of migrating humpback and migrating 

5 bowhead whales show reactions, including avoidance, that sometimes extend to greater distances than 

6 documented earlier. Avoidance distances often exceed the distances at which boat-based observers can 

7 see whales, so observations from the source vessel can be biased. Observations over broader areas may be 

8 needed to determine the range of potential effects of some large-source seismic surveys where effects on 

9 cetaceans may extend to considerable distances (Richardson et al. 1999; Bain and Williams 2006; Moore 

10 and Angliss 2006). Longer-range observations, when required, can sometimes be obtained via systematic 

11 aerial surveys or aircraft-based observations of behavior (e.g., Richardson et al. 1986, 1999; Miller et al. 

12 1999, 2005; Yazvenko et al. 2007a, b) or by use of observers on one or more support vessels operating in 

13 coordination with the seismic vessel (e.g., Smultea et al. 2004; Johnson et al. 2007). However, the 

14 presence of other vessels near the source vessel can, at least at times, reduce sightability of cetaceans 

15 from the source vessel (Beland et al. 2009), thus complicating interpretation of sighting data.

16 Some baleen whales show considerable tolerance of seismic pulses. However, when the pulses are strong 

17 enough, avoidance or other behavioral changes become evident. Because the responses become less 

18 obvious with diminishing received sound level, it has been difficult to determine the maximum distance 

19 (or minimum received sound level) at which reactions to seismic become evident and, hence, how many 

20 whales are affected.

21 Studies of gray, bowhead, and humpback whales have determined that received levels of pulses in the 160–

22 170 dB re 1 μParms range seem to cause obvious avoidance behavior in a substantial fraction of the animals 

23 exposed. In many areas, seismic pulses diminish to these levels at distances ranging from 4 to 15 km from 

24 the source. A substantial proportion of the baleen whales within such distances may show avoidance or 

25 other strong disturbance reactions to the operating airgun array. However, in other situations, various 

26 mysticetes tolerate exposure to full-scale airgun arrays operating at even closer distances, with only 

27 localized avoidance and minor changes in activities. At the other extreme, in migrating bowhead whales, 

28 avoidance often extends to considerably larger distances (20–30 km) and lower received sound levels (120–

29 130 dB re 1 μParms). Also, even in cases where there is no conspicuous avoidance or change in activity upon 

30 exposure to sound pulses from distant seismic operations, there are sometimes subtle changes in behavior 

31 (e.g., surfacing–respiration–dive cycles) that are only evident through detailed statistical analysis (e.g., 

32 Richardson et al. 1986; Gailey et al. 2007).

33 Mitigation measures for seismic surveys, especially nighttime seismic surveys, typically assume that 

34 many marine mammals (at least baleen whales) tend to avoid approaching airguns, or the seismic vessel 

35 itself, before being exposed to levels high enough for there to be any possibility of injury. This assumes 

36 that the ramp-up (soft-start) procedure is used when commencing airgun operations, to give whales near 

37 the vessel the opportunity to move away before they are exposed to sound levels that might be strong 

38 enough to elicit TTS. As noted above, single-airgun experiments with three species of baleen whales 

39 show that those species typically do tend to move away when a single airgun starts firing nearby, which 

40 simulates the onset of a ramp up. The three species that showed avoidance when exposed to the onset of 

41 pulses from a single airgun were gray whales (Malme et al. 1984, 1986, 1988); bowhead whales 

42 (Richardson et al. 1986; Ljungblad et al. 1988); and humpback whales (Malme et al. 1985; McCauley et 

43 al. 1998, 2000a, b). Since startup of a single airgun is equivalent to the start of a ramp-up (=soft start), this 

44 strongly suggests that many baleen whales will begin to move away during the initial stages of a ramp-up.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-15

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Data on short-term reactions by cetaceans to impulsive noises are not necessarily indicative of long-term or

2 biologically significant effects. It is not known whether impulsive sounds affect reproductive rate or 

3 distribution and habitat use in subsequent days or years. However, gray whales have continued to migrate 

4 annually along the west coast of North America despite intermittent seismic exploration (and much ship 

5 traffic) in that area for decades (Appendix A in Malme et al. 1984; Richardson et al. 1995), and there has 

6 been a substantial increase in the population over recent decades (Angliss and Outlaw 2008). The western 

7 Pacific gray whale population did not seem affected by a seismic survey in its feeding ground during a 

8 prior year (Johnson et al. 2007). Similarly, bowhead whales have continued to travel to the eastern Beaufort 

9 Sea each summer (Richardson et al. 1987), and their numbers have increased notably (Angliss and Outlaw 

10 2007). Bowhead also have been observed over periods of days or weeks in areas ensonified repeatedly by 

11 seismic pulses (Richardson et al. 1987; Harris et al. 2007). However, it is generally not known whether the 

12 same individual bowheads were involved in these repeated observations (within and between years) in 

13 strongly ensonified areas. In any event, in the absence of some unusual circumstances, the history of 

14 coexistence between seismic surveys and baleen whales suggests that brief exposures to sound pulses from 

15 any single seismic survey are unlikely to result in prolonged effects.

16 Toothed Whales

17 Little systematic information is available about reactions of toothed whales to noise pulses. Few studies 

18 similar to the more extensive baleen whale/seismic pulse work summarized above have been reported for 

19 toothed whales. However, there are recent systematic data on sperm whales (e.g., Gordon et al. 2006; 

20 Madsen et al. 2006; Winsor and Mate 2006; Jochens et al. 2008; Miller et al. 2009). There is also an 

21 increasing amount of information about responses of various odontocetes to seismic surveys based on 

22 monitoring studies (e.g., Stone 2003; Smultea et al. 2004; Moulton and Miller 2005; Bain and Williams 

23 2006; Holst et al. 2006; Stone and Tasker 2006; Potter et al. 2007; Hauser et al. 2008; Holst and Smultea 

24 2008; Weir 2008a; Barkaszi et al. 2009; Richardson et al. 2009). 

25 Delphinids (Dolphins and similar) and Monodontids (Beluga).—Seismic operators and marine mammal 

26 observers on seismic vessels regularly see dolphins and other small toothed whales near operating airgun 

27 arrays, but in general there seems to be a tendency for most delphinids to show some avoidance of 

28 operating seismic vessels (e.g., Goold 1996a, b, c; Calambokidis and Osmek 1998; Stone 2003; Moulton 

29 and Miller 2005; Holst et al. 2006; Stone and Tasker 2006; Weir 2008a; Richardson et al. 2009; see also 

30 Barkaszi et al. 2009). In most cases, the avoidance radii for delphinids appear to be small, on the order of 

31 1 km or less, and some individuals show no apparent avoidance. Studies that have reported cases of small 

32 toothed whales close to the operating airguns include Duncan (1985), Arnold (1996), Stone (2003), and 

Holst et al. (2006). When a 3,959 in3 33 , 18-airgun array was firing off California, toothed whales behaved in 

34 a manner similar to that observed when the airguns were silent (Arnold 1996). Some dolphins seemed to 

35 be attracted to the seismic vessel and floats, and some rode the bow wave of the seismic vessel even when 

36 a large array of airguns was firing (e.g., Moulton and Miller 2005). Nonetheless, small toothed whales 

37 more often tend to head away, or to maintain a somewhat greater distance from the vessel, when a large 

38 array of airguns is operating than when it is silent (e.g., Stone and Tasker 2006; Weir 2008a).

39 Weir (2008b) noted that a group of short-finned pilot whales initially showed an avoidance response to 

40 ramp up of a large airgun array, but that this response was limited in time and space. Although the ramp41 up procedure is a widely-used mitigation measure, it remains uncertain how effective it is at alerting 

42 marine mammals (especially odontocetes) and causing them to move away from seismic operations (Weir 

43 2008b).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-16 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Goold (1996a, b, c) studied the effects on common dolphins of 2D seismic surveys in the Irish Sea. 

2 Passive acoustic surveys were conducted from the “guard ship” that towed a hydrophone 180 m aft. The 

3 results indicated that there was a local displacement of dolphins around the seismic operation. However, 

4 observations indicated that the animals were tolerant of the sounds at distances outside a 1-km radius 

5 from the airguns (Goold 1996a). Initial reports of larger-scale displacement were later shown to represent 

6 a normal autumn migration of dolphins through the area, and were not attributable to seismic surveys 

7 (Goold 1996a, b, c).

8 The beluga appears to be a species that (at least at times) shows long-distance avoidance of seismic 

9 vessels. Aerial surveys conducted in the southeastern Beaufort Sea in summer found that sighting rates of 

10 belugas were significantly lower at distances 10–20 km compared with 20–30 km from an operating 

11 airgun array (Miller et al. 2005). The low number of beluga sightings by marine mammal observers on the 

vessel seemed to confirm there was a strong avoidance response to the 2,250 in3 12 airgun array. More recent 

13 seismic monitoring studies in the same area have confirmed that the apparent displacement effect on 

14 belugas extended farther than has been shown for other small odontocetes exposed to airgun pulses (e.g., 

15 Harris et al. 2007). 

16 Observers stationed on seismic vessels operating off the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2000 have 

17 provided data on the occurrence and behavior of various toothed whales exposed to seismic pulses (Stone 

18 2003; Gordon et al. 2004; Stone and Tasker 2006). Dolphins of various species often showed more 

19 evidence of avoidance of operating airgun arrays than has been reported previously for small odontocetes. 

20 Sighting rates of white-sided dolphins, white-beaked dolphins, Lagenorhynchus spp., and all small 

odontocetes combined were significantly lower during periods when large-volume4

34 Data collected during seismic operations in the Gulf of Mexico and off Central America show similar 

35 patterns. A summary of vessel-based monitoring data from the Gulf of Mexico during 2003–2008 showed 

36 that delphinids were generally seen farther from the vessel during seismic than during nonseismic periods 

37 (based on Barkaszi et al. 2009, excluding sperm whales). Similarly, during two NSF-funded L-DEO 

seismic surveys that used a large 20 airgun array (~7,000 in3 38 ), sighting rates of delphinids were lower and 

39 initial sighting distances were farther away from the vessel during seismic than non-seismic periods 

40 (Smultea et al. 2004; Holst et al. 2005a, 2006; Richardson et al. 2009). Monitoring results during a 

41 seismic survey in the Southeast Caribbean showed that the mean CPA of delphinids was 991 m during 

42 seismic operations vs. 172 m when the airguns were not operational (Smultea et al. 2004). Surprisingly, 

21 airgun arrays were 

22 shooting. Except for the pilot whale and bottlenose dolphin, CPA distances for all of the small odontocete 

23 species tested, including killer whales, were significantly farther from large airgun arrays during periods 

24 of shooting compared with periods of no shooting. Pilot whales were less responsive than other small 

25 odontocetes in the presence of seismic surveys (Stone and Tasker 2006). For small odontocetes as a 

26 group, and most individual species, orientations differed between times when large airgun arrays were 

27 operating vs. silent, with significantly fewer animals traveling towards and/or more traveling away from 

28 the vessel during shooting. Observers’ records suggested that fewer cetaceans were feeding and fewer 

29 were interacting with the survey vessel (e.g., bow-riding) during periods with airguns operating, and small 

30 odontocetes tended to swim faster during periods of shooting. For most types of small odontocetes 

31 sighted by observers on seismic vessels, the median CPA distance was ≥0.5 km larger during airgun 

32 operations (Stone and Tasker 2006). Killer whales appeared to be more tolerant of seismic shooting in 

33 deeper waters. 

 4 Large volume means at least 1,300 in3

, with most (79%) at least 3,000 in3.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-17

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 nearly all acoustic detections via a towed PAM array, including both delphinids and sperm whales, were 

2 made when the airguns were operating (Smultea et al. 2004). Although the number of sightings during 

3 monitoring of a seismic survey off the Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico, was small (n=19), the results showed 

4 that the mean CPA distance of delphinids there was 472 m during seismic operations vs. 178 m when the 

5 airguns were silent (Holst et al. 2005a). The acoustic detection rates were nearly 5 times higher during 

6 non-seismic compared with seismic operations (Holst et al. 2005a).

7 For two additional NSF-funded L-DEO seismic surveys in the Eastern Tropical Pacific, both using a large 

36-airgun array (~6,600 in3 8 ), the results are less easily interpreted (Richardson et al. 2009). During both 

9 surveys, the delphinid detection rate was lower during seismic than during non-seismic periods, as found 

10 in various other projects, but the mean CPA distance of delphinids was closer (not farther) during seismic 

11 periods (Hauser et al. 2008; Holst and Smultea 2008).

12 During two seismic surveys off Newfoundland and Labrador in 2004–05, dolphin sighting rates were 

13 lower during seismic periods than during non-seismic periods after taking temporal factors into account, 

14 although the difference was statistically significant only in 2004 (Moulton et al. 2005, 2006a). In 2005, 

15 the mean CPA distance of dolphins was significantly farther during seismic periods (807 m vs. 652 m); in 

16 2004, the corresponding difference was not significant. 

17 Among Atlantic spotted dolphins off Angola (n=16 useable groups), marked short-term and localized 

displacement was found in response to seismic operations conducted with a 24-airgun array (3,147 in3 18 or 

5085 in3 19 ) (Weir 2008a). Sample sizes were low, but CPA distances of dolphin groups were significantly 

20 larger when airguns were on (mean 1,080 m) vs. off (mean 209 m). No Atlantic spotted dolphins were 

21 seen within 500 m of the airguns when they were operating, whereas all sightings when airguns were 

22 silent occurred within 500 m, including the only recorded “positive approach” behaviors. 

23 Reactions of toothed whales to a single airgun or other small airgun source are not well documented, but 

24 tend to be less substantial than reactions to large airgun arrays (e.g., Stone 2003; Stone and Tasker 2006). 

25 During 91 site surveys off the U.K. in 1997–2000, sighting rates of all small odontocetes combined were 

significantly lower during periods the low-volume5

36 Captive bottlenose dolphins and beluga whales exhibited changes in behavior when exposed to strong 

37 pulsed sounds similar in duration to those typically used in seismic surveys (Finneran et al. 2000, 2002, 

38 2005). Finneran et al. (2002) exposed a captive bottlenose dolphin and beluga to single impulses from a 

water gun (80 in3 39 ). As compared with airgun pulses, water gun impulses were expected to contain propor40 tionally more energy at higher frequencies because there is no significant gas-filled bubble, and thus little 

41 low-frequency bubble-pulse energy (Hutchinson and Detrick 1984). The captive animals sometimes 

26 airgun sources were operating, and effects on orienta27 tion were evident for all species and groups tested (Stone and Tasker 2006). Results from four NSFfunded L-DEO seismic surveys using small arrays (up to 3 GI guns and 315 in3 28 ) were inconclusive. 

29 During surveys in the Eastern Tropical Pacific (Holst et al. 2005b) and in the Northwest Atlantic (Haley 

30 and Koski 2004), detection rates were slightly lower during seismic compared to non-seismic periods. 

31 However, mean CPAs were closer during seismic operations during one cruise (Holst et al. 2005b), and 

32 greater during the other cruise (Haley and Koski 2004). Interpretation of the data was confounded by the 

33 fact that survey effort and/or number of sightings during non-seismic periods during both surveys was 

34 small. Results from another two small-array surveys in southeast Alaska were even more variable 

35 (MacLean and Koski 2005; Smultea and Holst 2008). 

 5 For low volume arrays, maximum volume was 820 in3

, with most (87%) ≤180 in3.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-18 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 vocalized after exposure and exhibited reluctance to station at the test site where subsequent exposure to 

2 impulses would be implemented (Finneran et al. 2002). Similar behaviors were exhibited by captive 

3 bottlenose dolphins and a beluga exposed to single underwater pulses designed to simulate those 

4 produced by distant underwater explosions (Finneran et al. 2000). It is uncertain what relevance these 

5 observed behaviors in captive, trained marine mammals exposed to single transient sounds may have to 

6 free-ranging animals exposed to multiple pulses. In any event, the animals tolerated rather high received 

7 levels of sound before exhibiting the aversive behaviors mentioned above.

8 Odontocete responses (or lack of responses) to noise pulses from underwater explosions (as opposed to 

9 airgun pulses) may be indicative of odontocete responses to very strong noise pulses. During the 1950s, 

10 small explosive charges were dropped into an Alaskan river in attempts to scare belugas away from 

11 salmon. Success was limited (Fish and Vania 1971; Frost et al. 1984). Small explosive charges were “not 

12 always effective” in moving bottlenose dolphins away from sites in the Gulf of Mexico where larger 

13 demolition blasts were about to occur (Klima et al. 1988). Odontocetes may be attracted to fish killed by 

14 explosions, and thus attracted rather than repelled by “scare” charges. Captive false killer whales showed 

15 no obvious reaction to single noise pulses from small (10 g) charges; the received level was ~185 dB re 1 

16 μPa (Akamatsu et al. 1993). Jefferson and Curry (1994) reviewed several additional studies that found 

17 limited or no effects of noise pulses from small explosive charges on killer whales and other odontocetes. 

18 Aside from the potential for causing auditory impairment (see below), the tolerance to these charges may 

19 indicate a lack of effect, or the failure to move away may simply indicate a stronger desire to feed, 

20 regardless of circumstances.

21 Phocoenids (Porpoises).—Porpoises, like delphinids, show variable reactions to seismic operations, and 

22 reactions apparently depend on species. The limited available data suggest that harbor porpoises show 

23 stronger avoidance of seismic operations than Dall’s porpoises (Stone 2003; MacLean and Koski 2005; 

24 Bain and Williams 2006). In Washington State waters, the harbor porpoise―despite being considered a 

25 high-frequency specialist―appeared to be the species affected by the lowest received level of airgun 

26 sound (<145 dB re 1 μParms at a distance >70 km; Bain and Williams 2006). Similarly, during seismic 

27 surveys with large airgun arrays off the U.K. in 1997–2000, there were significant differences in 

28 directions of travel by harbor porpoises during periods when the airguns were shooting vs. silent (Stone 

29 2003; Stone and Tasker 2006). A captive harbor porpoise exposed to single sound pulses from a small 

30 airgun showed aversive behavior upon receipt of a pulse with received level above 174 dB re 1 μPapk-pk or 

SEL >145 dB re 1 μPa2 31 · s (Lucke et al. 2009). In contrast, Dall’s porpoises seem relatively tolerant of 

32 airgun operations (MacLean and Koski 2005; Bain and Williams 2006), although they too have been 

33 observed to avoid large arrays of operating airguns (Calambokidis and Osmek 1998; Bain and Williams 

34 2006). The apparent tendency for greater responsiveness in the harbor porpoise is consistent with their 

35 relative responsiveness to boat traffic and some other acoustic sources (Richardson et al. 1995; Southall et 

36 al. 2007).

37 Beaked Whales.—There are almost no specific data on the behavioral reactions of beaked whales to 

38 seismic surveys. Most beaked whales tend to avoid approaching vessels of other types (e.g., Würsig et al. 

39 1998). They may also dive for an extended period when approached by a vessel (e.g., Kasuya 1986), 

40 although it is uncertain how much longer such dives may be as compared to dives by undisturbed beaked

41 whales, which also are often quite long (Baird et al. 2006; Tyack et al. 2006b). In any event, it is likely 

42 that most beaked whales would also show strong avoidance of an approaching seismic vessel, regardless 

43 of whether or not the airguns are operating. However, this has not been documented explicitly. Northern 

44 bottlenose whales sometimes are quite tolerant of slow-moving vessels not emitting airgun pulses (Reeves 

45 et al. 1993; Hooker et al. 2001). The few detections (acoustic or visual) of northern bottlenose whales 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-19

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 from seismic vessels during recent seismic surveys off Nova Scotia have been during times when the 

2 airguns were shut down; no detections were reported when the airguns were operating (Moulton and 

3 Miller 2005; Potter et al. 2007). However, other visual and acoustic studies indicated that some northern 

4 bottlenose whales remained in the general area and continued to produce high-frequency clicks when 

5 exposed to sound pulses from distant seismic surveys (Gosselin and Lawson 2004; Laurinolli and 

6 Cochrane 2005; Simard et al. 2005).

7 There are increasing indications that some beaked whales tend to strand when military exercises involving 

8 MF sonar operation are ongoing nearby (e.g., Simmonds and Lopez-Jurado 1991; Frantzis 1998; NOAA 

9 and U.S. Navy 2001; Jepson et al. 2003; Barlow and Gisiner 2006; see also the “Strandings and 

10 Mortality” subsection below). These strandings are apparently at least in part a disturbance response, 

11 although auditory or other injuries or other physiological effects may also be a factor. Whether beaked 

12 whales would ever react similarly to seismic surveys is unknown. Seismic survey sounds are quite 

13 different from those of the sonars in operation during the above-cited incidents. No conclusive link has 

14 been established between seismic surveys and beaked whale strandings. There was a stranding of two 

15 Cuvier’s beaked whales in the Gulf of California (Mexico) in September 2002 when the R/V Ewing was 

16 conducting a seismic survey in the general area (e.g., Malakoff 2002; Hildebrand 2005). However, NMFS 

17 did not establish a cause and effect relationship between this stranding and the seismic survey activities 

18 (Hogarth 2002). Cox et al. (2006) noted the “lack of knowledge regarding the temporal and spatial 

19 correlation between the [stranding] and the sound source”. Hildebrand (2005) illustrated the approximate 

20 temporal-spatial relationships between the stranding and the R/V Ewing’s tracks, but the time of the 

21 stranding was not known with sufficient precision for accurate determination of the CPA distance of the 

22 whales to the R/V Ewing. Another stranding of Cuvier’s beaked whales in the Galápagos occurred during 

23 a seismic survey in April 2000; however “There is no obvious mechanism that bridges the distance 

24 between this source and the stranding site” (Gentry 2002).

25 Sperm Whales.—All three species of sperm whales have been reported to show avoidance reactions to 

26 standard vessels not emitting airgun sounds (e.g., Richardson et al. 1995; Würsig et al. 1998; McAlpine 

27 2002; Baird 2005). However, most studies of the sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) exposed to 

28 airgun sounds indicate that this species shows considerable tolerance of airgun pulses. The whales usually 

29 do not show strong avoidance (i.e., they do not leave the area) and they continue to call. 

30 There were some early and limited observations suggesting that sperm whales in the Southern Ocean 

31 ceased calling during some (but not all) times when exposed to weak noise pulses from extremely distant 

32 (>300 km) seismic exploration. However, other operations in the area could also have been a factor 

33 (Bowles et al. 1994). This “quieting” was suspected to represent a disturbance effect, in part because 

34 sperm whales exposed to pulsed man-made sounds at higher frequencies often cease calling (Watkins and 

35 Schevill 1975; Watkins et al. 1985). Also, there was an early preliminary account of possible long-range 

36 avoidance of seismic vessels by sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico (Mate et al. 1994). However, this has 

37 not been substantiated by subsequent more detailed work in that area (Gordon et al. 2006; Winsor and 

38 Mate 2006; Jochens et al. 2008; Miller et al. 2009).

39 Recent and more extensive data from vessel-based monitoring programs in U.K. waters and off 

40 Newfoundland and Angola suggest that sperm whales in those areas show little evidence of avoidance or 

41 behavioral disruption in the presence of operating seismic vessels (Stone 2003; Stone and Tasker 2006; 

42 Moulton et al. 2005, 2006a; Weir 2008a). Among sperm whales off Angola (n = 96 useable groups), there 

were no significant differences in encounter rates (sightings/hr) when a 24-airgun array (3,147 in3 43 or 

5,085 in3 44 ) was operating vs. silent (Weir 2008a). There was also no significant difference in the closest 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-20 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 observed approach distances of the sperm whale sightings when airguns were on vs. off (means 3039 m 

2 vs. 2594 m, respectively). Encounter rate tended to increase over the 10-month duration of the seismic 

3 survey. These types of observations are difficult to interpret because the observers are stationed on or near 

4 the seismic vessel, and may underestimate reactions by some of the more responsive animals, which may 

5 be beyond visual range. However, these results do seem to show considerable tolerance of seismic sur6 veys by at least some sperm whales. Also, a study off northern Norway indicated that sperm whales con7 tinued to call when exposed to pulses from a distant seismic vessel. Received levels of the seismic pulses 

8 were up to 146 dB re 1 μPap-p (Madsen et al. 2002). 

9 Similarly, a study conducted off Nova Scotia that analyzed recordings of sperm whale vocalizations at 

10 various distances from an active seismic program did not detect any obvious changes in the distribution or 

11 behavior of sperm whales (McCall Howard 1999). 

12 Sightings of sperm whales by observers on seismic vessels operating in the Gulf of Mexico during 2003–

13 2008 were at very similar average distances regardless of the airgun operating conditions (Barkaszi et al. 

14 2009). For example, the mean sighting distance was 1,839 m when the airgun array was in full operation 

15 (n=612) vs. 1,960 m when all airguns were off (n=66).

16 A controlled study of the reactions of tagged sperm whales to seismic surveys was done recently in the 

17 Gulf of Mexico ― the Sperm Whale Seismic Study or SWSS (Gordon et al. 2006; Madsen et al. 2006;

18 Winsor and Mate 2006; Jochens et al. 2008; Miller et al. 2009). During SWSS, D-tags (Johnson and

19 Tyack 2003) were used to record the movement and acoustic exposure of eight foraging sperm whales

20 before, during, and after controlled exposures to sound from airgun arrays (Jochens et al. 2008; Miller et 

21 al. 2009). Whales were exposed to maximum received sound levels of 111–147 dB re 1 μParms (131–162

22 dB re 1 μPapk-pk) at ranges of ~1.4–12.8 km from the sound source (Miller et al. 2009). Although the 

23 tagged whales showed no discernible horizontal avoidance, some whales showed changes in diving and

24 foraging behavior during full-array exposure, possibly indicative of subtle negative effects on foraging

25 (Jochens et al. 2008; Miller et al. 2009; Tyack 2009). Two indications of foraging that they studied were

26 oscillations in pitch and occurrence of echolocation buzzes, both of which tend to occur when a sperm

27 whale closes-in on prey. "Oscillations in pitch generated by swimming movements during foraging dives

28 were on average 6% lower during exposure than during the immediately following post-exposure period,

29 with all 7 foraging whales exhibiting less pitching (P = 0.014). Buzz rates, a proxy for attempts to capture 

30 prey, were 19% lower during exposure..." (Miller et al. 2009). Although the latter difference was not 

31 statistically significant (P = 0.141), the percentage difference in buzz rate during exposure vs. 

32 postexposure conditions appeared to be strongly correlated with airgun-whale distance (Miller et al. 

33 2009:Figure 5; Tyack 2009).

34 Discussion and Conclusions.—Dolphins and porpoises are often seen by observers on active seismic 

35 vessels, occasionally at close distances (e.g., bow riding). However, some studies near the U.K., 

36 Newfoundland and Angola, in the Gulf of Mexico, and off Central America have shown localized avoid37 ance. Also, belugas summering in the Canadian Beaufort Sea showed larger-scale avoidance, tending to 

38 avoid waters out to 10–20 km from operating seismic vessels. In contrast, recent studies show little 

39 evidence of conspicuous reactions by sperm whales to airgun pulses, contrary to earlier indications. 

40 There are almost no specific data on responses of beaked whales to seismic surveys, but it is likely that 

41 most if not all species show strong avoidance. There is increasing evidence that some beaked whales may 

42 strand after exposure to strong noise from sonars. Whether they ever do so in response to seismic survey 

43 noise is unknown. Northern bottlenose whales seem to continue to call when exposed to pulses from 

44 distant seismic vessels.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-21

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Overall, odontocete reactions to large arrays of airguns are variable and, at least for delphinids and some 

2 porpoises, seem to be confined to a smaller radius than has been observed for some mysticetes. However, 

3 other data suggest that some odontocetes species, including belugas and harbor porpoises, may be more 

4 responsive than might be expected given their poor low-frequency hearing. Reactions at longer distances 

5 may be particularly likely when sound propagation conditions are conducive to transmission of the 

6 higher-frequency components of airgun sound to the animals’ location (DeRuiter et al. 2006; Goold and 

7 Coates 2006; Tyack et al. 2006a; Potter et al. 2007). 

8 For delphinids, and possibly the Dall’s porpoise, the available data suggest that a ≥170 dB re 1 μParms

9 disturbance criterion (rather than ≥160 dB) would be appropriate . With a medium-to-large airgun array, 

10 received levels typically diminish to 170 dB within 1–4 km, whereas levels typically remain above 160 

11 dB out to 4–15 km (e.g., Tolstoy et al. 2009). Reaction distances for delphinids are more consistent with 

12 the typical 170 dB re 1 μParms distances. The 160-dB (rms) criterion currently applied by NMFS was 

13 developed based primarily on data from gray and bowhead whales. Avoidance distances for delphinids 

14 and Dall’s porpoises tend to be shorter than for those two mysticete species. For delphinids and Dall’s 

15 porpoises, there is no indication of strong avoidance or other disruption of behavior at distances beyond 

those where received levels would be ~170 dB re 1 μParms 16 . 

17 Pinnipeds

18 Few studies of the reactions of pinnipeds to noise from open-water seismic exploration have been 

19 published (for review of the early literature, see Richardson et al. 1995). However, pinnipeds have been 

20 observed during a number of seismic monitoring studies. Monitoring in the Beaufort Sea during 1996–

21 2002 provided a substantial amount of information on avoidance responses (or lack thereof) and 

22 associated behavior. Additional monitoring of that type has been done in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas 

23 in 2006-2009. Pinnipeds exposed to seismic surveys have also been observed during seismic surveys 

24 along the U.S. west coast. Some limited data are available on physiological responses of pinnipeds 

25 exposed to seismic sound, as studied with the aid of radio telemetry. Also, there are data on the reactions 

26 of pinnipeds to various other related types of impulsive sounds.

27 Early observations provided considerable evidence that pinnipeds are often quite tolerant of strong pulsed 

28 sounds. During seismic exploration off Nova Scotia, gray seals exposed to noise from airguns and linear 

29 explosive charges reportedly did not react strongly (J. Parsons in Greene et al. 1985). An airgun caused an 

30 initial startle reaction among South African fur seals but was ineffective in scaring them away from 

31 fishing gear (Anonymous 1975). Pinnipeds in both water and air sometimes tolerate strong noise pulses 

32 from non-explosive and explosive scaring devices, especially if attracted to the area for feeding or 

33 reproduction (Mate and Harvey 1987; Reeves et al. 1996). Thus, pinnipeds are expected to be rather 

34 tolerant of, or to habituate to, repeated underwater sounds from distant seismic sources, at least when the 

35 animals are strongly attracted to the area.

36 In the U.K., a radio-telemetry study demonstrated short-term changes in the behavior of harbor 

37 (=common) seals and gray seals exposed to airgun pulses (Thompson et al. 1998). Harbor seals were 

exposed to seismic pulses from a 90 in3 array (3 × 30 in3 38 airguns), and behavioral responses differed 

39 among individuals. One harbor seal avoided the array at distances up to 2.5 km from the source and only 

40 resumed foraging dives after seismic stopped. Another harbor seal exposed to the same small airgun array 

41 showed no detectable behavioral response, even when the array was within 500 m. Gray seals exposed to 

a single 10 in3 42 airgun showed an avoidance reaction: they moved away from the source, increased swim 

43 speed and/or dive duration, and switched from foraging dives to predominantly transit dives. These 

44 effects appeared to be short-term as gray seals either remained in, or returned at least once to, the foraging 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-22 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 area where they had been exposed to seismic pulses. These results suggest that there are interspecific as 

2 well as individual differences in seal responses to seismic sounds.

3 Off California, visual observations from a seismic vessel showed that California sea lions “typically 

4 ignored the vessel and array. When [they] displayed behavior modifications, they often appeared to be 

5 reacting visually to the sight of the towed array. At times, California sea lions were attracted to the array, 

6 even when it was on. At other times, these animals would appear to be actively avoiding the vessel and 

7 array” (Arnold 1996). In Puget Sound, sighting distances for harbor seals and California sea lions tended 

8 to be larger when airguns were operating; both species tended to orient away whether or not the airguns 

9 were firing (Calambokidis and Osmek 1998). Bain and Williams (2006) also stated that their small 

10 sample of harbor seals and sea lions tended to orient and/or move away upon exposure to sounds from a 

11 large airgun array.

12 Monitoring work in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea during 1996–2001 provided considerable information 

13 regarding the behavior of seals exposed to seismic pulses (Harris et al. 2001; Moulton and Lawson 2002). 

Those seismic projects usually involved arrays of 6–16 airguns with total volumes 560–1500 in3 14 .

15 Subsequent monitoring work in the Canadian Beaufort Sea in 2001–2002, with a somewhat larger airgun 

system (24 airguns, 2250 in3 16 ), provided similar results (Miller et al. 2005). The combined results suggest 

17 that some seals avoid the immediate area around seismic vessels. In most survey years, ringed seal 

18 sightings averaged somewhat farther away from the seismic vessel when the airguns were operating then 

19 when they were not (Moulton and Lawson 2002). Also, seal sighting rates at the water surface were lower 

20 during airgun array operations than during no-airgun periods in each survey year except 1997. However, 

21 the avoidance movements were relatively small, on the order of 100 m to (at most) a few hundreds of 

22 meters, and many seals remained within 100–200 m of the trackline as the operating airgun array passed 

23 by. 

24 The operation of the airgun array had minor and variable effects on the behavior of seals visible at the 

25 surface within a few hundred meters of the airguns (Moulton and Lawson 2002). The behavioral data 

26 indicated that some seals were more likely to swim away from the source vessel during periods of airgun 

27 operations and more likely to swim towards or parallel to the vessel during non-seismic periods. No 

28 consistent relationship was observed between exposure to airgun noise and proportions of seals engaged 

29 in other recognizable behaviors, e.g., “looked” and “dove”. Such a relationship might have occurred if 

30 seals seek to reduce exposure to strong seismic pulses, given the reduced airgun noise levels close to the 

31 surface where “looking” occurs (Moulton and Lawson 2002). 

32 Monitoring results from the Canadian Beaufort Sea during 2001–2002 were more variable (Miller et al. 

33 2005). During 2001, sighting rates of seals (mostly ringed seals) were similar during all seismic states, 

34 including periods without airgun operations. However, seals tended to be seen closer to the vessel during 

35 non-seismic than seismic periods. In contrast, during 2002, sighting rates of seals were higher during non36 seismic periods than seismic operations, and seals were seen farther from the vessel during non-seismic 

37 compared to seismic activity (a marginally significant result). The combined data for both years showed 

38 that sighting rates were higher during non-seismic periods compared to seismic periods, and that sighting 

39 distances were similar during both seismic states. Miller et al. (2005) concluded that seals showed very 

40 limited avoidance to the operating airgun array. 

41 Vessel-based monitoring also took place in the Alaskan Chukchi and Beaufort seas during 2006–2008 

42 (Reiser et al. 2009). Observers on the seismic vessels saw phocid seals less frequently while airguns were 

43 operating than when airguns were silent. Also, during airgun operations, those observers saw seals less 

44 frequently than did observers on nearby vessels without airguns. Finally, observers on the latter 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-23

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 “noairgun” vessels saw seals more often when the nearby source vessels’ airguns were operating than 

2 when they were silent. All of these observations are indicative of a tendency for phocid seals to exhibit 

3 localized avoidance of the seismic source vessel when airguns are firing (Reiser et al. 2009).

4 In summary, visual monitoring from seismic vessels has shown only slight (if any) avoidance of airguns 

5 by pinnipeds, and only slight (if any) changes in behavior. These studies show that many pinnipeds do not 

6 avoid the area within a few hundred meters of an operating airgun array. However, based on the studies 

7 with large sample size, or observations from a separate monitoring vessel, or radio telemetry, it is 

8 apparent that some phocid seals do show localized avoidance of operating airguns. The limited nature of 

9 this tendency for avoidance is a concern. It suggests that one cannot rely on pinnipeds to move away, or 

10 to move very far away, before received levels of sound from an approaching seismic survey vessel 

11 approach those that may cause hearing impairment (see below).

12 Sirenians and Sea Otter

13 We are not aware of any information on the reactions of sirenians to airgun sounds.

14 Behavior of sea otters along the California coast was monitored by Riedman (1983, 1984) while they 

were exposed to a single 100 in3 airgun and a 4089 in3 15 airgun array. No disturbance reactions were 

16 evident when the airgun array was as close as 0.9 km. Sea otters also did not respond noticeably to the 

17 single airgun. These results suggest that sea otters may be less responsive to marine seismic pulses than 

18 some other marine mammals, such as mysticetes and odontocetes (summarized above). Also, sea otters 

19 spend a great deal of time at the surface feeding and grooming (Riedman 1983, 1984). While at the 

20 surface, the potential noise exposure of sea otters would be much reduced by pressure-release and 

21 interference (Lloyd’s mirror) effects at the surface (Greene and Richardson 1988; Richardson et al. 1995). 

22 E.3.4 Hearing Impairment and Other Physical Effects

23 Temporary or permanent hearing impairment is a possibility when marine mammals are exposed to very 

24 strong sounds. Temporary threshold shift (TTS) has been demonstrated and studied in certain captive 

25 odontocetes and pinnipeds exposed to strong sounds (reviewed in Southall et al. 2007). However, there 

26 has been no specific documentation of TTS let alone permanent hearing damage (i.e. PTS, in free-ranging 

27 marine mammals exposed to sequences of airgun pulses during realistic field conditions). Current NMFS 

28 policy regarding exposure of marine mammals to high-level sounds is that cetaceans and pinnipeds should 

29 not be exposed to impulsive sounds ≥180 and 190 dB re 1 μParms, respectively (NMFS 2000). Those 

30 criteria have been used in establishing the safety (=shut-down) radii planned for numerous seismic 

31 surveys conducted under U.S. jurisdiction. However, those criteria were established before there was any 

32 information about the minimum received levels of sounds necessary to cause auditory impairment in 

33 marine mammals. As discussed below,

34 • the 180-dB criterion for cetaceans is probably quite precautionary (i.e., lower than necessary to 

35 avoid temporary auditory impairment let alone permanent auditory injury, at least for 

36 delphinids);

37 • TTS is not injury and does not constitute “Level A harassment” in MMPA terminology;

38 • the minimum sound level necessary to cause permanent hearing impairment (“Level A harass39 ment”) is higher, by a variable and generally unknown amount, than the level that induces 

40 barely-detectable TTS; and
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-24 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 • the level associated with the onset of TTS is often considered to be a level below which there is 

2 no danger of permanent damage. The actual PTS threshold is likely to be well above the level 

3 causing onset of TTS (Southall et al. 2007).

4 Recommendations for new science-based noise exposure criteria for marine mammals, frequency 

5 weighting procedures, and related matters were published recently (Southall et al. 2007). Those 

6 recommendations have not, as of late 2009, been formally adopted by NMFS for use in regulatory 

7 processes and during mitigation programs associated with seismic surveys. However, some aspects of the 

8 recommendations have been taken into account in certain EISs and small-take authorizations. NMFS has 

9 indicated that it may issue new noise exposure criteria for marine mammals that account for the now10 available scientific data on TTS, the expected offset between the TTS and PTS thresholds, differences in 

11 the acoustic frequencies to which different marine mammal groups are sensitive, and other relevant 

12 factors. Preliminary information about possible changes in the regulatory and mitigation requirements, 

13 and about the possible structure of new criteria, was given by Wieting (2004) and NMFS (2005).

14 Several aspects of the monitoring and mitigation measures that are now often implemented during seismic 

15 survey projects are designed to detect marine mammals occurring near the airgun array, and to avoid 

16 exposing them to sound pulses that might, at least in theory, cause hearing impairment. In addition, many 

17 cetaceans and (to a limited degree) pinnipeds show some avoidance of the area where received levels of 

18 airgun sound are high enough such that hearing impairment could potentially occur. In those cases, the 

19 avoidance responses of the animals themselves will reduce or (most likely) avoid the possibility of 

20 hearing impairment.

21 Non-auditory physical effects may also occur in marine mammals exposed to strong underwater pulsed 

22 sound. Possible types of non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that might (in theory) occur include 

23 stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, and other types of organ or tissue damage. It is possible that 

24 some marine mammal species (i.e., beaked whales) may be especially susceptible to injury and/or 

25 stranding when exposed to strong pulsed sounds. The following subsections summarize available data on 

26 noise-induced hearing impairment and non-auditory physical effects.

27 Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)

28 TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to a strong sound (Kryter 

29 1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises and a sound must be stronger in order to be 

30 heard. It is a temporary phenomenon, and (especially when mild) is not considered to represent physical 

31 damage or “injury” (Southall et al. 2007). Rather, the onset of TTS is an indicator that, if the animals is 

32 exposed to higher levels of that sound, physical damage is ultimately a possibility.

33 The magnitude of TTS depends on the level and duration of noise exposure, and to some degree on 

34 frequency, among other considerations (Kryter 1985; Richardson et al. 1995; Southall et al. 2007). For 

35 sound exposures at or somewhat above the TTS threshold, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after 

36 exposure to the noise ends. In terrestrial mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to (in cases of 

37 strong TTS) days. Only a few data have been obtained on sound levels and durations necessary to elicit 

38 mild TTS in marine mammals (none in mysticetes), and none of the published data concern TTS elicited 

39 by exposure to multiple pulses of sound during operational seismic surveys (Southall et al. 2007).

40 Baleen Whales.—There are no data, direct or indirect, on levels or properties of sound that are required to 

41 induce TTS in any baleen whale. The frequencies to which mysticetes are most sensitive are assumed to 

42 be lower than those to which odontocetes are most sensitive, and natural background noise levels at those 

43 low frequencies tend to be higher. As a result, auditory thresholds of baleen whales within their frequency 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-25

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 band of best hearing are believed to be higher (less sensitive) than are those of odontocetes at their best 

2 frequencies (Clark and Ellison 2004). From this, it is suspected that received levels causing TTS onset 

3 may also be higher in mysticetes (Southall et al. 2007). However, based on preliminary simulation 

4 modeling that attempted to allow for various uncertainties in assumptions and variability around 

5 population means, Gedamke et al. (2008) suggested that some baleen whales whose CPA to a seismic 

6 vessel is 1 km or more could experience TTS or even PTS.

7 In practice during seismic surveys, few if any cases of TTS are expected given the strong likelihood that 

8 baleen whales would avoid the approaching airguns (or vessel) before being exposed to levels high 

9 enough for there to be any possibility of TTS (see above for evidence concerning avoidance responses by 

10 baleen whales). This assumes that the ramp up (soft start) procedure is used when commencing airgun 

11 operations, to give whales near the vessel the opportunity to move away before they are exposed to sound 

12 levels that might be strong enough to elicit TTS. As discussed earlier, single-airgun experiments with 

13 bowhead, gray, and humpback whales show that those species do tend to move away when a single airgun 

14 starts firing nearby, which simulates the onset of a ramp up.

15 Toothed Whales.—There are empirical data on the sound exposures that elicit onset of TTS in captive 

16 bottlenose dolphins and belugas. The majority of these data concern non-impulse sound, but there are 

17 some limited published data concerning TTS onset upon exposure to a single pulse of sound from a 

18 watergun (Finneran et al. 2002). A detailed review of all TTS data from marine mammals can be found in 

19 Southall et al. (2007). The following summarizes some of the key results from odontocetes. 

20 Recent information corroborates earlier expectations that the effect of exposure to strong transient sounds 

21 is closely related to the total amount of acoustic energy that is received. Finneran et al. (2005) examined 

22 the effects of tone duration on TTS in bottlenose dolphins. Bottlenose dolphins were exposed to 3 kHz 

23 tones (non-impulsive) for periods of 1, 2, 4 or 8 s, with hearing tested at 4.5 kHz. For 1-s exposures, TTS 

24 occurred with SELs of 197 dB, and for exposures >1 s, SEL >195 dB resulted in TTS (SEL is equivalent 

to energy flux, in dB re 1 μPa2 25 · s). At an SEL of 195 dB, the mean TTS (4 min after exposure) was 2.8 

26 dB. Finneran et al. (2005) suggested that an SEL of 195 dB is the likely threshold for the onset of TTS in 

27 dolphins and belugas exposed to tones of durations 1–8 s (i.e., TTS onset occurs at a near-constant SEL, 

28 independent of exposure duration). That implies that, at least for non-impulsive tones, a doubling of 

29 exposure time results in a 3 dB lower TTS threshold.

30 The assumption that, in marine mammals, the occurrence and magnitude of TTS is a function of 

31 cumulative acoustic energy (SEL) is probably an oversimplification. Kastak et al. (2005) reported 

32 preliminary evidence from pinnipeds that, for prolonged non-impulse noise, higher SELs were required to 

33 elicit a given TTS if exposure duration was short than if it was longer, i.e., the results were not fully 

34 consistent with an equal-energy model to predict TTS onset. Mooney et al. (2009a) showed this in a 

35 bottlenose dolphin exposed to octave-band noise ranging from 4 to 8 kHz at SPLs of 130 to 178 dB re 1 

36 μPa for periods of 1.88 to 30 min. Higher SELs were required to induce a given TTS if exposure duration 

37 short than if it was longer. Exposure of the aforementioned bottlenose dolphin to a sequence of brief sonar 

38 signals showed that, with those brief (but non-impulse) sounds, the received energy (SEL) necessary to 

39 elicit TTS was higher than was the case with exposure to the more prolonged octave-band noise (Mooney 

40 et al. 2009b). Those authors concluded that, when using (non-impulse) acoustic signals of duration ~0.5 s, 

SEL must be at least 210–214 dB re 1 μPa2 41 · s to induce TTS in the bottlenose dolphin.

42 On the other hand, the TTS threshold for odontocetes exposed to a single impulse from a watergun 

43 (Finneran et al. 2002) appeared to be somewhat lower than for exposure to non-impulse sound. This was 

44 expected, based on evidence from terrestrial mammals showing that broadband pulsed sounds with rapid 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-26 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 rise times have greater auditory effect than do non-impulse sounds (Southall et al. 2007). The received 

2 energy level of a single seismic pulse that caused the onset of mild TTS in the beluga, as measured 

without frequency weighting, was ~186 dB re 1 μPa2 ·s or 186 dB SEL (Finneran et al. 2002).6

12 The above TTS information for odontocetes is derived from studies on the bottlenose dolphin and beluga. 

13 For the one harbor porpoise tested, the received level of airgun sound that elicited onset of TTS was 

lower. The animal was exposed to single pulses from a small (20 in3 14 ) airgun, and auditory evoked

15 potential methods were used to test the animal’s hearing sensitivity at frequencies of 4, 32, or 100 kHz

16 after each exposure (Lucke et al. 2009). Based on the measurements at 4 kHz, TTS occurred upon 

exposure to one airgun pulse with received level ~200 dB re 1 μPapk-pk or an SEL of 164.3 dB re 1 μPa2 17 · 

18 s. If these results from a single animal are representative, it is inappropriate to assume that onset of TTS

19 occurs at similar received levels in all odontocetes (cf. Southall et al. 2007). Some cetaceans may incur

20 TTS at lower sound exposures than are necessary to elicit TTS in the beluga or bottlenose dolphin.

3 The rms 

4 level of an airgun pulse (in dB re 1 μPa measured over the duration of the pulse) is typically 10–15 dB 

5 higher than the SEL for the same pulse when received within a few kilometers of the airguns. Thus, a 

6 single airgun pulse might need to have a received level of ~196–201 dB re 1 μParms in order to produce 

7 brief, mild TTS. Exposure to several strong seismic pulses that each has a flat-weighted received level 

8 near 190 dBrms (175–180 dB SEL) could result in cumulative exposure of ~186 dB SEL (flat-weighted) or 

9 ~183 dB SEL (Mmf-weighted), and thus slight TTS in a small odontocete. That assumes that the TTS 

10 threshold upon exposure to multiple pulses is (to a first approximation) a function of the total received 

11 pulse energy, without allowance for any recovery between pulses. 

21 Insofar as we are aware, there are no published data confirming that the auditory effect of a sequence of 

22 airgun pulses received by an odontocete is a function of their cumulative energy. Southall et al. (2007) 

23 consider that to be a reasonable, but probably somewhat precautionary, assumption. It is precautionary 

24 because, based on data from terrestrial mammals, one would expect that a given energy exposure would 

25 have somewhat less effect if separated into discrete pulses, with potential opportunity for partial auditory 

26 recovery between pulses. However, as yet there has been little study of the rate of recovery from TTS in 

27 marine mammals, and in humans and other terrestrial mammals the available data on recovery are quite 

28 variable. Southall et al. (2007) concluded that―until relevant data on recovery are available from marine 

29 mammals―it is appropriate to not to allow for any assumed recovery during the intervals between pulses 

30 within a pulse sequence. 

31 Additional data are needed to determine the received sound levels at which small odontocetes would start 

32 to incur TTS upon exposure to repeated, low-frequency pulses of airgun sound with variable received 

33 levels. To determine how close an airgun array would need to approach in order to elicit TTS, it is 

34 necessary to determine the total energy that a mammal would receive as an airgun array approaches, 

35 passes at various CPA distances, and moves away (e.g., Erbe and King 2009). At the present state of 

36 knowledge, it is also necessary to assume that the effect is directly related to total received energy even 

37 though that energy is received in multiple pulses separated by gaps. The lack of data on the exposure 

38 levels necessary to cause TTS in toothed whales when the signal is a series of pulsed sounds, separated by 

39 silent periods, remains a data gap, as is the lack of published data on TTS in odontocetes other than the 

40 beluga, bottlenose dolphin, and harbor porpoise.

 6 If the low-frequency components of the watergun sound used in the experiments of Finneran et al. (2002) are downweighted as 

recommended by Southall et al. (2007) using their Mmf-weighting curve, the effective exposure level for onset of mild TTS was 

183 dB re 1 μPa2 ·s (Southall et al. 2007).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-27

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Pinnipeds.—In pinnipeds, TTS thresholds associated with exposure to brief pulses (single or multiple) of 

2 underwater sound have not been measured. Two California sea lions did not incur TTS when exposed to 

3 single brief pulses with received levels of ~178 and 183 dB re 1 μParms and total energy fluxes of 161 and 

163 dB re 1 μPa2 4 ·s (Finneran et al. 2003). However, initial evidence from more prolonged (non-pulse) 

5 exposures suggested that some pinnipeds (harbor seals in particular) incur TTS at somewhat lower 

6 received levels than do small odontocetes exposed for similar durations (Kastak et al. 1999, 2005; Ketten 

7 et al. 2001). Kastak et al. (2005) reported that the amount of threshold shift increased with increasing SEL 

8 in a California sea lion and harbor seal. They noted that, for non-impulse sound, doubling the exposure 

9 duration from 25 to 50 min (i.e., a +3 dB change in SEL) had a greater effect on TTS than an increase of 

10 15 dB (95 vs. 80 dB) in exposure level. Mean threshold shifts ranged from 2.9–12.2 dB, with full 

11 recovery within 24 hr (Kastak et al. 2005). Kastak et al. (2005) suggested that, for non-impulse sound, 

SELs resulting in TTS onset in three species of pinnipeds may range from 183 to 206 dB re 1 μPa2 12 ·s, 

13 depending on the absolute hearing sensitivity. 

14 As noted above for odontocetes, it is expected that—for impulse as opposed to non-impulse sound—the 

15 onset of TTS would occur at a lower cumulative SEL given the assumed greater auditory effect of 

16 broadband impulses with rapid rise times. The threshold for onset of mild TTS upon exposure of a harbor 

seal to impulse sounds has been estimated indirectly as being an SEL of ~171 dB re 1 μPa2 17 · s (Southall et 

18 al. 2007). That would be approximately equivalent to a single pulse with received level ~181–186 dB re 

19 1 μParms, or a series of pulses for which the highest rms values are a few dB lower.

20 At least for non-impulse sounds, TTS onset occurs at appreciably higher received levels in California sea 

21 lions and northern elephant seals than in harbor seals (Kastak et al. 2005). Thus, the former two species 

22 would presumably need to be closer to an airgun array than would a harbor seal before TTS is a 

23 possibility. Insofar as we are aware, there are no data to indicate whether the TTS thresholds of other 

24 pinniped species are more similar to those of the harbor seal or to those of the two less-sensitive species. 

25 Sea Otter and Sirenians.―There are no available data on TTS in sea otters. However, TTS is unlikely to 

26 occur in sea otters if they are on the water surface, given the pressure release and Lloyd’s mirror effects at 

27 the water’s surface. Furthermore, sea otters tend to inhabit shallow coastal habitats where large seismic 

28 survey vessels towing large spreads of streamers may be unable to operate. TTS is also considered 

29 unlikely to occur in sirenians as a result of exposure to sounds from a seismic survey. They, like sea 

30 otters, tend to inhabit shallow coastal habitats and rarely range far from shore, whereas seismic survey 

31 vessels towing large arrays of airguns and (usually) even larger arrays of streamers normally must remain 

32 farther offshore because of equipment clearance and maneuverability limitations. Exposures of sea otters 

33 and sirenians to seismic surveys are more likely to involve smaller seismic sources that can be used in 

34 shallow and confined waters. The impacts of these are inherently less than would occur from a larger 

35 source of the types often used farther offshore.

36 Likelihood of Incurring TTS.—Most cetaceans show some degree of avoidance of seismic vessels operating 

37 an airgun array (see above). It is unlikely that these cetaceans would be exposed to airgun pulses at a 

38 sufficiently high level for a sufficiently long period to cause more than mild TTS, given the relative 

39 movement of the vessel and the marine mammal. TTS would be more likely in any odontocetes that bow- or 

40 wake-ride or otherwise linger near the airguns. However, while bow- or wake-riding, odontocetes would be 

41 at the surface and thus not exposed to strong sound pulses given the pressure-release and Lloyd Mirror 

42 effects at the surface. But if bow- or wake-riding animals were to dive intermittently near airguns, they 

43 would be exposed to strong sound pulses, possibly repeatedly. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-28 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 If some cetaceans did incur mild or moderate TTS through exposure to airgun sounds in this manner, this 

2 would very likely be a temporary and reversible phenomenon. However, even a temporary reduction in 

3 hearing sensitivity could be deleterious in the event that, during that period of reduced sensitivity, a marine 

4 mammal needed its full hearing sensitivity to detect approaching predators, or for some other reason.

5 Some pinnipeds show avoidance reactions to airguns, but their avoidance reactions are generally not as 

6 strong or consistent as those of cetaceans. Pinnipeds occasionally seem to be attracted to operating 

7 seismic vessels. There are no specific data on TTS thresholds of pinnipeds exposed to single or multiple 

8 low-frequency pulses. However, given the indirect indications of a lower TTS threshold for the harbor 

9 seal than for odontocetes exposed to impulse sound (see above), it is possible that some pinnipeds close to 

10 a large airgun array could incur TTS. 

11 NMFS (1995, 2000) concluded that cetaceans should not be exposed to pulsed underwater noise at 

12 received levels >180 dB re 1 μParms. The corresponding limit for pinnipeds has been set by NMFS at 190 

13 dB, although the HESS Team (HESS 1999) recommended a 180-dB limit for pinnipeds in California. The 

14 180 and 190 dB re 1 μParms levels have not been considered to be the levels above which TTS might occur. 

15 Rather, they were the received levels above which, in the view of a panel of bioacoustics specialists convened 

16 by NMFS before TTS measurements for marine mammals started to become available, one could not be 

17 certain that there would be no injurious effects, auditory or otherwise, to marine mammals. As summarized 

18 above, data that are now available imply that TTS is unlikely to occur in various odontocetes (and probably 

19 mysticetes as well) unless they are exposed to a sequence of several airgun pulses stronger than 190 dB re 

20 1 μParms. On the other hand, for the harbor seal, harbor porpoise, and perhaps some other species, TTS may 

21 occur upon exposure to one or more airgun pulses whose received level equals the NMFS “do not exceed” 

value of 190 dB re 1 μParms. That criterion corresponds to a single-pulse SEL of 175–180 dB re 1 μPa2 22 ·s in 

23 typical conditions, whereas TTS is suspected to be possible in harbor seals and harbor porpoises with a 

cumulative SEL of ~171 and ~164 dB re 1 μPa2 24 · s, respectively.

25 It has been shown that most large whales and many smaller odontocetes (especially the harbor porpoise) show 

26 at least localized avoidance of ships and/or associated seismic operations (see above). Even when avoidance is 

27 limited to the area within a few hundred meters of an airgun array, that should usually be sufficient to avoid 

28 TTS based on what is currently known about thresholds for TTS onset in cetaceans. In addition, ramping up 

29 airgun arrays, which is standard operational protocol for many seismic operators, should allow cetaceans near 

30 the airguns at the time of startup (if the sounds are aversive) to move away from the seismic source and to 

31 avoid being exposed to the full acoustic output of the airgun array (see above). Thus, most baleen whales likely 

32 will not be exposed to high levels of airgun sounds provided the ramp-up procedure is applied. Likewise, many 

33 odontocetes close to the trackline are likely to move away before the sounds from an approaching seismic 

34 vessel become sufficiently strong for there to be any potential for TTS or other hearing impairment. Therefore, 

35 there is little potential for baleen whales or odontocetes that show avoidance of ships or airguns to be close 

36 enough to an airgun array to experience TTS. In the event that a few individual cetaceans did incur TTS 

37 through exposure to strong airgun sounds, this is a temporary and reversible phenomenon unless the exposure 

38 exceeds the TTS-onset threshold by a sufficient amount for PTS to be incurred (see below). If TTS but not 

39 PTS were incurred, it would most likely be mild, in which case recovery is expected to be quick (probably 

40 within minutes). 

41 Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)

42 When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear. In some cases, there can be 

43 total or partial deafness, whereas in other cases, the animal has an impaired ability to hear sounds in 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-29

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 specific frequency ranges (Kryter 1985). Physical damage to a mammal’s hearing apparatus can occur if it 

2 is exposed to sound impulses that have very high peak pressures, especially if they have very short rise 

3 times (rise time is the interval required for sound pressure to increase from the baseline pressure to peak 

4 pressure). 

5 There is no specific evidence that exposure to pulses of airgun sound can cause PTS in any marine 

6 mammal, even with large arrays of airguns. However, given the likelihood that some mammals close to an 

7 airgun array might incur at least mild TTS (see above), there has been further speculation about the 

8 possibility that some individuals occurring very close to airguns might incur PTS (e.g., Richardson et al. 

9 1995:372ff; Gedamke et al. 2008). Single or occasional occurrences of mild TTS are not indicative of 

10 permanent auditory damage, but repeated or (in some cases) single exposures to a level well above that 

11 causing TTS onset might elicit PTS.

12 Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals, but are 

13 assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals (Southall et al. 2007). Based on 

14 data from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary assumption is that the PTS threshold for impulse sounds 

15 (such as airgun pulses as received close to the source) is at least 6 dB higher than the TTS threshold on a 

16 peak-pressure basis, and probably >6 dB higher (Southall et al. 2007). The low-to-moderate levels of TTS 

17 that have been induced in captive odontocetes and pinnipeds during controlled studies of TTS have been 

18 confirmed to be temporary, with no measurable residual PTS (Kastak et al. 1999; Schlundt et al. 2000; 

19 Finneran et al. 2002, 2005; Nachtigall et al. 2003, 2004). However, very prolonged exposure to sound 

20 strong enough to elicit TTS, or shorter-term exposure to sound levels well above the TTS threshold, can 

21 cause PTS, at least in terrestrial mammals (Kryter 1985). In terrestrial mammals, the received sound level 

22 from a single non-impulsive sound exposure must be far above the TTS threshold for any risk of 

23 permanent hearing damage (Kryter 1994; Richardson et al. 1995; Southall et al. 2007). However, there is 

24 special concern about strong sounds whose pulses have very rapid rise times. In terrestrial mammals, there 

25 are situations when pulses with rapid rise times (e.g., from explosions) can result in PTS even though their 

26 peak levels are only a few dB higher than the level causing slight TTS. The rise time of airgun pulses is fast, 

27 but not as fast as that of an explosion.

28 Some factors that contribute to onset of PTS, at least in terrestrial mammals, are as follows:

29 • exposure to single very intense sound,

30 • fast rise time from baseline to peak pressure,

31 • repetitive exposure to intense sounds that individually cause TTS but not PTS, and 

32 • recurrent ear infections or (in captive animals) exposure to certain drugs.

33 Cavanagh (2000) reviewed the thresholds used to define TTS and PTS. Based on this review and 

34 SACLANT (1998), it is reasonable to assume that PTS might occur at a received sound level 20 dB or 

35 more above that inducing mild TTS. However, for PTS to occur at a received level only 20 dB above the 

36 TTS threshold, the animal probably would have to be exposed to a strong sound for an extended period, 

37 or to a strong sound with rather rapid rise time. 

38 More recently, Southall et al. (2007) estimated that received levels would need to exceed the TTS 

39 threshold by at least 15 dB, on an SEL basis, for there to be risk of PTS. Thus, for cetaceans exposed to a 

40 sequence of sound pulses, they estimate that the PTS threshold might be an M-weighted SEL (for the 

sequence of received pulses) of ~198 dB re 1 μPa2 41 ·s (15 dB higher than the Mmf-weighted TTS threshold

42 in a beluga, for a watergun impulse). Additional assumptions had to be made to derive a corresponding 

43 estimate for pinnipeds, as the only available data on TTS thresholds in pinnipeds pertained to non44 impulse sound (see above). Southall et al. (2007) estimated that the PTS threshold could be a cumulative 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-30 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

Mpw-weighted SEL of ~186 dB re 1 μPa2 1 ·s in the case of a harbor seal exposed to impulse sound. The 

2 PTS threshold for the California sea lion and northern elephant seal would probably be higher given the 

3 higher TTS thresholds in those species. Southall et al. (2007) also note that, regardless of the SEL, there 

4 is concern about the possibility of PTS if a cetacean or pinniped received one or more pulses with peak 

5 pressure exceeding 230 or 218 dB re 1 μPa, respectively. 

Thus, PTS might be expected upon exposure of cetaceans to either SEL ≥198 dB re 1 μPa 2 6 · s or peak 

7 pressure ≥230 dB re 1 μPa. Corresponding proposed dual criteria for pinnipeds (at least harbor seals) are 

8 ≥186 dB SEL and ≥ 218 dB peak pressure (Southall et al. 2007). These estimates are all first 

9 approximations, given the limited underlying data, assumptions, species differences, and evidence that the 

10 “equal energy” model is not be entirely correct.

11 Sound impulse duration, peak amplitude, rise time, number of pulses, and inter-pulse interval are the main 

12 factors thought to determine the onset and extent of PTS. Ketten (1994) has noted that the criteria for 

13 differentiating the sound pressure levels that result in PTS (or TTS) are location and species-specific. PTS 

14 effects may also be influenced strongly by the health of the receiver’s ear. 

15 As described above for TTS, in estimating the amount of sound energy required to elicit the onset of TTS 

16 (and PTS), it is assumed that the auditory effect of a given cumulative SEL from a series of pulses is the 

17 same as if that amount of sound energy were received as a single strong sound. There are no data from 

18 marine mammals concerning the occurrence or magnitude of a potential partial recovery effect between 

19 pulses. In deriving the estimates of PTS (and TTS) thresholds quoted here, Southall et al. (2007) made the 

20 precautionary assumption that no recovery would occur between pulses.

21 The TTS section (above) concludes that exposure to several strong seismic pulses that each have flatweighted received levels near 190 dB re 1 μParms (175–180 dB re 1 μPa2 22 ·s SEL) could result in

23 cumulative exposure of ~186 dB SEL (flat-weighted) or ~183 dB SEL (Mmf-weighted), and thus slight 

24 TTS in a small odontocete. Allowing for the assumed 15 dB offset between PTS and TTS thresholds, 

25 expressed on an SEL basis, exposure to several strong seismic pulses that each have flat-weighted 

26 received levels near 205 dBrms (190–195 dB SEL) could result in cumulative exposure of ~198 dB SEL 

27 (Mmf-weighted), and thus slight PTS in a small odontocete. However, the levels of successive pulses that 

28 will be received by a marine mammal that is below the surface as a seismic vessel approaches, passes and 

29 moves away will tend to increase gradually and then decrease gradually, with periodic decreases 

30 superimposed on this pattern when the animal comes to the surface to breathe. To estimate how close an 

31 odontocete’s CPA would have to be for the cumulative SEL to exceed 198 dB SEL (Mpa-weighted), one 

32 would (as a minimum) need to allow for the sequence of distances at which airgun shots would occur, and 

33 for the dependence of received SEL on distance in the region of the seismic operation (e.g., Erbe and 

34 King 2009). 

35 It is unlikely that an odontocete would remain close enough to a large airgun array for sufficiently long to 

36 incur PTS. There is some concern about bowriding odontocetes, but for animals at or near the surface, 

37 auditory effects are reduced by Lloyd’s mirror and surface release effects. The presence of the vessel 

38 between the airgun array and bow-riding odontocetes could also, in some but probably not all cases, 

39 reduce the levels received by bow-riding animals (e.g., Gabriele and Kipple 2009). The TTS (and thus 

40 PTS) thresholds of baleen whales are unknown but, as an interim measure, assumed to be no lower than 

41 those of odontocetes. Also, baleen whales generally avoid the immediate area around operating seismic 

42 vessels, so it is unlikely that a baleen whale could incur PTS from exposure to airgun pulses. The TTS 

43 (and thus PTS) thresholds of some pinnipeds (e.g., harbor seal) as well as the harbor porpoise may be 

44 lower (Kastak et al. 2005; Southall et al. 2007; Lucke et al. 2009). If so, TTS and potentially PTS may 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-31

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 extend to a somewhat greater distance for those animals. Again, Lloyd’s mirror and surface release effects 

2 will ameliorate the effects for animals at or near the surface.

3 Although it is unlikely that airgun operations during most seismic surveys would cause PTS in many 

4 marine mammals, caution is warranted given:

5 • the limited knowledge about noise-induced hearing damage in marine mammals, particularly 

6 baleen whales, pinnipeds, and sea otters;

7 • the seemingly greater susceptibility of certain species (e.g., harbor porpoise and harbor seal) to

8 TTS and presumably also PTS; and

9 • the lack of knowledge about TTS and PTS thresholds in many species, including various species

10 closely related to the harbor porpoise and harbor seal.

11 The avoidance reactions of many marine mammals, along with commonly-applied monitoring and 

12 mitigation measures (visual and passive acoustic monitoring, ramp ups, and power downs or shut downs 

13 when mammals are detected within or approaching the “safety radii”), would reduce the already-low 

14 probability of exposure of marine mammals to sounds strong enough to induce PTS.

15 Strandings and Mortality

16 Marine mammals close to underwater detonations of high explosives can be killed or severely injured, 

17 and the auditory organs are especially susceptible to injury (Ketten et al. 1993; Ketten 1995). However, 

18 explosives are no longer used in marine waters for NSF-funded or USGS seismic surveys; they have been 

19 replaced by airguns and other non-explosive sources. Airgun pulses are less energetic and have slower 

20 rise times, and there is no specific evidence that they can cause serious injury, death, or stranding even in 

21 the case of large airgun arrays. However, the association of mass strandings of beaked whales with naval 

22 exercises and, in one case, a seismic survey (Malakoff 2002; Cox et al. 2006), has raised the possibility 

23 that beaked whales exposed to strong “pulsed” sounds may be especially susceptible to injury and/or 

24 behavioral reactions that can lead to stranding (e.g., Hildebrand 2005; Southall et al. 2007). Hildebrand 

25 (2005) reviewed the association of cetacean strandings with high-intensity sound events and found that 

26 deep-diving odontocetes, primarily beaked whales, were by far the predominant (95%) cetaceans 

27 associated with these events, with 2% mysticete whales (minke). However, as summarized below, there is 

28 no definitive evidence that airguns can lead to injury, strandings, or mortality even for marine mammals 

29 in close proximity to large airgun arrays. 

30 Specific sound-related processes that lead to strandings and mortality are not well documented, but may 

31 include (1) swimming in avoidance of a sound into shallow water; (2) a change in behavior (such as a 

32 change in diving behavior that might contribute to tissue damage, gas bubble formation, hypoxia, cardiac 

33 arrhythmia, hypertensive hemorrhage or other forms of trauma; (3) a physiological change such as a 

34 vestibular response leading to a behavioral change or stress-induced hemorrhagic diathesis, leading in 

35 turn to tissue damage; and (4) tissue damage directly from sound exposure, such as through acoustically 

36 mediated bubble formation and growth or acoustic resonance of tissues. Some of these mechanisms are 

37 unlikely to apply in the case of impulsive sounds. However, there are increasing indications that gas38 bubble disease (analogous to “the bends”), induced in supersaturated tissue by a behavioral response to 

39 acoustic exposure, could be a pathologic mechanism for the strandings and mortality of some deep-diving 

40 cetaceans exposed to sonar. The evidence for this remains circumstantial and associated with exposure to 

41 naval MF sonar, not seismic surveys (Cox et al. 2006; Southall et al. 2007). 

42 Seismic pulses and MF sonar signals are quite different, and some mechanisms by which sonar sounds 

43 have been hypothesized to affect beaked whales are unlikely to apply to airgun pulses. Sounds produced 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-32 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 by airgun arrays are broadband impulses with most of the energy below 1 kHz. Typical military MF

2 sonars emit non-impulse sounds at frequencies of 2–10 kHz, generally with a relatively narrow bandwidth 

3 at any one time (though the frequency may change over time). Thus, it is not appropriate to assume that 

4 the effects of seismic surveys on beaked whales or other species would be the same as the apparent effects 

5 of military sonar. For example, resonance effects (Gentry 2002) and acoustically-mediated bubble-growth 

6 (Crum et al. 2005) are implausible in the case of exposure to broad-band airgun pulses. Nonetheless, 

7 evidence that sonar signals can, in special circumstances, lead (at least indirectly) to physical damage and 

8 mortality (e.g., Balcomb and Claridge 2001; NOAA and U.S. Navy 2001; Jepson et al. 2003; Fernández 

9 et al. 2004, 2005; Hildebrand 2005; Cox et al. 2006) suggests that caution is warranted when dealing with 

10 exposure of marine mammals to any high-intensity ‘pulsed’ sound. One of the hypothesized mechanisms 

11 by which naval sonars lead to strandings might, in theory, also apply to seismic surveys. If the strong 

12 sounds sometimes cause deep-diving species to alter their surfacing–dive cycles in a way that causes 

13 bubble formation in tissue, that hypothesized mechanism might apply to seismic surveys as well as MF

14 naval sonars. However, there is no specific evidence of this upon exposure to airgun pulses.

15 There is no conclusive evidence of cetacean strandings or deaths at sea as a result of exposure to seismic 

16 surveys, but a few cases of strandings in the general area where a seismic survey was ongoing have led to 

17 speculation concerning a possible link between seismic surveys and strandings. Suggestions that there 

18 was a link between seismic surveys and strandings of humpback whales in Brazil (Engel et al. 2004) were 

19 not well founded (IAGC 2004; IWC 2007). In September 2002, there was a stranding of two Cuvier’s 

20 beaked whales in the Gulf of California, Mexico, when the L-DEO seismic vessel R/V Ewing was 

operating a 20-airgun, 8,490-in3 21 airgun array in the general area. The evidence linking the stranding to the 

22 seismic survey was inconclusive and not based on any physical evidence (Hogarth 2002; Yoder 2002). 

23 The ship was also operating its MBES at the same time, but this had much less potential than the 

24 aforementioned naval sonars to affect beaked whales, given its downward-directed beams, much shorter 

25 pulse durations, and lower duty cycle. Nonetheless, the Gulf of California incident plus the beaked whale 

26 strandings near naval exercises involving use of MF sonar suggest a need for caution in conducting 

27 seismic surveys in areas occupied by beaked whales until more is known about effects of seismic surveys 

28 on those species (Hildebrand 2005).

29 Non-Auditory Physiological Effects

30 Based on evidence from terrestrial mammals and humans, sound is also a potential source of stress

31 (Wright and Kuczaj 2007; Wright et al. 2007a, b, 2009). However, almost no information is available on 

32 the effect of sound-induced stress in marine mammals or on its potential (alone or in combination with 

33 other stressors) to affect the long-term well-being or reproductive success of marine mammals (Fair and 

34 Becker 2000; Hildebrand 2005; Wright et al. 2007a, b). Such long-term effects, if they occur, would be 

35 mainly associated with chronic noise exposure, which is characteristic of some seismic surveys and 

36 exposure situations (McCauley et al. 2000a:62ff; Nieukirk et al. 2009) but not of some others. 

37 Available data on potential stress-related impacts of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals are

38 extremely limited, and additional research on this topic is needed. We know of only two specific studies

39 of noise-induced stress in marine mammals. Romano et al. (2004) examined the effects of single 

40 underwater impulse sounds from a seismic water gun (source level up to 228 dB re 1 μPa ·mp–p) and 

41 single, short-duration pure tones (sound pressure level up to 201 dB re 1 μPa) on the nervous and immune 

42 systems of a beluga and a bottlenose dolphin. They found that neural-immune changes to noise exposure 

43 were minimal. Although levels of some stress-released substances (e.g., catecholamines) changed 

44 significantly with exposure to sound, levels returned to baseline after 24 hr. Thomas et al. (1990) found 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-33

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 no changes in blood levels of stress-related hormones during playbacks of recorded drilling noise to four 

2 captive beluga whales. Long-term effects were not measured, and no short-term effects were detected. For 

3 both studies, caution is necessary when extrapolating these results to wild animals and to real-world 

4 situations given the small sample sizes, use of captive animals, and other technical limitations of the two 

5 studies.

6 Aside from stress, other types of physiological effects that might, in theory, be involved in beaked whale 

7 strandings upon exposure to naval sonar (Cox et al. 2006), such as resonance and gas bubble formation, 

8 have not been demonstrated and are not expected upon exposure to airgun pulses (see preceding 

9 subsection). If seismic surveys disrupt diving patterns of deep-diving species, this might perhaps result in 

10 bubble formation and a form of “the bends”, as speculated to occur in beaked whales exposed to sonar. 

11 However, there is no specific evidence that exposure to airgun pulses has this effect. 

12 In summary, very little is known about the potential for seismic survey sounds (or other types of strong 

13 underwater sounds) to cause non-auditory physiological effects in marine mammals. Such effects, if they 

14 occur at all, would presumably be limited to short distances and to activities that extend over a prolonged 

15 period. The available data do not allow identification of a specific exposure level above which non16 auditory effects can be expected (Southall et al. 2007), or any meaningful quantitative predictions of the 

17 numbers (if any) of marine mammals that might be affected in these ways. 

18 E.4 SONAR PULSES

19 The following subsections review relevant information on the potential effects of sonar sounds on marine 

20 mammals. Discussion focuses on the types of sonar systems operated during some marine seismic 

21 surveys, including MBESs, SBPs, ACPs, fathometers, and pingers. These systems are used to obtain 

22 information on (and map) water depths, bottom topography, and sub-bottom composition and 

23 stratigraphy; to monitor ocean currents; to track fish and concentrations of invertebrates; to locate and 

24 track hydrophone streamers and coring gear; and for other purposes. Relatively few studies have been 

25 conducted on the effects of these and other types of sonar systems on marine mammals. Given this, the 

26 present section also summarizes relevant data on the effects of other types of sonars similar to those used 

27 during some seismic surveys. 

28 E.4.1 Characteristics of Sonar Pulses

29 Sonar is an acronym for sound navigation and ranging. Sonar is a technique that uses sound to determine 

30 water depth below a vessel and/or to detect and determine the position of underwater objects such as fish, 

31 geological features on the seafloor, mines, or underwater vessels.

32 Two broad categories of sonar are in use: passive and active sonar. Passive sonar involves listening to 

33 sounds created by other sources, but does not include the purposeful emission of sound. Active sonar 

34 involves emission of sounds with characteristics optimized for the specific purpose of that sonar. This 

35 section focuses on the available information concerning effects of active sonar on marine mammals.

36 Active sonar systems emit sound, some of which is reflected back if it strikes an object. Because the 

37 speed of sound in water is relatively constant, the distance to the object can be calculated by measuring 

38 the time between the transmission of the signal and the receipt of the reflected echo. Experienced sonar 

39 technicians often can tell the difference between echoes produced by a submarine, rocky outcrop, school 

40 of fish, or whale. Active sonars are in use throughout the world on private, commercial, research, and 

41 military vessels.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-34 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Because active sonars produce sound, they have the potential to impact the marine environment. This 

2 potential is a function of the output power, beamwidth, duty cycle of the device, the frequency of the 

3 sound, and the sound transmission characteristics of the marine environment. (Duty cycle refers to the 

4 percentage of the time when the source is emitting sound.) The potential for impact on an animal also 

5 depends on the animal’s distance, position relative to the sonar beam, and the received sound level as well 

6 as the animal’s auditory and behavioral sensitivity. 

7 The auditory effects of sonar depend on whether the emitted sounds are impulsive or non-impulsive. 

8 Impulsive sounds involve very rapid increases in pressure (rapid rise time) and are broadband. Most sonar 

9 pulses are considered non-impulsive, in part because they are often narrowband (reviewed in Southall et 

10 al. 2007). In general, any sound that is a tone (rather than broadband), even if it is called a “tone pulse”, is 

11 in the non-impulse category (see Southall et al. 2007). Examples of non-impulse sounds include military 

12 low-frequency active (LFA) sonar and tactical MF sonar, many acoustic harassment/deterrent devices, 

13 acoustic tomography sources (ATOC), and some signals from depth sounders. Examples of single or 

14 multiple impulse sounds include those from seismic airguns, some depth sounders and pingers, pile 

15 strikes, and explosions (Southall et al. 2007). 

16 The characteristics of an active sonar system depend on the purpose of the system. A system that is 

17 required to detect objects at great distances necessitates a higher output strength (and lower frequency) 

18 than sonar systems designed to detect nearby objects. One way of classifying active sonars is by 

19 frequency (i.e., high, medium or mid-, and low). Herein, high frequency is >10 kHz, medium frequency is 

20 1–10 kHz, and low frequency is <1 kHz. .

21 High-frequency (HF) Sonar (>10 kHz)

22 These sonars provide excellent resolution for locating small objects such as fish, zooplankton, and mines, 

23 and for mapping the sea-bed. Higher frequency sounds attenuate more rapidly in seawater than do lower 

24 frequency sounds. Hence, HF sonar systems are most practical for use in shallow water or over short 

25 distances. Side-scan sonars are among the most commonly used HF sonars available; they are used for 

26 object detection and sea-bed mapping. Side-scan sonars typically operate with a narrow along-track 

27 beamwidth (0.75–1.5o), a moderately broad vertical beamwidth (5–10o), and an operating frequency of 

28 ≥100 kHz. The range over which targets can be resolved is usually <1.6 km at the higher frequencies, and 

29 as much as 10 km at the lower-frequency end of the HF band. Forward-looking sonars are used for 

30 obstacle detection and avoidance, and are useful for fish-finding and area surveillance. These sonars may 

31 be pulsed or use continuous-transmission frequency modulation. Downward-looking HF sonars 

32 (consisting either of a single beam or a multibeam array) may also be used for bottom mapping, fish33 finding, estimation of zooplankton biomass, or depth-sounding in shallow to intermediate water depths. 

34 MBESs, in which downward-pointing beams are directed vertically below and to the side of a ship, are 

35 commonly used to map the bottom contours. MBES systems have beams that are narrow in the foreaft 

36 direction and broader in directions perpendicular to the trackline. MBES systems designed for use in deep 

37 water operate in the lower-frequency portion of the HF band (e.g., 10–15.5 kHz) whereas MBESs 

38 designed for shallower areas may operate at higher frequencies. 

39 Mid-frequency (MF) Sonar (1-10 kHz)

40 MF tactical sonars are used on naval vessels around the world and typically have a relatively narrow 

41 bandwidth at any one time (though the center frequency may change over time). Compared to HF 

42 systems, MF sonars have an extended detection range because of the decreased absorption of MF sound 

43 in seawater. However, they require a larger transducer array to achieve the same beamwidth. These 

44 systems may have a range of 10 to >100 km. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-35

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Low-frequency (LF) Sonar (<1 kHz)

2 The negligible attenuation of LF sound in seawater permits detection of objects at very long ranges 

3 (hundreds of kilometers), but this requires a high source level and a large array of transmitter elements. 

4 The U.S. Navy’s Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) 

5 sonar is an example of a LF sonar system (100–500 Hz). 

6 The “marine vibrator” is a seismic source that has been tested as a possible substitute for airguns. It can 

7 generate modulated low frequency sound at approximately 10–250 Hz. As a modulated source, the signal 

8 is emitted over several seconds, thereby decreasing instantaneous peak pressure but increasing the duty 

9 cycle compared to airguns. Through use of an array of sources, much of the energy is directed downward 

10 toward the seafloor. 

11 E.4.2 Sonars Used during Marine Seismic Surveys

12 During marine seismic surveys with airguns as the primary acoustic source, one or more sonar systems 

13 usually operate simultaneously with the airguns, and sometimes while the airguns are not operating. 

14 An MBES is commonly used during academic seismic surveys (and other oceanographic projects) to map 

15 characteristics of the ocean bottom. The MBES emits brief pulses of MF or HF sound in a fan-shaped 

16 beam that extends downward and to the sides of the ship, with a narrow beamwidth in the forward and aft 

17 directions. During seismic operations in deep water (>1000 m), an MBES usually operates at a frequency 

18 of 10–15 kHz, but for projects limited to shallow water (<100 m), a higher frequency MBES is often 

19 used. For example, the MBES used during seismic surveys from the R/V Langseth is the Simrad EM120. 

20 It operates at a frequency of 11.25–12.6 kHz and a maximum source level of 242 dB re 1 μPa · m (rms). 

21 The beam is fan-shaped, narrow (1o) in the fore-aft extent, and wide (150o) in the cross-track direction. In 

22 deep water, each ping consists of nine successive transmissions, each 15 ms in duration with 16 ms gaps 

23 between pulses. In shallow water, the pulse duration is reduced to 2 ms, and the number of beams is 

24 reduced. 

25 An SBP operates at mid- to high frequencies and is generally used simultaneously with an MBES to 

26 provide information about the sedimentary features and bottom topography. SBP pulses are directed 

27 downward at typical frequencies of ~3–18 kHz. For example, the SBP used aboard the R/V Langseth uses 

28 seven beams simultaneously, with a beam spacing of ≤15° and a fan width of ≤30°. Pulse duration is 0.4 –

29 100 ms at intervals of 1 s; a common mode of operation is to broadcast five pulses at 1-s intervals 

30 followed by a 5-s pause. The source level of the R/V Langseth’s SBP is 230 dB re 1 μPa · m. Other 

31 vessels use alternative SBP systems that may have a single downward-directed beam and pulsed signals 

32 differing in details from those described above, but generally within the 3–18 kHz band.

33 Some seismic research vessels also use an ACP to determine the speed, direction, depth, and dimension of 

34 water currents. The ACP transmits HF pings of sound into the water, generally at frequencies of 150–

35 1200 kHz.

36 Pingers are typically used on airgun arrays, hydrophone streamers, coring equipment, OBS/OBH gear, 

37 and other instruments such as cameras to locate and track positions of these devices. Pingers typically 

38 operate at high frequencies. For example, pingers deployed from the R/V Langseth operate at 55–110 kHz 

39 and have a peak output of 183 dB re 1 μPa · m, with a maximum rate of 3 pings per 10 s per pinger; the 

40 transducers are powered by NiCad batteries. In addition, a 12-kHz pinger may be used during seismic 

41 survey cruises if ancillary bottom coring operations are done. The pinger is used to monitor the depth of 

42 the corer relative to the sea floor. It is a battery-powered acoustic beacon that is attached to the coring 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-36 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 mechanism. This pinger has a source output of ~192 dB re 1 μPa · m with one pulse of 0.5, 2, or 10 ms 

2 duration per second. 

3 E.4.3 Masking by Sonar

4 Specific information is lacking on masking of sounds relevant to marine mammals by the types of sonars 

5 operated during marine seismic surveys. However, little masking is expected given the pulsed nature and 

6 low duty cycles of these sonar sounds and (for the MBES and SBP) the fact that the emitted sounds are 

7 limited to certain directions (beams).

8 E.4.4 Disturbance by Sonar

9 Most studies on the disturbance of marine mammals during seismic surveys have focused on the effects of 

10 sound from airguns and similar low-frequency sources, and have not been designed to address effects of 

11 sound from simultaneously-operating sonar systems. During a recent NSF-funded low-energy seismic 

12 survey from the R/V Thompson, the 30 kHz EM300 MBES operated most of the time, and many cetaceans 

13 and a small number of pinnipeds were seen by MMVOs aboard the ship (Ireland et al. 2005). Similarly, 

14 during most seismic operations by L-DEO’s previous seismic research ship, the R/V Ewing, a 15.5 kHz 

15 MBES (and frequently also a 3.5-kHz sub-bottom profiler) were operated simultaneously, and numerous 

16 mysticetes, odontocetes, and pinnipeds were seen (and/or detected acoustically) from the ship at various 

17 times. Although the potential effects of these sonars could not be assessed given the simultaneous operation 

18 of one or more sonars plus airguns during most periods, results suggest that marine mammals often appear 

19 to tolerate the presence of these sources when they were operating within several kilometers, and sometimes 

20 within a few hundred meters. Given the directional nature of the sounds from these sonars, only a fraction of 

21 the marine mammals seen by observers were likely to have been within the beams before or during the time 

22 of the sightings. Many of these mammals probably were not exposed to the sonar sounds despite the 

23 proximity of the ship.

24 A small number of studies have more specifically assessed the behavioral effects of sonar sounds 

25 somewhat similar to those used during marine seismic surveys on some marine mammal species. The 

26 limited available information indicates that reactions vary by species and circumstance, as described below. 

27 Baleen Whales

28 Humpback whales wintering in Hawaii moved away upon exposure to 3.3 kHz sonar pulses, and increased 

29 their swimming speeds and track linearity in response to 3.1- to 3.6-kHz sonar sweeps (Maybaum 1990, 

30 1993). Humpbacks in Hawaii showed some changes in their songs and swimming patterns upon exposure to 

31 LFA sonar transmissions (Miller et al. 2000; Clark et al. 2001), but those prolonged low-frequency sounds 

32 are quite unlike the sonar signals emitted during seismic surveys. Frankel (2005) reported that migrating 

33 gray whales reacted to a 21–25 kHz “whale-finding” sonar (source level of 215 dB re 1 μPa · m) by 

34 orienting slightly away from the source and being deflected from their course by ~200 m. These 

35 responses were not obvious in the field and were only determined later during data analysis. In 1998–

36 2000, a study in the ETP assessed the reactions of marine mammals to a 38-kHz echosounder and a 150-

37 kHz ACP. Results indicated that mysticetes showed no significant responses when the echosounder and 

38 ACP were transmitting (Gerrodette and Pettis 2005). 

39 Whaling catcher boats reported that baleen whales showed strong avoidance of echosounders that were

40 sometimes used to track baleen whales underwater (Ash 1962; Richardson et al. 1995). “Ultrasonic” pulses 

41 emitted by “whale scarers” during whaling operations tended to scare baleen whales to the surface (Reeves 

42 1992; Richardson et al. 1995). No reactions were noted by right, humpback, and fin whales to pingers and 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-37

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 sonars at and above 36 kHz, although these species often reacted to sounds at frequencies of 15 Hz to 28 

2 kHz (Watkins 1986). 

3 Toothed Whales

4 Little is known about reactions of odontocetes to underwater noise pulses, including sonar. Available data 

5 on responses to sonar are limited to a small number of species and conditions, including studies of captive 

6 animals. Most available data on odontocete responses to sonar are associated with beaked whales and 

7 high-intensity MF military sonars that are not comparable to the smaller and generally down- and/or 

8 laterally-directed echosounders, or the much weaker pingers, used during some marine seismic surveys. 

9 Behavioral reactions of free-ranging odontocetes to echosounders such as MBES and SBP, and to ACP 

10 and pingers, appear to vary by species and circumstance. Various dolphin and porpoise species have been 

11 seen bowriding while the MBES, SBP, and airguns were operating during NSF-sponsored L-DEO seismic 

12 surveys (Smultea et al. 2004; Holst et al. 2004a, b; MacLean and Koski 2005). Gerrodette and Pettis 

13 (2005) assessed odontocete reactions to an echosounder and an ACP operated from oceanographic vessels 

14 in the ETP. Results indicated that when the echosounder and ACP were on, spotted and spinner dolphins 

15 were detected slightly more often and beaked whales less often during visual surveys (Gerrodette and 

16 Pettis 2005). Commercial whalers were judicious in their use of sonar when following sperm whales 

17 because it tended to make them scatter (Richardson et al. 1995). In response to 6–13 kHz pingers, some 

18 sperm whales stopped emitting pulses (Watkins and Schevill 1975). In contrast, sperm whales usually 

19 continued calling and did not appear to otherwise react to continual pulsing from echosounders, e.g., at 

20 12 kHz (Backus and Schevill 1966; Watkins 1977). 

21 Behavior of captive bottlenose dolphins in an open-sea enclosure appeared to change in response to

22 sounds from a close and/or approaching marine geophysical survey vessel that was conducting seismic 

23 and bathymetric studies in the Red Sea (van der Woude 2007). The sonar sounds included a 1-kHz 

24 sparker, 375-kHz sidescan sonar, 95-kHz MBES, and two 20–50 kHz singlebeam echosounders. It was 

25 not clear which specific source(s) may have induced the behavioral changes. Captive bottlenose dolphins 

26 and a beluga exhibited changes in behavior when exposed to 1-s to 8-s tonal signals at high received 

27 levels and frequencies similar to those emitted by the MBES, and to shorter broadband pulsed signals. 

28 Behavioral changes typically involved what appeared to be deliberate attempts to avoid the sound 

29 exposure (Schlundt et al. 2000; Finneran et al. 2002, 2005; Finneran and Schlundt 2004). The relevance 

30 of those data to free-ranging odontocetes is uncertain, and in any case, the test sounds were quite different 

31 in duration and total energy content as compared with those from a MBES.

32 There are increasing indications that beaked whales, particularly Cuvier’s beaked whales, sometimes 

33 strand when naval exercises, including operation of MF tactical sonars, are ongoing nearby (e.g., 

34 Simmonds and Lopez-Jurado 1991; Frantzis 1998; NOAA and U.S. Navy 2001). It has been hypothesized 

35 that these strandings may be related to behavioral reactions (e.g., changes in dive behavior) that indirectly 

36 result in physiological damage leading to stranding (Jepson et al. 2003; Cox et al. 2006; D’Spain et al. 

37 2006). MF tactical sonars used by naval vessels differ in important ways from the sonar systems used on 

38 research vessels. For example, the sonars on research vessels emit very brief pulses that are beamed 

39 downward, and individual mammals are unlikely to be in the beam for more than a brief period. Navy 

40 tactical sonars emit more prolonged signals that are often directed close to horizontal, and animals can be 

41 exposed repeatedly to these signals over an extended period. Also, cases of beaked whale strandings 

42 associated with navy operations usually involve more than one naval vessel operating in the same area. 

43 Research-vessel sonars are not expected to elicit the same types of reactions as navy tactical sonars.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-38 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Studies of reactions of odontocetes to underwater sounds other than sonar and seismic airguns have also 

2 been conducted and some of these may be of some relevance. Several studies indicate that underwater 

3 sounds from acoustic harassment devices and alarms displace some odontocetes. During a 15-year study 

4 of killer whales in Johnstone Strait and Broughton Archipelago, British Columbia, Canada, 

5 the occurrence of killer whales was significantly lower during a 7-year period when acoustic harassment 

6 devices (10 kHz at 194 dB re 1 μPa · m) were installed in the area; whales returned to baseline numbers 

7 when these sound sources were removed (Morton and Symonds 2002). Kraus et al. (1997) found acoustic 

8 alarms operating at 10 kHz with a source level of 132 dB re 1 μPa · m were an effective deterrent for 

9 harbor porpoises. Kastelein et al. (2008) subjected one harbor porpoise in a large floating pen to a 

10 continuous 50 kHz pure tone with a source level of 122 ± 3 dB re 1 μPa · m rms. The porpoise moved 

11 away from the sound at an estimated avoidance threshold of 108 ± 3 dB re 1 μPa rms and did not 

12 habituate to it despite 66 exposures. Other related studies, mainly on harbor porpoises, are summarized in 

13 Southall et al. (2007).

14 Pinnipeds

15 Very few data are available on the reactions of pinnipeds to sonar sounds at frequencies similar to those

16 used during marine seismic operations. Hastie and Janik (2007) conducted a series of behavioral response 

17 tests on two captive gray seals to determine their reactions to underwater operation of a HF (375 kHz) 

18 multibeam imaging sonar that included significant signal components down to 6 kHz. Results indicated 

19 that the two seals reacted to the sonar signal by significantly increasing their dive duration; no significant 

20 differences were found in swimming direction relative to the operating sonar. 

21 Fissipeds and Sirenians

22 We are not aware of any data on the reactions of sirenians and fissipeds to sonar sounds at frequencies 

23 similar to the MF and HF sounds produced during marine seismic operations. 

24 E.4.5 TTS and Sonar Pulses

25 A general introduction to TTS is provided in the seismic section of this appendix (see Section E.3.4), and 

26 Southall et al. (2007) review all available data on TTS in marine mammals. There has been no specific 

27 documentation of TTS in free-ranging marine mammals exposed to sonar pulses of the types used during 

28 marine seismic surveys. However, data on TTS in captive marine mammals exposed to various related 

29 sounds provide some basis for estimating the circumstances in which TTS might occur in free-ranging 

30 cetaceans and pinnipeds. In general, studies indicate that TTS thresholds are higher for non-impulse 

31 sounds (such as most sonars) than for impulsive sounds (Southall et al. 2007). The following sections 

32 summarize the limited relevant information available on this topic.

33 Baleen Whales

34 For mysticetes, there are no data, direct or indirect, on levels or properties of sound that are required to 

35 induce TTS from active sonar of any type. In general, auditory thresholds of mysticetes within their 

36 frequency band of best hearing are believed to be higher (less sensitive) than are those of odontocetes at 

37 their best frequencies (Clark and Ellison 2004). If so, their TTS thresholds may also be higher (Southall et 

38 al. 2007). 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-39

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Toothed Whales

2 The TTS threshold for the beluga whale and bottlenose dolphin has been measured in captivity to be ~195 

dB re 1 μPa2 3 · s for exposure to a single non-impulsive tonal sound (Schlundt et al. 2000; Finneran et al. 

4 2005; reviewed in Southall et al. 2007). 

5 Kremser et al. (2005) and other authors have noted that the probability of a cetacean swimming through 

6 the area of exposure when an MBES emits a pulse is small. The animal would have to pass the transducer 

7 at close range and be swimming at a speed and direction similar to the vessel in order to be subjected to 

8 repeated pulses and cumulative sound energy levels that could cause TTS (Kremser et al. 2005). For 

9 example, given the maximum source level of 242 dB re 1 μPa · m (rms) for the R/V Langseth’s MBES, 

10 the received level for an animal within the sonar beam 100 m below the ship would be about 202 dB re 1 

11 μPa (rms), assuming 40 dB of spreading loss. Given the MBES’ narrow beam, only one pulse is likely to 

12 be received by a given animal as the ship passes overhead. The received energy level at 100 m range from 

a single pulse of duration 15 ms would be about 184 dB re 1 μPa2 13 ·s, i.e., 202 dB + 10 log (0.015 s). That 

is below the TTS threshold for cetaceans receiving a non-impulse sound (195 dB re 1 μPa2 14 ·s). The 

corresponding received energy level at 10 m range would be <204 dB re 1 μPa2 15 ·s, given that a location 

16 10 m below the MBES transducers would be in the near field of this distributed source. An odontocete in 

17 the beam at that distance might incur some TTS (which would be fully recoverable).

18 Pinnipeds

19 TTS thresholds for sounds of the types produced by MBES, SBP, ACP and pingers have not been 

20 measured in pinnipeds. However, studies of TTS onset upon exposure to prolonged non-impulse sounds 

21 have been done in the harbor seal, California sea lion, and northern elephant seal (Kastak et al. 2005; 

22 Southall et al. 2007). Those studies suggest that some pinnipeds, e.g., the harbor seal, may incur TTS at 

23 somewhat lower received energy levels than do small odontocetes exposed for similar durations (Kastak 

24 et al. 1999, 2005; Ketten et al. 2001; Southall et al. 2007). In the harbor seal, the TTS threshold for nonimpulse sounds is about 183 dB re 1 μPa2 ·s, as compared with ~195 dB re 1 μPa2 25 ·s in odontocetes 

26 (Kastak et al. 2005; Southall et al. 2007). TTS onset occurs at higher received energy levels in the 

27 California sea lion and northern elephant seal than in the harbor seal.

28 A harbor seal as much as 100 m below the Langseth could receive a single MBES pulse with received 

energy level of ≥184 dB re 1 μPa2 29 ·s (as calculated in the toothed whale subsection above) and thus could 

30 incur slight TTS. Species of pinnipeds with higher TTS thresholds would not incur TTS unless they were 

31 closer to the transducers when a sonar ping was emitted. Given the intermittent nature of the sonar signals 

32 and the narrow MBES beam, only a small fraction of the pinnipeds below (and close to) the ship would 

33 receive a pulse as the ship passed overhead.

34 Fissipeds and Sirenians

35 There are no published data on TTS in sea otters, polar bears, or sirenians. 

36 E.4.6 PTS and Sonar Pulses

37 There are no direct measurements of the sound exposure necessary to cause PTS in any marine mammal 

38 exposed to any type of sound. However, the general principles are assumed to be similar to those in 

39 humans and other terrestrial mammals (see Southall et al. 2007 and the seismic section above). The low40 to-moderate levels of TTS that have been induced in captive odontocetes during controlled studies have 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-40 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 shown no measurable residual PTS (Schlundt et al. 2000; Finneran et al. 2002; Nachtigall et al. 2003, 

2 2004).

3 For non-impulsive sonar sounds, the PTS threshold is expected to be at least 20 dB higher, on a received 

4 energy basis, than is the TTS threshold (Southall et al. 2007). The PTS thresholds in cetaceans and 

pinnipeds are estimated to be ≥215 and ≥203 dB re 1 μPa 2 5 ·s, respectively (Southall et al. 2007). 

6 Burkhardt et al. (2008) performed a theoretical risk assessment that included evaluating the likelihood of 

7 PTS in cetaceans upon exposure to sounds from a multibeam echosounder (i.e., Hydrosweep), a 

8 parametric echosounder, and a multi-frequency Simrad EK60 echosounder (i.e., “fish finder”). Source 

9 levels were 230–245 dB re 1 μPa · m (rms). Burkhardt et al. (2008) based their analysis on the SEL and 

peak pressure criteria proposed by Southall et al. (2007) for impulsive sources (i.e., ≥198 dB re 1 μPa2 10 · s 

11 and ≥230 dB re 1 μPa peak). According to Southall et al. (2007), it would be appropriate to apply the 

criteria that they proposed for non-impulse sounds (i.e., 215 dB re 1 μPa2 12 · s and ≥230 dB re 1 μPa peak). 

13 Thus, Burkhardt et al.’s (2008) SEL-based conclusions are precautionary, but their conclusions based on 

14 peak pressure are consistent with Southall et al.’s (2007) recommendations. 

15 SEL: The maximum energy levels of the three sonars that they considered, at any point in the near field,

were 200–210 dB re 1 μPa2 16 · s (Burkhardt et al. 2008). For cetaceans, the non-impulse SEL criterion for 

17 PTS (215 dB SEL) would not be exceeded even for a cetacean immediately adjacent to the transducers

18 unless it remained there long enough to receive multiple pings. Burkhardt et al. (2008) did not address 

pinnipeds, but the non-impulse SEL criterion for PTS in pinnipeds (203 dB re 1 μPa2 19 · s) could be 

20 exceeded for a single ping received within a few meters of the transducers of the stronger sonars. 

21 Peak pressure: Southall et al. (2007) note that, regardless of the SEL that might elicit onset of PTS, there 

22 is also concern about the possibility of PTS if a cetacean or pinniped received sound signals containing an 

23 instantaneous peak pressure exceeding, respectively, 230 or 218 dB re 1 μPa (peak). Burkhardt et al. 

24 (2008) reported that the maximum peak pressures in the water near the three sonars that they considered 

25 were 223–233 dB re 1 μPapeak. Thus, a peak pressure ≥230 dB re 1 μPa would not occur beyond a few 

26 meters from their strongest source. However, a peak pressure of ≥218 dB re 1 μPa as relevant for 

27 pinnipeds could occur out to ~20 m from the strongest source. 

28 Some caution is recommended in drawing conclusions about PTS effects given the limited knowledge of 

29 TTS, PTS and their relationships, but available information suggests that scientific sonars could only 

30 cause direct auditory injury if a marine mammal were very near the source and in the beam when one or 

31 more pings were emitted. As noted by Burkhardt et al. (2008), cetaceans are very unlikely to incur PTS 

32 from operation of scientific sonars on a ship that is underway. The risk of PTS could be somewhat higher 

33 for certain pinnipeds if they were close to the transducers. PTS might be possible if a cetacean or (more 

34 likely) pinniped dove under the ship near the operating transducers while the vessel was on station and 

35 remained there long enough to receive multiple pings. 

36 E.4.7 Strandings and Mortality

37 There is no evidence that the operation of MBES, SBP, ACP, or pingers associated with seismic surveys 

38 induces strandings or mortality among marine mammals. However, there is evidence that MF tactical 

39 sonars on naval vessels can, directly or indirectly, result in strandings and mortality of some marine 

40 mammals, especially beaked whales. Detailed reviews of associations between MF navy sonar and 

41 cetacean strandings include Balcomb and Claridge (2001), NOAA and U.S. Navy (2001), Jepson et al. 

42 (2003), Fernández et al. (2004, 2005), Hildebrand (2005), Cox et al. (2006), and D’Spain et al. (2006). 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-41

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 The MBES and SBP (i.e., echosounders) used during typical seismic surveys are quite different from the 

2 high-intensity, MF tactical navy sonars associated primarily with beaked whales strandings. For example, 

3 pulse durations of the MBES (0.2 to 20 ms) and SBP (0.4–100 ms) used on the R/V Langseth are very 

4 short relative to naval sonars (at least a few hundred milliseconds, and sometimes longer). Thus, the 

5 sound energy received from an MBES and SBP would be substantially less than that received at a similar 

6 distance from a military tactical sonar. In addition, at any given location, an individual marine mammal 

7 would be in the beam of an MBES or SBP for much less time given the intermittent nature, narrow 

8 beamwidth, and generally downward orientation of the beam. (In contrast, Navy sonars often use near9 horizontally-directed sound.) Animals close to the ship (where the beam is narrowest and has relatively 

10 high received levels) are especially unlikely to be ensonified for more than one or two pulses from the 

11 moving vessel. Those factors would all reduce the sound energy received from an MBES or SBP rather 

12 drastically relative to that from the sonars used by the Navy. The source levels of an ACP and pingers 

13 often used during seismic surveys are weaker than those of an MBES or SBP.

14 Burkhardt et al.’s (2008) theoretical risk assessment included assessing the likelihood of behaviorally15 induced damage to beaked whales through use of sonars associated with marine scientific research. 

16 Results indicated that such immediate indirect injury is unlikely to occur during scientific applications 

17 based on available information used as input to the model. This assessment was based on the 

18 aforementioned fundamental hydroacoustic differences between the scientific echosounders versus the 

19 naval MF sonars associated with beaked whale strandings. 

20 As noted earlier, in September 2002, there was a stranding of two Cuvier’s beaked whales in the Gulf of 

21 California, Mexico, when a seismic survey by the R/V Ewing was underway in the general area (Malakoff 

22 2002). The evidence linking these strandings to the seismic surveys was inconclusive (see seismic section 

23 above). The ship was also operating its MBES at the same time but, as discussed elsewhere, this sonar 

24 had much less potential than the aforementioned naval sonars to affect beaked whales. 

25 E.5 LITERATURE CITED

26 Akamatsu, T., Y. Hatakeyama, and N. Takatsu. 1993. Effects of pulsed sounds on escape behavior of 

27 false killer whales. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 59:1297-1303.

28 Angliss R.P. and R.B. Outlaw. 2008. Alaska marine mammal stock assessments, 2007. NOAA Technical

29 Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-180. National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science 

30 Center, Seattle, WA. 

31 Anonymous. 1975. Phantom killer whales. South African Shipping News and Fishing Industry Review 

32 30(7):50-53.

33 Arnold, B.W. 1996. Visual monitoring of marine mammal activity during the Exxon 3-D seismic survey: 

34 Santa Ynez unit, offshore California 9 November to 12 December 1995. Prepared by Impact Sciences 

35 Inc., San Diego, CA, for Exxon Company, U.S.A., Thousand Oaks, CA. 

36 Ash, C. 1962. Whaler’s Eye. Macmillan, New York, NY. 

37 Au, W.W.L. 1993. The Sonar of Dolphins. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.

38 Au, W.W.L., A.N. Popper, and R.R. Fay. 2000. Hearing by Whales and Dolphins. Springer Handbook of 

39 Auditory Research Volume 12. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 

40 Au, W.W.L., A.A. Pack, M.O. Lammers, L.M. Herman, M.H. Deakos and K. Andrews. 2006. Acoustic 

41 properties of humpback whale songs. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 120:1103-1110.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-42 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Backus, R.H. and W.E. Schevill. 1966. Physeter clicks. Pages 510-528 in K.S. Norris, ed. Whales, 

2 dolphins, and porpoises. University of California Press, Berkeley. 

3 Bain, D.E. and R. Williams. 2006. Long-range effects of airgun noise on marine mammals: responses as 

4 a function of received sound level and distance. Paper SC/58/E35 presented to the IWC Scientific 

5 Committee, IWC Annual Meeting, 1-13 June, St. Kitts.

6 Baird, R.W. 2005. Sightings of dwarf (Kogia sima) and pygmy (K. breviceps) sperm whales from the 

7 main Hawaiian Islands. Pacific Science 59:461-466.

8 Baird, R.W., D.L. Webster, D.J. McSweeney, A.D. Ligon, G.S. Schorr, and J. Barlow. 2006. Diving 

9 behavior and ecology of Cuvier’s (Ziphius cavirostris) and Blainville’s (Mesoplodon densirostris) 

10 beaked whales in Hawaii. Canadian Journal of Zoology 84:1120-1128.

11 Balcomb, K.C., III and D.E. Claridge. 2001. A mass stranding of cetaceans caused by naval sonar in the 

12 Bahamas. Bahamas Journal of Science 8(2):2-12.

13 Barkaszi, M.J., D.M. Epperson, and B. Bennett. 2009. Six-year compilation of cetacean sighting data 

14 collected during commercial seismic survey mitigation observations throughout the Gulf of Mexico, 

USA. Pages 24-25 in Abstracts of the 18th 15 Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 

16 12-16 October 2009, Québec City, Canada.

17 Barlow, J. and R. Gisiner. 2006. Mitigating, monitoring and assessing the effects of anthropogenic sound 

18 on beaked whales. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 7(3):239-249. 

19 Bauer, G.B., J.C. Gaspard, K. Dziuk, A. Cardwell, L. Read, R.L. Reep, and D.A. Mann. 2009. The 

manatee audiogram and auditory critical ratios. Pages 27-28 in Abstracts of the 18th 20 Biennial 

21 Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 October 2009, Québec City, Canada.

22 Beale, C.M. and P. Monaghan. 2004. Behavioural responses to human disturbance: a matter of choice? 

23 Animal Behavior 68:1065-1069.

24 Beland, J.A., B. Haley, C.M. Reiser, D.M. Savarese, D.S. Ireland and D.W. Funk. 2009. Effects of the 

25 presence of other vessels on marine mammal sightings during multi-vessel operations in the Alaskan 

Chukchi Sea. Page 29 in Abstracts of the 18th 26 Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine 

27 Mammals, 12-16 October 2009, Québec City, Canada.

28 Berta, A., R. Racicot and T. Deméré. 2009. The comparative anatomy and evolution of the ear in 

Balaenoptera mysticetes. Page 33 in Abstracts of the 18th 29 Biennial Conference on the Biology of 

30 Marine Mammals, 12-16 October 2009, Québec City, Canada.

31 Blackwell, S.B., R.G. Norman, C.R. Greene Jr. and W.J. Richardson. 2007. Acoustic measurements. 

32 Pages 4-1 to 4-52 in Marine mammal monitoring and mitigation during open water seismic 

33 exploration by Shell Offshore Inc. in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, July-September 2006: 90-day 

34 report. LGL Rep. P891-1. Rep. from LGL Alaska Res. Assoc. Inc., Anchorage, AK, and Greeneridge 

35 Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Shell Offshore Inc., Houston, TX, Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Silver 

36 Spring, MD, and U.S. Fish & Wildl. Serv., Anchorage, AK. 

37 Blackwell, S.B., C.R. Greene, T.L. McDonald, C.S. Nations, R.G. Norman, and A. Thode. 2009a. 

38 Beaufort Sea bowhead whale migration route study. Chapter 8 in D.S. Ireland, D.W. Funk, R. 

39 Rodrigues, and W.R. Koski, eds. 2009. Joint Monitoring Program in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, 

40 Open Water Seasons, 2006-2007. LGL Alaska Report P971-2. Report from LGL Alaska Research 

41 Associates, Anchorage, AK for Shell Offshore Inc., Anchorage, AK. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-43

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Blackwell, S.B., C.S. Nations, T.L. McDonald, A.M. Thode, K.H. Kim, C.R. Greene, and M.A. 

2 Macrander. 2009b. Effects of seismic exploration activities on the calling behavior of bowhead 

whales in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Page 35 in Abstracts of the 18th 3 Biennial Conference on the 

4 Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 October 2009, Québec City, Canada.

5 Bowles, A.E., M. Smultea, B. Würsig, D.P. DeMaster, and D. Palka. 1994. Relative abundance and 

6 behavior of marine mammals exposed to transmissions from the Heard Island Feasibility Test. 

7 Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 96:2469-2484.

8 Britto, M.K. and A. Silva Barreto. 2009. Marine mammal diversity registered on seismic surveys in 

Brazil, between 2000 and 2008. Page 41 in Abstracts of the 18th 9 Biennial Conference on the Biology 

10 of Marine Mammals, 12-16 October 2009, Québec City, Canada

11 Brodie, P.F. 1981. Energetic and behavioural considerations with respect to marine mammals and 

12 disturbance from underwater noise. Pages 287-290 in N.M. Peterson, ed. The Question of Sound from 

13 Icebreaker Operations: Proceedings of a Workshop. Arctic Pilot Project, Petro-Canada, Calgary, AB.

14 Bullock, T.H., T.J. O’Shea, and M.C. McClune. 1982. Auditory evoked-potentials in the West Indian 

15 manatee (Sirenia, Trichechus manatus). Journal of Comparative Physiology 148:547-554.

16 Burgess, W.C. and C.R. Greene, Jr. 1999. Physical acoustics measurements. Pages 3-1 to 3-63 in W.J. 

17 Richardson, ed. Marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of Western Geophysical's open-water 

18 seismic program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 1998. LGL Rep. TA22303. Prepared by LGL Ltd., 

19 King City, Ont., and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Western Geophysical, 

20 Houston, TX, and NMFS, Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. 

21 Burkhardt, E., O. Boebel, H. Bornemann, and C. Ruholl. 2008. Risk assessment of scientific sonars. 

22 Bioacoustics 17:235-237.

23 Calambokidis, J. and S.D. Osmek. 1998. Marine mammal research and mitigation in conjunction with air 

24 gun operation for the USGS `SHIPS' seismic surveys in 1998. Final Report. Prepared by Cascadia 

25 Research, Olympia, WA, for U.S. Geological Survey, NMFS, and MMS. July.

26 Caldwell, J. and W. Dragoset. 2000. A brief overview of seismic air-gun arrays. The Leading Edge 

27 19:898-902.

28 Cavanagh, R.C. 2000. Criteria and thresholds for adverse effects of underwater noise on marine animals. 

29 AFRL-HE-WP-TR-2000-0092. Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, 

30 VA, for Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH. 

31 Christie, K., C. Lyons, W.R. Koski, D.S. Ireland, and D.W. Funk. 2009. Patterns of bowhead whale 

32 occurrence and distribution during marine seismic operations in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Page 55 in

Abstracts of the 18th 33 Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 October 2009, 

34 Québec City, Canada. 

35 Citta, J.J., L.T. Quakenbush, R.J. Small and J.C. George. 2007. Movements of a tagged bowhead whale in 

36 the vicinity of a seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea. Poster Paper, Society for Marine Mammalogy 

17th 37 Biennial Meeting, Cape Town, South Africa.

38 Clark, C.W. and W.T. Ellison. 2004. Potential use of low-frequency sounds by baleen whales for probing 

39 the environment: Evidence from models and empirical measurements. Pages 564-589 in J.A. 

40 Thomas, C.F. Moss and M. Vater, eds. Echolocation in Bats and Dolphins. University of Chicago 

41 Press, Chicago, IL.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-44 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Clark, C.W. and G.C. Gagnon. 2006. Considering the temporal and spatial scales of noise exposures from 

2 seismic surveys on baleen whales. International Whaling Commission Working Pap. SC/58/E9. 

3 Clark, C.W., P. Tyack, and W.T. Ellison. 2001. Revised Overseas Environmental Impact Statement and 

4 Environmental Impact Statement for Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency 

5 Active (SURTASS LFA) Sonar Technical Report 1: Low frequency Sound Scientific Research 

6 Program Technical Report (Responses of four species of whales to sounds of SURTASS LFA sonar

7 transmissions). Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Navy. January.

8 Cook, M.L.H., R.A. Varela, J.D. Goldstein, S.D. McCulloch, G.D. Bossart, J.J. Finneran, D. Houser, and 

9 A. Mann. 2006. Beaked whale auditory evoked potential hearing measurements. Journal of 

10 Comparative Physiology A 192:489-495.

11 Cox, T.M., T.J. Ragen, A.J. Read, E. Vos, R.W. Baird, K. Balcomb, J. Barlow, J. Caldwell, T. Cranford, 

12 L. Crum, A. D’Amico, G. D’Spain, A. Fernández, J. Finneran, R. Gentry, W. Gerth, F. Gulland, J. 

13 Hildebrand, D. Houserp, R. Hullar, P.D. Jepson, D. Ketten, C.D. Macleod, P. Miller, S. Moore, D.C. 

14 Mountain, D. Palka, P. Ponganis, S. Rommel, T. Rowles, B. Taylor, P. Tyack, D. Wartzok, R. 

15 Gisiner, J. Meads, and L. Benner. 2006. Understanding the impacts of anthropogenic sound on 

16 beaked whales. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 7:177-187.

17 Crum, L.A., M.R. Bailey, J. Guan, P.R. Hilmo, S.G. Kargl, and T.J. Matula. 2005. Monitoring bubble 

18 growth in supersaturated blood and tissue ex vivo and the relevance to marine mammal bioeffects. 

19 Acoustic Research Letters Online 6:214-220.

20 Dahlheim, M.E. 1987. Bio-acoustics of the gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus). Ph.D. Dissertation, 

21 University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

22 DeRuiter, S.L., P.L. Tyack, Y.-T. Lin, A.E. Newhall, J.F. Lynch and P.J.O. Miller. 2006. Modeling 

23 acoustic propagation of airgun array pulses recorded on tagged sperm whales (Physeter 

24 macrocephalus). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 120:4100-4114.

25 Di Iorio, L. and C.W. Clark. 2010. Exposure to seismic survey alters blue whale acoustic communication. 

26 Biology Letters 6:51-54.

27 D’Spain, G.L., A. D’Amico, and D.M. Fromm. 2006. Properties of the underwater sound fields during 

28 some well documented beaked whale mass stranding events. Journal of Cetacean Research and 

29 Management 7:223-238.

30 Duncan, P.M. 1985. Seismic sources in a marine environment. Pages 56-88 in Proceedings of the 

31 Workshop on Effects of Explosives Use in the Marine Environment, Jan. 1985, Halifax, N.S. 

32 Technical Report 5. Canadian Oil & Gas Lands Administration, Environmental Protection Branch, 

33 Ottawa, Ont.

34 Dunn, R.A. and O. Hernandez. 2009. Tracking blue whales in the eastern tropical Pacific with an ocean35 bottom seismometer and hydrophone array. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126:1084-

36 1094. 

37 Engel, M.H., M.C.C. Marcondes, C.C.A. Martins, F.O. Luna, R.P. Lima, and A. Campos. 2004. Are 

38 seismic surveys responsible for cetacean strandings? An unusual mortality of adult humpback whales 

39 in Abrolhos Bank, northeastern coast of Brazil. Paper SC/56/E28 presented to the IWC Scientific 

40 Committee, IWC Annual Meeting, 19-22 July, Sorrento, Italy.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-45

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Erbe, C. and A.R. King. 2009. Modeling cumulative sound exposure around marine seismic surveys. 

2 Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125:2443-2451.

3 Fair, P.A. and P.R. Becker. 2000. Review of stress in marine mammals. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem 

4 Stress and Recovery 7:335-354.

5 Fernández, A., M. Arbelo, R. Deaville, I.A.P. Patterson, P. Castro, J.R. Baker, E. Degollada, H.M. Ross, 

6 P. Herráez, A.M. Pocknell, E. Rodríguez, F.E. Howie, A. Espinosa, R.J. Reid, J.R. Jaber, V. Martin, 

7 A.A. Cunningham, and P.D. Jepson. 2004. Pathology: whales, sonar and decompression sickness 

8 (reply). Nature 428(6984, 15 Apr.). 

9 Fernández, A., J.F. Edwards, F. Rodriquez, A.E. de los Monteros, P. Herráez, P. Castro, J.R. Jaber, V. 

10 Martin, and M. Arbelo. 2005. “Gas and fat embolic syndrome” involving a mass stranding of beaked 

11 whales (Family Ziphiidae) exposed to anthropogenic sonar signals. Veterinary Pathology 42:446-457.

12 Finneran, J.J. and C.E. Schlundt. 2004. Effects of intense pure tones on the behavior of trained 

13 odontocetes. Technical Report 1913. Space and Naval Warfare (SPAWAR) Systems Center, San 

14 Diego, CA. February. 

15 Finneran, J.J., C.E. Schlundt, D.A. Carder, J.A. Clark, J.A. Young, J.B. Gaspin, and S.H. Ridgway. 2000. 

16 Auditory and behavioral responses of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and beluga whale 

17 (Delphinapterus leucas) to impulsive sounds resembling distant signatures of underwater explosions. 

18 Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 108:417-431.

19 Finneran, J.J., C.E. Schlundt, R. Dear, D.A. Carder, and S.H. Ridgway. 2002. Temporary shift in masked 

20 hearing thresholds in odontocetes after exposure to single underwater impulses from a seismic 

21 watergun. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 111:2929-2940.

22 Finneran, J.J., R. Dear, D.A. Carder, and S.H. Ridgway. 2003. Auditory and behavioral responses of 

23 California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) to single underwater impulses from an arc-gap 

24 transducer. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 114:1667-1677.

25 Finneran, J.J., D.A. Carder, C.E. Schlundt, and S.H. Ridgway. 2005. Temporary threshold shift in 

26 bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) exposed to mid-frequency tones. Journal of the Acoustical 

27 Society of America 118(4):2696-2705.

28 Finneran, J.J., D.S. Houser, B. Mase-Guthrie, R.Y. Ewing and R.G. Lingenfelser. 2009. Auditory evoked 

29 potentials in a stranded Gervais' beaked whale (Mesoplodon europaeus). Journal of the Acoustical 

30 Society of America 126:484-490. 

31 Fish, J.F. and J.S. Vania. 1971. Killer whale, Orcinus orca, sounds repel white whales, Delphinapterus 

32 leucas. Fisheries Bulletin 69:531-535.

33 Fox, C.G., R.P. Dziak, and H. Matsumoto. 2002. NOAA efforts in monitoring of low-frequency sound in 

34 the global ocean. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 112(5, Pt. 2):2260 (Abstract).

35 Frankel, A.S. 2005. Gray whales hear and respond to a 21–25 kHz high-frequency whale-finding sonar. 

Page 97 in Abstracts of the 16th 36 Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 Dec. 

37 2005, San Diego, CA. 

38 Frantzis, A. 1998. Does acoustic testing strand whales? Nature 392(6671):29.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-46 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Frost, K.J., L.F. Lowry, and R.R. Nelson. 1984. Belukha whale studies in Bristol Bay, Alaska. Pages 187-

2 200 in B.R. Melteff and D.H. Rosenberg, eds. Proceedings of the Workshop on Biological 

3 Interactions among Marine Mammals and Commercial Fisheries in the Southeastern Bering Sea, Oct. 

4 1983, Anchorage, AK. University of Alaska Sea Grant Report 84-1. University of Alaska, Fairbanks, 

5 AK.

6 Gabriele, C.M. and B. Kipple. 2009. Measurements of near-surface, near-bow underwater sound from 

cruise ships. Page 86 in Abstracts of the 18th 7 Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine 

8 Mammals, 12-16 October 2009, Québec City, Canada.

9 Gailey, G., B. Würsig, and T.L. McDonald. 2007. Abundance, behavior, and movement patterns of 

10 western gray whales in relation to a 3-D seismic survey, northeast Sakhalin Island, Russia. 

11 Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 134(1-3):75-91.

12 Gedamke, J., S. Frydman, and N. Gales. 2008. Risk of baleen whale hearing loss from seismic surveys: 

13 preliminary results from simulations accounting for uncertainty and individual variation. International 

14 Whaling Commission Working Paper SC/60/E9. 

15 Gentry, R., ed. 2002. Report of the workshop on acoustic resonance as a source of tissue trauma in 

16 cetaceans. 24-25 April, NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 19 pp. 

17 Gerrodette, T. and J. Pettis. 2005. Responses of tropical cetaceans to an echosounder during research 

vessel Surveys. Page 104 in Abstracts of the 16th 18 Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine 

19 Mammals, 12-16 Dec. 2005, San Diego, CA. 

20 Gerstein, E.R., L.A. Gerstein, S.E. Forsythe, and J.E. Blue. 1999. The underwater audiogram of a West 

21 Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 105:3575-3583.

22 Gerstein, E., L. Gerstein, S. Forsythe and J. Blue. 2004. Do manatees utilize infrasonic communication or 

23 detection? Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 115(5, Pt. 2):2554-2555 (Abstract).

24 Ghoul, A., C. Reichmuth, and J. Mulsow. 2009. Source levels and spectral analysis of southern sea otter 

(Enhydra lutris nereis) scream vocalizations. Page 90 in Abstracts of the 18th 25 Biennial Conference on 

26 the Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 October 2009, Québec City, Canada.

27 Goold, J.C. 1996a. Acoustic assessment of common dolphins off the West Wales coast, in conjunction 

28 with 16th round seismic surveying. Report from School of Ocean Sciences, University of Wales, 

29 Bangor, Wales, for Chevron UK Ltd., Repsol Exploration (UK) Ltd., and Aran Energy Exploration 

30 Ltd.

31 Goold, J.C. 1996b. Acoustic assessment of populations of common dolphin Delphinus delphis in 

32 conjunction with seismic surveying. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the U.K. 76:811-

33 820.

34 Goold, J.C. 1996c. Acoustic cetacean monitoring off the west Wales coast. Rep. from School of Ocean 

35 Sciences, Univ. Wales, Bangor, Wales, for Chevron UK Ltd, Repsol Explor. (UK) Ltd, and Aran 

36 Energy Explor. Ltd. 

37 Goold, J.C. and R.F.W. Coates. 2006. Near source, high frequency air-gun signatures. Paper SC/58/E30

38 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, IWC Annual Meeting, 1-13 June, St. Kitts.

39 Goold, J.C. and P.J. Fish. 1998. Broadband spectra of seismic survey air-gun emissions, with reference to 

40 dolphin auditory thresholds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 103:2177-2184.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-47

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Gordon, J., D. Gillespie, J. Potter, A. Frantzis, M.P. Simmonds, R. Swift, and D. Thompson. 2004. A 

2 review of the effects of seismic surveys on marine mammals. Marine Technology Society Journal 

3 37(4):16-34. 

4 Gordon, J., R. Antunes, N. Jaquet and B. Würsig. 2006. An investigation of sperm whale headings and 

5 surface behaviour before, during and after seismic line changes in the Gulf of Mexico. International 

6 Whaling Commission Working Paper SC/58/E45.

7 Gosselin, J.-F. and J. Lawson. 2004. Distribution and abundance indices of marine mammals in the Gully 

8 and two adjacent canyons of the Scotian Shelf before and during nearby hydrocarbon seismic 

9 exploration programmes in April and July 2003. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Proceedings 

10 Series 2004/133. 

11 Greene, C.R., Jr. 1997. Physical acoustics measurements. Pages 3-1 to 3-63 in W.J. Richardson, ed. 

12 Northstar marine mammal monitoring program, 1996: marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of 

13 a seismic program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. LGL Report 2121-2. Prepared by LGL Ltd., King 

14 City, ON, and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for BP Explor. (Alaska) Inc., 

15 Anchorage, AK, and NMFS, Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. 

16 Greene, C.R., Jr. and W.J. Richardson. 1988. Characteristics of marine seismic survey sounds in the 

17 Beaufort Sea. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 83(6):2246-2254.

18 Greene, G.D., F.R. Engelhardt, and R.J. Paterson, eds. 1985. Proceedings of the Workshop on Effects of 

19 Explosives Use in the Marine Environment, Jan. 1985, Halifax, NS. Technical Report 5. Canadian Oil 

20 & Gas Lands Administration, Environmental Protection Branch, Ottawa, Ont.

21 Greene, C.R., Jr., N.S. Altman, and W.J. Richardson. 1999a. Bowhead whale calls. Pages 6-1–6-23 in

22 W.J. Richardson, ed. Marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of Western Geophysical's open23 water seismic program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 1998. LGL Rep. TA2230-3. Prepared by LGL 

24 Ltd., King City, ONT, and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Western Geophysical, 

25 Houston, TX, and NMFS, Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. 

26 Greene, C.R., Jr., N.S. Altman and W.J. Richardson. 1999b. The influence of seismic survey sounds on 

27 bowhead whale calling rates. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106(4, Pt. 2):2280 

28 (Abstract).

29 Guerra, M., A.M. Thode, S.B. Blackwell, C.R. Greene, Jr. and M. Macrander. 2009. Quantifying masking 

30 effects of seismic survey reverberation off the Alaskan North Slope. Journal of the Acoustical Society 

31 of America 126(4, Pt. 2):2230 (Abstract).

32 Gunn, L.M. 1988. A behavioral audiogram of the North American river otter (Lutra canadensis). M.S. 

33 thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA. 

34 Haley, B., and W.R. Koski. 2004. Marine mammal monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth 

35 Observatory’s seismic program in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, July–August 2004. LGL Report 

36 TA2822-27. Prepared by LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, 

37 Columbia University, Palisades, NY, and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. November. 

38 Hanser, S.F., L.R. Doyle, A.R. Szabo, F.A. Sharpe and B. McCowan. 2009. Bubble-net feeding 

39 humpback whales in Southeast Alaska change their vocalization patterns in the presence of moderate 

vessel noise. Page 105 in Abstracts of the 18th 40 Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine 

41 Mammals, 12-16 October 2009, Québec City, Canada.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-48 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Harris, R.E., G.W. Miller, and W.J. Richardson. 2001. Seal responses to airgun sounds during summer 

2 seismic surveys in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Marine Mammal Science 17:795-812.

3 Harris, R.E., T. Elliott, and R.A. Davis. 2007. Results of mitigation and monitoring program, Beaufort 

4 Span 2-D marine seismic program, open-water season 2006. LGL Rep. TA4319-1. Rep. from LGL 

5 Ltd., King City, Ont., for GX Technology Corp., Houston, TX. 

6 Hastie, G.D. and V.M. Janik. 2007. Behavioural responses of grey seals to multibeam imaging sonars. 

Abstracts of the 17th 7 Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 29 Nov.–3 Dec., Cape 

8 Town, South Africa.

9 Hauser, D., M. Holst, and V.D. Moulton. 2008. Marine mammal and sea turtle monitoring during 

10 Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory’s marine seismic program in the Eastern Tropical Pacific, April–

11 August 2008. LGL Report TA4656/7-1. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, St. 

12 John’s, NF and King City, ONT, for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, 

13 Palisades, NY, and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 

14 HESS Team. 1999. High Energy Seismic Survey review process and interim operational guidelines for 

15 marine surveys offshore Southern California. Report from High Energy Seismic Survey Team for 

16 California State Lands Commission and MMS, Camarillo, CA. 

17 Hildebrand, J.A. 2005. Impacts of anthropogenic sound. Pages 101-124 in J.E. Reynolds, W.F. Perrin, 

18 R.R. Reeves, S. Montgomery, and T. Ragen, eds. Marine Mammal Research: Conservation Beyond 

19 Crisis. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. 

20 Hogarth, W.T. 2002. Declaration of William T. Hogarth in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for temporary 

21 restraining order, 23 Oct. Civ. No. 02-05065-JL. U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 

22 San Francisco Division.

23 Holst, M. and M.A. Smultea. 2008. Marine mammal and sea turtle monitoring during Lamont-Doherty 

24 Earth Observatory’s marine seismic program off Central America, February–April 2006. LGL Report 

25 TA4342-3. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT, for Lamont26 Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY, and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 

27 Holst, M., M.A. Smultea, W.R. Koski, and B. Haley. 2005a. Marine mammal and sea turtle monitoring 

28 during Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory’s marine seismic program off the Northern Yucatán 

29 Peninsula in the Southern Gulf of Mexico, Jan.–Feb. 2005. LGL Report TA2822-31. Prepared by 

30 LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, 

31 NY, and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. June.

32 Holst, M., M.A. Smultea, W.R. Koski, and B. Haley. 2005b. Marine mammal and sea turtle monitoring 

33 during Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory’s marine seismic program in the Eastern Tropical Pacific 

34 Ocean off Central America, November–December 2004. LGL Report TA2822-30. Prepared by LGL 

35 Ltd., King City, Ont., for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY, 

36 and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. April.

37 Holst, M., W.J. Richardson, W.R. Koski, M.A. Smultea, B. Haley, M.W. Fitzgerald, and M. Rawson. 

38 2006. Effects of large- and small-source seismic surveys on marine mammals and sea turtles. Eos 

39 Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 87(36), Joint Assembly Supplement, Abstract 

40 OS42A-01. 23-26 May, Baltimore, MD.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-49

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Hooker, S.K., R.W. Baird, S. Al-Omari, S. Gowans, and H. Whitehead. 2001. Behavioral reactions of 

2 northern bottlenose whales (Hyperoodon ampullatus) to biopsy darting and tag attachment 

3 procedures. Fisheries Bulletin 99:303-308.

4 Hutchinson, D.R. and R.S. Detrick. 1984. Water gun vs. air gun: a comparison. Marine Geophysical 

5 Research 6:295-310.

6 IAGC. 2004. Further analysis of 2002 Abrolhos Bank, Brazil humpback whale strandings coincident with 

7 seismic surveys. International Association of Geophysical Contractors, Houston, TX. 

8 Ireland, D., M. Holst, and W.R. Koski. 2005. Marine mammal monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth 

9 Observatory’s seismic program off the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, July-August 2005. LGL Rep. 

10 TA4089-3. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of 

11 Columbia Univ., Palisades, NY, and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Silver Spring, MD. 

12 IWC. 2007. Report of the standing working group on environmental concerns. Annex K to Report of the 

13 Scientific Committee. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 9(Suppl.):227-260. 

14 Jefferson, T.A. and B.E. Curry. 1994. Review and evaluation of potential acoustic methods of reducing or 

15 eliminating marine mammal-fishery interactions. Report from the Marine Mammal Research 

16 Program, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX, for U.S. Marine Mammal Commission, 

17 Washington, DC.

18 Jepson, P.D., M. Arbelo, R. Deaville, I.A.P. Patterson, P. Castro, J.R. Baker, E. Degollada, H.M. Ross, P. 

19 Herráez, A.M. Pocknell, F. Rodríguez, F.E. Howie, A. Espinosa, R.J. Reid, J.R. Jaber, V. Martin, 

20 A.A. Cunningham, and A. Fernández. 2003. Gas-bubble lesions in stranded cetaceans. Nature 

21 425(6958):575-576.

22 Jochens, A. D. Biggs, K. Benoit-Bird, D. Engelhaupt, J. Gordon, C. Hu, N. Jaquet, M. Johnson, R. Leben, 

23 B. Mate, P. Miller, J. Ortega-Ortiz, A. Those, P. Tyack, and B. Würsig. 2008. Sperm whale seismic 

24 study in the Gulf of Mexico/Synthesis report. OCS Study MMS 2008-006. Report from the 

25 Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, for the Minerals 

26 Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

27 Johnson, M.P. and P.L. Tyack. 2003. A digital acoustic recording tag for measuring the response of wild 

28 marine mammals to sound. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering 28:3-12.

29 Johnson, S.R., W.J. Richardson, S.B. Yazvenko, S.A. Blokhin, G. Gailey, M.R. Jenkerson, S.K. Meier, 

30 H.R. Melton, M.W. Newcomer, A.S. Perlov, S.A. Rutenko, B. Würsig, C.R. Martin, and D.E. Egging. 

31 2007. A western gray whale mitigation and monitoring program for a 3-D seismic survey, Sakhalin 

32 Island, Russia. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 134(1-3):1-19.

33 Kastak, D. and R.J. Schusterman. 1998. Low-frequency amphibious hearing in pinnipeds: methods, 

34 measurements, noise and ecology. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 103:2216-2228. 

35 Kastak, D. and R.J. Schusterman. 1999. In-air and underwater hearing sensitivity of a northern elephant 

36 seal (Mirounga angustirostris). Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:1751-1758.

37 Kastak, D., R.L. Schusterman, B.L. Southall, and C.J. Reichmuth. 1999. Underwater temporary threshold 

38 shift induced by octave-band noise in three species of pinnipeds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

39 America 106:1142-1148.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-50 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Kastak, D., B.L. Southall, R.J. Schusterman, and C. Reichmuth Kastak. 2005. Underwater temporary 

2 threshold shift in pinnipeds: effects of noise level and duration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

3 America 118:3154-3163.

4 Kastelein, R.A., P. Mosterd, B. van Santen, M. Hagedoorn, and D. de Haan. 2002. Underwater audiogram 

5 of a Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) measured with narrow-band frequency-modulated 

6 signals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 112:2173-2182.

7 Kastelein, R.A., W.C. Verboom, N. Jennings, and D. de Haan. 2008. Behavioral avoidance threshold 

8 level of a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) for a continuous 50 kHz pure tone (L). Journal of the 

9 Acoustical Society of America 123:1858-1861.

10 Kastelein, R.A., P.J. Wensveen, L. Hoek, W.C. Verboom and J.M. Terhune. 2009. Underwater detection 

11 of tonal signals between 0.125 and 100 kHz by harbor seals (Phoca vitulina). Journal of Acoustical 

12 Society of America 125:1222-1229. 

13 Kasuya, T. 1986. Distribution and behavior of Baird's beaked whales off the Pacific coast of Japan. 

14 Scientific Report of the Whales Research Institute 37:61-83.

15 Ketten, D.R. 1991. The marine mammal ear: specializations for aquatic audition and echolocation. Pages 

16 717-750 in D. Webster, R. Fay and A. Popper, eds. The Biology of Hearing. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

17 Ketten, D.R. 1992. The cetacean ear: form, frequency, and evolution. Pages 53-75 in J.A. Thomas, R.A. 

18 Kastelein, and A. Ya Supin, eds. Marine Mammal Sensory Systems. Plenum, New York, NY. 

19 Ketten, D.R. 1994. Functional analysis of whale ears: adaptations for underwater hearing. IEEE 

20 Proceedings of Underwater Acoustics 1:264-270.

21 Ketten, D.R. 1995. Estimates of blast injury and acoustic trauma zones for marine mammals from 

22 underwater explosions. Pages 391-407 in R.A. Kastelein, J.A. Thomas, and P.E. Nachtigall, eds. 

23 Sensory Systems of Aquatic Mammals. De Spil Publishers, Woerden, Netherlands. 

24 Ketten, D.R. 1998. Marine mammal auditory systems: a summary of audiometric and anatomical data 

25 and its implications for underwater acoustic impacts. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM26 NMFS-SWFSC-256. Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, CA. 

27 Ketten, D.R. 2000. Cetacean ears. Pages 43-108 in W.W.L. Au, A.N. Popper, and R.R. Fay, eds. Hearing 

28 by Whales and Dolphins. Springer-Verlag, New York. 485 pp.

29 Ketten, D.R., J. Lien and S. Todd. 1993. Blast injury in humpback whale ears: evidence and implications. 

30 Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 94(3, Pt. 2):1849-1850 (Abstract).

31 Ketten, D.R., J. O'Malley, P.W.B. Moore, S. Ridgway, and C. Merigo. 2001. Aging, injury, disease, and 

32 noise in marine mammal ears. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 110(5, Pt. 2):2721 

33 (Abstract).

34 Klima, E.F., G.R. Gitschlag, and M.L. Renaud. 1988. Impacts of the explosive removal of offshore 

35 petroleum platforms on sea turtles and dolphins. Marine Fisheries Review 50(3):33-42.

36 Koski, W.R., D.W. Funk, D.S. Ireland, C. Lyons, K. Christie, A.M. Macrander, and S.B. Blackwell. 

37 2009. An update on feeding by bowhead whales near an offshore seismic survey in the central 

38 Beaufort Sea. International Whaling Commission Working Paper SC/61/BRG3. 

39 Kraus, S., A. Read, A. Solov, K. Baldwin, T. Spradlin, E. Anderson, and J. Williamson. 1997. Acoustic 

40 alarms reduce porpoise mortality. Nature 388(6642):525.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-51

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Kremser, U., P. Klemm, and W.D. Kötz. 2005. Estimating the risk of temporary acoustic threshold shift, 

2 caused by hydroacoustic devices, in whales in the Southern Ocean. Antarctic Science 17(1):3-10. 

Kryter, K.D. 1985. The Effects of Noise on Man. 2nd 3 edition. Academic Press, Orlando, FL. 

4 Kryter, K.D. 1994. The Handbook of Hearing and the Effects of Noise. Academic Press, Orlando, FL. 

5 Laurinolli, M.H. and N.A. Cochrane. 2005. Hydroacoustic analysis of marine mammal vocalization data 

6 from ocean bottom seismometer mounted hydrophones in the Gully. Pages 89-95 in K. Lee, H. Bain 

7 and G.V. Hurley, eds. Acoustic Monitoring and Marine Mammal Surveys in The Gully and Outer 

8 Scotian Shelf Before and During Active Seismic Surveys. Environmental Studies Research Funds 

9 Report 151. 

10 Lesage, V., C. Barrette, M.C.S. Kingsley, and B. Sjare. 1999. The effect of vessel noise on the vocal 

11 behavior of belugas in the St. Lawrence River estuary, Canada. Marine Mammal Science 15:65-84.

12 Ljungblad, D.K., B. Würsig, S.L. Swartz, and J.M. Keene. 1988. Observations on the behavioral 

13 responses of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) to active geophysical vessels in the Alaskan 

14 Beaufort Sea. Arctic 41(3):183-194.

15 Lucke, K., U. Siebert, P.A. Lepper, and M.-A. Blanchet. 2009. Temporary shift in masked hearing 

16 thresholds in a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) after exposure to seismic airgun stimuli. 

17 Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125:4060-4070.

18 Lusseau, D. and L. Bejder. 2007. The long-term consequences of short-term responses to disturbance 

19 experience from whalewatching impact assessment. International Journal of Comparative Psychology

20 20:228-236.

21 MacGillivray, A.O. and D. Hannay. 2007a. Summary of noise assessment. Pages 3-1 to 3-21 in Marine 

22 mammal monitoring and mitigation during open water seismic exploration by ConocoPhillips Alaska, 

23 Inc., in the Chukchi Sea, July-October 2006. LGL Rep. P903-2 (Jan. 2007). Rep. from LGL Alaska 

24 Res. Assoc. Inc., Anchorage, AK, and JASCO Res. Ltd., Victoria, B.C., for ConocoPhillips Alaska 

25 Inc., Anchorage, AK, and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Silver Spring, MD. 

26 MacGillivray, A. and D. Hannay. 2007b. Field measurements of airgun array sound levels. Pages 4-1 to 

27 4-19 in Marine mammal monitoring and mitigation during open water seismic exploration by GX 

28 Technology in the Chukchi Sea, October-November 2006: 90-day report. LGL Rep. P891-1 (Feb. 

29 2007). Rep. from LGL Alaska Res. Assoc. Inc., Anchorage, AK, and JASCO Res. Ltd., Victoria, 

30 B.C., for GX Technology, Houston, TX, and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Silver Spring, MD. 

31 MacLean, S.A. and B. Haley. 2004. Marine mammal monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth 

32 Observatory's seismic study in the Støregga Slide area of the Norwegian Sea, August - September 

33 2003. LGL Rep.TA2822-20. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., for Lamont-Doherty Earth 

34 Observatory, Palisades, NY, and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Silver Spring, MD. 

35 MacLean, S.A. and W.R. Koski. 2005. Marine mammal monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth 

36 Observatory’s seismic program in the Gulf of Alaska, August–September 2004. LGL Report

37 TA2822-28. Prepared by LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, 

38 Columbia University, Palisades, NY, and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 

39 Madsen, P.T. 2005. Marine mammals and noise: problems with root mean square sound pressure levels 

40 for transients. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 117:3952-3957.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-52 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Madsen, P.T., B. Mohl, B.K. Nielsen, and M. Wahlberg. 2002. Male sperm whale behavior during 

2 exposures to distant seismic survey pulses. Aquatic Mammals 28:231-240.

3 Madsen, P.T., M. Johnson, P.J.O. Miller, N. Aguilar de Soto, J. Lynch, and P.L. Tyack. 2006. 

4 Quantitative measures of air gun pulses recorded on sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) using 

5 acoustic tags during controlled exposure experiments. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 

6 120:2366–2379.

7 Malakoff, D. 2002. Suit ties whale deaths to research cruise. Science 298(5594):722-723.

8 Malme, C.I. and P.R. Miles. 1985. Behavioral responses of marine mammals (gray whales) to seismic 

9 discharges. Pages 253-280 in G.D. Greene, F.R. Engelhard, and R.J. Paterson, eds. Proceedings of the 

10 Workshop on Effects of Explosives Use in the Marine Environment, Jan. 1985, Halifax, NS. 

11 Technical Report 5. Canadian Oil & Gas Lands Administration, Environmental Protection Branch, 

12 Ottawa, ON.

13 Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, C.W. Clark, P. Tyack, and J.E. Bird. 1984. Investigations of the potential effects 

14 of underwater noise from petroleum industry activities on migrating gray whale behavior/Phase II: 

15 January 1984 migration. BBN Report 5586. Prepared by Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc., Cambridge, 

16 MA, for MMS, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, AK. 

17 Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, P. Tyack, C.W. Clark, and J.E. Bird. 1985. Investigation of the potential effects 

18 of underwater noise from petroleum industry activities on feeding humpback whale behavior. BBN 

19 Report 5851; OCS Study MMS 85-0019. Prepared by BBN Labs Inc., Cambridge, MA, for MMS, 

20 Anchorage, AK. 

21 Malme, C.I., B. Würsig, J.E. Bird, and P. Tyack. 1986. Behavioral responses of gray whales to industrial 

22 noise: feeding observations and predictive modeling. Outer Continental Shelf Environmental 

23 Assessment Program, Final Report. BBN Rep. 6265. OCS Study MMS 88-0048. Prepared by BBN 

24 Labs Inc., Cambridge, MA, for NMFS and MMS, Anchorage, AK.

25 Malme, C.I., B. Würsig, B., J.E. Bird, and P. Tyack. 1988. Observations of feeding gray whale responses 

26 to controlled industrial noise exposure. Pages 55-73 in W.M. Sackinger, M.O. Jeffries, J.L. Imm, and 

27 S.D. Treacy, eds. Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic Conditions. Vol. II. Symposium on Noise 

28 and Marine Mammals. University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK. 

29 Manly, B.F.J., V.D. Moulton, R.E. Elliott, G.W. Miller, and W.J. Richardson. 2007. Analysis of 

30 covariance of fall migrations of bowhead whales in relation to human activities and environmental 

31 factors, Alaskan Beaufort Sea: Phase I, 1996-1998. LGL Report TA2799-2; OCS Study MMS 2005-

32 033. Report from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and WEST Inc., Cheyenne, WY, for Minerals 

33 Management Service, Herndon, VA, and Anchorage, AK. 

34 Mate, B.R. and J.T. Harvey. 1987. Acoustical deterrents in marine mammal conflicts with fisheries. 

35 ORESU-W-86-001. Oregon State University, Sea Grant College Program, Corvallis, OR.

36 Mate, B.R., K.M. Stafford, and D.K. Ljungblad. 1994. A change in sperm whale (Physeter 

37 macrocephalus) distribution correlated to seismic surveys in the Gulf of Mexico. Journal of the 

38 Acoustical Society of America 96(5, Pt. 2):3268-3269 (Abstract).

39 Maybaum, H.L. 1990. Effects of a 3.3 kHz sonar system on humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, 

40 in Hawaiian waters. Eos 71(2):92. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-53

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Maybaum, H.L. 1993. Responses of humpback whales to sonar sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society 

2 of America 94(3, Pt. 2):1848-1849 (Abstract).

3 McAlpine, D.F. 2002. Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales. Pages 1007-1009 in W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and 

4 J.G.M. Thewissen, eds. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 

5 McCall Howard, M.P. 1999. Sperm whales Physeter macrocephalus in the Gully, Nova Scotia: 

6 Population, distribution, and response to seismic surveying. B.Sc. (Honours) Thesis. Dalhousie 

7 University, Halifax, NS.

8 McCauley, R.D., M.-N. Jenner, C. Jenner, K.A. McCabe, and J. Murdoch. 1998. The response of 

9 humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to offshore seismic survey noise: preliminary results of 

10 observations about a working seismic vessel and experimental exposures. APPEA Journal 38:692-

11 707.

12 McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M.-N. Jenner, J.D. Penrose, R.I.T. Prince, A. 

13 Adhitya, J. Murdoch, and K. McCabe. 2000a. Marine seismic surveys: Analysis of airgun signals; 

14 and effects of air gun exposure on humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and squid. Report from Centre 

15 for Marine Science and Technology, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, for Australian 

16 Petroleum Production & Exploration Association, Sydney, NSW. 

17 McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, M.-N. Jenner, M-N., C. Jenner, R.I.T. Prince, A. Adhitya, K. 

18 McCabe and J. Murdoch. 2000b. Marine seismic surveys - a study of environmental implications. 

19 APPEA Journal 40:692-708. 

20 McDonald, M.A., J.A. Hildebrand, and S.C. Webb. 1995. Blue and fin whales observed on a seafloor 

21 array in the Northeast Pacific. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 98(2, Pt. 1):712-721.

22 McShane, L.J., J.A. Estes, M.L. Riedman, and M.M. Staedler. 1995. Repertoire, structure, and individual 

23 variation of vocalizations in the sea otter. Journal of Mammalogy 76:414-427.

24 Meier, S.K., S.B. Yazvenko, S.A. Blokhin, P. Wainwright, M.K. Maminov, Y.M. Yakovlev and M.W. 

25 Newcomer. 2007. Distribution and abundance of western gray whales off northeastern Sakhalin 

26 Island, Russia, 2001-2003. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 134(1-3):107-136.

27 Miller, G.W., R.E. Elliott, W.R. Koski, V.D. Moulton, and W.J. Richardson. 1999. Whales. Pages 5-1 to 

28 5-109 in W.J. Richardson, ed. Marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of Western Geophysical's 

29 open-water seismic program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 1998. LGL Report TA2230-3. Prepared by 

30 LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Western 

31 Geophysical, Houston, TX, and NMFS, Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. 

32 Miller, G.W., V.D. Moulton, R.A. Davis, M. Holst, P. Millman, A. MacGillivray, and D. Hannay. 2005. 

33 Monitoring seismic effects on marine mammals—southeastern Beaufort Sea, 2001-2002. Pages 511-

34 542 in S.L. Armsworthy, P.J. Cranford, and K. Lee, eds. Offshore Oil and Gas Environmental Effects 

35 Monitoring/Approaches and Technologies. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH.

Miller, P.J.O., N. Biassoni, A. Samuels, and P.L. Tyack. 2000. Whale songs lengthen in response to 

sonar. Nature 405(6789):903. 

36 Miller, P.J.O., M.P. Johnson, P.T. Madsen, N. Biassoni, M. Quero, and P.L. Tyack. 2009. Using at-sea 

37 experiments to study the effects of airguns on the foraging behavior of sperm whales in the Gulf of 

38 Mexico. Deep-Sea Research I 56:1168-1181.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-54 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Mooney, T.A., P.E. Nachtigall, M. Breese, S. Vlachos, and W.W.L. Au, 2009a. Predicting temporary 

2 threshold shifts in a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus): the effects of noise level and duration. 

3 Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125:1816-1826.

4 Mooney, T.A., P.E. Nachtigall, and S. Vlachos. 2009b. Sonar-induced temporary hearing loss in dolphins. 

5 Biology Letters 4:565-567.

6 Moore, S.E. and Angliss, R.P. 2006. Overview of planned seismic surveys offshore northern Alaska, 

7 July-October 2006. Paper SC/58/E6 presented to IWC Scientific Committee, IWC Annual Meeting, 

8 1-13 June, St Kitts.

9 Morton A.B. and H.K. Symonds. 2002. Displacement of Orcinus orca (L.) by high amplitude sound in 

10 British Columbia, Canada. ICES Journal of Marine Science 59:71-80

11 Moulton, V.D. and J.W. Lawson. 2002. Seals, 2001. Pages 3-1 to 3-48 in W.J. Richardson, ed. Marine 

12 mammal and acoustical monitoring of WesternGeco’s open water seismic program in the Alaskan 

13 Beaufort Sea, 2001. LGL Rep. TA2564-4. Prepared by LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and Greeneridge 

14 Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for WesternGeco, Houston, TX, and NMFS, Anchorage, AK, and 

15 Silver Spring, MD. 95 pp.

16 Moulton, V.D. and G.W. Miller. 2005. Marine mammal monitoring of a seismic survey on the Scotian 

17 Slope, 2003. Pages 29-40 In: K. Lee, H. Bain, and G.V. Hurley, eds. Acoustic monitoring and marine 

18 mammal surveys in the Gully and outer Scotian Shelf before and during active seismic programs. 

19 Environmental Studies Research Funds Report 151. 

20 Moulton, V.D., B.D. Mactavish and R.A. Buchanan. 2005. Marine mammal and seabird monitoring of 

21 Chevron Canada Resources' 3-D seismic program on the Orphan Basin, 2004. LGL Report SA817. 

22 Prepared by LGL Ltd., St. John's, NL, for Chevron Canada Resources, Calgary, AB, ExxonMobil 

23 Canada Ltd., St. John's, NF, and Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Ltd., Calgary, AB.

24 Moulton, V.D., B.D. Mactavish, R.E. Harris and R.A. Buchanan. 2006a. Marine mammal and seabird 

25 monitoring of Chevron Canada Limited's 3-D seismic program on the Orphan Basin, 2005. LGL 

26 Report SA843. Prepared by LGL Ltd., St. John's, NF, for Chevron Canada Resources, Calgary, AB, 

27 ExxonMobil Canada Ltd., St. John's, NF, and Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Ltd., Calgary, AB.

28 Moulton, V.D., B.D. Mactavish and R.A. Buchanan. 2006b. Marine mammal and seabird monitoring of 

29 ConocoPhillips’ 3-D seismic program in the Laurentian Sub-basin, 2005. LGL Report SA849. 

30 Prepared by LGL Ltd., St. John’s, NF, for ConocoPhillips Canada Resources Corp., Calgary, AB.

31 Nachtigall, P.E., J.L. Pawloski, and W.W.L. Au. 2003. Temporary threshold shifts and recovery 

32 following noise exposure in the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Journal of the 

33 Acoustical Society of America 113:3425-3429.

34 Nachtigall, P.E., A.Y. Supin, J. Pawloski, and W.W.L. Au. 2004. Temporary threshold shifts after noise 

35 exposure in the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) measured using evoked auditory potentials. 

36 Marine Mammal Science 20:673-687

37 Nations, C.S., S.B. Blackwell, K.H. Kim, A.M. Thode, C.R. Greene, Jr., A.M. Macrander, and T.L. 

38 McDonald. 2009. Effects of seismic exploration in the Beaufort Sea on bowhead whale call 

39 distributions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126(4, Pt. 2):2230 (Abstract).
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-55

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Nieukirk, S.L., K.M. Stafford, D.K. Mellinger, R.P. Dziak, and C.G. Fox. 2004. Low-frequency whale 

2 and seismic airgun sounds recorded in the mid-Atlantic Ocean. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

3 America 115:1832-1843.

4 Nieukirk, S.L., D.K. Mellinger, J.A. Hildebrand, M.A. McDonald, and R.P. Dziak. 2005. Downward shift 

in the frequency of blue whale vocalizations. Page 205 in Abstracts of the 16th 5 Biennial Conference 

6 on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 December, San Diego, CA.

7 Nieukirk, S.L., S.L. Heimlich, S.E. Moore, K.M. Stafford, R.P. Dziak, M. Fowler, J. Haxel, J. Goslin and 

8 D.K. Mellinger. 2009. Whales and airguns: an eight-year acoustic study in the central North Atlantic. 

Pages 181-182 in Abstracts of the 18th 9 Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-

10 16 October 2009, Québec City, Canada.

11 NMFS. 1995. Small takes of marine mammals incidental to specified activities; offshore seismic activities 

12 in southern California. Federal Register 60:53753-53760.

13 NMFS. 2000. Small takes of marine mammals incidental to specified activities; marine seismic-reflection 

14 data collection in southern California. Federal Register 65:16374-16379.

15 NMFS. 2001. Small takes of marine mammals incidental to specified activities; oil and gas exploration 

16 drilling activities in the Beaufort Sea/Notice of issuance of an incidental harassment authorization. 

17 Federal Register 66:9291-9298.

18 NMFS. 2005. Endangered Fish and Wildlife; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

19 Statement. Federal Register 70:1871-1875.

20 NOAA and U.S. Navy. 2001. Joint interim report: Bahamas marine mammal stranding event of 15-16 

21 March 2000. NMFS, Silver Spring, MD, and Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Installations and 

22 Environment, Washington, DC. 

23 Nowacek, D.P., L.H. Thorne, D.W. Johnston, and P.L. Tyack. 2007. Responses of cetaceans to 

24 anthropogenic noise. Mammal Review 37:81-115.

25 NRC. 2005. Marine Mammal Populations and Ocean Noise: Determining When Noise Causes 

26 Biologically Significant Effects. U. S. National Research Council, Ocean Studies Board. (Authors 

27 D.W. Wartzok, J. Altmann, W. Au, K. Ralls, A. Starfield, and P.L. Tyack). National Academies 

28 Press, Washington, DC. 

29 Parente, C.L., M.C.C. Marcondes, and M.H. Engel. 2006. Humpback whale strandings and seismic 

30 surveys in Brazil from 1999 to 2004. International Whaling Commission Working Paper SC/58/E41.

31 Parente, C.L., J.P. de Araújo, and M.E. de Araújo. 2007. Diversity of cetaceans as tool in monitoring 

32 environmental impacts of seismic surveys. Biota Neotropica 7:1-7. 

33 Parks, S.E., C.W. Clark, and P.L. Tyack. 2007a. Short- and long-term changes in right whale calling 

34 behavior: the potential effects of noise on acoustic communication. Journal of the Acoustical Society 

35 of America 122:3725-3731.

36 Parks, S.E., D.R. Ketten, J.T. O'Malley, and J. Arruda. 2007b. Anatomical predictions of hearing in the 

37 North Atlantic right whale. Anatomical Record 290:734-744.

38 Parks, S.E., I. Urazghildiiev, and C.W. Clark. 2009. Variability in ambient noise levels and call 

39 parameters of North Atlantic right whales in three habitat areas. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

40 America 125:1230-1239.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-56 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Potter, J.R., M. Thillet, C. Douglas, M.A. Chitre, Z. Doborzynski, and P.J. Seekings. 2007. Visual and 

2 passive acoustic marine mammal observations and high-frequency seismic source characteristics 

3 recorded during a seismic survey. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering 32:469-483.

4 Reeves, R.R. 1992. Whale responses to anthropogenic sounds: A literature review. Sci. & Res. Ser. 47. 

5 New Zealand Department of Conservation, Wellington. 

6 Reeves, R.R., E. Mitchell, and H. Whitehead. 1993. Status of the northern bottlenose whale, Hyperoodon 

7 ampullatus. Canadian Field-Naturalist 107:490-508.

8 Reeves, R.R., R.J. Hofman, G.K. Silber, and D. Wilkinson. 1996. Acoustic deterrence of harmful marine 

9 mammal-fishery interactions: proceedings of a workshop held in Seattle, Washington, 20-22 March 

10 1996. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-10. NMFS, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 

11 Seattle, WA. 

12 Reiser, C.M., B. Haley, J. Beland, D.M. Savarese, D.S. Ireland, and D.W. Funk. 2009. Evidence of short13 range movements by phocid species in reaction to marine seismic surveys in the Alaskan Chukchi and 

Beaufort seas. Page 211 in Abstracts of the 18th 14 Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine 

15 Mammals, 12-16 October 2009, Québec City, Canada. 

16 Richardson, W.J. and C.I. Malme. 1993. Man-made noise and behavioral responses. Pages 631-700 in J.J. 

17 Burns, J.J. Montague, and C.J. Cowles, eds. The Bowhead Whale. Special Publication Number 2, 

18 Society for Marine Mammalogy, Lawrence, KS. 

19 Richardson, W.J. and B. Würsig. 1997. Influences of man-made noise and other human actions on 

20 cetacean behaviour. Marine and Freshwater Behavior and Physiology 29:183-209.

21 Richardson, W.J., B. Würsig, and C.R. Greene. 1986. Reactions of bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus, 

22 to seismic exploration in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 

23 79:1117-1128.

24 Richardson, W.J., R.A. Davis, C.R. Evans, D.K. Ljungblad, and P. Norton. 1987. Summer distribution of 

25 bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus, relative to oil industry activities in the Canadian Beaufort Sea, 

26 1980-84. Arctic 40:93-104.

27 Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. 

28 Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

29 Richardson, W.J., G.W. Miller, and C.R. Greene, Jr. 1999. Displacement of migrating bowhead whales 

30 by sounds from seismic surveys in shallow waters of the Beaufort Sea. Journal of the Acoustical 

31 Society of America 106(4, Pt. 2):2281 (Abstract).

32 Richardson, W.J., M. Holst, W.R. Koski, and M. Cummings. 2009. Responses of cetaceans to largesource seismic surveys by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Page 213 in Abstracts of the 18th 33

34 Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 October 2009, Québec City, Canada.

35 Riedman, M.L. 1983. Studies of the effects of experimentally produced noise associated with oil and gas 

36 exploration and development on sea otters in California. Report from Center for Coastal Marine 

37 Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, for MMS, Anchorage, AK. 
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-57

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Riedman, M.L. 1984. Effects of sounds associated with petroleum industry activities on the behavior of 

2 sea otters in California. Pages D-1 to D-12 in C.I. Malme, P.R. Miles, C.W. Clark, P. Tyack, and J.E. 

3 Bird. Investigations of the potential effects of underwater noise form petroleum industry activities on 

4 migrating gray whale behavior/Phase II: January 1984 migration. BBN Report 5586. Prepared by 

5 BBN Inc., Cambridge, MA, for MMS, Anchorage, AK. 

6 Romano, T.A., M.J. Keogh, C.Kelly, P. Feng, L. Berk, C.E. Schlundt, D.A. Carder, and J.J. Finneran. 

7 2004. Anthropogenic sound and marine mammal health: measures of the nervous and immune 

8 systems before and after intense sound exposure. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 

9 61:1124-1134.

10 SACLANT. 1998. Estimation of cetacean hearing criteria levels. Section II, Chapter 7 in SACLANTCEN 

11 Bioacoustics Panel Summary Record and Report. Prepared by NATO Undersea Research Center. 

12 Scheifele, P.M., S. Andrew, R.A. Cooper, M. Darre, F.E. Musiek and L. Max. 2005. Indication of a 

13 Lombard vocal response in the St. Lawrence River beluga. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

14 America 117(3, Pt. 1):1486-1492. 

15 Schlundt, C.E., J.J. Finneran, D.A. Carder, and S.H. Ridgway. 2000. Temporary shift in masking hearing 

16 thresholds of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, and white whales, Delphinapterus leucas, after 

17 exposure to intense tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 107:3496-3508.

18 Simard, Y., F. Samaran and N. Roy. 2005. Measurement of whale and seismic sounds in the Scotian 

19 Gully and adjacent canyons in July 2003. Pages 97-115 In: K. Lee, H. Bain and C.V. Hurley, eds. 

20 Acoustic monitoring and marine mammal surveys in The Gully and Outer Scotian Shelf before and 

21 during active seismic surveys. Environ. Stud. Res. Funds Rep. 151. 

22 Simmonds, M. P. and L.F. Lopez-Jurado. 1991. Whales and the military. Nature 351(6326):448.

23 Smultea, M.A. and M. Holst. 2008. Marine mammal monitoring during a University of Texas Institute for 

24 Geophysics seismic survey in the Northeast Pacific Ocean, July 2008. LGL Report TA4584-2. 

25 Prepared by LGL Ltd., King City, ON, for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia 

26 University, Palisades, NY, and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 

27 Smultea, M.A., M. Holst, W.R. Koski, and S. Stoltz. 2004. Marine mammal monitoring during Lamont28 Doherty Earth Observatory's seismic program in the Southeast Caribbean Sea and adjacent Atlantic 

29 Ocean, April-June 2004. LGL Report TA2822-26. Prepared by LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., for L30 DEO, Columbia University, Palisades, NY. 

31 Sodal, A. 1999. Measured underwater acoustic wave propagation from a seismic source. Proceedings of 

32 the Airgun Environmental Workshop, 6 July, London, UK. 

33 Southall, B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J.J. Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C.R. Greene Jr., D. Kastak, D.R. 

34 Ketten, J.H. Miller, P.E. Nachtigall, W.J. Richardson, J.A. Thomas, and P.L. Tyack. 2007. Marine 

35 mammal noise exposure criteria: initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals 33:411-522.

36 Stone, C.J. 2003. The effects of seismic activity on marine mammals in UK waters 1998-2000. JNCC 

37 Report 323. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Aberdeen, Scotland. 

38 Stone, C.J. and M.L. Tasker. 2006. The effects of seismic airguns on cetaceans in UK waters. Journal of 

39 Cetacean Research and Management 8:255-263.

40 Terhune, J.M. 1999. Pitch separation as a possible jamming-avoidance mechanism in underwater calls of 

41 bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus). Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:1025-1034.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-58 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Thomas, J.A., R.A. Kastelein, and F.T. Awbrey. 1990. Behavior and blood catecholamines of captive 

2 belugas during playbacks of noise from an oil drilling platform. Zoo Biology 9:393-402.

3 Thompson, D., M. Sjöberg, E.B. Bryant, P. Lovell, and A. Bjørge. 1998. Behavioural and physiological 

4 responses of harbour (Phoca vitulina) and grey (Halichoerus grypus) seals to seismic surveys. Page 

134 in Abstracts of the 12th 5 Biennial Conference and World Marine Mammal Science Conference, 20-

6 25 Jan., Monte Carlo, Monaco. 

7 Thomson, D.H. and W.J. Richardson. 1995. Marine mammal sounds. Pages 159-204 in W.J. Richardson, 

8 C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San 

9 Diego, CA. 

10 Tolstoy, M., J. Diebold, S. Webb, D. Bohnenstiehl, and E. Chapp. 2004a. Acoustic calibration 

11 measurements. Chapter 3 In: W.J. Richardson, ed. Marine mammal and acoustic monitoring during 

12 Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory's acoustic calibration study in the northern Gulf of Mexico, 2003. 

13 Revised. Prepared by LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, 

14 NY, and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD.

15 Tolstoy, M., J.B. Diebold, S.C. Webb, D.R. Bohenstiehl, E. Chapp, R.C. Holmes, and M. Rawson. 2004b. 

16 Broadband calibration of R/V Ewing seismic sources. Geophysical Research Letters 31:L14310. doi: 

17 10.1029/2004GL020234

18 Tolstoy, M., J. Diebold, L. Doermann, S. Nooner, S.C. Webb, D.R. Bohnenstiehl, T.J. Crone, and R.C. 

19 Holmes. 2009. Broadband calibration of the R/V Marcus G. Langseth four-string seismic sources. 

20 Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems 10(8):1-15. 

21 Tyack, P.L. 2008. Implications for marine mammals of large-scale changes in the marine acoustic 

22 environment. Journal of Mammalogy 89:549-558. 

23 Tyack, P.L. 2009. Human-generated sound and marine mammals. Physics Today 62(11, Nov.):39-44.

24 Tyack, P., M. Johnson, and P. Miller. 2003. Tracking responses of sperm whales to experimental 

25 exposures of airguns. Pages 115-120 in A.E. Jochens and D.C. Biggs, eds. Sperm whale seismic study 

26 in the Gulf of Mexico/Annual Report: Year 1. OCS Study MMS 2003-069. Prepared by Texas A&M 

27 University, College Station, TX, for MMS, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA.

28 Tyack, P.L., M.P. Johnson, P.T. Madsen, P.J. Miller, and J. Lynch. 2006a. Biological significance of 

29 acoustic impacts on marine mammals: examples using an acoustic recording tag to define acoustic 

30 exposure of sperm whales, Physeter catodon, exposed to airgun sounds in controlled exposure 

31 experiments. Eos Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 87(36), Joint Assembly 

32 Supplement, Abstract OS42A-02. 23-26 May, Baltimore, MD.

33 Tyack, P.L., M. Johnson, N. Aguilar Soto, A. Sturlese, and P.T. Madsen. 2006b. Extreme diving of 

34 beaked whales. Journal of Experimental Biology 209:4238-4253.

Urick, R.J. 1983. Principles of Underwater Sound. 3rd 35 edition. Peninsula Publishing, Los Altos, CA. 

36 van der Woude, S. 2007. Assessing effects of an acoustic marine geophysical survey on the behaviour of 

bottlenose dolphins. Tursiops truncatus. Abstracts of the 17th 37 Biennial Conference on the Biology of 

38 Marine Mammals, 29 Nov.-3 Dec., Cape Town, South Africa.

39 Wartzok, D., A.N. Popper, J. Gordon, and J. Merrill. 2004. Factors affecting the responses of marine 

40 mammals to acoustic disturbance. Marine Technology Society Journal 37(4):6-15.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

Appendix E: E-59

Effects of Seismic & Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Watkins, W.A. 1977. Acoustic behavior of sperm whales. Oceanus 20(2):50-58. 

2 Watkins, W.A. 1986. Whale reactions to human activities in Cape Cod waters. Marine Mammal Science 

3 2:251-262.

4 Watkins, W.A. and W.E. Schevill. 1975. Sperm whales (Physeter catodon) react to pingers. Deep-Sea 

5 Research 22(3):123-129.

6 Watkins, W.A., K.E. Moore, and P. Tyack. 1985. Sperm whale acoustic behaviors in the southeast 

7 Caribbean. Cetology 49:1-15.

8 Weilgart, L.S. 2007. A brief review of known effects of noise on marine mammals. International Journal 

9 of Comparative Psychology 20:159-168. 

10 Weir, C.R. 2008a. Overt responses of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), sperm whales 

11 (Physeter macrocephalus), and Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella frontalis) to seismic exploration 

12 off Angola. Aquatic Mammals 34:71-83.

13 Weir, C.R. 2008b. Short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus) respond to an airgun ramp14 up procedure off Gabon. Aquatic Mammals 34:349-354.

15 Weller, D.W., Y.V. Ivashchenko, G.A. Tsidulko, A.M. Burdin, and R.L. Brownell, Jr. 2002. Influence of 

16 seismic surveys on western gray whales off Sakhalin Island, Russia in 2001. Paper SC/54/BRG14, 

17 IWC, Western Gray Whale Working Group Meeting, 22-25 Oct., Ulsan, South Korea. 

18 Weller, D.W., S.H. Rickards, A.L. Bradford, A.M. Burdin, and R.L. Brownell, Jr. 2006a. The influence of 

19 1997 seismic surveys on the behavior of western gray whales off Sakhalin Island, Russia. Paper 

20 SC/58/E4 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, IWC Annual Meeting, 1-13 June, St. Kitts.

21 Weller, D.W., G.A. Tsidulko, Y.V. Ivashchenko, A.M. Burdin and R.L. Brownell Jr. 2006b. A re22 evaluation of the influence of 2001 seismic surveys on western gray whales off Sakhalin Island, 

23 Russia. Paper SC/58/E5 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, IWC Annual Meeting, 1-13 

24 June, St. Kitts.

25 Wieting, D. 2004. Background on development and intended use of criteria. Page 20 in S. Orenstein, L. 

26 Langstaff, L. Manning, and R. Maund, eds. Advisory Committee on Acoustic Impacts on Marine 

27 Mammals, Final Meeting Summary. Second Meeting, April 28-30, 2004, Arlington, VA. Sponsored 

28 by the Marine Mammal Commission. 10 August.

29 Winsor, M.H. and B.R. Mate. 2006. Seismic survey activity and the proximity of satellite tagged sperm 

30 whales. International Whaling Commission Working Pap. SC/58/E16. 

31 Wright, A.J. and S. Kuczaj. 2007. Noise-related stress and marine mammals: An introduction. 

32 International Journal of Comparative Psychology. 20(2-3):iii-viii.

33 Wright, A.J., N. Aguilar Soto, A.L. Baldwin, M. Bateson, C.M. Beale, C. Clark, T. Deak, E.F. Edwards, 

34 A. Fernández, A. Godinho, L.T. Hatch, A. Kakuschke, D. Lusseau, D. Martineau, L.M. Romero, L.S. 

35 Weilgart, B.A. Wintle, G. Notarbartolo-di-Sciara, and V. Martin. 2007a. Do marine mammals 

36 experience stress related to anthropogenic noise? International Journal of Comparative Psychology 

37 20:274-316.
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research June 2010

E-60 Appendix E:

Effects of Seismic &Sonar Sounds on Marine Mammals

1 Wright, A.J., N. Aguilar Soto, A.L. Baldwin, M. Bateson, C.M. Beale, C. Clark, T. Deak, E.F. Edwards, 

2 A. Fernández, A. Godinho, L.T. Hatch, A. Kakuschke, D. Lusseau, D. Martineau, L.M. Romero, L.S. 

3 Weilgart, B.A. Wintle, G. Notarbartolo-di-Sciara and V. Martin. 2007b. Anthropogenic noise as a 

4 stressor in animals: A multidisciplinary perspective. International Journal of Comparative 

5 Psychology 20: 250-273. 

6 Wright, A.J., T. Deak, and E.C.M. Parsons. 2009. Concerns related to chronic stress in marine mammals. 

7 International Whaling Commission Working Paper SC/61/E16. 

8 Würsig, B., S.K. Lynn, T.A. Jefferson, and K.D. Mullin. 1998. Behaviour of cetaceans in the northern 

9 Gulf of Mexico relative to survey ships and aircraft. Aquatic Mammals 24:41-50.

10 Würsig, B.G., D.W. Weller, A.M. Burdin, S.H. Reeve, A.L Bradford, S.A. Blokhin, and R.L Brownell, Jr. 

11 1999. Gray whales summering off Sakhalin Island, Far East Russia: July-October 1997. A joint U.S.-

12 Russian scientific investigation. Final Report. Prepared by Texas A&M University, College Station, 

13 TX, and Kamchatka Institute of Ecology and Nature Management, Russian Academy of Sciences, 

14 Kamchatka, Russia, for Sakhalin Energy Investment Co. Ltd and Exxon Neftegaz Ltd, Yuzhno15 Sakhalinsk, Russia. 

16 Yazvenko, S.B., T.L. McDonald, S.A. Blokhin, S.R. Johnson, S.K. Meier, H.R. Melton, M.W. 

17 Newcomer, R.M. Nielson, V.L. Vladimirov, and P.W. Wainwright. 2007a. Distribution and 

18 abundance of western gray whales during a seismic survey near Sakhalin Island, Russia. 

19 Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 134(1-3):45-73.

20 Yazvenko, S. B., T.L. McDonald, S.A. Blokhin, S.R. Johnson, H.R. Melton, and M.W. Newcomer. 

21 2007b. Feeding activity of western gray whales during a seismic survey near Sakhalin Island, Russia. 

22 Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 134(1-3):93-106.

23 Yoder, J.A. 2002. Declaration James A. Yoder in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for temporary 

24 restraining order, 28 October 2002. Civ. No. 02-05065-JL. U.S. District Court, Northern District of 

25 California, San Francisco Division.
APPENDIX F: 

LOW-ENERGY ACOUSTIC SOURCES

Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research May 2011

Appendix F: F-1

Low-Energy Seismic Sources

Appendix F: Low-Energy Acoustic Sources

Definition of Low-Energy Source

For the purposes of this EIS/OEIS, a low-energy source is defined as a towed acoustic source whose 

received pressure level is <180 dB re 1 Pa (rms) at 100 m, as well as any towed sparker, boomer, water 

gun or chirp system with a source level <205 dB re 1 Pa-m (Table 1). A received pressure level of 180 

dB re 1 Pa (rms) is equivalent to an energy level of 170 dB SEL. This appendix uses the energy metric 

rather than the pressure metric. 

Examples of Low-Energy Acoustic Sources

Generator Injector (GI) Guns:

 Any single or any two GI guns.

 Three or four GI guns, within the allowable range of tow depths and element separations (Table 

1).

Generic single-chamber airguns:

 A tuned array of four airguns (volumes between 25 and 160 in3) within the allowable range of 

tow depths and element separations (Table 1).

 A single pair of clustered airguns with individual volumes 250 in3or less.

 Two small 2-clusters (four airguns) maximum volume 45 in3.

 Any single airgun 425 in3or smaller, at any tow depth.

Sparker, boomer, water gun, or chirp system:

 Any system towed from the research vessel at any depth and with a source level <205 dB re 1

Pa-m.

Table 1. Low-Energy Sources

Acoustic Source Volume Tow Depth Spacing

GI GUNS

1 – 2 GI Guns Any Any Any

3 – 4 GI Guns Table 3 Table 3 Table 3

GENERIC SINGLE CHAMBER AIRGUNS

Tuned array of 4 25 – 160 in3 Table 4 Table 4

1 clustered pair ≤ 250 in3 each Any Any

2 small clustered pairs ≤ 45 in3each Any Any

1 single ≤ 425 in3 Any N/A

Acoustic Source Source Level Tow Depth

BOOMER, SPARKER, WATER GUN, AND CHIRP <205 dB re 1 Pa-m Any

N/A = Not applicable.

Variables Affecting the Sound Field of an Acoustic Source

Several factors influence the sound field around an array and thus the distances at which various sound 

levels are received. Principal among these are array layout or spacing, tow depth, and tuning (Table 2).

Table 2. Variables Affecting Radius Size

Variable Decrease Radius Increase Radius

Airgun spacing Larger Smaller

Tow Depth Shallower Deeper

Tuning Better tuning Poor tuning
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research May 2011

F-2 Appendix F

Low-Energy Seismic Sources

Airgun Spacing. Along any particular azimuth, the sound level versus distance curve will be affected to a 

great extent by the dimension of the array in that direction. The most extreme contours will always fall 

athwart ship to the axis of a linear array, or in the direction of the minimum extent of a non-linear array. 

When the spacing gets large enough, side lobes develop, and when these are large enough, spacing alone 

cannot control the directivity of the sound.

Tow Depth. Shallow towing of the acoustic source typically improves tuning and also allows free surface 

reflection (“Lloyd’s mirror”) effects.

Tuning. There are three ways to improve tuning:

1) stabilizing the bubble by injecting additional air into it, as accomplished by the GI gun;

2) mixing chamber sizes; and

3) clustering. 

Sometimes the latter two are combined, but this typically requires more airguns than the number which 

can be included in a low-energy source array.

Examples of Variables Affecting the Sound Field

The first series of examples illustrates the effects of array layout (gun spacing) and tow depth. The 

sources used are GI guns, which have two air chambers. The first “Generator” (or “G”) chamber produces 

the seismic pulse. As the “G” air bubble starts to collapse, air in the “Injector” chamber is released, 

preventing the “G” bubble from reverberating. This provides excellent tuning. All volumes given are for 

the Generator chambers as the Injector volumes are used to diminish, rather than increase, the signal’s 

energy content.

For a source array of four 105/105 GI guns, towed at a depth of 3 m, with a minimum spacing between 

guns of 5 m, the most extreme SEL contours fall within a radius of 100 m from the center of source. This 

particular source array is rectangular, and the directivity is shown in Figures 1 and 2 below.

Figure 1. SEL contours (side view) for Four 105/105 in3 GI Guns (Tow Depth 3 m, Spacing 5 m)
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research May 2011

Appendix F: F-3

Low-Energy Seismic Sources

Figure 2. SEL contours (top view) for Four 105/105 in3 GI Guns (Tow Depth 3 m, Spacing 5 m)

The most extreme contour direction is the same as the minimum dimension of the array. In this case, that 

dimension is 5 m. If the individual sources are arranged in a 5-m square, they will fall upon a circle 

roughly 7 m in diameter, and will produce a circular directivity as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. SEL contours (top view) for Four 105/105 in3 GI Guns (Tow Depth 3 m, Spacing 5 m)

Therefore, an array containing up to four 105 in3 GI guns towed at 3 m or less with minimum spacing in

every direction of 5 m, constitutes a “low-energy source.”
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research May 2011

F-4 Appendix F

Low-Energy Seismic Sources

Often, researchers want to employ greater tow depths, in order to enhance low frequencies. Figure 4

illustrates what happens when the same 4 x 105 in3 GI gun array is towed at a depth of 5 m.

Figure 4. SEL contours (side view) for Four 105/105 in3 GI Guns (Tow Depth 5 m, Spacing 5 m)

In this case, the 170 dB SEL ( 180 dB re 1 μParms) contour extends well beyond 100 m, and therefore 

the source does not meet the “low-energy” criteria. Two approaches may be taken to reduce the SEL 

contours: increase the spacing between the guns or employ smaller sources. If the spacing is increased, 

the SEL contours are reduced as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. SEL contours (side view) for Four 105/105 in3 GI Guns (Tow Depth 5 m)
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research May 2011

Appendix F: F-5

Low-Energy Seismic Sources

The 12-m diameter requires a minimum source spacing of 8.5 m, which may be too large for some ships. 

The maximum tow depth is 5 m at which it is possible to successfully constrain the SEL contours by 

increasing the array dimensions for the 4 x 105 in3 GI gun array. For deeper arrays, the greater minimum 

spacing that might be required allows the upper bulge, just beginning to appear in the previous figure, to 

expand, greatly exceeding the 100-m radius. This bulge can be called a side lobe.

Smaller GI guns can be used (standard sizes are 45, 75 and 105 in3) to reduce the SEL contours (Figures 5 

and 6).

Figure 5. SEL contours (side view) for Four 45 in3 GI Guns (Tow Depth 5 m)

Figure 6. SEL contours (side view) for Four 75 in3 GI Guns (Tow Depth 4 m)
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research May 2011

F-6 Appendix F

Low-Energy Seismic Sources

Modeling of this kind results in the following matrix of allowable parameters for 4-GI-gun quadrilateral 

arrays (Table 3).

Table 3. Allowable Combinations of Tow Depths and Minimum Element Spacing for Quadrilateral 

Arrays of Identically Sized GI guns

Tow

Depth (m)

Minimum Airgun Spacing (m)

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

45 in375 in

3

105 in3

Tuned Arrays

It may in some cases be preferable to turn away from GI guns (usually for considerations of compressed 

air consumption) and use a small tuned array. A reasonable example is an array of single-chamber airguns 

with volumes of 25, 55, 100 and 160 in3, totaling 340 in3(Figure 7). In comparison, a 4 x 105 in3 GI-gun 

array consumes 840 in3per discharge, so if compressed air volume is limited, a tuned airgun array may be 

preferable.

Figure 7. SEL contours (top view) for Tuned Four-Airgun (340 in3) Array (Tow Depth 5 m)
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research May 2011

Appendix F: F-7

Low-Energy Seismic Sources

Due to the quadrilateral layout, this array has an approximately circular directivity pattern, despite the 

varying element volumes. As in the case of the GI-gun arrays, there are tradeoffs between airgun tow 

depth and spacing (Table 4).

Table 4. Tuned Airgun Quadrangle Array with 25 in3, 55 in3, 100 in3, and 160 in3 Airguns

Tow

Depth (m)

Minimum Airgun Spacing (m)

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

3

4

5

6

7
Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Research May 2011

F-8 Appendix F

Low-Energy Seismic Sources

[This page intentionally left blank.]
APPENDIX G: 

SUMMARY OF NSF-FUNDED MARINE SEISMIC SURVEYS (2003-2009) 

NSF-Funded Marine Seismic Surveys (2003-2009)

Survey Seismic Water

Cruise Survey Cruise Array Vol Lines* Ops* Depth 

Year Region Description Dates* Lead PI (Institution) Ship Length* Size (in 3 ) (km) (hr) Status PAM Lat. Long. (m) 

N Gulf of Mexico Calibration cruise May-Jun 03 L-DEO Diebold (L-DEO) Ewing 4 d 2 GI guns 6-20 airguns 105 1,350-8,600 16 306 116 Compl. Y 29oN 87oW <100 - >1,000 

Hess Deep - E Trop Pac W of Galapagos Isl Jul 03 L-DEO Christesen (UT-A) Ewing 12 d 10 airguns 12 aiguns 3,005 3,721 1,580 192 Compl. N 2oN 102oW 2,000- 3,400 

2003 Norwegian Sea Storegga slide area Aug-Sep 03 L-DEO Holbrook (UWY) Ewing 27 d 2 GI guns 6 airguns 210 1,350 127 2,339 14 252 Compl. N 64oN 3oW <100 - 5,000 

Mid-Atlantic TAG Oct 03 L-DEO Sohn (WHOI) Ewing 6 d 20 airguns 8,575 302 37 Compl. N 26oN 45oW 1,500 - 4,500 

NW Atlantic Bermuda Rise Nov 03 L-DEO McNutt (MBARI) CANC. SE Caribbean off Venezuela Apr-May 04 L-DEO Sawyer (Rice) & Mann (UTIG) Ewing 40 d 20 airguns 6,947 6,605 755 Compl. Y 13oN 65oW 15 - 6,000 

N Gulf of Mexico Calibration cruise CANC. NW Atlantic ADWC - far SE of Nfld. Jul-Aug 04 L-DEO Norris (SIO) Knorr 23 d 1 GI gun 75 3,757 419 Compl. N 40oN 48oW 2,468 - 5,372 

2004 Gulf of Alaska Nearshore waters Sep 04 L-DEO Mix (OSU) & Jaeger (UFG) Ewing 17 d 2 GI guns 210 1,111 131 Compl. N 59oN 141oW 30 - >3,000 

NE Pacific Blanco, Off Oregon Oct-Nov 04 L-DEO Christesen & McIntosh (UTIG) Ewing 7 d 10 airguns 12 airguns 3,050 3,705 988 119 Compl. Y 43oN 130oW 1,600 - 5,000 

ETP-C America W of Nicaragua Nov-Dec 04 L-DEO Fulthorpe & McIntosh (UTIG) Ewing 29 d 3 GI guns 135 315 3,184 394 Compl. Y 12oN 87oW <100 - >5,000 

S Gulf of Calif. May 04 SIO Lonsdale (SIO) CANC. 

S Gulf of Mexico (Yucatan) Chicxulub crater Jan-Feb 05 L-DEO Barton (U Cambridge) & Gulick (UTIG) Ewing 23 d 20 airguns 6,970 1,892 205 Compl. Y 22oN 90oW <100 

2005 Aleutians Jul-Aug 05 L-DEO Yogodzinski (USCarolina) et al. Thompson 4 d 1 GI gun 45 537 44 Compl. N var. var. 100 - 3,500 

Trans-Arctic Alaska to Svalbard Aug-Sep 05 UAF Coakley (UAF) et al. Healy 33 d 2 G guns 500 2,273 294 Compl. Y var. var. 223 - 4,873 

SW Pacific far S of Tahiti Feb-Mar 05 SIO Lyle (BSU) Melville 41 d 2 GI guns 90 unk. unk. Compl. var. var. 4,000 - 5,000 

S Pacific - Louisville Ridge E of New Zealand Jan-Feb 06 SIO Lonsdale & Gee (SIO) Revelle 21 d 2 GI guns 90 unk. unk. EA N var. var. 800 - 2,300 

2006 Arctic Ocean W Cdn Basin, Chukchi & Mendeleev Ridge Jul-Aug 06 UTIG Lawver (UTIG) et al. Healy 21 d 4 G guns 2-3 airguns 1,840 - 2,340 339 77 Compl. var. var. 35 - 3,899 

NW Atlantic Bermuda Rise Oct-Nov 06 L-DEO McNutt (MBARI) CANC. 

E Trop Pacific IODP Mar 06 SIO Lyle (BSU) et al. Revelle unk. 2 GI guns 90 unk. unk. var. var. 3,900 - 5,200 

2006-07 S Pacific E of NZ - IODP Dec 06-Jan 07 SIO D'Hondt (URI) et al. Revelle 40 d 2 GI guns 90 unk. unk. EA var. var. 3,200 - 5,700 

NE Pacific Off coast of OR Sep 07 SIO Trehu (OSU) Wecoma 2 d 1 GI gun 45 53 Compl. N 45oN 125oW 110 - 3,050 

2007 NE Indian Ocean 90 E Ridge - IODP May-Jul 07 SIO Sager (TA&M) et al. Revelle 55 d 2 GI guns 90 2,700 245 EA N var. var. 1,600 - 5,100 

Queen Charlotte Snd BATHOLITHS Fall CANC.

2007-08 N Gulf of Mexico Calibration cruise Nov 07-Feb 08 L-DEO Diebold (L-DEO) Langseth 14 d 18 airguns 36 airguns 3,300 6,600 865 104 Compl. Y 28oN 95oW <100 - >1,000 

C America - Carib & C America - Pacific off Costa Rica Feb-Mar08 Mar-Apr 08 L-DEO Holbrook (UWY) Langseth 14 d 27 d 36 airguns 36 airguns 6,600 6,600 2,204 4,257 264 540 Compl. Y var. var. <100 - >2,500 

NE Pacific Off coast of OR Jun-Jul 08 SIO Bangs (UTIG) Thompson 15 d 2 GI guns 150 974 189 Compl. N 45oN 125oW 650 - 1,650 

2008 E Gulf of Alaska STEEP Sep-Oct 08 L-DEO Gulick & Christesen (UTIG) Langseth 11 d 36 airguns 6,600 1,633 203 Compl. Y 59oN 140oW 40 - 4,000 

E Trop Pacific QDG EPR Apr-May 08 Jun-Aug 08 L-DEO McGuire (WHOI) et al. Langseth 4 d 32 d 36 airguns 18 airguns 6,600 3,300 146 3,045 20 379 Compl. Y var. var. >2,000 

Santa Barbara Channel Nov 08 SIO Nicholson (UCSB) Melville 12 d Boomer/sparker 1 GI gun 1.5-2 kJ 25-45 ~1,100 unk. EA N 34oN 120oW <50 - 580 

SE Asia TAIGER Apr-Jul 09 L-DEO McIntosh (UTIG) & Wu (SUNYB) Langseth ~90 d 36 airguns 6,600 15,143 1,879 Compl. Y var. var. 20 - 6,800 SW Pacific E Lau Spreading Ctr Jan-Mar 09 L-DEO Wiens (Wash. U) et al. Langseth 26 d 36 airguns 6,600 4,784 592 Compl. Y 20oS 176oW >1,000 

2009 NW Atlantic continental shelf off MA Aug 09 Rice Dugan (Rice) Endeavor 15 d 1-2 GI guns or sparker 45-90 1,444 197 Compl. N 41oN 70oW 25 - 200 

NE Pacific Off coast of OR Jul 09 SIO Trehu (OSU) Wecoma 5 d 1 GI gun 45 32 EA N 45oN 125oW 110 - 3,050 

NE Pacific ETOMO BC, Canada Aug-Sep 09 LDEO Toomey (UO) Langseth 15 d 36 airguns 6,600 3,002 210 Compl. Y 48oN 128oW >1,000 

Status: Canc. = cancelled; Compl. =completed

* If the cruise was completed, values are from the post-cruise 90-d report; if cruise was not been completed, values are based on the EA and are estimated. "Cruise length" is the duration of active seismic operations (if known) not total cruise length.

~Location
 
APPENDIX H: 

ACOUSTIC CALIBRATION AND MODELING OF SEISMIC SOURCES ON 

THE RV LANGSETH (2007-2008) 

Article

Volume 11, Number 12

29 December 2010

Q12012, doi:10.1029/2010GC003216

ISSN: 1525‐2027

R/V Marcus G. Langseth seismic source: Modeling

and calibration

John B. Diebold, Maya Tolstoy, Lindsey Doermann, Scott L. Nooner, Spahr C. Webb,

and Timothy J. Crone

Lamont‐Doherty Earth Observatory, Earth Institute at Columbia University, 61 Route 9W,

Palisades, New York 10964, USA (tolstoy@ldeo.columbia.edu)

[1] This paper presents analyses of calibration data of the R/V Marcus G. Langseth seismic sources that

were collected in 2007–2008. The analysis includes measurements of the levels and azimuthal directivity

of the Langseth two‐string source, which is used for 3‐D seismic surveys and compares these data with

multichannel seismic hydrophone array data in shallow water. The analysis also shows the important contribution of seafloor and subseafloor reflected and refracted arrivals and the associated effects of water

depth and seafloor slope. As expected and predicted by modeling, azimuthal directivity depends greatly

on the “footprint” dimensions of the seismic array. In shallow water, where the acoustic field is dominated

by near‐vertically traveling reflected and refracted waves, data recorded using a towed MCS array are a

useful proxy for single hydrophone calibration data. In deeper water, the easily modeled direct arrivals

are exceeded in amplitude by seafloor reflected and subseafloor refracted energy at offsets which depend

upon the water depth, limiting the applicability of a priori modeling that does not include these interactions.

In addition, in a seafloor sloping environment, amplitudes depend greatly on whether the receivers are upslope or downslope from the source.

Components: 6000 words, 18 figures.

Keywords: seismic source; calibration; modeling; marine mammals.

Index Terms: 3025 Marine Geology and Geophysics: Marine seismics (0935, 7294); 0902 Exploration Geophysics:

Computational methods: seismic; 0550 Computational Geophysics: Model verification and validation.

Received 7 May 2010; Revised 25 October 2010; Accepted 3 November 2010; Published 29 December 2010.

Diebold, J. B., M. Tolstoy, L. Doermann, S. L. Nooner, S. C. Webb, and T. J. Crone (2010), R/V Marcus G. Langseth seismic

source: Modeling and calibration, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 11, Q12012, doi:10.1029/2010GC003216.

1. Introduction

[2] Calibration of the “standard” R/V Langseth

seismic source arrays was carried out in the NW

gulf of Mexico during late 2007 and early 2008

(Figure 1). Initial calibration results for the Langseth four‐string source array that is typically used

for 2‐D seismic reflection and refraction surveys

were presented by Tolstoy et al. [2009] for the two

end‐member environments (shallow and deep water)

chosen for the calibration effort. Here we present

work that includes further refining of the navigation

of the calibration buoy hydrophone at the intermediate/slope and deep water sites, as well as analysis

of the two‐string array results, including its directivity and effects due to subseafloor interaction of

sound waves at those sites. The two‐string array is

typically used for 3‐D seismic reflection in a flip‐

flop mode where four strings are deployed, but only

two strings are fired per source point.

[3] One of the fundamental motivations for the

Langseth calibration efforts was the need to assess

Copyright 2010 by the American Geophysical Union 1 of 20
and verify the accuracy and applicability of modeling which has been used to estimate sound

pressure levels (SPL) for adherence to marine

mammal mitigation guidelines. The amount of time

available for the calibration work limited the

number of parameters and configurations that could

be tested, especially source towing depth, which in

practice may vary between 6 and 18 m. If the

modeling can be verified for a few basic configurations, then it can be used to reliably predict the

effects of small configuration changes.

[4] Previous results were presented using two

metrics: SEL (sound exposure level, which is

equivalent to energy flux density) and the 90%

RMS values favored in the past for evaluation of

behavioral responses of marine mammals to

anthropogenic noise. Under certain circumstances,

these two measures produce the same result, but for

impulsive sources, including air gun arrays, 90%

RMS is usually higher. As Madsen [2005] demonstrated, the exact difference is highly variable,

depending on impulsivity, which may vary greatly

for signals containing similar energy levels. Southall

et al. [2007] have recommended that SEL be used

instead, and we follow this practice here.

[5] In this paper we present the direct arrival

modeling technique used for a priori SPL prediction, and then discuss calibration measurements

from the shallow, deep and slope sites and compare. Our goal is to provide calibration results

useful for mitigation purposes during Langseth

operations, and to illustrate how modeling and in

situ work can help refine these results for specific

sites of operation. We also provide an overview of

different factors that should be considered with

respect to water depth and source configuration

when planning mitigation efforts.

2. Direct Arrival Modeling

for Mitigation

[6] A simple ray trace–based modeling approach,

assuming an isovelocity sound speed profile, has

been used to establish a priori safety radii for marine

mammal mitigation during Langseth expeditions,

Figure 1. Location map for the three calibration sites, superimposed upon GEODAS bathymetry. Contours are

labeled in meters. The shallow site was occupied during cruises MGL0707 and MGL0802; the slope and deep sites

were occupied only during MGL0802.

Geochemistry

Geophysics

Geosystems G3 DIEBOLD ET AL.: MARINE SOURCE MODELING AND CALIBRATION 10.1029/2010GC003216

2 of 20
and, previously, for R/V Ewing. One of the many

motivating factors for the Langseth calibration

efforts was to assess the accuracy of that modeling.

Briefly, the modeling process is this:

[7] 1. Define the air gun array in terms of the size

and relative location of each air gun [X, Y, Z].

[8] 2. Model the near field signatures using PGS

Nucleus’s MASOMO (Marine Source Modeling)

and extract them (http://www.pgs.com/upload/Nucleus.

pdf).

[9] 3. Decide upon a 2‐D mesh of points, for

example within a plane intersecting the center of

the air gun array. Coarse meshes produce smoother

contours, but may not fully represent the pressure

field, especially near the free surface. A typical

mesh is 100 × 50.

[10] 4. For each of the points in the mesh, create the

signal that would be observed there when every air

gun in the array was fired simultaneously.

[11] 5. For that signal, determine the desired statistic: Peak‐to‐peak dB, Peak dB, RMS dB, maximum

psi, etc.

[12] 6. Contour the mesh.

[13] 7. Determine radii and the trajectory of maximum SPL from contour lines (Figure 2).

[14] Most of the work lies in step 4, which has steps

of its own:

[15] 1. For each of the air guns in the array,

determine the distances, and thus the time of flight

between the air gun and the mesh point, as well as

the free surface ghost “image” of the air gun and

the mesh point.

[16] 2. Scale and shift the air gun near field signal,

dividing by the point‐to‐point distance and moving

forward in time according to time of flight.

[17] 3. Scale and shift the near field signal’s ghost

image, as above, in addition multiplying by the free

surface reflection coefficient (typically between

−0.9 and −0.95).

[18] 4. Sum the results. For the Langseth 36–air gun

array, that requires combining the 72 scaled and

shifted direct and ghost signals at each mesh point.

[19] These steps are all carried out in the time domain,

necessitating resampling. With fine meshes, some

numerical jitter is introduced (Figures 2 and 3).

[20] As illustrated in Figure 2, sound levels recorded by the calibration hydrophones will not

always be the maximum values, which should be

used for mitigation. Nonetheless, the modeling can

be easily adapted to compare it directly with the

calibration results (Figure 3). Modeled data points

can be calculated and plotted along any desired line

(Figure 3) or plane (Figures 2 and 4). Choosing a

horizontal plane, as in the case of Figure 4, produces an image of an array’s azimuthal directivity.

3. Experiment Design

[21] The calibration field program was conducted

over two short cruises (MGL0707 and MGL0802)

with the goal of calibrating the R/V Marcus

Langseth seismic sources, and comparing them

with calibration of the R/V Maurice Ewing seismic

sources conducted in the Gulf of Mexico in 2003

[Tolstoy et al., 2004]. The 2003 measurements

were carried out in an area of strong gyre activity,

so the Langseth effort was moved westward to try

to avoid the fast and curved drifting of the unanchored buoy observed away from the shallow sites

for the Ewing calibration.

[22] Details of the air gun array and the spar buoy

used to record it are provided by Tolstoy et al. [2009].

The receiver, a spar buoy with two hydrophone

channels, was moored at the shallow site (Figure 1)

and floated freely at the deeper sites. Detected signals

were recorded internally at the buoy, whose position

was periodically relayed to Langseth by radio. Two

issues complicate our analysis. First, a continuous

series of low‐level noise bursts was superimposed on

the recorded calibration buoy data, resulting from the

regular radio transmissions of its GPS position. Second, due to the fact that the calibration legs were

carried out concurrently with the initial setup and

testing of Langseth’s seismic equipment, that was not

yet complete, the relative positioning of the multistring air gun array, normally provided by GPS signals from modules located within each subarray, or

“string” was not yet available. As a result of this,

changes in the overall width of the multistring source

arrays, expected to occur during turns, could not be

verified. Due to the resulting uncertainty, data

acquired during tight turns was excluded from the

analysis in some cases.

4. Shallow Site: Two‐String Array

and Its Directivity

[23] Analysis of the four‐string Langseth source

calibration measurements at the shallow site was

presented by Tolstoy et al. [2009]. Similar analyses

for the two‐string array measurements are preGeochemistry

Geophysics

Geosystems G3 DIEBOLD ET AL.: MARINE SOURCE MODELING AND CALIBRATION 10.1029/2010GC003216

3 of 20
sented here. The two‐string array is essentially a

subset of the four‐string array, comprising two of

the four identical nine‐element linear subarrays

with the same 8 m string‐to‐string separation used

in the four‐string array. The two‐string array is thus

aerially 1/3 as wide as the four‐string array, while

having the same length. Thus its predicted azimuthal

directivity is considerably different (Figure 4). Like

an antenna, the directivity of a source array is

highly dependent upon its dimensions. The larger

the dimension of the array in any particular direction, the smaller and more tightly focused its beam

pattern in the same direction. Since the Langseth

two‐string and four‐string arrays have the same

along‐track dimensions, the difference in their

inline power is controlled only by the number of air

guns in the respective arrays, two to one, equating

to a 6 dB difference. In the cross‐line or athwartships direction, however, the difference in physical

extent tends to counteract the difference in number

of elements, and received energy levels are nearly

the same for both arrays.

[24] As described by Tolstoy et al. [2009] the

shallow site shooting pattern was designed to

maximize the number of impulses recorded in the

orthogonal fore and aft (inline) and athwartships

(cross‐line) directions. Measurements of the two‐

string array were made twice at the shallow site,

and thus this site provides the best coverage,

especially in the cross‐line direction. Figure 5a

shows the sound exposure level (SEL) for the

cross‐line direction and Figure 5b shows the SEL for

the inline shots. In the inline direction, the measured

two‐string array levels are about half (6 dB) those

of the four‐string array. In the athwartship, or cross‐

Figure 2. The direct arrival model relevant for deep water for Langseth’s four‐string air gun array, towed at 6 m

depth, the configuration used during the calibration procedure. While the calibration results should be compared to

values modeled along the constant depth “hydrophone” line, the maximum values, used for mitigation radii, are found

along the slanted, dashed line. Energy which would be postcritically (i.e., totally) reflected or refracted at or below the

seafloor propagates from the source and the sea surface in the field labeled “postcritical.” The angle of the dividing

line separating precritical and postcritical depends on the velocity of sound below the seafloor, and the x value of the

point at which this line intersects the seafloor is called the “critical distance.”

Geochemistry

Geophysics

Geosystems G3 DIEBOLD ET AL.: MARINE SOURCE MODELING AND CALIBRATION 10.1029/2010GC003216

4 of 20
line direction, the measured levels are about 5 dB

higher, thus almost equivalent to those of the four‐

string array. For comparison with the root‐mean‐

square (RMS) method of calculating received levels

RMS and SEL values for all shallow site shots are

shown in Figure 5c.

[25] In general, exposure levels produced by the

two‐string array are nearly twice as high (5 dB) to

the side as they are inline. In addition, there is a

pronounced increase in local variation in the

athwartships levels. This variation appears to be

due to topography, rather than array effects. This

explanation is based upon the high level of similarity in the variations in two physically coincident

data sets, where data from the four‐string and

two‐string arrays can be directly compared. The

conclusion that amplitude variations in the

athwartships direction are controlled by subtle

changes in topography is supported by a comparison of parts of the MGL0707 four‐string and

MGL0802 two‐string calibration data that were

shot along a physically coincident part of the spiral

track (Figure 7).

[26] Criteria for the shallow site were that it be free

of obstructions, removed from ship traffic, and

relatively flat. The chosen 35 × 22 km area met

those conditions, and the spiral pattern was aligned

with the long, inline segment along strike, as

determined from preexisting bathymetric charts.

Echo sounder records from MGL0707 (Figure 6a)

show that in fact, the seafloor dips gently along this

line, and is about 5 m deeper at the WSW end than

it is 35 km to the ENE (Figure 6b). More variation

(15 m) is seen in the dip direction, covered by the

spiral pattern, which spans 22 km (Figure 6b).

Although these latter variations are slight, they do

affect the data.

[27] The most profound amplitude variations are

the deep and sharply notched lows observed along

the spiral track at source‐receiver offsets of 11 km,

12.4 km and 14 km (Figure 7). Flanking (possibly)

high values are more smoothly spread out. There is

no complete high‐resolution bathymetry map of the

area, but it is likely that the sharp, low values are

due to topographic shadowing or defocusing. The

observation that these low values are present for

both source arrays leads to the conclusion that they

do not result from the directivity of the two‐string

array.

[28] Another remarkable amplitude anomaly is the

abrupt increase at source‐receiver offsets of 800 m

in the inline direction (Figure 5b). A likely explanation, borne out by previous observation and

modeling [Diebold et al., 2006] is that the lower,

near‐offset trend corresponds to direct arrivals;

those with the minimum source‐receiver path, and

that the higher, larger‐offset trend corresponds to

postcritically refracted and water‐borne multiply

reflected arrivals. This interpretation is supported

by the multichannel seismic (MCS) data collected

Figure 3. The modeled sound exposure levels along the hydrophone depth and maximum SPL lines drawn in Figure 2.

The green line should be compared to the calibration results, while the red line is used to establish mitigation radii.

Geochemistry

Geophysics

Geosystems G3 DIEBOLD ET AL.: MARINE SOURCE MODELING AND CALIBRATION 10.1029/2010GC003216

5 of 20
along the inline track during MGL0802 using the

two‐string source and a 5850 m long hydrophone

array. Each of this array’s 468 channels comprised

14 individual hydrophones spread out over 17.75 m

with a nominal group spacing of 12.5 m (4 hydrophones at the extremity of each group are shared

with the adjacent group). As a result, direct, horizontally traveling arrivals are attenuated, while

near‐vertically traveling reflected and refracted

energy is enhanced. Figure 8a shows an MCS shot

gather along the inline track with the two‐string

source coincident with position previously occupied

by the calibration buoy. It can thus be compared

directly with buoy results without concern for subtle

bathymetric variations. The comparison is shown in

Figure 8b. It is clear that the sound exposure levels

derived from the towed hydrophone array data are

very similar to the calibration hydrophone data.

[29] Since acoustic propagation in shallow water

environments may vary greatly with bottom type

and topography [cf. Barton et al., 2006] it seems

logical and advantageous that MCS data should be

monitored in real time to fine tune a priori mitigation

radii in shallow water (100 m and less) environments. These data demonstrate that MCS

Figure 4. Modeled aerial directivity for the Langseth two‐string seismic source with the same 6 m tow depth that

was used in the calibrations, as observed at 500 m below the sea surface. 500 m was the intended hydrophone depth used

at the intermediate and deep calibration sites. (In practice, depths to the hydrophone range between 350 and 500 m [see

Tolstoy et al., 2009].) Predicted sound exposure levels are distinctly higher in the athwartships (“cross‐line”) direction

than fore and aft (“inline”).

Geochemistry

Geophysics

Geosystems G3 DIEBOLD ET AL.: MARINE SOURCE MODELING AND CALIBRATION 10.1029/2010GC003216

6 of 20
Figure 5

Geochemistry

Geophysics

Geosystems G3 DIEBOLD ET AL.: MARINE SOURCE MODELING AND CALIBRATION 10.1029/2010GC003216

7 of 20
(streamer) data can provide an accurate assessment

of SEL levels at the relevant ranges for mitigation

in shallow water environments.

5. Deep Site: Two‐String Array

and Bottom Interaction

[30] Results for the four‐string deep site direct

arrivals were presented by Tolstoy et al. [2009]. In

Figure 9a we show the direct arrivals at this site for

the two‐string array. Inline arrivals are green, and

cross‐line arrivals are magenta. The directivity seen

at the shallow site is still present, with about the

same ∼5 dB difference observed at the shallow

site, where cross‐line coverage is more complete.

Modeled levels for the inline and cross‐line directions are also shown. It is apparent that in one case

(1.2 km) the measured levels slightly exceed the

model. For comparison with the root‐mean‐square

(RMS) method of calculating received levels RMS

and SEL values for all shallow site shots are shown

in Figure 9b. These data were shot during a small‐

radius circular turn (Figure 10) and the increase

is almost certainly due to the natural tendency of

the two towed, linear subarrays to crowd closer

together, reducing the separation from the intended

8 m, and thus changing the directivity of the array. The

Langseth source subarrays are normally equipped

with individual GPS units, whose readings can

determine the string‐to‐string spacing, but these

were not completely operational during the early

stage of operations during which the calibration was

carried out. It should also be noted that this kind of

sharp turning is not included as part of normal

seismic surveys, and data from such turns has not

been included in most of the results presented

henceforth.

[31] For data recorded at the deep and slope sites, it

was possible to separate the direct arrivals from

later arrivals, which were reflected from the seafloor or postcritically reflected from (or refracted

within) underlying layers. Tolstoy et al. [2009] presented only the direct arrival data at the deep site.

While at the shallow site the observed wavefield is

completely dominated by later arrivals (Figure 8a) at

the deep water site the amplitudes of the seafloor

arrivals outweigh those of the direct arrivals only

beyond 2.5 km (Figure 11). Amplitudes of these

arrivals fall off more or less linearly with increasing

offset, except for the increase at about 5.2 km, which

almost certainly corresponds to the critical point of

the reflected/refracted arrivals. The source‐receiver

offset at which this critical point is observed depends

on water depth and on the velocity of sound in the

reflecting layer. The average water depth is 1540 m.

The reflection velocity for a 5.2 km critical distance

at this water depth is about 1.75 km/s. At the shallow

site, the water depth is 50 m and the critical point, as

observed in Figures 8a and 8b, is seen at a little less

than 1 km offset. This reflected and refracted energy

travels at incidence angles closer to vertical than the

direct arrivals, and observed amplitudes are much

less sensitive to hydrophone depth than those for the

direct arrivals. It is thus meaningful to compare these

reflected and refracted arrival amplitudes to the

maximum amplitude mitigation model results, as is

done in Figure 11.

[32] In Figure 12, we present the analogous plot for

the four‐string source array at the deep calibration

site. Again, the critical distance is about 5 km, and

the postcritically reflected and refracted arrival

amplitudes fall below the mitigation model. It is

also clear that the local amplitude structure of the

precritical reflections is quite dependent upon the

seafloor topography. The SEL of all of the arrivals

again fall below the maximum amplitude mitigation model.

6. Slope Site: Four‐String Array,

Intermediate Water Depth, and Updip

and Downdip Variations

[33] Data from the slope site were not presented by

Tolstoy et al. [2009]. Only the full, four‐string

array was tested at this location. The calibration

buoy was drifting rapidly during the entire shooting

period, and the ship track included many small‐

radius circular turns. It was apparent that the spread

of the four source strings was greatly reduced

during these turns (though to an unknown extent)

and this required some of the turn data to be

eliminated from the analysis. In addition, only

shots within 5 km of the buoy hydrophone could be

Figure 5. (a) Sound exposure levels for the cross‐line (side aspect) arrivals recorded along the spiral track at the

shallow water calibration site, with a 95th percentile fit (using the methods described by Tolstoy et al. [2009]).

(b) Sound exposure levels and 95th percentile fits for inline shots recorded at the shallow site. There is a clear

difference in the trend between zero and 0.8 km and that beyond 0.8 km. Separate 95th percentile fits are shown

for each trend. (c) Sound exposure levels (blue) versus root‐mean‐square (red) values for all shallow water shots

illustrating the ∼8–10 dB offset between the two methods of calculating acoustic received levels.

Geochemistry

Geophysics

Geosystems G3 DIEBOLD ET AL.: MARINE SOURCE MODELING AND CALIBRATION 10.1029/2010GC003216

8 of 20
Figure 6

Geochemistry

Geophysics

Geosystems G3 DIEBOLD ET AL.: MARINE SOURCE MODELING AND CALIBRATION 10.1029/2010GC003216

9 of 20
used for the compilation of direct arrivals. At

greater source‐receiver offsets, windowing of the

direct arrival tended to fail, as the measured levels

lost coherence because the data were obviously

dominated by systematic, ambient, and/or previous

shot noise. The source points included in the

analysis are shown in Figure 13.

[34] The direct arrival amplitudes for this site are

very similar to those observed at the deep site for

the two‐string and four‐string arrays. Figure 14

shows these levels, compared to those predicted

by modeling. The fit is good, except at near offsets,

where the model underpredicts the observed source

levels. This situation is the opposite of the observations at the deep site [Tolstoy et al., 2009] where

the near‐field effects cause a diminution in source

levels at close proximity. It is likely that two factors

contribute to this. One hypothesis is that the interstring spacing was smaller than intended during

these close approaches, but due to the lack of complete GPS positioning on the array strings, this

cannot be verified. Second, the sound velocity profile changed considerably between acquisition of the

deep and slope site data. An intervening storm

increased the thickness of the mixed layer, reduced

its velocity, and strongly altered the shape of the

thermocline (Figure 15). As in the two previously

presented cases (Figures 9 and 12) measured levels

fall well below the mitigation model predictions at

offsets greater than 2.5 km, due to the downward

focusing sound velocity profile.

[35] In Figure 16, energy levels for seafloor‐reflected

and subseafloor‐refracted arrivals are superimposed

on the direct arrival levels. At this intermediate‐

depth site, the crossover is located at 2 km offset,

compared to 2.5 km at the deep site. An increase in

amplitude, corresponding to the critical distance,

beyond which postcritically reflected and refracted

Figure 7. MGL0707 four‐string and MGL0802 two‐string cross‐line source levels recorded along coincident portions

of the spiral track (Figure 6a) show strong similarities, particularly in the sharply low levels at 11, 12.4, and 14 km.

Offsets correspond to those in Figure 6b, and the low values are likely due to shadowing by slightly elevated knolls. To

separate amplitude variations due to changes in source‐receiver offset from those due to topography, these sound levels

have been back projected to a notional distance of 1 m from the source, i.e., multiplied by a factor equal to the source‐

receiver offset in meters.

Figure 6. (a) Water depths along the MGL0707 shallow site ship track. Spiral and inline tracks were also occupied

during MGL0802. The location of the calibration buoy for both legs is shown by the red solid star. Depths increase

modestly from NNW to SSE. (b) Water depths along the inline and spiral tracks of Figure 6a. Along 33 m of inline

track, the water depth varies by 5 m. Across 22 km in the orthogonal direction, water depths vary by nearly 15 m.

Though small, these differences and local variations in topography affect received sound levels.

Geochemistry

Geophysics

Geosystems G3 DIEBOLD ET AL.: MARINE SOURCE MODELING AND CALIBRATION 10.1029/2010GC003216

10 of 20
arrivals are generated, is seen at about 4 km (as

compared to 5 km for the deep site). The singular

excursion observed as peaking at 2.9 km is certainly

due to seafloor topography, though the exact cause

was not determined. There is a notable bifurcation

of levels for the bottom‐interacting arrivals at

source‐receiver offsets greater than 5 km.

[36] It is clear in Figure 16 that the reflected and

refracted arrival amplitudes with source‐receiver

Figure 8. (a) An MCS shot gather along the inline track, with the two‐string source coincident with the position

previously occupied by the calibration buoy. The peak level for each of the 268 traces is shown in orange (positive

data amplitudes are in gray, negative amplitudes are in black, and peaks may be negative as well as positive). Between

zero and 0.8 km., the peaks are mostly found on the seafloor primary and multiple reflections, while at larger offsets,

they are on the primary and multiple postcritical reflections from deeper layers. (b) SEL, as derived from the MCS

shot gather of Figure 8a, compared to the two‐string inline calibration buoy data, acquired along the same track.

Geochemistry

Geophysics

Geosystems G3 DIEBOLD ET AL.: MARINE SOURCE MODELING AND CALIBRATION 10.1029/2010GC003216

11 of 20
offsets greater than about 5 km fall along two

diverging trajectories. When the source and receiver

locations where these trajectories are best defined

were identified, it was clear that the differences

correspond to the source‐receiver geometry in

relation to the sloping bathymetry at this calibration

site. In Figure 17a, the amplitudes for these arrivals

are colored red for shots where the calibration buoy

was positioned downdip from the source, and blue

for the case where the buoy was upslope from the

source points. These relationships are shown in

Figures 17b and 17c.

[37] Average water depth for the downdip (red)

shots was 800 m, compared to 1050 m for the updip

(blue) shots. Despite this difference the critical

distance for both sets of shots is about the same:

3.5–4 km. The reason for this, and for the differences in amplitude, is the sloping seafloor. When

shooting up dip, rays are concentrated toward the

source, focusing energy and shortening the critical

distance, while the converse is true when shooting

downdip [Levin, 1971; Diebold and Stoffa, 1981].

7. Spectral Content With Offset

[38] Figure 18 shows the variation in the energy

spectral density with offset for the inline shots for

the deep (Figure 18a) and shallow (Figure 18b)

sites. Spectra for some individual shots are shown

by Tolstoy et al. [2009], but this approach allows

for a more comprehensive display of the change in

spectral content with increasing distance from the

source. The parallel bands in both the vertical and

horizontal directions, that are more pronounced in

Figure 18b, are due to bursts of electronic noise

associated with the GPS receiver on the recording

buoy and is not associated with the Langseth sound

source. Leakage of the broad spectrum periodic

noise into the calibration data was associated with

common ground between the data logger and the

GPS receiver that was largely resolved for the 2008

deployment by optically isolating the signal coming in. Hence the signal is more pronounced in the

shallow inline data that was collected during the

first calibration leg in 2007, and barely visible in

the deep water data that was collected in 2008.

Note that for the deep water site (Figure 18a) the

hydrophone is at 350–500 m depth, so the true

distances to the source are greater than for the

shallow site and change with offset due to the slant

range. Offsets shown on the plot are based on surface location of the buoy not considering the depth

of the hydrophone. Figure 18a illustrates the rapid

drop off in energy with distance from the source,

particularly at higher frequencies.

8. Conclusions

[39] Single hydrophone source calibration results in

shallow water are sufficient to predict radiated

sound levels in similar environments. When calibrations are carried out with a single hydrophone in

Figure 9. (a) Direct arrivals from the Langseth two‐string source array, recorded at the deep calibration site. Sound

exposure levels for shots with an inline aspect (the receiving buoy in front of or behind the array, ±30°) are colored

green, and others (cross‐line, or athwartships) are colored magenta. Model results for a 500 m deep hydrophone are

shown in red for cross‐line geometry and in blue for inline geometry. (b) Sound exposure levels (blue) versus root‐

mean‐square (red) values for all deep water shots. The offset between the two methods of calculating acoustic

received levels varies between 10 and 20 dB for close ranges, gradually decreasing with increasing offset to 5–10 dB.

Geochemistry

Geophysics

Geosystems G3 DIEBOLD ET AL.: MARINE SOURCE MODELING AND CALIBRATION 10.1029/2010GC003216

12 of 20
deeper water, however, the results must be combined with modeling results for extrapolations to

full water depths. Our observations and analyses

show that the propagation of sound between a

marine seismic source comprising an array of air

guns and a receiver can be satisfactorily characterized by modeling along direct pathways, though

this modeling could be improved by including

realistic sound velocity profiles within the water

column.

[40] The source array directivity due to the dimensions of the overall footprint of the array, predicted

by modeling, is confirmed by a comparison to the

results from the R/V Langseth’s two‐string and

four‐string array calibrations. Under some conditions (sharp turns, failure of towing equipment) this

footprint can be changed, thus altering the array’s

directivity. Therefore it is essential that the individual source arrays be positioned by differential

GPS antennas and, when appropriate, acoustic

transponders. Sharp turns are not normally part of

standard seismic operations.

[41] In all water depths, contributions due to

acoustic interaction at and below the seafloor are

likely to be important as well. These interactions

may result from shadowing or focusing due to

subtle physical and topographic features, an effect

particularly apparent in shallow water and for near‐

vertically reflected precritical arrivals in deeper

water, and are typically difficult to model accurately without a considerable amount of a priori

knowledge. In the shallow water environment of

our shallow calibration, topographic shadowing

effects appear to greatly outweigh focusing effects,

if any are indeed present.

[42] Our results indicate that directly propagated

arrivals play a small role beyond a few thousand

meters range, but that in water depths of 850 m and

Figure 10. Source and receiver locations for the MGL0802 deep site, with regional depth contours in meters. Two‐

string locations are shown in blue, and four‐string locations are shown in red. The path of the slowly drifting hydrophone buoy is also shown in blue and red.

Geochemistry

Geophysics

Geosystems G3 DIEBOLD ET AL.: MARINE SOURCE MODELING AND CALIBRATION 10.1029/2010GC003216

13 of 20
more, the seafloor and subseafloor interactions,

while present and important, do not exceed safety

criteria. Lower sound exposure levels, thought to

induce behavioral responses in some animals, will

likely be achieved at relatively large distances, but

our results show that in intermediate and deep

water depths, the levels observed are not greater

than those predicted by the simple modeling currently in use.

Figure 11. The direct arrival energy flux density (SEL) values of Figure 9a overlain with those of the seafloor and

subseafloor reflected and refracted arrivals for the two‐string array. These arrivals go postcritical at about 5 km but

still fall almost entirely below the maximum amplitude mitigation model. Beyond about 5 km, the direct arrival

amplitudes become incoherent, as the data windowing begins to fail and/or instrument and other ambient noise begins

to dominate the true arrivals.

Figure 12. SEL for direct and reflected/refracted arrivals from the four‐string array at the deep calibration site.

Geochemistry

Geophysics

Geosystems G3 DIEBOLD ET AL.: MARINE SOURCE MODELING AND CALIBRATION 10.1029/2010GC003216

14 of 20
Figure 13. Track map for the slope site calibration. Shots used in the analysis are highlighted in red for those used in

the direct arrival compilation and blue for additional shots used in the seafloor and subseafloor compilation. The corresponding buoy locations are mustard colored.

Geochemistry

Geophysics

Geosystems G3 DIEBOLD ET AL.: MARINE SOURCE MODELING AND CALIBRATION 10.1029/2010GC003216

15 of 20
Figure 14. Energy flux density (SEL) values for direct arrivals at the slope site. Inline and cross‐line aspects are

color coded as before. The four‐string model with 6 m tow depth and receiver depth of 400 m is shown for comparison. The model is only exceeded by the data at small offsets.

Geochemistry

Geophysics

Geosystems G3 DIEBOLD ET AL.: MARINE SOURCE MODELING AND CALIBRATION 10.1029/2010GC003216

16 of 20
Figure 15. XBT‐derived sound velocity profiles covering a span of 6 days during MGL0802. The profiles are very

consistent for the first three casts, but a storm on 1 February significantly altered the top part of the profile, after which

the slope site data were acquired.

Geochemistry

Geophysics

Geosystems G3 DIEBOLD ET AL.: MARINE SOURCE MODELING AND CALIBRATION 10.1029/2010GC003216

17 of 20
Figure 16. As in Figures 11 and 12, measured levels for seafloor reflected and subseafloor refracted arrivals at the

slope site are superimposed on the direct arrival values. Since the water is shallower at this site, the critical distance is

4 km, rather than the 5 km observed at the deep site. All observed levels (except at very near offsets) fall below the

mitigation model predictions.

Geochemistry

Geophysics

Geosystems G3 DIEBOLD ET AL.: MARINE SOURCE MODELING AND CALIBRATION 10.1029/2010GC003216

18 of 20
Figure 17. (a) Two subsets of the reflected/refracted arrival levels of Figure 16. Although the critical distances seem

similar, there is a clear bifurcation in amplitude falloff at greater offsets (4–10 km). (b) Source and receiver locations

for the arrivals of Figure 17a. Color coding (red when the receiver is downdip from the sources and blue for the

converse) matches that of Figures 17a and 17c. (c) Seafloor depths beneath the source points used in Figure 17a,

projected onto a N–S trending plane. The stars show the latitude and average seafloor depths beneath the calibration

buoy hydrophone for the corresponding source points.

Geochemistry

Geophysics

Geosystems G3 DIEBOLD ET AL.: MARINE SOURCE MODELING AND CALIBRATION 10.1029/2010GC003216

19 of 20
[43] In shallow water, it has been shown that sound

exposure levels determined from arrivals recorded

with a towed MCS array match calibration levels

very well. Additional work would be needed to

predict the entire range of water depths in which

this observation is true, but it does suggest that, in

some environments, sound exposure levels may be

observed on site and in real time, allowing mitigation efforts to be adjusted accordingly.

Acknowledgments

[44] This work was supported by NSF grant OCE‐0624599.

We thank two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments that improved the manuscript. We thank the captain,

crew, and technical and science party of MGL0707 and

MGL0802. This paper is LDEO contribution 7414.

References

Barton, P. J., J. Diebold, and S. Gulick (2006), Water‐borne

noise levels from airgun arrays–examples from surprisingly

quiet Chicxulub survey, paper presented at 68th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Eur. Assoc. of Geosci. and Eng.,

Vienna.

Diebold, J. B., and P. L. Stoffa (1981), The traveltime equation,

tau‐p mapping and inversion of common midpoint data, Geophysics, 46(3), 238–254, doi:10.1190/1.1441196. (Reprinted

in Slant‐Stack Processing, Geophys. Reprint Ser., vol. 14,

edited by G. H. F. Gardner and F. K. Levin, pp. 151–167,

Soc. of Explor. Geophys., Tulsa, Okla., 1991.)

Diebold, J. B., M. Tolstoy, P. J. Barton, and S. P. Gulick

(2006), Propagation of exploration seismic sources in shallow water, Eos Trans. AGU, 87(36), Jt. Assem. Suppl.,

Abstract OS41A‐03.

Levin, F. K. (1971), Apparent velocity from dipping interface

reflections, Geophysics, 36, 510–516, doi:10.1190/1.1440188.

Madsen, P. T. (2005), Marine mammals and noise: Problems

with root mean square sound pressure levels for transients,

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 117, 3952–3957, doi:10.1121/1.1921508.

Southall, B. L., et al. (2007), Marine mammal noise exposure

criteria: Initial scientific recommendations, Aquat. Mamm.,

33(4), 411–521.

Tolstoy, M., J. B. Diebold, S. C. Webb, D. R. Bohnenstiehl,

E. Chapp, R. C. Holmes, and M. Rawson (2004), Broadband

calibration of R/V Ewing seismic sources, Geophys. Res.

Lett., 31, L14310, doi:10.1029/2004GL020234.

Tolstoy, M., J. Diebold, L. Doermann, S. Nooner, S. C. Webb,

D. R. Bohnenstiehl, T. J. Crone, and R. C. Holmes (2009),

Broadband calibration of the R/V Marcus G. Langseth

four‐string seismic sources, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst.,

10, Q08011, doi:10.1029/2009GC002451.

Figure 18. (a) Energy spectral density versus distance

for inline shots at the deep site. (b) Energy spectral density versus distance for inline shots at the shallow site.

Note the horizontal and vertical lines are due to leakage

of a noise burst associated with the GPS receiver on the

buoy and are not related to the R/V Marcus Langseth

sound source. See text for a full discussion. Color scale

is the same for both plots.

Geochemistry

Geophysics

Geosystems G3 DIEBOLD ET AL.: MARINE SOURCE MODELING AND CALIBRATION 10.1029/2010GC003216

20 of 20
APPENDIX I:

DISTRIBUTION OF AND PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE

DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC EIS/OEIS

Notice of Availability (NOA) and Distribution List for the

Draft Programmatic EIS/OEIS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Notices 62433 

Service area Applicant name 

Estimated 

annualized 

funding amount 

WI–5 ................................ Legal Action of Wisconsin ........................................................................................................ 3,689,622 

NWI–1 .............................. Wisconsin Judicare .................................................................................................................. 178,726 

WI–2 ................................ Wisconsin Judicare .................................................................................................................. 1,014,258 

Wyoming: 

MWY ................................ Legal Aid of Wyoming .............................................................................................................. 14,324 

NWY–1 ............................ Legal Aid of Wyoming .............................................................................................................. 199,098 

WY–4 ............................... Legal Aid of Wyoming .............................................................................................................. 569,030 

These grants and contracts will be 

awarded under the authority conferred 

on LSC by the Legal Services 

Corporation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

2996e(a)(1)). Awards will be made so 

that each service area is served, 

although none of the listed 

organizations are guaranteed an award 

or contract. This public notice is issued 

pursuant to the LSC Act (42 U.S.C. 

2996f(f)), with a request for comments 

and recommendations concerning the 

potential grantees within a period of 

thirty (30) days from the date of 

publication of this notice. Grants will 

become effective and grant funds will be 

distributed on or about January 1, 2011. 

Dated: September 29, 2010. 

Janet LaBella, 

Director, Office of Program Performance, 

Legal Services Corporation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25245 Filed 10–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7050–01–P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[Notice: (10–122)] 

Notice of Information Collection 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Notice of information collection. 

SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

and respondent burden, invites the 

general public and other Federal 

agencies to take this opportunity to 

comment on proposed and/or 

continuing information collections, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(2)(A)). 

DATES: All comments should be 

submitted within 60 calendar days from 

the date of this publication. 

ADDRESSES: All comments should be 

addressed to Lori Parker, National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, 

Washington, DC 20546–0001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument(s) and instructions should 

be directed to Lori Parker, NASA PRA 

Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E 

Street, SW., JF0000, Washington, DC 

20546, (202) 358–1351, 

Lori.Parker@nasa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

The KEEP is a job shadowing program 

intended to provide students with 

career exploration under the mentorship 

of a Kennedy Space Center (KSC)NASA 

of contractor employee. Participation in 

the program is limited to students who 

are U.S. citizens, 16 years or older, who 

have been recommended by a teacher, 

guidance counselor, or other school 

official. Students may shadow for 1 day 

or up to 1 week. 

II. Method of Collection 

The collection of information will be 

made by the use of a Web-based on-line 

application system and a database of 

applicant information will be 

developed. We believe this is the most 

efficient and cost effective way to 

collect the information. 

III. Data 

Title: Kennedy Educational 

Experiences program (KEEP). 

OMB Number: 2700–0135. 

Type of Review: Extension, without 

change, of a currently approved 

collection. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

20. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 20. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Government: $0. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of NASA, including 

whether the information collected has 

practical utility; (2) the accuracy of 

NASA’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; 

(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (4) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including automated 

collection techniques or the use of other 

forms of information technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection. 

They will also become a matter of 

public record. 

Lori Parker, 

NASA PRA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25446 Filed 10–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Notice of Public Hearings and the 

Availability of a Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement/ 

Overseas Environmental Impact 

Statement (PEIS/OEIS) 

AGENCY: National Science Foundation. 

ACTION: Notice of public hearings and 

request for public comments on a Draft 

PEIS/OEIS for Marine Seismic Research 

Funded by the National Science 

Foundation (NSF) or Conducted by the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 

SUMMARY: NSF gives notice of the 

availability of a Draft PEIS/OEIS 

(hereafter Draft PEIS) for marine seismic 

research funded by NSF or conducted 

by the USGS and requests public review 

and comment on the document. NSF 

also provides notice of public hearings 

on the Draft PEIS. 

The Division of Ocean Sciences in the 

Directorate for Geosciences (GEO/OCE) 

has prepared the Draft PEIS as the lead 

agency with support from the 

cooperating agencies, USGS and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) of the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

The Draft PEIS assesses the potential 

impacts of marine seismic research on 

the human and natural environment. 

Under the Proposed Action, a variety of 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
62434 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Notices 

acoustic sources used for research 

activities funded by NSF or conducted 

by the USGS would be operated from 

various research vessels operated by 

U.S. academic institutions or 

government agencies. The seismic 

acoustic sources would include various 

airgun configurations (particularly 

strings or arrays with as little as 2 to as 

many as 36 seismic airguns), as well as 

low-energy seismic and non-seismic 

acoustic sources. 

The Draft PEIS examines the potential 

impacts that may result from 

geophysical exploration and scientific 

research using seismic surveys that are 

funded by NSF or conducted by the 

USGS in non-Arctic waters. The 

Proposed Action is for academic and 

U.S. government scientists in the U.S., 

and possible international collaborators, 

to conduct marine seismic research from 

research vessels operated by U.S. 

academic institutions and government 

agencies. The purpose of the Proposed 

Action is to fund the investigation of the 

geology and geophysics of the seafloor 

by collecting seismic reflection and 

refraction data that reveal the structure 

and stratigraphy of the crust and/or 

overlying sediment below the world’s 

oceans. NSF has a continuing need to 

fund seismic surveys that enable 

scientists to collect data essential to 

understanding the complex Earth 

processes beneath the ocean floor. 

Two action alternatives and the NoAction Alternative have been carried 

forward for analysis. The Draft PEIS is 

available for public review for a 45-day 

period. Comments must be submitted on 

or before November 22, 2010. 

NSF will conduct two public hearings 

to receive oral and written comments on 

the Draft PEIS. Federal, state, and local 

agencies and interested individuals are 

invited to be present or represented at 

the public hearings. This notice 

announces the dates and locations of the 

public hearings for this Draft PEIS. 

An open house session will precede 

the scheduled public hearing at each of 

the locations listed below and will 

allow individuals to review the 

information presented in the Draft PEIS. 

NSF and USGS representatives will be 

available during the open house 

sessions to clarify information related to 

the Draft PEIS. 

Dates & Addresses: All hearings will 

start with an open house session, 

followed by a presentation, and then the 

formal oral public comment period. 

Public hearings will be held on the 

following dates and at the following 

locations: 

• Monday, October 25, 2010, 5–7 p.m. 

at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 

University California-San Diego, 

Vaughn Hall, Room 100, Discovery Way, 

La Jolla, CA. 

• Wednesday, October 27, 2010, 5–7 

p.m. at the National Science 

Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 

110, Arlington, VA. 

The Draft PEIS is available on NSF’s 

Web site at: http://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/ 

envcomp/index.jsp. Electronic or 

printed copies of the Draft PEIS are also 

available upon request from: Holly 

Smith, National Science Foundation, 

Division of Ocean Sciences, 4201 

Wilson Blvd., Suite 725, Arlington, VA 

22230. Telephone: (703) 292–8583. Email: nepacomments@nsf.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Currently, 

individual Environmental Assessments 

(EAs) are prepared for individual or 

small numbers of related cruises to 

assess the impact of the generated 

seismic survey noise on the marine 

environment. In the 7 years from 2003 

through 2009, NSF prepared 31 EAs 

assessing the impact of sound from 

seismic surveys on marine resources 

and species listed under the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) during 

research projects investigating the 

geology and geophysics of the seafloor. 

These EAs were prepared for various 

worldwide, academic research cruises 

that required the use of various marine 

seismic sources involving different 

airgun configurations deployed from the 

primary U.S. academic seismic survey 

ship, or smaller airgun sources deployed 

from other research vessels, often with 

concurrent operations of non-seismic 

acoustic sources such as echosounders 

and bottom profilers. 

For past seismic research cruise 

actions, an EA has been used as the 

basis for consultation with the NOAA 

Office of Protected Resources (OPR) 

under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. For 

each of the research cruises, NOAA OPR 

issued a Biological Opinion (BO) and 

related Incidental Take Statements 

(ITSs), which included terms and 

conditions to reduce impacts on 

threatened and endangered species. In 

parallel with this effort, when 

applicable, a separate application for an 

Incidental Harassment Authorization 

(IHA) under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA was submitted for each cruise to 

another division within NOAA OPR, 

which subsequently issued the IHA. The 

MMPA procedures for issuance of an 

IHA involve publication of a proposed 

IHA notice in the Federal Register and 

solicitation of comments on that notice. 

To reduce this apparent duplication 

of effort in environmental 

documentation and to address the 

potential for cumulative effects of 

marine seismic research acoustic 

sources upon marine resources, NSF 

and the USGS have decided that a PEIS 

should be prepared. Preparing a PEIS for 

NSF and USGS marine seismic research 

serves several purposes. First, it 

provides a format for a comprehensive 

cumulative impacts analysis by taking a 

view of the planned marine seismic 

research activities as a whole. This is 

accomplished by assembling and 

analyzing the broadest range of direct, 

indirect, and cumulative impacts 

associated with all marine seismic 

research activities in addition to other 

past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable projects in the region of 

influence. Furthermore, the collective 

analysis of representative project 

locations will provide a strong technical 

basis for a more global assessment of the 

potential cumulative impacts of NSFfunded and USGS marine seismic 

activities in the future. 

A PEIS also sets up a framework for 

streamlining the preparation of 

subsequent environmental documents 

where needed for individual cruises. It 

is expected that time- and locationspecific aspects, or similarly detailed 

technical information if necessary to 

evaluate unique impacts of specific 

cruises and projects, will be addressed 

in EIS supplements, tiered EAs, or other 

appropriate environmental 

documentation that would follow the 

publication of this Draft PEIS. Thus, 

while NSF-funded and USGS marine 

seismic research is reviewed under this 

Draft PEIS, the analysis of site-specific 

impacts from future cruises may be 

reserved for future analysis. Tiering of 

environmental documents in this 

manner makes subsequent documents of 

greater use and meaning to the public as 

NSF’s and USGS’s marine seismic 

research develops, without duplicating 

previous paperwork and environmental 

analyses. Finally, a PEIS enables the 

identification of an appropriate and 

prudent set of standard mitigation 

measures to be integrated into future 

NSF-funded and USGS cruises, which is 

a key goal of NSF and USGS. 

Federal, state, local agencies, Native 

American Tribes and Nations, and 

interested parties are invited to be 

present or represented at the public 

hearings. Written comments can also be 

submitted anytime during the public 

hearings or during the 45-day public 

review period of the Draft PEIS. 

Comments must be submitted on or 

before November 22, 2010. 

Oral statements will be heard and 

transcribed by a stenographer; however, 

to ensure the accuracy of the record, all 

statements should be submitted in 

writing. All statements, both oral and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Notices 62435 

written, will become part of the public 

record on the Draft PEIS and will be 

responded to in the Final PEIS. Equal 

weight will be given to both oral and 

written statements. In the interest of 

time, and to ensure all who wish to give 

an oral statement have the opportunity 

to do so, each speaker’s comments will 

be limited to three (3) minutes. If a long 

statement is to be presented, it should 

be summarized at the public hearing 

with the full text submitted either in 

writing at the hearing or mailed to: 

Holly Smith, National Science 

Foundation, Division of Ocean Sciences, 

Room 725, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 

Arlington, VA 22230. In addition, 

comments may be submitted via e-mail 

at: nepacomments@nsf.gov. All written 

comments must be postmarked by 

November 22, 2010 to ensure they 

become part of the official record. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information regarding the Draft 

PEIS contact: Holly Smith, National 

Science Foundation, Division of Ocean 

Sciences, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 725, 

Arlington, VA 22230; telephone: (703) 

292–8583; e-mail: 

nepacomments@nsf.gov. 

Dated: October 5, 2010. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25378 Filed 10–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. NRC–2010–0235] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Submission for the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

Review; Comment Request 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC). 

ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of 

information collection and solicitation 

of public comment. 

SUMMARY: The NRC has recently 

submitted to OMB for review the 

following proposal for the collection of 

information under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby 

informs potential respondents that an 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 

that a person is not required to respond 

to, a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. The NRC published a Federal 

Register Notice with a 60-day comment 

period on this information collection on 

August 3, 2010. 

1. Type of submission, new, revision, 

or extension: Extension. 

2. The title of the information 

collection: 10 CFR Part 39—Licenses 

and Radiation Safety Requirements for 

Well Logging. 

3. Current OMB approval number: 

3150–0130. 

4. The form number if applicable: 

N/A. 

5. How often the collection is 

required: Applications for new licenses 

and amendments may be submitted at 

any time. Applications for renewal are 

submitted every 10 years. Reports are 

submitted as events occur. 

6. Who will be required or asked to 

report: Applicants for and holders of 

specific licenses authorizing the use of 

licensed radioactive material for well 

logging. 

7. An estimate of the number of 

annual responses: 2,827 (346 NRC 

Licensees + 2,481 Agreement State 

Licensees). 

8. The estimated number of annual 

respondents: 278 (34 NRC Licensees + 

244 Agreement State Licensees). 

9. An estimate of the total number of 

hours needed annually to complete the 

requirement or request: 60,296 hours 

(7,375 total NRC licensees hrs + 52,921 

total Agreement State licensees hrs). 

The NRC licensees total burden is 7,375 

hours (108 reporting hrs + 7,267 

recordkeeping hrs). The Agreement 

State licensees total burden is 52,921 

hours (767 reporting hrs + 52,154 

recordkeeping hrs). The average burden 

per response for both NRC licensees and 

Agreement State licensees is 19.4 hours 

and the burden per recordkeeper is 214 

hours. 

10. Abstract: 10 CFR Part 39 

establishes radiation safety 

requirements for the use of radioactive 

material in well logging operations. The 

information in the applications, reports 

and records is used by the NRC staff to 

ensure that the health and safety of the 

public is protected and that licensee 

possession and use of source and 

byproduct material is in compliance 

with license and regulatory 

requirements. 

A copy of the final supporting 

statement may be viewed free of charge 

at the NRC Public Document Room, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Room O–1 F21, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852. OMB clearance 

requests are available at the NRC 

worldwide Web site: http:// 

www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doccomment/omb/index.html. The 

document will be available on the NRC 

home page site for 60 days after the 

signature date of this notice. 

Comments and questions should be 

directed to the OMB reviewer listed 

below by November 8, 2010. Comments 

received after this date will be 

considered if it is practical to do so, but 

assurance of consideration cannot be 

given to comments received after this 

date. 

Christine J. Kymn, Desk Officer, 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (3150–0130), NEOB–10202, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Washington, DC 20503. 

Comments can also be e-mailed to 

Christine.J.Kymn@omb.eop.gov or 

submitted by telephone at (202) 395– 

4638. 

The NRC Clearance Officer is 

Tremaine Donnell, (301) 415–6258. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day 

of September 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Tremaine Donnell, 

NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information 

Services. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25406 Filed 10–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. NRC–2010–0234] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Submission for the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

Review; Comment Request 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC). 

ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of 

information collection and solicitation 

of public comment. 

SUMMARY: The NRC has recently 

submitted to OMB for review the 

following proposal for the collection of 

information under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby 

informs potential respondents that an 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 

that a person is not required to respond 

to, a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. The NRC published a Federal 

Register Notice with a 60-day comment 

period on this information collection on 

July 7, 2010. 

1. Type of submission, new, revision, 

or extension: Extension. 

2. The title of the information 

collection: 10 CFR Part 63, ‘‘Disposal of 

High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a 

Proposed Geologic Repository at Yucca 

Mountain, Nevada.’’ 

3. Current OMB approval number: 

3150–0199. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
62386 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Notices 

rates, which resulted in an increase in 

labor cost. 

Dated: October 4, 2010. 

John Moses, 

Director, Collection Strategies Division. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25428 Filed 10–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–8993–1] 

Environmental Impacts Statements; 

Notice of Availability 

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal 

Activities, General Information (202) 

564–1399 or http://www.epa.gov/ 

compliance/nepa/. 

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact 

Statements 

Filed 09/27/2010 through 10/01/2010. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. 

Notice 

In accordance with Section 309(a) of 

the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to 

make its comments on EISs issued by 

other Federal agencies public. 

Historically, EPA has met this mandate 

by publishing weekly notices of 

availability of EPA comments, which 

includes a brief summary of EPA’s 

comment letters, in the Federal 

Register. Since February 2008, EPA has 

been including its comment letters on 

EISs on its Web site at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/ 

eisdata.html. Including the entire EIS 

comment letters on the Web site 

satisfies the Section 309(a) requirement 

to make EPA’s comments on EISs 

available to the public. Accordingly, on 

March 31, 2010, EPA discontinued the 

publication of the notice of availability 

of EPA comments in the Federal 

Register. 

EIS No. 20100389, Final EIS, USFS, OR, 

D-Bug Hazard Reduction Timber Sales 

Project, To Lessen the Fuel and Safety 

Hazards Associated With the OnGoing Outbreak of Mountain Pine 

Beetles, Diamond Lake Ranger 

District, Umpqua National Forest, 

Douglas County, OR, Wait Period 

Ends: 11/08/2010, Contact: Joyce 

Thompson 541–957–3457. 

This document is available on the 

Internet at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/ 

umpqua/projects/projectdocs/d-bug-ts/ 

index.shtml. 

EIS No. 20100390, Draft EIS, NSF, 00, 

Programmatic—Marine Seismic 

Research Funded by the National 

Science Foundation or Conducted by 

the U.S. Geological Survey, To Fund 

the Investigation of the Geology and 

Geophysics of the Seafloor by 

Collecting Seismic Reflection and 

Refraction Data, Across the World’s 

Ocean, Comment Period Ends: 11/22/ 

2010, Contact: Holly Smith 703–292– 

8593. 

This document is available on the 

Internet at http://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/ 

envcomp/index.jsp. 

EIS No. 20100391, Final EIS, USACE, 

NC, Surf City and North Topsail 

Beach Project, To Evaluate Coastal 

Storm Damage Reduction, Topsail 

Island, Pender and Onslow Counties, 

NC, Wait Period Ends: 11/22/2010, 

Contact: Doug Piatkowski 910–251– 

4908. 

EIS No. 20100392, Draft EIS, BR, CA, 

Nimbus Hatchery Fish Passage 

Project, To Create and Maintain a 

Reliable System for Collecting Adult 

Fish to Allow Reclamation, Rancho 

Cordova, Gold River, CA, Comment 

Period Ends: 11/30/2010, Contact: 

David Robinson 916–989–7179. 

EIS No. 20100393, Final EIS, DOE, WA, 

Cushman Hydroelectric Project (FERC 

No. 0456), Design and Construction of 

New 3.6–MW Powerhouse on the 

North Fork of the Skokomish River, 

Mason County, WA, Wait Period 

Ends: 11/08/2010, Contact: Jane 

Summerson 202–340–9626. 

EIS No. 20100394, Draft EIS, FHWA, 

NC, NC–109 Corridor Improvement 

Study, From Old Greensboro Road 

(NC–1798) to I–40/US 311, Davidson 

and Forsyth Counties, NC, Comment 

Period Ends: 11/22/2010, Contact: 

Vince Rhea 919–733–7844. 

EIS No. 20100395, Final EIS, USACE, 

LA, Convey Atchafalaya River Water 

to Northern Terrebonne Marshes and 

Multipurpose Operation of Houma 

Navigation Lock, Integrated 

Feasibility Study, Louisiana Coastal 

Area (LCA) Implementation, 

Lafourche, Terrebonne, St. Mary 

Parish, LA, Wait Period Ends: 11/08/ 

2010, Contact: Dr. Nathan Dayan 504– 

862–2530. 

EIS No. 20100396, Final EIS, USACE, 

LA, Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA)— 

Louisiana, Terrebonne Basin Barrier 

Shoreline Restoration, Feasibility 

Study, Implementation. Terrebonne 

Parish, LA, Wait Period Ends: 11/08/ 

2010, Contact: Dr. William P. Klein, 

Jr. 504–862–2540. 

EIS No. 20100397, Final EIS, USACE, 

LA, Small Diversion at Convent/Blind 

River, Proposes to construct a 

Freshwater Diversion Project, 

Integrated Feasibility Study, 

Louisiana Coastal Area, St. James 

Parish, LA, Wait Period Ends: 11/08/ 

2010, Contact: Dr. William P. Klein, 

Jr. 504–862–2540. 

EIS No. 20100398, Final EIS, USACE, 

LA, Medium Diversion at White 

Ditch, Integrated Feasibility Study, 

Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) 

Ecosystem Restoration, 

Implementation, Plaquemines Parish, 

LA, Wait Period Ends: 11/08/2010, 

Contact: Dr. Nathan Dayan 504–862– 

2530. 

EIS No. 20100399, Final EIS, USACE, 

LA, Amite River Diversion Canal 

Modification Element of the Section 

7006(E)(3) Ecosystem Restoration 

Project, Feasibility Study, Louisiana 

Coastal Area (LCA) Ascension and 

Livingston Parishes, LA, Wait Period 

Ends: 11/08/2010, Contact: Dr. 

William P. Klein, Jr. 504–862–2540. 

Amended Notices 

EIS No. 20100370, Final EIS, FHWA, 

WY, Jackson South Project, US/26/89/ 

189/91 Improvements, Funding and 

Right-of-Way Approval, Teton 

County, WY, Wait Period Ends: 11/ 

17/2010, Contact: Lee Potter 307–771– 

2946. 

Revision to FR Notice Published 09/ 

17/2010: Extending Comment Period 

from 10/18/2010 to 11/17/2010. 

Dated: October 5, 2010. 

Robert W. Hargrove, 

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office 

of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25470 Filed 10–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9212–5] 

Science Advisory Board Staff Office; 

Notification of Two Public 

Teleconferences of the Science 

Advisory Board Ecological Processes 

and Effects Committee Augmented for 

Ballast Water 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The EPA Science Advisory 

Board (SAB) Staff Office announces two 

public teleconferences of the Science 

Advisory Board Ecological Processes 

and Effects Committee, augmented, to 

discuss its advice on the effectiveness of 

shipboard ballast water treatment 

processes and ways to improve future 

assessments of ballast water treatment 

systems to minimize the impacts of 

invasive species in vessel ballast water 

discharge. 

DATES: The teleconference dates are 

October 26, 2010, from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
1 October

MEMORA

FROM: N

Notice of

Statemen

NSF give

research f

and comm

The Divis

PEIS as t

Fisheries 

The Draft

environm

by NSF o

academic 

configura

as low-en

The Draf

scientific 

waters. T

internatio

academic 

investigat

data that 

oceans. N

to underst

Two actio

PEIS is 

postmarke

NSF will 

state, and

hearings. 

below and

representa

PEIS. 

r 2010 

ANDUM FO

National Scien

f Public Hear

nt/Overseas E

es notice of t

funded by NS

ment on the do

sion of Ocean

the lead agen

Service (NM

ft PEIS asses

ent. Under th

or conducted 

institutions o

tions (particu

ergy seismic 

ft PEIS exam

research usin

he Proposed 

nal collabora

institutions 

tion of the geo

reveal the str

NSF has a con

tanding the co

on alternative

available for

ed by Novem

conduct two 

d local agenci

An open hou

d will allow i

atives will be 

NA

A

R: ALL INT

ORGANI

nce Foundati

rings and the

Environment

the availabili

SF or conduct

ocument. NSF

n Sciences in

ncy with supp

FS) of the Na

ses the poten

he Proposed A

by the USGS

or governmen

ularly strings 

and non-seism

mines the po

ng seismic sur

Action is for

ators, to cond

and governm

ology and geo

ructure and s

ntinuing need 

omplex Earth

es and the No

r public revi

mber 22, 2010.

public hearin

es and intere

use session wi

individuals to

available dur

ATIONAL SC

4201 WILS

ARLINGTON

TERESTED G

IZATIONS 

on (NSF) 

e Availability

tal Impact St

ty of a Draft

ted by the U.S

F also provide

n the Director

port from the

ational Ocean

ntial impacts

Action, a varie

S would be o

nt agencies. T

or arrays with

mic acoustic 

otential impa

rveys that are

r academic a

duct marine s

ment agencies

ophysics of th

tratigraphy o

to fund seism

h processes be

-Action Alter

iew for a 4

.

ngs to receive

ested individu

ill precede th

o review the i

ring the open

CIENCE FOU

SON BOULE

N, VIRGINIA

1

GOVERNME

y of a Draft P

tatement (PE

ft PEIS/OEIS

S. Geological

es notice of p

rate for Geos

e cooperating

nic and Atmos

 of marine s

ety of acousti

operated from

he seismic ac

h as little as 2

sources. 

cts that may

e funded by N

and U.S. gove

seismic resear

s. The purpo

he seafloor by

of the crust an

mic surveys t

eneath the oce

rnative have b

5-day period

e oral and wr

uals are invite

he scheduled p

information p

n house sessio

UNDATION

EVARD 

A 22230

ENT AGENCI

Programmati

EIS/OEIS) 

 (hereafter D

l Survey (US

public hearing

sciences (GEO

g agencies, U

spheric Admi

seismic resea

ic sources use

m various res

coustic source

2 to as many

y result from

NSF or conduc

ernment scien

rch from rese

ose of the Pr

y collecting s

nd/or overlyin

that enable sc

ean floor. 

been carried 

d. Comments

ritten comme

ed to be prese

public hearin

presented in th

ons to clarify 

IES, INDIVID

ic Environm

Draft PEIS) f

GS) and requ

gs on the Draf

O/OCE) has 

USGS and the

inistration (N

arch on the h

ed for researc

search vessels

es would incl

y as 36 seismi

m geophysica

cted by the U

ntists in the 

earch vessels

roposed Acti

seismic reflec

ng sediment 

cientists to co

forward for a

s must be re

ents on the Dr

ent or represe

ng at each of t

the Draft PEI

information r

DUALS, AND

mental Impact

for marine se

uests public re

ft PEIS. 

prepared the

e National M

OAA). 

human and n

ch activities fu

s operated by

lude various a

ic airguns), as

al exploration

USGS in non-A

U.S., and po

s operated by

ion is to fun

ction and refra

below the w

ollect data ess

analysis. The 

eceived befo

raft PEIS. Fe

ented at the p

the locations 

S. NSF and U

related to the 

D

t

eismic 

eview 

Draft 

Marine 

natural 

unded 

y U.S. 

airgun 

s well 

n and 

Arctic 

ossible 

y U.S. 

nd the 

action 

world’s 

sential 

Draft 

ore or 

ederal, 

public 

listed 

USGS 

Draft 
2

Dates & Addresses: All hearings will start with an open house session, followed by a presentation, and 

then the formal oral public comment period. Public hearings will be held on the following dates and at the 

following locations: 

 Monday, October 25, 2010, 5:00-7:00 p.m. at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University 

California-San Diego, Vaughn Hall, Room 100, Discovery Way, La Jolla, CA. 

 Wednesday, October 27, 2010, 5:00-7:00 p.m. at the National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 

Blvd., Room 110, Arlington, VA. 

The Draft PEIS is available on NSF’s website at: http://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/envcomp/index.jsp. 

Electronic or printed copies of the Draft PEIS are also available upon request from: Holly Smith, 

National Science Foundation, Division of Ocean Sciences, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 725, Arlington, VA 

22230. Telephone: (703) 292-8583. Email: nepacomments@nsf.gov. 

Supplementary Information: Currently, individual Environmental Assessments (EAs) are prepared for 

individual or small numbers of related cruises to assess the impact of the generated seismic survey noise 

on the marine environment. In the 7 years from 2003 through 2009, NSF prepared 31 EAs assessing the 

impact of sound from seismic surveys on marine resources and species listed under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) during research projects investigating the 

geology and geophysics of the seafloor. These EAs were prepared for various worldwide, academic 

research cruises that required the use of various marine seismic sources involving different airgun 

configurations deployed from the primary U.S. academic seismic survey ship, or smaller airgun sources 

deployed from other research vessels, often with concurrent operations of non-seismic acoustic sources 

such as echosounders and bottom profilers. 

For past seismic research cruise actions, an EA has been used as the basis for consultation with the 

NOAA Office of Protected Resources (OPR) under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. For each of the research 

cruises, NOAA OPR issued a Biological Opinion (BO) and related Incidental Take Statements (ITSs), 

which included terms and conditions to reduce impacts on threatened and endangered species. In parallel 

with this effort, when applicable, a separate application for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) 

under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA was submitted for each cruise to another division within 

NOAA OPR, which subsequently issued the IHA. The MMPA procedures for issuance of an IHA involve 

publication of a proposed IHA notice in the Federal Register and solicitation of comments on that notice. 

To reduce this apparent duplication of effort in environmental documentation and to address the potential 

for cumulative effects of marine seismic research acoustic sources upon marine resources, NSF and the 

USGS have decided that a PEIS should be prepared. Preparing a PEIS for NSF and USGS marine seismic 

research serves several purposes. First, it provides a format for a comprehensive cumulative impacts 

analysis by taking a view of the planned marine seismic research activities as a whole. This is 

accomplished by assembling and analyzing the broadest range of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts 

associated with all marine seismic research activities in addition to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable projects in the region of influence. Furthermore, the collective analysis of representative 

project locations will provide a strong technical basis for a more global assessment of the potential 

cumulative impacts of NSF-funded and USGS marine seismic activities in the future. 

A PEIS also sets up a framework for streamlining the preparation of subsequent environmental documents 

where needed for individual cruises. It is expected that time- and location-specific aspects, or similarly 

detailed technical information if necessary to evaluate unique impacts of specific cruises and projects, 

will be addressed in EIS supplements, tiered EAs, or other appropriate environmental documentation that 
3

would follow the publication of this Draft PEIS. Thus, while NSF-funded and USGS marine seismic 

research is reviewed under this PEIS, the analysis of site-specific impacts from future cruises may be 

reserved for future analysis. Tiering of environmental documents in this manner makes subsequent 

documents of greater use and meaning to the public as NSF’s and USGS’s marine seismic research 

develops, without duplicating previous paperwork and environmental analyses. Finally, a PEIS enables 

the identification of an appropriate and prudent set of standard mitigation measures to be integrated into 

future NSF-funded and USGS cruises, which is a key goal of NSF and USGS. 

Federal, state, local agencies, Native American Tribes and Nations, and interested parties are invited to be 

present or represented at the public hearings. Written comments can also be submitted anytime during the 

public hearings or during the 45-day public review period of the Draft PEIS. Comments must be received 

before or postmarked by November 22, 2010. 

Oral statements will be heard and transcribed by a stenographer; however, to ensure the accuracy of the 

record, all statements should be submitted in writing. All statements, both oral and written, will become 

part of the public record on the Draft PEIS and will be responded to in the Final PEIS. Equal weight will 

be given to both oral and written statements. In the interest of time, and to ensure all who wish to give an 

oral statement have the opportunity to do so, each speaker's comments will be limited to three (3) 

minutes. If a long statement is to be presented, it should be summarized at the public hearing with the full 

text submitted either in writing at the hearing or mailed to: Holly Smith, National Science Foundation, 

Division of Ocean Sciences, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 725, Arlington, VA 22230. In addition, comments 

may be submitted via e-mail at: nepacomments@nsf.gov. Therefore, comments may be submitted 3 

ways: 

1. Mailed to: Holly Smith, National Science Foundation, Division of Ocean Sciences, 4201 Wilson 

Blvd., Suite 725, Arlington, VA 22230. 

2. Sent via email at nepacomments@nsf.gov. 

3. Submitted in writing at the public hearings. 

All written comments submitted by mail must be postmarked by November 22, 2010 to ensure they 

become part of the official record. 

For Further Information: For further information regarding the Draft PEIS contact: 

Holly Smith 

National Science Foundation 

Division of Ocean Sciences 

4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 725 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Telephone: (703) 292-8583 

Email: nepacomments@nsf.gov

Enclosure: CD containing Draft PEIS/OEIS and appendices. 
Page 1 of 6

DISTRIBUTION LIST

DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC EIS/OEIS FOR MARINE SEISMIC RESEARCH

FUNDED BY NSF OR CONDUCTED BY USGS

FEDERAL AGENCIES

USEPA

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Activities

EIS Filing Section

Mail Code 2252-A, Room 7241

Ariel Rios Building (South Oval Lobby)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

U.S. EPA – Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street, 13th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

U.S. Department of State

John Field

U.S. Department of State

7203 Central Ave.

Takoma Park, MD 20912

BOEMRE

Jill Lewandowski, Protected Species Biologist

Environmental Assessment Branch

BOEMRE

381 Elden Street

Herndon, VA 20170

Casey Rowe

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region

BOEMRE

1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard (MS 5412)

New Orleans, LA 70123–2394

James Price

Marine Mammals Env. Studies Coordinator

BOEMRE

381 Elden Street, MS 4041

Herndon, VA 20170-4817

Deborah Epperson

BOEMRE

1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard (MS 5432)

New Orleans, LA 70123–2394

Wayne Crayton

BOEMRE

3801 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 500

Anchorage, AK 99503
Page 2 of 6

USGS

Esther Eng

Chief, Environmental Management Branch

U.S. Geological Survey

MS-207

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive

Reston VA 20192

James Devine

Senior Advisor for Science Applications

U.S. Geological Survey Headquarters

MS-106

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive

Reston, VA 20192

John Haines

Coordinator for Coastal & Marine Geology

U.S. Geological Survey Headquarters

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Mail Stop 915B

Reston, VA 20192-0002

Navy

John Quinn

Deputy Director 

Environmental Readiness Division (OPNAV 

N45)

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway

Suite 2000

Arlington, VA 22202

James E. Eckman

Marine Mammals & Biological Oceanography 

Program

Office of Naval Research – Code 322 

One Liberty Center, Rm 1073

875 N. Randolph St.

Arlington, VA 22203-1995

Michael J. Weise

Marine Mammals & Biological Oceanography 

Program

Office of Naval Research - Code 32

One Liberty Center, Rm 1068

875 N. Randolph St.

Arlington, VA 22203-1995

USFWS

John Fay

Division of Endangered Species

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

420 ARLSQ

4401 N. Fairfax Drive

Arlington, VA 22203
Page 3 of 6

NOAA-NMFS

Steve Leathery, National NEPA Coordinator

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

1315 East-West Highway, Room 14555

Silver Spring, MD 20910

James Lecky, Director

Office of Protected Resources

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

1315 East West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20901

Angela Somma, Chief Endangered Species 

Division

Office of Protected Resources

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

1315 East West Hwy

Silver Spring, MD 20901

Karen Abrams

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

1315 East-West Highway

SSMC3, 14th Floor F/HC

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Brad Smith

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

222 W. 7th St.

Box 43

Anchorage, AK 99513

Jolie Harrison

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Jay Barlow

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

8604 La Jolla Shores Dr.

La Jolla, CA 92038

MMC

Tim Ragen

Marine Mammal Commission

4340 East-West Highway, Suite 700

Bethesda, MD 20814

STATE AGENCIES

Clyde W. Namu’o, Administrator

State of Hawai’i

Office of Hawaiian Affairs

711 Kapi’olani Blvd., Suite 500

Honolulu, HI 96813

Mark Delaplaine

Federal Consistency Supervisor

California Coastal Commission

45 Fremont St., Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94105
Page 4 of 6

OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES

Jessica Bertenshan

9500 Gilman Dr.

UC-San Diego

La Jolla, CA 92093

John Collins

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

MS-34

360 Woods Hole Rd.

Woods Hole, MA 02543

Pat Cooper

School of Ocean and Earth Sciences and 

Technology

University of Hawaii

1680 East-West Road, POST 802

Honolulu HI 96822

Meagan Cummings

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

P.O. Box 1000

61 Route 9W

Palisades, NY 10964-1000

John Eastlund

IODP

1000 Discovery Dr.

College Station, TX 77845

Lois Epstein

Cook Inlet Keeper

308 G St., Suite 219

Anchorage, AK 99501

Benny Gallaway

LGL

1410 Cavitt St.

Bryan, TX 77801

David Goldberg

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

P.O. Box 1000

61 Route 9W

Palisades, NY 10964-1000

Jessica Gribbon

EarthTech

675 N. Washington St.

Alexandria, VA 22307

Richard Hammer

CSA Inc.

759 Parkway St.

Jupiter, FL 33477

Sean Higgins

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

P.O. Box 1000

61 Route 9W

Palisades, NY 10964-1000

R.D. Hofman

Chevy Chase, MD 20815

Cara Horowitz

Natural Resources Defense Council

1314 Second St.

Santa Monica, CA 90401

Doug Johnson

College Station, TX 77845

Art June

Metcalf and Eddy

2751 Prospect Ave., Suite 200

Fairfax, VA 22031

George Krasnick

1003 Bishop St., Suite 1550

Pauahi Tower

Honolulu, HI 96813

Bill Lang

Mandeville, LA 70448

James Lima

Anchorage, AK 99501

Michael Link

LGL Alaska

1101 E 76th Ave., Suite B

Anchorage, AK 99513

Jeff McGuire

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

MS-24

360 Woods Hole Rd.

Woods Hole, MA 02543
Page 5 of 6

Stephen Miller

9500 Gilman Dr.

UC-San Diego

La Jolla, CA 92093

Margo Morell

Consortium for Ocean Leadership

1201 New York Ave., Suite 400

Washington, DC 20005

Rebecca Nadel

Houston, TX 77079

Michael Purdy

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

P.O. Box 1000

61 Route 9W

Palisades, NY 10964-1000

Scott Sloughter

CRE

11 Dupont Circle NW, Suite 700

Washington, DC 20036

Brandon Southall

SEA, Inc.

911 Center Street, Suite B

Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Karen Stokesbury

CSA Inc.

759 Parkway St.

Jupiter, FL 33477

Lucy Swartz

Battelle

4112 Franklin St.

Kensington, MD 20895

Russell Tait

The Woodlands, TX 77382

Brian Taylor

School of Ocean and Earth Sciences and 

Technology

University of Hawaii

1680 East-West Road, POST 802

Honolulu HI 96822

Goldy Thach

La Jolla, CA 92037

Dean Welch

Honolulu, HI 96815

Andrew Wigton

URC-GW3-866B

PO Box 2189

Houston, TX 77252

John Young

Houston, TX 77060
Page 6 of 6

R/V Marcus G. Langseth Science Oversight Committee: 

Graham M. Kent

Director Nevada Seismology Lab

Mail Stop 0174

University of Nevada/Reno

1664 N. Virginia St.

Reno, NV 89557 

W. Steven Holbrook

Dept. Geology and Geophysics

University of Wyoming

Laramie, WY 82071-3006

Michael E. Enachescu

ER4030 

Dept. of Earth Sciences

Memorial University of Newfoundland

Newfoundland, Canada A1B 3X7C

Nathan Bangs

Institute for Geophysics

University of Texas, Austin

10100 Burnet Road

Austin, TX 78758

H. Paul Johnson

School of Oceanography WB-10

Box 357940 

University of Washington

Seattle, WA 98195-7940

Alexander (Sandy) Shor

School of Ocean and Earth Sciences and 

Technology

University of Hawaii

1680 East-West Road, POST 802

Honolulu HI 96822

Mitchell Lyle

TAMU 3146

Texas A&M University

College Station, TX 77840-3146

Raymond W. Schmitt

Dept. Physical Oceanography

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Mail Stop #21

Woods Hole, MA 02543

David W. Scholl

Emeritus Senior Scientist

U.S. Geological Survey

345 Middlefield Road

Menlo Park, CA 94025

Maya Tolstoy

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

PO Box 1000

61 Rt 9 W

Palisades, NY 10964

Paul Ljunggren

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

PO Box 1000

61 Rt 9 W

Palisades, NY 10964

Jeff Rupert

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

PO Box 1000

61 Rt 9 W

Palisades, NY 10964

Public Hearings on the

Draft Programmatic EIS/OEIS

Posters Used during the Public Hearings on the

Draft Programmatic EIS/OEIS

	













 





! "

#


$%%&
'
!$&"

()


))
)'







))'




'


)



* 

+,

% -$&-
 ..
)


'






/
,


)
.



+/


%

* 

)'



)







%(


0/

1

2%'
/



3

%

4%

'


)

5
%'%

0%



1

	

'







 







64728
9'%-
:4;

.

-<.44407

* 







'






 =$&






%

#



'






6;=)



)
!%>= '%44-4727"/






)
)




	




	






	




)




	

		













'
/





	


		
	









	

	



%4;=?@-#.

%4:=.

-<.






07=8

 
.'





)





#



6;!%>= '%44-4727"

 
.'



!%>-4727"


)




)



)%44=%4>-477;

 







)%44-477;

    !"
!# 
!#
$

 
			

	




	
	

		
			 


	
 !
		
"#
$

	%
!&
'		
()
*&
&+
+,
+ 




	(-
&
(-
)"
!(
	'
	
	.
	#	!			/
 0
	

1.	
(

%&!'('% ' )! !'('% ' )! 
 ) !*+, ,- *+, ,-"',+! ,- "',+! ,-"* 	'

"* 	'

.) , .) ,
!

"


	+!
"#$		
	

	


"22		
 
	2




	
$#24
/$!
4




 
+0" 
67	

	
	$

"22		2



	 

	

$


.34
+$

+


	 		
	
$

 2+



		
$
	
	/22+86
9
+
+	

1


"#

!

		

	
2)
$
	

	

/:	'
		'
		$
1$		






.34


	

	
 2


	
 	$


86
+
6;<
		:


	
	2 
 &
	
 !

"#/6==76==>1
$

	
ANTARCTIC OCEAN

ARCTIC OCEAN

INDIAN

OCEAN

PACIFIC

OCEAN

ANTARCTIC CIRCLE

ARCTIC CIRCLE

EQUATOR

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 160 140 120 100 80 

80

70605040302010

0

1020304050607080

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 160 140 120 100 80 

Longhurst Biomes and Proposed Detailed

and Qualitative Analysis Areas

Detailed

D1 = W Gulf of AlaskaD2 = S CaliforniaD3 = Galapagos RidgeD4 = CaribbeanD5 = NW Atlantic

Qualitative

Q1 = BC CoastQ2 = Mid-Atlantic RidgeQ3 = MarianasQ4 = Sub-AntarcticQ5 = N Atlantic/IcelandQ6 = SW AtlanticQ7 = W IndiaQ8 = W Australia

ANALYSIS AREAS

D1

Q1

Antarctic Polar BiomeAntarctic WesterlyWinds BiomeAtlantic Coastal BiomeAtlantic Polar BiomeAtlantic TradeWind BiomeAtlantic WesterlyWinds BiomeIndian OceanCoastal BiomeIndian OceanTrade Wind BiomePacific Coastal BiomePacific Polar BiomePacific TradeWind BiomePacific WesterlyWinds Biome

Source: Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2005.

LEGEND

Q7

Q8

Q3

Q1

Q4

D1

D2

D3
%&!'('% ' )!
 ) 

!'('% ' )!
 ) 

+, ,- +, ,-"',+! ,- "',+! ,-"* 	'' "* 	''

$	



!
"#	 	
				
		!
		 



$
+	
2:

		
+	

+
$
	

	
 


"#

	

	

 





	

	
+$

$



52

	
 
	
 4$
5	/
?6@=(-1


'





	$$
A$ 
+

-

'

	



B=28	



	+


	
$BC86=		2

'


$

$

	B7=@=

2

.
		

	  

8;

+	
7D9+


/,12

!

$

	



$
$


	E	

F$
	2


.34




!
			2



	$2

	
	/,1+
+$
	




		2
 	





2'8=	



	6=,	
+$

8=	


	8=,	
2

	+
	


2

.
, 
$


		

	




2$
+
88<, 8D=,

	



5	%
	
	+


(
-/(-12

,	



/
1

	






	+

 
	
$
$



	 2

%		 	&


	



'	
$


.34
+




	
 
!
	

	
2
Acoustic Source

(e.g., airgun)

Hydrophone Streamer (receiver)

sound propagation sound propagation 

Seismic Reflection SurveySeismic Refraction Survey

LEGEND

General Concept of

Marine Seismic Reflection and Refraction Surv

Note: Other acoustic receivers that may be used in seismic s sonobuoys, Ocean Bottom Cables (OBCs) in water dep seismometers for certain types of experiments.
&,& &,&

&

		- /1		




,$
:$!	 	






	


		

	

%	
	

<
'


)
9E
	FEF	

	


'




4
	-
G


	
$



	


$

	-+$
	




3



 


.34

 
	 
	



2$EF	
+

	
+		E9F
:
	
		3
 
/31

	



 2)







E-F+

 
		


$
$

$


5

!&



 	/!&12

%

	





+	+ 	 
"		
	 

)=)

EF
 
7=7@




$


$

$


)


/8D=,H
I1/8>=,H
I1


 	
/'&
 $	9
		2

 
	


$
$	

	


	

5	
	+



$



9







J#
	
:
 

	J

 

-:






'


/
)
J

	  
		


++$

+	J'K:
	
	

	
	

':E		
  		
5
:		+

(





-)
))

!%
%- "'





(

'





/

'


!%
%-."






'

J0	
:

$

	  8D=8>=,
8	
/
1+.	 

J8D=,/
1	



J!			








	
			

				
			
	
		

 
#

#

 
1
 %% !)%'+,)%  %% !)%'+,)%

 ' )!
 )   ' )!
 ) !*'+! )  ! ) 





!	
	



 
)




		
		
/22+1

+

E	9F	

	

	

9	
	
	

'

)



)






	
	+



J	


$	
 $

#


1 


	 "		('


4
		



$	&

	



$

	
	

)	&*+,
-'-	 	.

		9+$
+
$
%J& 7D9/
$
7@91J
	
J& 

+
	J.

	
J' 		-+


#


1$






	 $
5	



J'



 M>>N1

J'





JJ#


1


%	

%		
'J	J!
#


1

J


	

 +	$
A 		- 	

J
$

		

 

	
 



J,9$
+A




$


#


19$

 
+
9$	
A

$ 
-


 &*(	-.		 *-+	.J	
 	G
 


	


J.$
9	

/



1 	
 
 
 

#


1$ 
-


.3&
	
	
Acoustic Source

(e.g., airgun)

Relationship of Marine Operations Noise Model (MON

and Acoustic Integration Model (AIM)

Marine Operations Noise Model (MONM) (©JASCO)• Sound propagation model – predicts the amount of 

sound projected from the airgun in each direction.

• Computes the expected sound attenuation from the 

airgun.

• Predicts the received levels of sound at specific 

locations from the airgun as a function of bearing, distance, and depth.

• Includes site-specific environmental data such as 

propagation and attenuation based on bathymetry, bottom conditions (i.e., sand, mud, rock, etc.), sound velocity profile, water temperature, etc.

Acoustic Integration Model (AIM) (©Marine Acoustic• Animal movement and acoustics model – integrates inf

propagation of sound from the airgun and on the predsimulated marine mammals (animats) to model the anof sound levels that those animats receive. Animats in tresentations of marine mammals.

• Predicted sound levels at specific locations are derived • For each modeled area, levels of sound received by a p

culated as a function of time. Animats are programmed account of species- or group-specific information such ahabitat preferences, group size, and swimming and div

• The resulting distribution of predicted received sound le

tion with impact or “take” criteria, to predict the numbexposed to specified sound levels (“take estimates”).

• Model includes mitigation shutdowns, but does not acc

airgun noise.
Slides from the NSF Presentation Given at the

Public Hearings on the

Draft Programmatic EIS/OEIS

WELCOME

to the Public Hearing on the 

Draft Programmatic EIS/OEIS for Marine 

Seismic Research Funded by the National 

Science Foundation (NSF) or Conducted 

by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for 

Marine Seismic Research Funded by the National Science 

Foundation or Conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey

Public Hearings:

La Jolla, CA Arlington, VA

October 25, 2010 October 27, 2010
NSF

• NSF is an Independent federal 

agency, created by Congress in 1950 

"to promote the progress of 

science; to advance the national 

health, prosperity, and welfare; to 

secure the national defense..." 

• Funds ~20% of federally supported 

basic research at U.S. colleges and 

universities

• Issues ~11,000 grants annually to 

fund proposals judged by meritreview

• Annual budget of ~$6.9B (FY 2010)

• NSF-funded researchers have won 

more than 180 Nobel Prizes as well 

as other honors
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

• Scientific federal agency with no regulatory 

responsibility

• Within the US Department of the Interior

• The largest U.S. agency dealing with water, earth, 

and biological sciences. The USGS also has 

responsibility for civilian mapping (including 

offshore) 

• Collects, monitors, analyzes, and provides scientific 

understanding about conditions, issues, and 

problems associated with natural resources, hazards, 

environments, and climate change. 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

• Within the US Department of Commerce ‘s National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

• Lead federal agency responsible for the stewardship of 

the nation's offshore living marine resources and their 

habitat

• Manages, conserves and protects fish, whales, 

dolphins, sea turtles and other living ocean creatures

• NMFS’ Office of Protected Resources works to 

conserve, protect, and recover species under the 

Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal 

Protection Act
Purpose & Need for the Draft 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS

• Examines the potential impacts that may result from 

geophysical exploration and scientific research seismic 

surveys that are funded by NSF or conducted by the USGS

• Proposed Action is for academic and US government 

scientists to conduct marine seismic research from research 

vessels operated by US academic institutions and government 

agencies

• Purpose of the proposed action is the investigation of the 

geology and geophysics of the Earth beneath the oceans 

using seismic data to reveal the underlying structure and 

stratigraphy of the sediments and deeper crust to help inform 

our understanding of complex Earth and atmospheric 

processes which is in support of the NSF & USGS missions.
The Science... 

Plate Tectonics

Image created by NASA
Seafloor and Subsurface Features

Degassing lava erupts onto the seafloor at NW Rota-1 volcano. 

(photo credit: copyright Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution). 

http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2009/May09/rota.html

Image from 

http://nwrota2009.blogspot.

com/

Submarine 

Volcanoes

Mid-Ocean Ridges

Image from www.world-science.net

Magma Chamber 

Crust and mantel boundary beneath melt sill (Singh et al. 2006)
Natural Hazards

Coastal Landslide caused by the 2010 Haiti Earthquake.

Image from www.gallery.usgs.gov Landslides

Earthquakes

Tsunami

2010 Chile Earthquake - Santiago

Photo credit: Esteban Maldonado 

March 28, 1964, Seward, Alaska. Image from 

http://wcatwc.arh.noaa.gov/web_tsus/19640328/19640328.htm
Marine Seismic Research

NSF-funded marine seismic research:

• Science driven: Proposal & merit review process

• Globally ranging, spanning domestic, international, and foreign 

territorial waters, usually in water deeper than ~1000 m or conducted 

along transects from shallow to deeper water

• NSF funds 4-7 surveys/year, each lasting 1 to 7 weeks

• R/V Marcus G. Langseth: Primary vessel used for high energy surveys

• Other academic vessels used for low energy surveys

R/V Langseth
USGS Marine Seismic Research

USGS Activities

Low energy (e.g., Chirp)

- mostly within 5 nm of the shoreline

- 8 to 12 surveys/yr, each of 1 to 3 weeks’ duration

- water depths up to 1000 m on the West Coast, 500 m in the Gulf of Mexico, and 

100 m on the East Coast

High energy (e.g., multiple airguns or GI guns)

- 1 to 2 surveys per year, with more frequent surveys possible in the future; 

duration up to a few weeks

- deepwater cruises both inside and outside the 200 nm limit

USGS Coastal and Marine Science objectives include:

- mapping associated with the Convention on the Law of the Sea to determine 

the outer limits of U.S. sovereign rights beyond 200 nm

- understanding the dynamic offshore environment for slope failures that may 

cause tsunamis, 

coastal erosion, faults, gas seeps, and other features

- researching marine aspects of global change, sea level rise, and their 

impacts on society
Different types of Marine Seismic Surveys

• 2-D 

• 3-D

• Other: VSP; 4-D; OBC

Track line coverage for 3D MCS along the 

East Pacific Rise. S. Carbotte, LDEO.

MGL0812 - East Pacific Rise - Mutter & Carbotte
Reflection & Refraction Surveys
Energy Level Categorization

Representative Airgun

WHOI Active=Source/Rapid Response OBS/H

Streamer Reels on R/V Langseth

• Seismic surveys were divided into two categories in the 

Draft PEIS:

o High Energy – Generally > 4 airguns 

o Low energy – Generally ≤ 4 airguns, boomer, sparkers, waterguns, chirp

• Factors that influence categorization include: Source, 

source volume, tow depth, and spacing 
PEIS Analysis Approach

• 5 representative Detailed Analysis Areas (DAAs) & 8 Qualitative Analysis 

Areas (QAAs) 

– Sites where future surveys are likely to occur

– Sites within a wide range of Longhurst Biomes 

• Survey season

• Source levels & configurations (number & type of airguns,2D, 3D, etc.)

• Modeling (AASM, MONM, AIM) to predict Take Estimates

• Monitoring and mitigation measures

• Affected environment and environmental consequences of the proposed 

action on the following resources:

– Animals: marine invertebrates, fish, sea turtles, seabirds, marine mammals 

(cetaceans, pinnipeds, sea otter, manatee)

– Socioeconomics

– Cultural Resources

• Cumulative Impacts
Exemplary (Representative) Analysis Areas
Modeling
From Appendix B (AMR):

Modeling

• Considered both rms and SEL

– Used existing NMFS guidance on “take” for pulsed sounds:

• Level A Harassment (Injury) = 180 (cetaceans)/190 (pinnipeds) dB re 

1 μPa (rms)

• Level B Harassment (Behavioral) = 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms)

– Used the proposed energy (SEL) criterion:

• Level A Harassment (Injury) = 198 (cetaceans)/186 (pinnipeds) dB re 

1 μPa2•sec

• Considered both flat and M-weighting

• Considered site specific environmental “context” 

– seafloor, temperature, salinity
Monitoring & Mitigation

• Mitigation during survey planning phases

• Visual monitoring

• Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM)

• Proposed Safety Radii or “Mitigation Zone”

• Mitigation during Operations:

– Vessel speed/course alteration

– Airgun power down & shut down

– Airgun ramp-up

– Special mitigation measures for 

circumstances/species of particular 

concern
Alternatives

• Alternative A: Conduct marine seismic research using cruisespecific mitigation measures

– for expected no take situations:

• Standard 200-m FMZ

– for expected take situations:

• Calculate FMZ & MZ for high & low energy sources

• Alternative B (Preferred): Conduct marine seismic research 

using cruise-specific mitigation measures with generic 

mitigation measures for low-energy acoustic sources

– for expected no take situations:

• Standard 200-m FMZ

– for expected take situations:

• Calculate FMZ for high & low energy sources, 

• Calculate MZ for high energy sources

• Standard 100m MZ for low energy sources

• No Action Alternative
Potential Environmental Impacts

Environmental Consequences:

• Direct and indirect affects of the proposed action mainly as a result of noise from acoustic 

energy sources (e.g. airguns)

• Potential impacts to species are expected to be limited to short-term and localized 

behavioral disturbances (such as Level B), and not significant to populations.

• Although noise modeling results for DAAs indicate that Level A injury impacts to marine 

mammals or threatened and endangered species may occur, for actual surveys, additional 

mitigation measures would be added to the cruise parameters to reduce and eliminate Level 

A impacts or the potential for injury.

Cumulative Impacts: 

• Results indicate no significant cumulative effects to the affected environment from proposed 

actions.

• Monitoring and mitigation, pre-cruise planning, evaluation of other regional activities 

influence results

Future surveys:

• When future surveys are identified, a site specific environmental analysis will be developed.

• All future seismic surveys would be permitted according to the rules and regulations of the 

applicable agencies of U.S. federal, state, and foreign governments. 

• Incorporate technological advances made in seismic sources, monitoring/mitigation 

techniques and tools, which demonstrate reduction in environmental impacts.
Thank you!

• Scripps Institution of Oceanography

• USGS

• NMFS 

• John Diebold, LDEO
There are 3 ways to comment on the 

Draft Programmatic EIS/OEIS:

1. Submit written or oral comments at this hearing.

2. Email comments to: nepacomments@nsf.gov

3. Mail comments to:

Holly Smith

Division of Ocean Sciences

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 725

Arlington, VA 22230

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF) – U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS)

DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC EIS/OEIS FOR MARINE SEISMIC RESEARCH

Public Hearing Comment Sheet

Location:

Date: 

Thank you for providing your comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS/OEIS for proposed marine seismic research 

funded by NSF or conducted by the USGS. Public involvement is a fundamental part of the development of the 

Programmatic EIS/OEIS and NSF wants and appreciates your comments. Please provide comments no later than 

November 22, 2010 to ensure consideration in the Final Programmatic EIS/OEIS. Comments may be submitted at this 

meeting, via email at nepacomments@nsf.gov, or via U.S. Postal Service to the address below. The Draft Programmatic 

EIS/OEIS can be downloaded from http://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/envcomp/ under “Draft PEIS for Marine Seismic 

Research.”

***Please print – additional space is provided on back***

1. Name: 

2. Address: 

 

3. Please check here if you would like to be on the mailing list.

4. Please check here if you would like your name/address kept private. (Please note, your comments may be published 

in the Final Programmatic EIS/OEIS; please do not provide any personal information [e.g., your address] if you do not wish 

this information to be made public.)

5. Would you like to receive a hard copy or CD of the Final Programmatic EIS/OEIS?

Please give this form to one of the EIS Team representatives, place in the comment drop box, or mail by November 22 to:

Holly Smith, Division of Ocean Sciences

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Blvd, Suite 725

Arlington, VA 22230

Or via email to: nepacomments@nsf.gov
(comments continued from front)
NSF-USGS Marine Seismic Research Draft Programmatic EIS/OEIS

PUBLIC HEARING ATTENDANCE RECORD AND SPEAKER CARD

PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Date ____________

Name __________________________________________________________________________________

Address ________________________________________________________________________________

City, State, Zip ___________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Name of official, organization, or group you represent (if applicable): _______________________________

 Check if you want to SPEAK PUBLICLY

 Check if you want a paper copy of the Final Programmatic EIS/OEIS

 Check if you want a CD of the Final Programmatic EIS/OEIS

NSF-USGS Marine Seismic Research Draft Programmatic EIS/OEIS

PUBLIC HEARING ATTENDANCE RECORD AND SPEAKER CARD

PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Date ____________

Name __________________________________________________________________________________

Address ________________________________________________________________________________

City, State, Zip ___________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Name of official, organization, or group you represent (if applicable): _______________________________

 Check if you want to SPEAK PUBLICLY

 Check if you want a paper copy of the Final Programmatic EIS/OEIS

 Check if you want a CD of the Final Programmatic EIS/OEIS

Please Note

Comments will be published in the 

Final EIS/OEIS. The name, city, and 

state locations of persons making 

comments will appear in the Final 

EIS/OEIS. Specific address 

information of commenters and 

meeting attendees will not be printed 

in the Final EIS/OEIS, but will be 

used to create a mailing list for the 

document.

Please Note

Comments will be published in the 

Final EIS/OEIS. The name, city, and 

state locations of persons making 

comments will appear in the Final 

EIS/OEIS. Specific address 

information of commenters and 

meeting attendees will not be printed 

in the Final EIS/OEIS, but will be 

used to create a mailing list for the 

document.
ATTENDANCE RECORD AND SPEAKER CARD BACK

Data Required by the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 USC 552A)

1. Authority: 42 USC 4321-4370a.

2. Principal Purpose: Information is used to compile a list of hearing attendees for the administrative record.

3. Routine Uses

a. The card is used to signify an individual’s desire to make a statement during the public comment portion 

of the hearing.

b. Names and addresses will be used to compile distribution lists for future documents.

c. Specific address information of persons making comments and meeting attendees will not be printed in 

the Final Programmatic EIS/OEIS. The names and city and state locations of commenters will appear in 

the Final Programmatic EIS/OEIS. Comments will also be published in the Final Programmatic EIS/OEIS.

4. Effect of individual not providing address information: Failure to provide mailing address information may 

prevent receipt of the Final Programmatic EIS/OEIS.

ATTENDANCE RECORD AND SPEAKER CARD BACK

Data Required by the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 USC 552A)

1. Authority: 42 USC 4321-4370a.

2. Principal Purpose: Information is used to compile a list of hearing attendees for the administrative record.

3. Routine Uses

a. The card is used to signify an individual’s desire to make a statement during the public comment 

portion of the hearing.

b. Names and addresses will be used to compile distribution lists for future documents.

c. Specific address information of persons making comments and meeting attendees will not be printed 

in the Final Programmatic EIS/OEIS. The names and city and state locations of commenters will appear 

in the Final Programmatic EIS/OEIS. Comments will also be published in the Final Programmatic 

EIS/OEIS.

4. Effect of individual not providing address information: Failure to provide mailing address information may 

prevent receipt of the Final Programmatic EIS/OEIS.
NSF-USGS MARINE SEISMIC RESEARCH

DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC EIS/OEIS

Public Hearing Guidelines for Oral Comments

 If you wish to provide oral comments, please mark the speaker card appropriately (available at the 

registration desk).

 Please limit your comments to the analyses contained within the Draft Programmatic EIS/OEIS for 

Marine Seismic Research funded by NSF or conducted by the USGS.

 Speakers will be organized in the following priority:

 Elected officials (e.g., individuals officially representing federal, state, and local government and 

tribal offices), and

 Individuals, organizations, and other interested parties.

 Comments will be limited to 3 minutes:

 The 3 minutes will begin after you enter your name for the record,

 After 2 minutes have elapsed, a yellow card will be shown by the timekeeper to indicate you have 1 

minute left to finish your comment,

 At the end of 3 minutes, a red card will be shown and you will need to finish your comments, and

 Depending on the number of speakers and the duration of the public hearing, the public hearing 

moderator may offer individuals additional time to speak; however, written comments are 

encouraged to ensure your input is completely received.

 Comments should always be directed towards the presiding public hearing moderator. This will help 

ensure your comments are recorded accurately by the court reporter.

 Please speak clearly and start your comments with your name and organization that you represent (if this 

is applicable).

 Please note that all oral comments are being transcribed by a court reporter and the transcripts will 

become part of the public and administrative record for the Programmatic EIS/OEIS.

 The audience is requested to please minimize movement and talking while others are making comments. 

If you need to leave the room, please take advantage of the time when we are changing speakers.

 Depending on the number of speakers, the public hearing moderator may ask that speakers move to a

reserved seating area to minimize time between speakers. This will ensure that everyone has an 

opportunity to provide oral comments.

 Please avoid applause or open remarks during comments. This makes it difficult to hear the speaker and 

takes time away from that and subsequent speakers.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Public Hearing on the Draft Programmatic EIS/OEIS:

Scripps Institution of Oceanography

La Jolla, CA – October 25, 2010

TEC, INC. 

514 VIA DE LA VALLE, SUITE 308 

ATTN: CLAUDIA TAN 

SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA} ss. 

 County of San Diego} 

The Undersigned, declares under penalty of perjury 

under the laws of the State of California: That she is a 

r e s id e n t o f t h e C o u n t y o f S an D i eg o . T h at s h e is and at all 

times herein mentioned was a citizen of the United States, over the age 

of twenty-one years, and that she is not a party to, nor interested in the 

above entitled matter; that she is Chief Clerk for the publisher of 

The San Diego Union-Tribune 

a newspaper of general circulation , printed and published daily in the 

City of San Diego, County of San Diego, and which newspaper is 

published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a 

general character, and which newspaper at all the times herein 

mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying 

subscribers, and which newspaper has been established, printed and 

published at regular intervals in the said City of San Diego, County of 

San Diego, for a period exceeding one year next preceding the date of 

publication of the notice hereinafter referred to, and which newspaper is 

not devoted to nor published for the interests, entertainment or 

instruction of a particular class, profession, trade, calling, race, or 

denomination, or any number of same; that the notice of which the 

annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said newspaper in 

accordance with the instructions of the person(s) requesting publication, 

and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: 

Oct 1, 2010 

 _____________________________________ _ 

 Chief Clerk for the Publisher

 

10/13/10 _____________________________________ _ 

 Date

Affidavit of Publication of

Legal Advertisement 

Ad # 0010436117 

ORDERED BY: CLAUDIA TAN 



In The Matter Of:

National Science Foundation Public

Hearing on the Draft P.E.I.S.

Public Hearing Proceedings

October 25, 2010

National Court Reporters Inc. 888.800.9656

Original File NSFFINAL.TXT

Min-U-Script®
 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656

 1 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF)

 2 PUBLIC HEARING ON THE

 3 DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (PEIS)

 4 FOR MARINE SEISMIC RESEARCH

 5

 6

 7

 8 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

 9 VOLUME I

10 (Pages 1 - 29, inclusive)

11

12

13 TAKEN ON: October 25, 2010

14 TAKEN AT: Scripps Institute of Oceanography

 Vaughn Hall, Room 100,

15 Discovery Way

 La Jolla, California

16

17

18

19

20 REPORTED BY: Katrina F. Burlason,

 RPR, CSR No. 5898

21

22

23

24

25

Ntil Ct RtI8888009656
2

 1 APPEARANCES

 2

 3 RICK SPAULDING, PROJECT MANAGER

 TEC, Inc.

 4 6765 NE Day Road

 Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110

 5 206.855.4997

 rlspaulding@tecinc.com

 6

 7 HOLLY SMITH, PROJECT MANAGER

 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656
3

 1 I N D E X

 2

 3 OPENING STATEMENT FOR NSF: PAGE 4

 4 OPENING STATEMENT FOR TEC, INC.: PAGE 7

 5 (Recess for Viewing Posters and

 for Discussion)

 6

 OVERVIEW OF EIS AND PROPOSED ACTION: PAGE 9

 7

 (Recess)

 8

 MODERATOR'S STATEMENT: PAGE 24

 9

 PUBLIC COMMENTS:

10 Prof. Mike Purdy PAGE 27

11

 MODERATOR'S CLOSING STATEMENT: PAGE 29

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656
4

 1 LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA, MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2010

 2

 3 (Open house portion of the hearing began at

 4 5:00 p.m., where discussions were held off the record

 5 and posters were on display.)

 6

 7 MS. SMITH: I guess we can get started.

 8 I want to welcome everybody to the meeting

 9 tonight. I'm Holly Smith, in the Division of Ocean

10 Sciences at the National Science Foundation. I

11 currently serve as the project manager for the Draft

12 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Overseas

13 Environmental Impact Statement, commonly referred to as

14 the Draft Programmatic EIS. So this is funded by NSF

15 and USGS. We are very appreciative of your time for

16 coming out here, and we look forward to hearing your

17 comments.

18 This hearing is being held in accordance with

19 the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act,

20 or NEPA, and the regulations that are published by the

21 Council on Environmental Quality. The purpose of this

22 hearing is to receive public comments on the Draft

23 Programmatic EIS. The USGS and National Oceanic and

24 Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, are cooperating

25 agencies in the preparation of the Programmatic EIS.

 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656
National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656

5

 1 And before I go further, can everyone hear me

 2 okay?

 3 Although during the open house/poster session

 4 you may have met many of the representatives from NSF,

 5 USGS, NOAA, and the contractors that assisted us in the

 6 preparation of the Draft Programmatic EIS, I would like

 7 the members of the EIS project team to introduce

 8 themselves and state their role in the process. I'll

 9 start over here.

10 Caroline?

11 MS. BLANCO: I'm Caroline Blanco. I'm an

12 environmental attorney at National Science Foundation.

13 MR. SPAULDING: I'm Rick Spaulding. I'm the

14 Project Manager for TEC; in other words, the manager for

15 writing of the document.

16 MS. ENG: Hi. I'm Esther Eng, with the U.S.

17 Geological Survey. I'm the chief of the Environmental

18 Management Branch at headquarters.

19 MR. DEVINE: I'm Jim Devine, U.S. Geological

20 Survey. I'm the senior proving officer for NEPA

21 Processes.

22 MS. SMITH: Jon?

23 MR. CHILDS: Jon Childs, geophysicist. I'm a

24 member of the U.S. Geological Survey, and I participated

25 as a reviewer and expert witness, I guess.

 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656
National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656

6

 1 MS. SMITH: Candace?

 2 MS. NACHMAN: Hi. Candace Nachman, with NOAA

 3 Fisheries, back in Silver Spring, and we're a

 4 cooperating agency for marine mammals and sea turtle

 5 issues.

 6 MS. SMITH: Anyone else?

 7 MS. BROWNLOW: I'm Jackie Brownlow. I'm with

 8 TEC, and I'm assisting Rick with this hearing.

 9 MS. SMITH: And --

10 MR. FRANKEL: I'm Adam Frankel. I'm an

11 acoustic biologist with Marine Acoustics, Incorporated,

12 and I helped prepare some of the EIS chapters.

13 MS. SMITH: And in the back of the room?

14 MS. TAN: I'm Claudia Tan. I'm with TEC, and

15 I'm helping with the hearing process.

16 MS. GRAY: I'm Liza Gray. And I am also with

17 TEC, and I'm assisting with the public hearing.

18 MS. SMITH: All right. Team members will

19 remain here for the duration of the hearing, so please

20 feel free to approach anyone from the EIS team if you

21 would like to discuss the project.

22 The hearing will be conducted in three parts.

23 First, after this brief introduction, Rick Spaulding,

24 who works for TEC, will provide an overview of the

25 format and guidelines for tonight's meeting. After his

 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656
National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656

7

 1 overview, I will make a presentation on the purpose and

 2 need for the Programmatic EIS for NSF-USGS marine

 3 seismic research and will summarize the analytical

 4 approach taken. The third part of this hearing will be

 5 an opportunity to provide NSF and USGS with oral

 6 comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS and make

 7 statements for the record. The input that you provide

 8 will guide us in the Programmatic EIS process with

 9 valuable information about your concerns and questions

10 about the Draft Programmatic EIS analysis so that we may

11 address those concerns in preparation of the Final

12 Programmatic EIS.

13 MR. SPAULDING: Thank you, Holly.

14 As Holly said, my name is Rick Spaulding. I'm

15 the project manager for the contractor that is preparing

16 the Draft and the Final Programmatic EIS, and I'll act

17 as the sort of moderator or facilitator for the meeting

18 tonight.

19 One of the things I want to sort of encourage

20 is I'd ask you to keep in mind that this is a public

21 hearing. It's not a debate. It's not a popularity vote

22 on the analysis presented in the Draft Programmatic EIS,

23 nor is it designed as a question-and-answer session,

24 although legitimate clarifying questions as part of your

25 comments may be asked and be recorded for clarification

 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656
National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656

8

 1 in the Final Programmatic EIS.

 2 This hearing is about the adequacy of the

 3 analysis presented in the Draft Programmatic EIS.

 4 Concerns about non-environmental issues should not be

 5 raised at this hearing. They will not add anything to

 6 the record and will simply take away from other

 7 speakers' times and opportunities to comment on the

 8 Draft Programmatic EIS.

 9 When you came in, you should have been asked

10 to fill out a speaker card if you're interested in

11 presenting an oral comment tonight. If you have not

12 filled out a card and you do wish to make a comment

13 tonight, please fill out one now, and we will use those

14 to call your name during the comment period.

15 Please keep in mind also that all of the

16 proceedings, from when Holly began, are being recorded

17 by a court reporter, and they'll become part of the

18 official public record and they'll be included in the

19 appendix of the Final EIS.

20 Should you choose to submit any comments in

21 writing, this would be the appropriate time and place to

22 do that. We have comment sheets outside on the table as

23 you enter. You can leave your comments in the box in

24 the back there with the cookies. It's to encourage you

25 to come and look at the comments sheets, so that's why

 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656
National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656

9

 1 we put the cookies there.

 2 If you wish to comment in other ways on the

 3 Programmatic EIS, there are a number of ways you can do

 4 that. You can either provide written comments

 5 tonight -- As I have stated, you can provide written

 6 comments by mail or you can provide them via e-mail at a

 7 later date -- and the address we will show you later,

 8 but it's all in the materials -- or you can present them

 9 to the court reporter tonight as an oral comment.

10 Written comments submitted by mail will be accepted

11 until November 22nd, 2010, at the end of the 45-day

12 comment period. All comments made at the hearing or

13 provided in writing will be given equal consideration.

14 And at this time I would like to have Holly

15 come back and give a brief presentation on the

16 Programmatic EIS.

17 MS. SMITH: Thank you.

18 First, again I'd like to thank you all for

19 coming to tonight's public hearing. As Rick mentioned,

20 I'll provide a brief overview of the Draft Programmatic

21 EIS, but further details on the information I will

22 describe can be found in the actual document. After my

23 presentation, formal comments can be provided as part of

24 the formal public hearing process, as Rick just

25 mentioned.

 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656
National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656

10

 1 The preparation of this Programmatic EIS was

 2 initiated in 2005 with NSF as the lead agency and the

 3 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's

 4 National Marine Fisheries Service, or NMFS, as a

 5 cooperating agency because of their regulatory

 6 oversight. USGS joined the effort several years ago and

 7 is an official cooperating agency. Both NSF and USGS

 8 are action agencies, whereas NMFS is involved as a

 9 regulating agency.

10 NSF is an independent federal agency and was

11 created in the 1950s to promote the progress of science.

12 NSF funds approximately 20 percent of the federally

13 supported basic research at U.S. colleges and

14 universities. We receive approximately 40,000 proposals

15 each year for research, education, and training

16 projects, which are judged by a rigorous merit-review

17 process. NSF awards approximately 11,000 grants

18 annually, which is approximately a 27 percent proposal

19 success rate. NSF's current budget is nearly

20 $7 billion. NSF-funded researchers have made important

21 contributions to science and have received a multitude

22 of distinguished awards and honors; notably, more than

23 180 Nobel Prizes.

24 The USGS is a bureau within the Department of

25 the Interior. It's a scientific federal agency with no

 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656
National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656

11

 1 regulatory responsibility. It has the largest U.S.

 2 agency budget studying issues of water, earth, and

 3 biological sciences. USGS also has responsibility for

 4 all civilian mapping efforts. The USGS collects,

 5 monitors, analyzes, and provides scientific

 6 understanding about conditions, issues, and problems

 7 associated with natural resources, hazards,

 8 environments, and climate change.

 9 The National Marine Fisheries Service is part

10 of the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Oceanic

11 and Atmospheric Administration. It's the lead federal

12 agency responsible for the stewardship of the nation's

13 offshore living marine resources and their habitat.

14 NMFS manages, conserves, and protects fish,

15 whales, dolphins, sea turtles, and other living ocean

16 creatures. NMFS's Office of Protected Resources works

17 to conserve, protect, and recover species under the

18 Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act.

19 The Draft Programmatic EIS examines the

20 potential environmental impacts that may result from

21 marine seismic research surveys that are funded by NSF

22 or conducted by the USGS.

23 The proposed action is for academic and U.S.

24 government scientists to conduct marine seismic research

25 from research vessels operated by academic institutions

 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656
National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656

12

 1 and government agencies. The purpose of the proposed

 2 action, however, is to study the earth beneath the ocean

 3 using seismic data to reveal the underlying structure

 4 and stratigraphy of the sediments and deeper crust.

 5 This geologic information helps expand our understanding

 6 of the intricate Earth and atmospheric processes, which

 7 support the NSF and USGS missions, and benefits society.

 8 As I just mentioned, the purpose is to

 9 increase the scientific understanding of the earth

10 beneath the oceans. Data collected by seismic surveys

11 have been used by scientists in a variety of ways,

12 including hypothesizing, and subsequently demonstrating,

13 the validity of the theory of plate tectonics.

14 Seismic surveys can be used to directly image

15 the sea floor and subsurface features, such as submarine

16 volcanoes, magma chambers, and mid-ocean ridges.

17 Seismic data can provide images of ocean faults and

18 subduction zones, which are key to improving our

19 understanding of, and better planning for, natural

20 hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, and tsunamis.

21 NSF's mission of funding basic research has a

22 broader scientific scope than most mission agencies

23 have. NSF-funded marine seismic research is driven by

24 the scientific community -- scientists submit proposals

25 on a wide range of geologic topics of interest for

 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656
National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656

13

 1 funding consideration and, as previously mentioned,

 2 proposals are vetted through a peer-based, merit-review

 3 process.

 4 As a result of the broader scientific scope,

 5 NSF-funded seismic surveys are globally ranging,

 6 spanning domestic, international, and foreign

 7 territorial waters. Typically surveys are conducted in

 8 water deeper than 1000 meters or are conducted along

 9 transects from shallow to deeper water. NSF funds

10 approximately four to seven surveys per year, each

11 lasting typically one to seven weeks.

12 The primary vessel used for high-energy

13 surveys is the "R/V Marcus G. Langseth." The vessel is

14 owned by NSF and operated under a Cooperative Agreement

15 with Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth

16 Observatory. Other research vessels that are part of

17 the U.S. academic fleet are sometimes used for

18 NSF-funded low-energy surveys.

19 USGS mainly conducts low-energy surveys and

20 are mostly within five nautical miles of the shoreline.

21 They conduct approximately 8 to 12 surveys each year,

22 each of one to three weeks' duration. Surveys typically

23 are in water depths up to 1000 meters on the West Coast,

24 500 meters in the Gulf of Mexico, and 100 meters on the

25 East Coast.

 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656
National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656

14

 1 USGS also conducts one to two high-energy

 2 surveys per year, with potential for more frequent

 3 surveys in the future. Surveys could last up to a few

 4 weeks each and would likely be deep-water cruises

 5 conducted both inside and outside the 200-nautical-mile

 6 limit, the US EEZ boundary.

 7 USGS Coastal and Marine Science objectives

 8 include: Mapping to define the outer limits of the U.S.

 9 extended continental shelf under Law of the Sea;

10 understanding the dynamic offshore environment for slope

11 failures, coastal erosion, faults, gas leaks, and other

12 features, and researching marine aspects of global

13 change and their impacts on society.

14 The Draft PEIS describes the different types

15 of marine seismic surveys which may potentially be

16 funded by NSF or conducted by USGS. The most common

17 include two-dimensional and three-dimensional reflection

18 and refraction surveys. Occasionally other types of

19 surveys, such as four-dimensional, vertical seismic

20 profiling, or surveys using ocean bottom cables are

21 employed by researchers. The type of marine seismic

22 survey that is conducted varies depending on the

23 scientific objectives identified by the researchers.

24 As depicted in this graphic, for reflection

25 surveys, seismic signals bounce off the sea floor and

 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656
National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656

15

 1 discontinuities beneath the sea floor and are typically

 2 collected by a towed hydrophone streamer. For

 3 refraction surveys, seismic signals bend through the

 4 layers of the earth and travel near horizontally to

 5 recording instruments (ocean bottom seismometers) that

 6 are commonly stationary on the sea floor. Signals

 7 collected are then processed to construct an image or

 8 map of the Earth's internal structure. The draft PEIS

 9 includes further information on the types of surveys and

10 equipment illustrated here as well as other types of

11 equipment that are used during seismic surveys.

12 I mentioned earlier in my presentation "high

13 energy surveys" and "low energy surveys." Seismic

14 surveys were divided into these two categories in the

15 Draft PEIS. The groupings were based on analysis of a

16 variety of acoustic energy source types, such as GI or

17 G-guns, and configuration scenarios that took into

18 consideration source volume, tow depth, and airgun

19 spacing -- factors that influence sound propagation.

20 In general, experiments using four airguns or

21 less, boomers, sparker, water guns, or chirp systems are

22 likely to fall into the low-energy classification. As I

23 just noted, however, certain factors do influence sound

24 propagation and, therefore, there are exceptions to this

25 general rule of thumb. Appendix F of the Draft

 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656
National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656

16

 1 Programmatic EIS provides further details about the

 2 various configurations and scenarios that meet the

 3 low-energy configuration parameters.

 4 I'd like to now give a general overview of our

 5 approach to analysis. Some items I will just touch on

 6 briefly; however, I will discuss some items in slightly

 7 more detail in subsequent slides. Further details on

 8 all points, however, can be found in the Draft

 9 Programmatic EIS.

10 First, five sites were selected to be analyzed

11 and modeled quantitatively. These were referred to as

12 the Detailed Analysis Areas or DAAs. Eight additional

13 areas were identified and were analyzed qualitatively

14 and were not modeled. These were referred to in the

15 Draft PEIS as QAAs, Qualitative Analysis Areas. DAAs

16 and QAAs were selected both with the consideration of

17 where future surveys are likely to occur and for

18 representing a variety of Longhurst biomes -- marine

19 areas that demonstrate similar ecological dynamics.

20 Survey seasons and source levels and configurations were

21 selected taking into consideration operational

22 constraints, such as weather, and likely scientific

23 goals.

24 For the DAAs, modeling was conducted to

25 predict take estimates of marine mammals. The Draft

 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656
National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656

17

 1 PEIS includes monitoring and mitigation to minimize and

 2 avoid potential effects of seismic operations on the

 3 marine environment, such as marine mammals and sea

 4 turtles.

 5 The affected environment and environmental

 6 consequences of the proposed action were evaluated for

 7 the DAAs and QAAs. Impacts on the associated marine

 8 resources, including marine invertebrates, fish, sea

 9 turtles, sea birds, and marine mammals, were considered.

10 Additionally, the impacts to socioeconomic and cultural

11 resources, such as commercial fishing, recreational

12 activities, subsistence hunting and fishing, and

13 archeological sites, such as shipwrecks, were identified

14 and analyzed. The survey activities were then assessed

15 to determine the cumulative impacts.

16 This slide illustrates where the five DAAs and

17 eight QAAs are located around the globe and the

18 Longhurst biomes they represent. The DAAs are

19 highlighted with the red circles, and the QAAs, with the

20 green. These sites and associated environments are

21 described in detail in a Draft Programmatic EIS.

22 For a quantitative assessment of the potential

23 impacts of each exemplary marine seismic survey at a

24 DAA, the predicted (or modeled) seismic survey sound

25 fields were integrated with the expected distribution of

 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656
National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656

18

 1 marine animals at each site. An Airgun Array Source

 2 Model, or AASM, was used at each DAA to predict the

 3 amount of sound that would be projected in each

 4 direction from the proposed airgun configuration.

 5 The Marine Operations Noise Model created by

 6 JASCO then incorporated the AASM information and used it

 7 to predict the received levels of airgun sound as a

 8 function of bearing, distance, and depth in the water

 9 column. This model takes into account the best

10 available site-specific environmental information that

11 would affect the propagation and attenuation of sound as

12 it travels outward from the airgun array.

13 Finally, the Acoustic Integration Model, or

14 AIM, developed by Marine Acoustics Inc. was applied to

15 estimate the number of marine mammals of each species or

16 species group that would potentially receive various

17 amounts of sound energy, and develop "take" estimates.

18 The model also took into account certain mitigation

19 strategies identified in the Draft Programmatic EIS,

20 such as shutdowns for species simulated entering the

21 180- and 190-dB isopleth Mitigation Zone and subsequent

22 shutdown period.

23 The modeling used in the Draft Programmatic

24 EIS incorporated the current NMFS "take" criterion for

25 pulsed sounds. However, the Draft Programmatic EIS also

 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656
National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656

19

 1 incorporated the criterion recommended by the Noise

 2 Criteria Group, identified by Southall, et al., in 2007,

 3 and is viewed to be a more scientifically based

 4 mitigation approach.

 5 The Noise Criteria Group suggests that

 6 auditory effects should be measured using the Sound

 7 Exposure Level metric, or SEL, which is the total energy

 8 contained within a pulse. This is different than the

 9 existing NMFS guidance, which uses a metric of sound

10 pressure, referred to as "RMS."

11 The Noise Criterion Group also recommended the

12 use of M-weighting, which takes into account that marine

13 mammals have different sensitivities to sound.

14 M-weighting places greater emphasis on frequencies which

15 a species is deemed to be more sensitive to and less

16 emphasis on other frequencies. For example, baleen

17 whales are believed to be more sensitive to low

18 frequency sounds and less sensitive to higher frequency

19 sounds. A model which uses M-weighting would take this

20 sensitivity into consideration. Flat weighting does not

21 take into consideration species or group-specific

22 frequency sensitivities.

23 The Draft PEIS models calculated both

24 M-weighting and flat-weighting approaches. As

25 previously mentioned, the modeling software used in the

 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656
National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656

20

 1 analysis also took into consideration site-specific

 2 environmental context such as bathymetry, sub-bottom

 3 conditions, and sound velocity profile -- conditions

 4 which influence sound propagation.

 5 Mitigation and monitoring strategies were

 6 described in the Draft Programmatic EIS and include:

 7 During pre-cruise planning, considering such factors as

 8 to whether science objectives could be met with a

 9 smaller source level; and cruise timing, taking into

10 consideration migratory patterns and periods of

11 anticipated high species density; visual monitoring;

12 Passive Acoustic Monitoring for high-energy surveys;

13 establishing Mitigation Zones; and using mitigation

14 strategies operations, such as airgun powerdowns and

15 shutdowns.

16 The agencies considered a number of Action

17 Alternatives. Some were considered but eliminated from

18 further analysis; however, two were carried forward for

19 analysis. The first is Alternative A and is considered

20 in detail in the Draft PEIS. Under Alternative A,

21 academic and U.S. Government scientists supported with

22 funds from NSF or USGS would conduct marine seismic

23 research using cruise-specific mitigation measures.

24 Under this scenario, for expected take situations the

25 Full Mitigation Zone (the 160 dB isopleth) and the

 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656
National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656

21

 1 Mitigation Zone (the 180/190 dB isopleths) would be

 2 calculated for both high- and low-energy sources.

 3 However, for expected no-take situations, there would be

 4 a standard fixed 200-meter Full Mitigation Zone.

 5 Action Alternative B is our preferred

 6 alternative. Under Alternative B, the academic and U.S.

 7 government scientists supported with funds from NSF or

 8 USGS would conduct marine seismic research using

 9 cruise-specific mitigation measures. However, for

10 low-energy acoustic sources, generic mitigation measures

11 would be employed.

12 In this scenario, expected no-take situations

13 would remain the same as for Alternative A, with a

14 standard, fixed 200-meter Full Mitigation Zone. For

15 expected take situations, the Full Mitigation Zone for

16 high- and low-energy sources would be modeled. The

17 Mitigation Zone, the 180/190 dB isopleths, for

18 high-energy sources would also be modeled. However,

19 under Alternative B there would be a standard, fixed

20 100-meter Mitigation Zone for low-energy sources in

21 water deeper than 100 meters.

22 In addition to the Action Alternatives, the

23 No-Action Alternative was considered. In this

24 situation, NSF would not fund, and USGS would not

25 conduct, marine seismic research. Under this scenario,

 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656
National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656

22

 1 NSF and USGS would not meet the purpose and need for the

 2 proposed action in support of agencies' missions.

 3 Geologic and geophysical data of great significance and

 4 societal benefit would not be collected, and a segment

 5 of our national academicians and would be unable to

 6 perform experiments and expand the knowledge base of

 7 Earth processes. Improvements to our knowledge and

 8 national preparedness of a variety of natural hazards

 9 would be foregone, as would be the potential prevention

10 of societal harm resulting from them.

11 Direct and indirect affects of the proposed

12 action are mainly a result of noise from the acoustic

13 energy sources (such as airguns). Potential impacts to

14 species are expected to be limited to short-term and

15 localized behavioral disturbances (such as Level B

16 harassment) and are not significant to populations.

17 Although noise modeling results for the DAAs indicate

18 that Level A injury impacts to marine mammals or

19 threatened and endangered species may occur, additional

20 mitigation measures would be added to the cruise

21 parameters to reduce and eliminate Level A impacts or

22 the potential for injury. In addition, the Draft

23 Programmatic EIS modeling analysis overestimates Level A

24 exposure because it does not account for characteristic

25 avoidance behavior expected by some species.

 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656
National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656

23

 1 The results of the cumulative impacts analysis

 2 indicate that there would not be any significant

 3 cumulative effects of the affected environment from the

 4 proposed NSF-funded or USGS-conducted marine seismic

 5 research. The monitoring and mitigation measures

 6 planned -- including pre-cruise planning efforts to

 7 reduce impacts, consideration of other regional

 8 activities which may influence the environment, and

 9 operational actions such as powerdowns and shutdowns of

10 acoustic sources -- influence this conclusion.

11 When future surveys are identified, a

12 site-specific environmental analysis will be developed.

13 All future seismic surveys would be permitted according

14 to the rules and regulations of the applicable agencies

15 of U.S. federal, state, and foreign governments,

16 including the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act and

17 Endangered Species Act.

18 NSF will continue to consider incorporating

19 new or improved technologies to enhance the existing

20 mitigation and monitoring tools and equipment used

21 during seismic surveys and reduce potential for impacts.

22 Similarly, NSF will continue to evaluate

23 advances made to existing and alternative seismic energy

24 sources which result in the reduction of potential

25 environmental impacts, and meet the purpose and needs of

 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656
National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656

24

 1 marine seismic research objectives, and will consider

 2 them for future use.

 3 So that basically concludes my presentation.

 4 And I really want to thank, first of all, Scripps, for

 5 allowing us to meet here and for hosting this. I'd also

 6 like to thank you, our cooperating agencies, for all the

 7 help they've put into the project, especially Candace

 8 Nachman from NMFS and Carolyn Ruppel from USGS, who

 9 can't be here but who will be at the Arlington public

10 hearing, and also, of course, John Diebold, who spent

11 quite a bit of time working on this with us. So thank

12 you very much.

13 I forgot to thank you all for coming,

14 especially the MLSOC, whom I encourage highly this

15 evening for coming out, and Woody also, for helping to

16 make these arrangements, and Bruce, wherever he is.

17 Rick?

18 THE REPORTER: Could I have a moment, please?

19 (Recess taken.)

20 MR. SPAULDING: Thank you for your patience.

21 We're ready to begin.

22 Thank you, Holly, for your presentation.

23 Before we begin the public comment period, I'd

24 like to reiterate some of the guidelines we'll be using

25 tonight. The guidelines were presented to you back when

 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656
National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656

25

 1 you walked in, but I want to reiterate those.

 2 This is the part of the process that gives you

 3 the opportunity to provide NSF and USGS with information

 4 and to make statements for the record. This input

 5 ensures that the decision-makers may benefit from your

 6 knowledge of the issues and proposed activities and your

 7 comments on the analysis. All of your comments, whether

 8 written or oral, will be responded to in the Final EIS

 9 and will be part of the public record.

10 Public officials that choose to speak will be

11 given an opportunity to speak first, then members of the

12 public will be called upon, in the order in which they

13 were received, from the cards that have been handed in

14 that indicate you wish to make a public comment.

15 Please speak only after I have recognized you,

16 and address your remarks to me. Speak clearly,

17 identifying yourself, stating your first name and your

18 address and the capacity in which you wish to appear if

19 you're representing anyone other than yourself. We need

20 this to ensure that the court reporter gets an accurate

21 record of what is said tonight.

22 Each person will be allowed three minutes to

23 speak. This time limit applies to everyone: Public

24 officials, spokespersons, and people representing

25 themselves. You do not have to speak for the full three

 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656
National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656

26

 1 minutes; however, if you choose to speak for the full

 2 three minutes, when you have only one minute remaining

 3 to speak, a yellow card will be raised, and when your

 4 time has expired, a red card will be raised.

 5 Out of respect for others who would like to

 6 make comments, I ask that you please honor any request

 7 from me to stop speaking. If you think you have more

 8 comments than you can present in the time allotted, make

 9 the most appropriate comments first. If you do not get

10 a chance to voice all of your comments, you can and

11 should submit additional comments in writing at the end

12 of this hearing. If you have a written comment or

13 statement, you may simply hand it in or read it aloud

14 within the time limit or do both. This hearing is

15 scheduled to end at 7:00 p.m. If we have time, we may

16 give you another three minutes to expand on your remarks

17 or continue your remarks.

18 You may have noticed that the court reporter

19 will record everything that is said tonight. The

20 transcript of this proceeding will become a part of the

21 hearing and will be included in the Final Programmatic

22 EIS.

23 Finally, I would like to remind you to limit

24 your comments to the analysis presented in the Draft

25 Programmatic EIS. That is the purpose of this public

 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656
National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656

27

 1 comment period. Also, I ask that you avoid repeating

 2 what another speaker has said. There is nothing

 3 inappropriate about agreeing with other speakers, but to

 4 repeat the same thing just delays others in making their

 5 comments. If you agree with a previous speaker on a

 6 particular issue, you may just state your agreement.

 7 We will start with comments from public

 8 officials. Following their remarks, we will take oral

 9 comments -- although no one filled in any cards -- we

10 will take them in the order in which we have received

11 them. Again, I wish to remind you of the three-minute

12 time limit on speaking.

13 As of now, we have no official cards submitted

14 for anyone wishing to make an oral comment. Is there

15 anybody that would wish to make a comment at this time

16 that did not fill out a card?

17 Okay. Yes, sir.

18 PROF. PURDY: Do I have to fill out a card?

19 MR. SPAULDING: No. Please stand and state

20 your name.

21 PROF. PURDY: My name is Mike Purdy. I'm a

22 Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at

23 Columbia University. I am Director of the

24 Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, and as such I

25 understand the imperative of accelerating our knowledge

 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656
National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656

28

 1 of the processes that control the generation of

 2 earthquakes and other hazards to humankind and also to

 3 accelerate the rate at which we understand the forces

 4 that are causing our climate to change. History shows

 5 that a large percentage of all our knowledge on these

 6 issues is based on the use of sound, widely varying

 7 frequencies, especially in the oceanic regime, and as

 8 such, certainly researchers at Columbia University

 9 understand that we must continue to use sound in very

10 judicious ways to help us understand the processes that

11 control how the earth is evolving and the safety in

12 hazardous zones for humankind.

13 I see the development of this Programmatic EIS

14 as a very positive step forward in this regard. It will

15 provide important guidance for the academic research

16 community and allow us to balance the joint imperatives

17 of advancing our knowledge and protecting all life in

18 the oceans, which remains one of our key priorities.

19 And I'd like to acknowledge and thank the cooperative

20 nature of this effort between the cooperating agencies

21 and acknowledge the hard work that's gone into it.

22 Thank you.

23 MR. SPAULDING: Thank you very much.

24 Anybody else wish to make a comment at this

25 time? If not, we'll take a brief adjournment and you

 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656
National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656

29

 1 can feel free to mingle around the posters, talk amongst

 2 yourselves, ask questions of the EIS representatives,

 3 and then we'll come back in, say, 10 minutes, and then

 4 I'll ask if anybody else would like to make a comment.

 5 (Recess taken.)

 6 MR. SPAULDING: Excuse me, may I have your

 7 attention?

 8 Does anybody wish to make any comments at this

 9 time?

10 If not, I will -- We will stay open until

11 7:00 o'clock, and if anybody wishes to make a comment,

12 please approach me, and we will convene and listen to

13 your comment.

14 (Recess taken from 6:40 - 7:00 p.m.)

15 MR. SPAULDING: Thank you all for coming

16 tonight. If you have any comments, please submit them

17 as written comments. All comments will be addressed in

18 the Final EIS.

19 I hearby call this meeting adjourned at 7:00

20 p.m.

21 ---o0o---

22

23

24

25

 National Court Reporters, Inc. 888.800.9656


Public Hearing on the Draft Programmatic EIS/OEIS:

Office of Marine Acoustics Inc. (MAI)

Arlington, VA – October 27, 2010



Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 218 / Friday, November 12, 2010 / Notices 69475 

portion of this meeting, from 1 p.m. to 

1:30 p.m. on December 2nd, will be 

open to the public for a policy 

discussion. The remainder of the 

meeting, from 9 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on 

December 1st and from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. 

and 1:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. on December 

2nd, will be closed. 

Literature (application review): 

December 3, 2010 in Room 730. This 

meeting, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., will be 

closed. 

Arts Education (application review): 

December 6, 2010 in Room 730. This 

meeting, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., will be 

closed. 

Museums (application review): 

December 6–8, 2010 in Room 716. This 

meeting, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on 

December 6th, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on 

December 7th, and from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. 

on December 8th, will be closed. 

Theater (application review): 

December 7–10, 2010 in Room 714. A 

portion of this meeting, from 9 a.m. to 

10 a.m. on December 9th, will be open 

to the public for a policy discussion. 

The remainder of the meeting, from 9 

a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on December 7th, from 

9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on December 8th, from 

10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on December 9th, and 

from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on December 10th, 

will be closed. 

Media Arts (application review): 

December 8–10, 2010 in Room 730. This 

meeting, from 9 a.m. to 5:45 p.m. on 

December 8th, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on 

December 9th, and from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. 

on December 10th, will be closed. 

Opera (application review): December 

9–10, 2010 in Room 716. This meeting, 

from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on December 9th 

and from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. on December 

10th, will be closed. 

Opera (application review): December 

10, 2010 in Room 716. This meeting, 

from 3 p.m. to 3:45 p.m., will be closed. 

Presenting (application review): 

December 14–16, 2010 in Room 714. 

This meeting, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 

on December 14th and 15th and from 

9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on December 16th, 

will be closed. 

The closed portions of meetings are 

for the purpose of Panel review, 

discussion, evaluation, and 

recommendations on financial 

assistance under the National 

Foundation on the Arts and the 

Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, 

including information given in 

confidence to the agency. In accordance 

with the determination of the Chairman 

of November 10, 2009, these sessions 

will be closed to the public pursuant to 

subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 

5, United States Code. 

Any person may observe meetings, or 

portions thereof, of advisory panels that 

are open to the public, and if time 

allows, may be permitted to participate 

in the panel’s discussions at the 

discretion of the panel chairman. If you 

need any accommodations due to a 

disability, please contact the Office of 

AccessAbility, National Endowment for 

the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20506, 202/682– 

5532, TDY–TDD 202/682–5496, at least 

seven (7) days prior to the meeting. 

Further information with reference to 

these meetings can be obtained from Ms. 

Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of 

Guidelines & Panel Operations, National 

Endowment for the Arts, Washington, 

DC, 20506, or call 202/682–5691. 

Dated: November 8, 2010. 

Kathy Plowitz-Worden, 

Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, 

National Endowment for the Arts. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28481 Filed 11–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7537–01–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Notice Regarding Changed Venue for 

Public Hearing On a Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement/Overseas Environmental 

Impact Statement (PEIS) 

AGENCY: National Science Foundation. 

ACTION: Notice regarding changed venue 

for public hearing. 

SUMMARY: The National Science 

Foundation (NSF) and the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) held public 

hearings on the Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement/ 

Overseas Environmental Impact 

Statement for Marine Seismic Research 

Funded by the National Science 

Foundation or Conducted by the US 

Geological Survey (PEIS) on October 25, 

2010 in San Diego, CA and October 27, 

2010 in Arlington, VA. The Arlington, 

VA public hearing location was 

originally planned to be held at the NSF 

building located at 4201 Wilson Blvd. 

Unfortunately, due to a fire in the NSF 

building on the afternoon of October 27, 

2010, the public hearing location was 

moved to Marine Acoustics Inc., located 

at 4100 Fairfax Drive (a building two 

blocks from NSF). Signs were posted on 

the outside doors of the NSF building 

announcing the new hearing location, 

and a security guard stationed at the 

main NSF entrance outside the meeting 

room directed hearing attendees who 

were unaware of the NSF emergency to 

the new hearing venue. NSF apologizes 

for any confusion or inconvenience that 

may have resulted from the emergency 

situation which prompted the change in 

public hearing venue. Should you have 

any questions or concerns about the 

Public Hearing, or Draft PEIS, please 

contact Holly Smith, NSF, at 703–292– 

8583 or nepacomments@nsf.gov. 

The presentation slides used by NSF 

at the public hearings are posted on the 

NSF Web site at: http://www.nsf.gov/ 

geo/oce/envcomp/index.jsp. Please note, 

however, that if there is any perceived 

inconsistency between the presentation 

and the Draft PEIS, the language in the 

Draft PEIS controls. The public 

comment period will remain open until 

November 22, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information regarding the Draft 

PEIS contact: Holly Smith, National 

Science Foundation, Division of Ocean 

Sciences, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 725, 

Arlington, VA 22230; telephone: (703) 

292–8583; e-mail: 

nepacomments@nsf.gov. 

Dated: November 8, 2010. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28450 Filed 11–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2010–0352] 

Notice of Public Meeting 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC). 

ACTION: Notice of NRC/DOE joint public 

meeting. 

SUMMARY: The NRC and the DOE 

announce their intent to conduct a 

public meeting to discuss agency 

interactions and activities in accordance 

with each agency’s responsibilities 

under Section 3116 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 

Fiscal Year 2005. The meeting date, 

time, and location are listed below: 

Date: Monday, November 15, 2010. 

Time: 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. 

Location: The Aiken Municipal 

Building Conference Center, 215 The 

Alley, Aiken, SC 29801, Phone: 803– 

642–7654. 

Draft Agenda: 

7–7:10 Introductions and Opening 

Remarks. 

7:10–8 NDAA Section 3116 Process. 

8–9 NDAA Section 3116 Challenges 

and Accomplishments. 

9–10 Opportunity for Public Questions 

and/or Comment. 

Background 

On October 9, 2004, the Ronald W. 

Reagan National Defense Authorization 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES


National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

1

1 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

2 

3 PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 

4 DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5 FOR MARINE SEISMIC RESEARCH 

6 

7

8 4100 North Fairfax Drive 

9 Suite 730 

10 Arlington, Virginia 

11 Wednesday, October 27, 2010 

12

13 The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 

14 5:00 p.m. 

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

2

1 P R O C E E D I N G S 

2 MS. BLANCO: The public hearing on the draft 

3 programmatic environmental impact statement was originally 

4 to take place at the Headquarters of the National Science 

5 Foundation Building in Arlington, Virginia. Due to a fire 

6 in the early afternoon of October 27th, the building was 

7 closed and the meeting, the public hearing, had to be 

8 relocated. 

9 The public hearing was relocated to the offices 

10 of Marine Acoustics, Inc., in Arlington, Virginia, less 

11 than two blocks away. Signage was posted at all entrances 

12 of the National Science Foundation Building entrances and 

13 an employee of the environmental contractor was posted 

14 there to address any questions raised by members of the 

15 public who intended to attend the public hearing at the 

16 National Science Foundation and to direct them in the 

17 right direction. 

18 At the building of Marine Acoustics, 

19 Incorporated, signs were posted at all entrances and the 

20 guard was informed to direct members of the public to the 

21 proper location. Signs were posted at all elevators, on 

22 the ground floor and on the seventh floor, and signs were 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

3

1 posted all along the hallway to direct members of the 

2 public to the location of the hearing. 

3 The hearing commenced on schedule at 5:00 p.m. 

4 and the open house took place. 

5 Thank you. 

6 (Recess from 5:24 p.m. to 5:38 p.m.) 

7 MS. SMITH: I appreciate your patience with our 

8 situation today. The NSF Building had a transformer blow 

9 on the second floor of the parking garage about maybe 

10 1:00, 1:15, 1:15, right after I sent an email out to some 

11 of our audience members. So we were evacuated from the 

12 building and we haven't been able to get back inside and 

13 there's no power. 

14 Fortunately, MAI, about an hour before we 

15 thought we were going to cancel, allowed us to meet in 

16 their conference room. So we're very appreciative to MAI. 

17 Thank you very much for hosting tonight. 

18 I also want to thank you all for coming. I know 

19 you have plenty of things to do. 

20 This hearing's going to be in three parts: 

21 first, I'm just going to welcome you; and after I do that, 

22 Rick Spaulding from TEC is going to take over and describe 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

4

1 some of the format of the hearing. Then I am going to 

2 give a brief overview of our presentation -- brief 

3 presentation of the document, an overview. 

4 Then, you members of the public and team are 

5 welcome to give public comments. They will be official 

6 and you will direct them to TEC and our Court Reporter, 

7 who will record them. 

8 I should mention that this hearing is being held 

9 in accordance with the provisions of the National 

10 Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, and the regulations 

11 that are published by the Council on Environmental 

12 Quality. 

13 The purpose of this hearing is to receive public 

14 comments on the draft programmatic EIS. The USGS and the 

15 National and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, are 

16 cooperating agencies on this effort. 

17 You may have met some of us already, but we are 

18 going to introduce the members of the team right now. As 

19 I mentioned, I'm Holly Smith and I'm the project manager 

20 for NSF for this effort. I'm going to turn to the rest of 

21 the team. 

22 MR. SPAULDING: My name is Rick Spaulding. I 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

5

1 work for TEC. I'm the project manager for the preparation 

2 of the EIS, the contractor project manager. 

3 MR. FRANKEL: My name is Adam Frankel. I'm an 

4 acoustic biologist and I did some of the animal modeling 

5 for the EIS. 

6 MS. BLANCO: I'm Caroline Blanco. I'm assistant 

7 general counsel in charge of environmental matters at NSF. 

8 MR. HUNT: I'm Jim Hunt. We're the local office 

9 of TEC. Sarah Murray is here with us. 

10 MS. MURRAY: Sarah Murray with TEC. 

11 MR. CHILDS: I'm Jon Childs with the U.S. 

12 Geological Survey at Menlo Park, a reflection seismology 

13 geophysicist. 

14 MS. ENG: Esther Eng with the Geological Survey, 

15 and I'm with the Environmental Management Branch. 

16 MR. DEVINE: I'm James Devine, U.S. Geological 

17 Survey, and I'm the senior approving officer for the NEPA 

18 documents. 

19 MS. RUPPEL: I'm Carolyn Ruppel. I'm a research 

20 geophysicist at the U.S. Geological Survey, and I along 

21 with Debbie Hutchinson were the primary technical people 

22 from the U.S. Geological Survey involved in the 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

6

1 preparation of our components of this EIS. 

2 MS. NACHMAN: Candace Nachman from NOAA 

3 Fisheries, primary technical reviewer for fisheries. 

4 MS. SMITH: I think that's it -- oh, so sorry. 

5 MR. HOLMES: Topher Holmes, NOAA Fisheries, NEPA 

6 coordination with the EIS. 

7 MR. SPAULDING: When you're speaking, whether 

8 now or when you're making comments, please speak up loudly 

9 so the court reporter can hear you and record everything. 

10 Thank you. 

11 MS. SMITH: Caroline, anything else to add? 

12 MS. BLANCO: No. 

13

14 MS. SMITH: So, just so you know, the team 

15 members will remain here for the duration of the hearing, 

16 so until 7:00 p.m. So you're welcome to approach any of 

17 us, ask any questions if you like. However, formal 

18 questions or comments should be directed to TEC and the 

19 court reporter. 

20 You're going to talk about the forms? 

21 So thank you again. 

22 MR. SPAULDING: Thank you, Holly. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

7

1 As Holly said, my name is Rick Spaulding. I'm 

2 the project manager for this EIS, and I'm here to kind of 

3 introduce the format for the meeting before Holly gives a 

4 brief presentation on the proposed action. My role is to 

5 ensure that we have a fair, orderly, and impartial hearing 

6 and that all who wish to be heard have an opportunity to 

7 speak. 

8 Throughout this hearing, I ask that you keep in 

9 mind that this public hearing is not a debate, nor is it a 

10 popularity vote on the analysis presented in the draft 

11 programmatic EIS, nor is it designed as a question and 

12 answer session, although legitimate clarifying questions 

13 as part of your comments may be asked and recorded for 

14 clarification in the final programmatic EIS. 

15 This hearing is about the adequacy of the 

16 analysis presented in the draft programmatic EIS. 

17 Concerns about non-environmental issues should not be 

18 raised at this hearing. They will not add anything to the 

19 record and will simply take away from others' opportunity 

20 to comment on the draft programmatic EIS. 

21 When you came in, you should have been presented 

22 or had the opportunity to fill out a speaker card. This 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

8

1 card you fill out, and then at the time of the oral 

2 comment period I will call them up in the order in which 

3 they were received. If you have not filled out a card and 

4 still do wish to make a public comment, an oral comment, 

5 you may do so at any time, and please step to the back and 

6 fill out a card, and you can stand up and make an oral 

7 comment later. 

8 Should you wish to submit comments in writing, 

9 this would be the appropriate place. So if you want to 

10 comment on the draft programmatic EIS, but do not want to 

11 speak tonight, or if you do speak tonight but still want 

12 to make additional comments in writing, you may elect to 

13 provide written comments tonight. There are comment 

14 sheets in the back with a -- and here's the comment 

15 reception box (indicating). 

16 You can provide comments by email or mail at a 

17 later date. At the end of the hearing, the addresses will 

18 be up. Some of your materials have the 

19 NEPAcomments@nsf.gov email address that you can send 

20 comments in to. We also have the mailing address if you 

21 wish to mail in comments. You can also present your 

22 comments orally to the court reporter if you wish to do 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

9

1 that. 

2 It's important to remember that all your 

3 comments will be made part of the administrative record 

4 and will be addressed and responded to in the final EIS. 

5 Written comments submitted by mail will be 

6 accepted until November 22, 2010, at the address shown in 

7 your hearing materials. All comments made at the hearing 

8 or provided in writing will be given equal consideration. 

9 So whether they're email, written, or oral, they'll all 

10 receive equal consideration. 

11 Now, at this time I'd like to have Holly come 

12 back and do her presentation. 

13 MS. SMITH: I'm shutting off my cellphone, so 

14 I'm going to ask everyone else, if you don't mind, to 

15 please shut off your cellphones. 

16 Adam Frankel is just going to make an 

17 announcement about some logistics for this meeting space. 

18 MR. FRANKEL: Again, thank you for coming to the 

19 impromptu location. If anyone needs, there are restrooms 

20 out the door. Just out that door, turn left. If you go 

21 out to the restroom, you need to come back around to the 

22 door you came back in, and just knock on the door or ring 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

10

1 the bell and someone will let you back in. That's all. 

2 MS. SMITH: So I guess we'll begin the 

3 presentation. 

4 (Screen.) 

5 The preparation of this programmatic EIS was 

6 initiated in 2005, with NSF as the lead agency and the 

7 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National 

8 Marine Fisheries Service, or NMFS, as the cooperating 

9 agency because of their regulatory oversight. And USGS 

10 joined the effort several years ago and is an official 

11 cooperating agency as well. Both NSF and USGS are action 

12 agencies, whereas NMFS is involved as a regulating agency. 

13 Next slide. 

14 (Screen.) 

15 NSF is an independent federal agency and was 

16 created in 1950 "to promote the progress of science." NSF 

17 funds approximately 20 percent of the federally supported 

18 basic research at U.S. colleges and universities. We 

19 receive approximately 40,000 proposals each year for 

20 research, education, and training projects, which are 

21 judged by a rigorous merit review process. NSF awards 

22 approximately 11,000 grants annually, which is 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

11

1 approximately a 27 percent proposal success rate. 

2 NSF's current annual building is $7 billion. 

3 NSF-funded researchers have made important contributions 

4 to science and have achieved a multitude of distinguished 

5 awards and honors, notably more than 180 Nobel Prizes. 

6 (Screen.) 

7 The USGS is a bureau within the U.S. Department 

8 of Interior. It is a scientific federal agency with no 

9 regulatory responsibility. It has the largest -- it is 

10 the largest U.S. agency studying issues of water, earth, 

11 and biological sciences. The USGS also has responsibility 

12 for all civilian mapping efforts. 

13 The USGS collects, monitors, analyzes, and 

14 provides scientific understanding about conditions, 

15 issues, and problems associated with the natural 

16 resources, hazards, environments, and climate change. 

17 (Screen.) 

18 The National Marine Fisheries Service is part of 

19 the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and 

20 Atmospheric Administration. It is the lead federal agency 

21 responsible for the stewardship of the nation's offshore 

22 living marine resources and their habitat. NMFS manages, 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

12

1 conserves, and protects fish, whales, dolphins, sea 

2 turtles, and other living ocean creatures. NMFS' Office 

3 of Protected Resources works to conserve, protect, and 

4 recover species under the Endangered Species Act and the 

5 Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

6 The draft programmatic EIS examines the 

7 potential environmental impacts that may result from 

8 marine seismic research surveys that are funded by NSF or 

9 conducted by USGS. 

10 The proposed action is for academic and U.S. 

11 government scientists to conduct marine seismic research 

12 from research vessels operated by academic institutions 

13 and government agencies. 

14 The purpose of the proposed action, however, is 

15 to study the Earth beneath the ocean, using seismic data 

16 to reveal the underlying structure and stratigraphy of the 

17 sediments and deeper crust. This geologic information 

18 helps expand our understanding of intricate Earth 

19 processes and atmospheric processes, which support the NSF 

20 and USGS missions and benefit society. 

21 (Screen.) 

22 As I just mentioned, the purpose is to increase 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

13

1 scientific understanding of the Earth beneath the oceans. 

2 Data collected by seismic surveys have been used 

3 by scientists in a variety of ways, including 

4 hypothesizing and subsequently demonstrating the validity 

5 of the theory of plate tectonics. 

6 (Screen.) 

7 Seismic surveys can be used to directly image 

8 the seafloor and sub-surface features, such as submarine 

9 volcanoes, magma chambers, and mid-ocean ridges. 

10

11 (Screen.) 

12 Seismic data can provide images of ocean faults 

13 and subduction zones, which are key to improving our 

14 understanding of and better planning for natural hazards 

15 such as earthquakes, landslides, and tsunamis. 

16 (Screen.) 

17 NSF's mission of funding basic research has a 

18 broader scientific scope than most research agencies have. 

19 NSF-funded marine seismic research is driven by the 

20 scientific community. Scientists submit proposals on a 

21 wide range of geologic topics of interest for funding 

22 consideration. And, as previously mentioned, proposals 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

14

1 are vetted through a peer-based, merit review process. 

2 As a result of the broader scientific scope, 

3 NSF-funded seismic surveys are globally ranging, spanning 

4 domestic, international, and foreign territorial waters. 

5 Typically, surveys are conducted in water deeper 

6 than 1,000 meters or are conducted along transects from 

7 shallow to deeper water. 

8 NSF funds approximately four to seven surveys 

9 per year, each lasting one to seven weeks. 

10 The primary vessel used for high-energy surveys 

11 is the R/V MARCUS G. LANGSETH. The vessel is owned by NSF 

12 and operated by Columbia University's Lamont Doherty Earth 

13 Observatory. Other research vessels that are part of the 

14 U.S. academic fleet are sometimes used for NSF-funded low15 energy seismic surveys. 

16 (Screen.) 

17 USGS mainly conducts low-energy surveys and are 

18 mostly within five nautical miles of the shoreline. The 

19 conduct approximately 8 to 12 surveys per year, each of 1 

20 to 3 weeks' duration. Surveys typically are in waters of 

21 up to 1,000 meters on the West Coast, 500 meters in the 

22 Gulf of Mexico, and 100 meters on the East Coast. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

15

1 USGS also conducts one to two high-energy 

2 surveys per year, with potential for more frequent surveys 

3 in the near future. 

4 Surveys could last up to a few weeks each and 

5 would likely be deepwater cruises conducted inside and 

6 outside the 200 nautical mile limit of the U.S. EEZ 

7 boundary. 

8 USGS coastal and marine science objectives 

9 include: mapping to define the outer limits of the U.S. 

10 extended continental shelf under the Law of the Sea; 

11 understanding the dynamic offshore environment for slope 

12 failures, coastal erosion, faults, gas seeps, and other 

13 features; and researching marine aspects of global change 

14 and their impacts on society. 

15 (Screen.) 

16 The draft PEIS describes the different types of 

17 marine seismic surveys which may potentially be funded by 

18 NSF or conducted by USGS. The most common include two19 dimensional and three-dimensional reflection and 

20 refraction surveys. Occasionally other types of surveys, 

21 such as four-dimensional, vertical seismic profiling, or 

22 surveys using ocean bottom cables, are employed by 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

16

1 researchers. The types of marine seismic surveys that are 

2 conducted vary depending on the science objectives 

3 identified by the researchers. 

4 (Screen.) 

5 As depicted in this graphic, for reflection 

6 surveys seismic signals bounce off the seafloor and 

7 discontinuities beneath the seafloor, and are typically 

8 collected by a towed hydrophone streamer. For refraction 

9 surveys, seismic signals bend through the layers of the 

10 Earth and travel near-horizontally to recording 

11 instruments, ocean bottom seismometers, that are commonly 

12 stationary on the seafloor. 

13 Signals collected are then processed to 

14 construct an image or map of the Earth's internal 

15 structure. 

16 The draft PEIS includes further information on 

17 the types of surveys and equipment illustrated here, as 

18 well as other types of equipment that are used during 

19 seismic surveys. 

20 (Screen.) 

21 I mentioned earlier in my presentation high22 energy surveys and low-energy surveys. Seismic surveys 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

17

1 were divided into these two categories in the draft PEIS. 

2 The groupings were based on analysis of a variety of 

3 acoustic energy source types, such as GI or G-guns, and 

4 configuration scenarios that took into consideration 

5 source volume, tow depth, and airgun spacing, factors that 

6 influence sound propagation. 

7 In general, experiments using four airguns or 

8 less, boomers, sparkers, or waterguns are likely to fall 

9 into the low-energy classification. As I just noted, 

10 however, certain factors do influence sound propagation 

11 and therefore there are exceptions to this general rule of 

12 thumb. 

13 Appendix F of the draft programmatic EIS 

14 provides further details about the various configurations 

15 and scenarios that meet the low-energy categorization 

16 parameters. 

17 (Screen.) 

18 I'd now like to give a general overview of our 

19 approach to analysis. Some items I will touch on briefly. 

20 However, I will discuss some items in slightly more 

21 detail in subsequent slides. Further details on all 

22 points, however, can be found in the draft programmatic 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

18

1 EIS. 

2 First, five sites were selected to be analyzed 

3 and modeled quantitatively. These are referred to as the 

4 detailed analysis areas, or DAAs. Eight additional areas 

5 were identified and were analyzed qualitatively and were 

6 not modeled. These are referred to in the draft 

7 programmatic EIS as qualitative analysis areas, or QAAs. 

8 DAAs and QAAs were selected both with the 

9 consideration of where future surveys are likely to occur 

10 and for representing a wide variety of Longhurst biomes, 

11 marine areas that demonstrate similar ecological dynamics. 

12 Survey seasons and source levels and configurations were 

13 selected taking into consideration operational 

14 constraints, such as weather, and likely scientific goals. 

15 For the DAAs, modeling was conducted to predict take 

16 estimates of marine mammals. 

17 The draft PEIS includes monitoring and 

18 mitigation to minimize and avoid potential effects of 

19 seismic operations on the marine environment, such as 

20 marine mammals and sea turtles. 

21 The affected environment and environmental 

22 consequences of the proposed action were evaluated for the 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

19

1 DAAs and QAAs. Impacts on the associated marine 

2 resources, including marine invertebrates, fish, sea 

3 turtles, seabirds, and marine mammals, were considered. 

4 Additionally, the impacts to socioeconomic and 

5 cultural resources, such as commercial fishing, 

6 recreational activities, subsistence hunting and fishing, 

7 and archaeological sites, such as shipwrecks, were 

8 identified and analyzed. 

9 The survey activities were then assessed to 

10 determine the cumulative impacts. 

11 (Screen.) 

12 This slide illustrates where the five DAAs and 

13 QAAs are located around the globe and the Longhurst biomes 

14 that they represent. The DAAs are highlighted by the red 

15 circles and the QAAs with the green circles. These sites 

16 and associated environments are described in detail in the 

17 programmatic EIS. 

18 (Screen.) 

19 For a quantitative assessment of the potential 

20 impacts of each exemplary marine seismic survey at a DAA, 

21 the predicted or modeled seismic survey sound fields were 

22 integrated with the expected distribution of marine 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

20

1 mammals at each site. An Airgun Array Source Model, or 

2 AASM, was used at each DAA to predict the amount of sound 

3 that would be projected in each direction from the 

4 proposed airgun configuration. 

5 The Marine Operations Noise Model created by 

6 JASCO then incorporated the AASM information and used it 

7 to predict the received levels of airgun sound as a 

8 function of bearing, distance, and depth in the water 

9 column. This model takes into consideration the best 

10 available site-specific environmental information that 

11 would affect the propagation and attenuation of sound as 

12 it travels outward from the airgun array. 

13 Finally, the Acoustic Integration Model, or AIM, 

14 developed by Marine Acoustics Inc. was applied to estimate 

15 the number of marine mammals of each species or species 

16 group that would potentially receive various amounts of 

17 sound energy and develop take estimates. This model also 

18 took into account certain mitigation strategies identified 

19 in the draft programmatic EIS, such as shutdowns for 

20 species simulated entering the 180/190dB isopleth 

21 Mitigation Zone and subsequent shutdown period. 

22 (Screen.) 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

21

1 The modeling used in the draft programmatic EIS 

2 incorporated the current NMFS "take" criterion for pulsed 

3 sounds. However, the draft programmatic EIS also 

4 incorporated the criterion recommended by the Noise 

5 Criteria Group, identified by Southall et al. in 2007, and 

6 is viewed to be a more scientifically based mitigation 

7 approach. 

8 The Noise Criteria Group suggests that auditory 

9 effects should be measured using the sound explore level 

10 metric, or SEL, which is the total energy contained within 

11 a pulse. This is different than the existing NMFS 

12 guidance, which uses a metric of sound pressure referred 

13 to as "rms." 

14 The Noise Criterion Group also recommended the 

15 use of M-weighting, which takes into account that marine 

16 mammals have different sensitivities to sound. M17 Weighting places greater emphasis on frequencies which a 

18 species is deemed to be more sensitive to and less 

19 emphasis on other frequencies. For example, baleen whales 

20 are believed to be more sensitive to low-frequency sounds 

21 and less sensitive to higher-frequency sounds. A model 

22 which uses M-Weighting would take this sensitivity into 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

22

1 consideration. 

2 Flat weighting does not take into consideration 

3 species or group-specific frequency sensitivities. 

4 The draft PEIS models calculated both M5 Weighting and flat weighting approaches. As previously 

6 mentioned, the modeling software used in the analysis also 

7 took into consideration site specific environmental 

8 context, such as bathymetry, sub-bottom conditions, and 

9 sound velocity profile, conditions which influence sound 

10 propagation. 

11 (Screen.) 

12 Monitoring and mitigation strategies were 

13 described in the draft programmatic EIS and include: 

14 During pre-cruise planning, considering such 

15 factors as whether science objectives could be met with a 

16 smaller source level; and cruise timing, taking into 

17 consideration migratory patterns and periods of 

18 anticipated high species density; 

19 Visual monitoring; 

20 Passive Acoustic Monitoring for high-energy 

21 surveys; 

22 Establishing mitigation zones; 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

23

1 And using mitigation strategies during 

2 operations, such as airgun powerdowns and shutdowns. 

3 (Screen.) 

4 The agencies considered a number of action 

5 alternatives. Some were considered but eliminated from 

6 further analysis. However, two were carried forward for 

7 analysis. 

8 The first is Alternative A and is considered in 

9 detail in the draft programmatic EIS. Under Alternative 

10 A, academic and U.S. government scientists supported with 

11 funds from NSF or USGS would conduct marine seismic 

12 research using cruise-specific mitigation measures. Under 

13 this scenario, for expected take situations the full 

14 mitigation zone, the 160dB isopleth, and the mitigation 

15 zone, the 180-190dB isopleth, will be calculated for both 

16 high and low-energy sources. However, for expected 

17 no-take situations there would be a standard, fixed 200-

18 meter full mitigation zone. 

19 Action Alternative B is our preferred 

20 alternative. Under Alternative B, academic and U.S. 

21 government scientists supported with funds from NSF or 

22 USGS would conduct marine seismic research using cruise-
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

24

1 specific mitigation measures. However, for low-energy 

2 acoustic sources generic mitigation measures would be 

3 employed. 

4 In this scenario, expected no-take situations 

5 would remain the same as for Alternative A, with a 

6 standard, fixed 200-meter full mitigation zone. For 

7 expected take situations, the full mitigation zone for 

8 high and low energy sources would be modeled. The 

9 mitigation zone, the 180/190dB isopleths, for high-energy 

10 sources would also be modeled. However, under Alternative 

11 B there would be a standard, fixed 100-meter mitigation 

12 zone for low-energy sources in water deeper than 100 

13 meters. 

14 In addition to the action alternatives, the no15 action alternative was considered. In this situation, NSF 

16 would not fund and USGS would not conduct marine seismic 

17 research. Under this scenario, NSF and USGS would not 

18 meet the purpose and need of the proposed action in 

19 support of the agencies' missions. Geologic and 

20 geophysical data of great significance and societal 

21 benefit would not be collected and a segment of our 

22 national academics would be unable to perform experiments 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

25

1 and expand the knowledge base of Earth processes. 

2 Improvements to our knowledge and national preparedness of 

3 a variety of natural hazards would be foregone, as would 

4 the potential prevention of societal harm resulting from 

5 them. 

6 (Screen.) 

7 Direct and indirect effects of the proposed 

8 action are mainly a result of the noise from the acoustic 

9 energy sources, such as airguns. Potential impacts to 

10 species are expected to be limited to short-term and 

11 localized behavioral disturbances, such as Level B 

12 Harassment, and are not significant to populations. 

13 Although noise modeling results for the DAAs 

14 indicate that Level A injury impacts to marine mammals or 

15 threatened and endangered species may occur, for actual 

16 surveys additional mitigation measures would be added to 

17 technology cruise parameters to reduce and eliminate Level 

18 A impacts or the potential for injury. 

19 In addition, the draft PEIS modeling analysis 

20 overestimates Level A exposure because it does not account 

21 for characteristic avoidance behavioral expected by some 

22 species. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

26

1 The results of the cumulative impact analysis 

2 indicate that there would not be any significant 

3 cumulative effects to the affected environment from the 

4 proposed NSF-funded or USGS-conducted marine seismic 

5 research. The monitoring and mitigation measures planned, 

6 including pre-cruise planning efforts to reduce impact, 

7 consideration of other regional activities which may 

8 influence the environment and operational actions, such as 

9 powerdowns and shutdowns of acoustic sources, influence 

10 this conclusion. 

11 When future surveys are identified, a site12 specific environmental analysis will be developed. All 

13 future seismic surveys would be permitted according to the 

14 rules and regulations of the applicable U.S. federal, 

15 state, and foreign governments, including the U.S. Marine 

16 Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. 

17 NSF will continue to consider incorporating new 

18 or improved technologies to enhance the existing 

19 mitigation and monitoring tools and equipment used during 

20 seismic surveys and reduce potential for impacts. 

21 Similarly, NSF will continue to evaluate 

22 advances made to existing and alternative seismic energy 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

27

1 sources which result in the reduction of potential 

2 environmental impacts and meet the purpose and needs of 

3 the marine seismic research objectives, and will consider 

4 them for future use. 

5 (Screen.) 

6 I want to thank you all for listening to the 

7 presentation. I'd like to thank MAI again for hosting us 

8 at this last-minute hour and for enabling us to proceed 

9 with this public hearing. 

10 I'd also again like to thank Scripps for hosting 

11 the public hearing that was held on Monday at their 

12 campus. I'd also like to thank USGS for their wonderful 

13 contributions over the past several years, especially 

14 Carolyn Ruppel, who was able to join us this evening, as 

15 well as the USGS NEPA folks, and Jon Childs as well for 

16 his participation both at the San Diego-La Jolla public 

17 hearing and this one as well. 

18 And NMFS; we can't forget NMFS, for their 

19 wonderful participation over the years. Many thanks to 

20 Candice Nachman and Topher Holmes and other members of the 

21 NMFS team who are actually present today and those that 

22 were unable to come today. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

28

1 I'd also like to thank publicly John Diebold for 

2 his hard work over the years to push this through, and 

3 it's quite unfortunate he was not able to see this to its 

4 fruition. So again, many thanks to John and Lamont for 

5 their support. 

6 So that concludes my presentation. I'm going to 

7 turn it back to Rick to begin the next portion of the 

8 public hearing. 

9 MR. SPAULDING: Thank you, Holly. 

10 As Holly said, this is now the beginning of the 

11 actual public comment period. This is part of the process 

12 that gives you the opportunity to provide NSF and USGS 

13 with information and to make statements for the record. 

14 This input ensures that the decisionmakers may benefit 

15 from your knowledge of the issues and proposed activities 

16 and your comments on the analysis. 

17 Public officials that choose to speak will be 

18 given an opportunity to speak first. Then members of the 

19 public will be called upon in the order that they are 

20 received from the cards that have been handed in to 

21 indicate your desire to speak. Please speak only after I 

22 have recognized you and please address your remarks to me. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

29

1 Please speak clearly, state your first name, your 

2 address, and your capacity in which you appear if you are 

3 representing anyone other than yourself. State your 

4 affiliation if that is appropriate. We need this to 

5 ensure that the court reporter gets an accurate record of 

6 what is said tonight. 

7 Keep in mind that all comments, whether written 

8 or oral or emails, will be addressed in the final EIS and 

9 that all responses will be provided in the EIS as an 

10 appendix. 

11 Each person will be allowed three minutes to 

12 speak. This time limit applies to everyone -- public 

13 officials, spokespersons, and individuals speaking for 

14 themselves. You do not have to speak for the full three 

15 minutes. However, if you choose to speak for the full 

16 three minutes, when you have one minute remaining a yellow 

17 card will be shown. This means you have two minutes left 

18 -- you have one minute left. Then when your time has 

19 expired, a red card will be shown. 

20 Out of respect for others who would like to make 

21 comments, I ask that you please honor any request to stop 

22 speaking. If you think you have more comments than you 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

30

1 can present in the time allotted, make the most important 

2 comments first. If you do not get a chance to voice all 

3 of your comments, you can either submit them in writing, 

4 submit them by email, or, if you have a written statement, 

5 you can add that to the written comments after your 

6 presentation. 

7 This hearing is scheduled to end at 7:00 p.m. 

8 If we have time, we may give you another three minutes 

9 opportunity to expand on your remarks later after all 

10 others have been heard. 

11 You may have noticed that the court reporter 

12 records everything that is said tonight. The transcript 

13 of these proceedings will become part of the public record 

14 of the hearing and be included in the final programmatic 

15 EIS. 

16 Finally, I would like to remind you to limit 

17 your comments to the analysis presented in the draft 

18 programmatic EIS. That is the purpose of this public 

19 comment period. Also, I ask you to avoid repeating what 

20 other speakers have said. There is nothing inappropriate 

21 about agreeing with other speakers, but to repeat the same 

22 thing just takes away from the ability for other speakers 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

31

1 to speak. 

2 We will start with comments from public 

3 officials. Following their remarks, we will take oral 

4 comments from those of you who have filled in cards in the 

5 order in which they were received. 

6 Again, I wish to remind you of the three-minute 

7 limit on speaking. 

8 I'd now like to begin the oral comment period. 

9 We have no signed, filled-in cards as of yet. Does 

10 anybody wish to make an oral comment at this time? I want 

11 to encourage you, whether it's a pro, con -- any comment 

12 at all, even in support of the process is valuable for the 

13 public record and for the entire analysis. 

14 So, would anybody like to make an oral statement 

15 or comment at this time? 

16 (No response.) 

17 MS. SMITH: Again, I'd like to just insert and 

18 just welcome anyone to make a comment. If it goes on too 

19 long, I'll break in. But I don't think we need to worry 

20 too much about that. So I'd just like to welcome some 

21 people to go ahead and speak if they're moved. Go ahead, 

22 even if you haven't filled out the card. It's fine. So 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

32

1 anyone is welcome. Feel free. Raise a hand. 

2 Otherwise, you're welcome to start milling 

3 around. Feel free to look at the posters further. You 

4 can go ahead and ask any members of the team some 

5 questions, informal questions. But we will remain here 

6 for the full time of the hearing, which goes until 7:00. 

7 But you're not required to stay for it, but the team 

8 members will be here for it. 

9 MR. SPAULDING: We'll remain, and if during this 

10 time you wish to make a comment, just approach one of us 

11 and we will sort of take a pause and have you make your 

12 comment so the court reporter can record it. But 

13 otherwise, feel free to mill around, ask questions, fill 

14 out a comment sheet, drink some water, eat some cookies. 

15 Thank you. 

16 (Recess from 6:46 p.m. to 6:47 p.m.) 

17 MR. SPAULDING: Excuse me. We have a member of 

18 the public who wishes to make an oral comment. 

19 MS. BANAHAN: It'll be brief. 

20 MR. SPAULDING: If you would state your name and 

21 affiliation. 

22 MS. BANAHAN: Susan Banahan, with the Consortium 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

33

1 for Ocean Leadership. The comment I just wanted to make 

2 was I did look through the draft PEIS. I thought it was a 

3 very comprehensive treatment. I thought it addressed 

4 actually all the questions, first order questions I would 

5 have about seismic research in the proposed areas. So job 

6 well done. 

7 That's it. Thank you. 

8 MR. SPAULDING: Thank you, Sue. 

9 Does anybody else have any comment at this time? 

10 (Pause.) 

11 MR. GENTRY: I do have a comment, but I'll write 

12 it down. 

13 MR. SPAULDING: Yes, written comments are fine, 

14 and the address and the various ways you may submit 

15 comments are up on the board right now, mail, email, oral, 

16 or written. 

17 Thank you. 

18 (Recess from 6:47 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.) 

19 MR. SPAULDING: I would like to thank everyone 

20 who came tonight for attending this public hearing for the 

21 draft programmatic EIS. It is now 7:00 o'clock. I 

22 officially adjourn this hearing. Thank you again. 
National Court Reporters, Inc.

888.800.9656

888.800.9656

National Court Reporters, Inc.

34

1 (Whereupon, at 7:00 p.m., the hearing was 

2 adjourned.) 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 
coMMoNwEALT-H OF WRGINA )

I, l\,fARI( T. EGAN, the officer before whom the foregoing

deposition was taken, do hereby certiff that the witness whose

testimony appears in the foregoing deposition was duly sworn by me;

that the testimony of said witness was taken by me to the best of my

abitity a¡d thereafter reduced to typewriting under my direction; that

I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by *y of the

parties to the action in which this deposition was taken, and further

that I aÍi not a relative or employee of any afforney or counsel

employed by the pafties thereto, nor financially or otherwise interested

in the outcome of the action.

I,h.-¿ 7. Ð ,

Notary Public in and for

the Commonwealth of Virginia

APPENDIX J:

RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE

OCTOBER 2010 DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC EIS/OEIS

Response to Public Comments –October 2010 Draft NSF-USGS PEIS/OEIS

Page 1 of 19

COMMENT RESPONSE MATRIX

Public Draft Programmatic EIS/OEIS for NSF-Funded and USGS-Conducted Marine Seismic Research

(Comment Period: October 8 – November 22, 2010)

JEAN PUBLIC, WHITEHOUSE STATION, NJ (OCTOBER 8, 2010)

Comment NSF Response

i object to and oppose this action for seismic surveys. i do not beliee in drilling in arctic 

areas. i do not believe there is adequate ways to stop spills and do not believe america

should be poolluting this area like bp was allowed to pollute the gulf of mexico courtesy 

of nsf.

ea should not be permitted. any project like this should be done via eis. this is a way to 

sneak past nepa regulations used by sneaky agencies that attempt to use a cheap, poorly 

constructed ea. ea's need to be banned since they are incomplete and laszy and cheap 

ways to evaluate the effect on the environment. the american public wants an eis. nsf is 

trying to sneak something through without adeqaute evaluation.

if nsf did 7years and 3l ea's they sure were busy sneaking through inadequate 

investigation. there is much damage done by siesmic surveys. america is sick of 

pollution. this agency is attempting to sneak another one through. i do not approve of 

this proporsal. it is lazy, it is cheap. it allows pollution and harm and amage to the 

environmetn to happen.

Thank you for your comments. Please note that the proposed action would involve 

marine seismic research funded by NSF and conducted by the USGS and not drilling or 

exploring for oil and gas. In addition, the Draft Programmatic EIS/OEIS does not 

include activities within Arctic waters (refer to Section 1.7 of the Final PEIS). The 

Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and 

Enforcement, not NSF or USGS, is the agency responsible for permitting offshore oil 

and gas activities in U.S. waters, such as BP’s exploratory well in the Gulf of Mexico. 

The proposed action described in this PEIS is for marine seismic research to 

understand geologic features on the seafloor, not to explore for oil and gas resources in 

the oceans (refer to Section 1.3 of the Final PEIS).

The environmental compliance document prepared under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) for proposed marine seismic research funded by NSF and conducted 

by USGS is a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS) and not an Environmental Assessment (EA) (Refer to 

Chapter 1, introductory paragraph 1, of the Final PEIS).

As stated above, the environmental compliance document prepared under NEPA for 

proposed marine seismic research funded by NSF and conducted by USGS is a 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS/OEIS) and not an Environmental Assessment (EA) (Refer to Chapter 1, 

introductory paragraph 1, of the Final PEIS). The previous EAs were prepared in 

accordance with the NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for 

implementing NEPA. Those documents completely and adequately described the 

proposed action, a range of alternatives, and the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

impacts on the human environment (refer to Section 1.4 of the Final PEIS).
Response to Public Comments –October 2010 Draft NSF-USGS PEIS/OEIS

Page 2 of 19

CENTER FOR REGULATORY EFFECTIVENESS (CRE), WASHINGTON, DC (NOVEMBER 16, 2010)

Comment NSF Response

The proprietary acoustic models used in the draft PEIS/OEIS lack practical utility and 

do not meet Information Quality Act ("IQA") Guidelines. They are accurate, if at all, 

only when modeling an SEL metric, and all U.S. agencies including NMFS regulate 

seismic on an rms SPL metric. They do not regulate seismic on SEL. Moreover, the 

draft PEIS/OEIS' proposed applications of these models have not been validated in 

accordance with EPA's Council for Regulatory Environmental Modeling Guidelines. 

The CREM guidance reflects Information Quality Act standards. The models also 

violate IQA Guidelines because NMFS has not produced "especially rigorous 

robustness checks" for the proprietary models.

The draft PEIS/OEIS acoustic models are intended to help NSF meet current seismic 

regulatory requirements. They are useless for this purpose because they cannot 

accurately model compliance with current federal regulatory requirements, which are 

based on an rms SPL sound metric. Consequently, these models and the draft 

PEIS/OEIS advocating them violate the practical utility requirement of NSF's 

Information Quality Act guidelines. These guidelines define "practical utility" as 

involving "the usefulness of the information to its intended users." The draft PEIS/OEIS 

models lack practical utility because they are useless for their intended regulatory 

purpose.

The acoustic modeling and associated results are provided in both rms SPL and SEL, and 

the PEIS does provide impact analyses based on the rms SPL metric. Therefore, the 

models and information provided in the draft PEIS/OEIS are useful and appropriate for 

assessing impacts and implementing regulatory requirements as related to marine 

mammals. NSF and USGS closely consulted with NMFS, the regulatory agency charged 

with technical expertise on underwater acoustic impacts to marine mammals, on the 

appropriate model. After meeting with its acoustics expert, NMFS viewed the NSF/USGS 

modeling approach as appropriate. NMFS, NSF and USGS believe that the models can be

accurate on a SEL metric. The models used in the PEIS were reviewed by NMFS’ 

acoustics expert. This individual made recommendations and comments on the acoustic 

information and components of the document. These comments were reviewed by NSF 

and USGS and incorporated into the PEIS as appropriate. Modeling portions of the draft 

PEIS were reviewed by an expert identified by NSF and USGS. The expert, Dr. John 

Diebold of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, provided advice 

and guidance on these portions of the document. Reviews of the modeling portions of the 

document were conducted by the lead and cooperating agencies and noted acoustic 

experts throughout the development of the document. Moreover, no further peer review 

was deemed necessary to support the NEPA analysis.

These models, and an SEL metric, are not necessary to protect sea life. In 2010, NMFS 

issued USGS a MMPA authorization that does not use these models or an SEL metric. 

NMFS explained that "NMFS believes that the planned monitoring program will be 

sufficient to visually detect, with reasonable certainty, most marine mammals within or 

entering identified EZs [exclusion zones]. This monitoring, along with the required 

mitigation measures, will help ensure the authorized taking effects the least practicable 

adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and-will-have-a-negligible impact-on 

the affected species or stocks. Until proven technological -advances are made, nighttime 

mitigation measures during operations include combinations of the use of PSVOs and 

night vision devices (NVDs)."

If NMFS wishes to change its regulation of offshore seismic to an SEL metric, then 

NMFS should propose this change in the context of its ongoing acoustic criteria 

proceeding. The USGS has explained: "NMFS is proposing to replace current Level A 

and B harassment criteria with guidelines based on exposure characteristics that are 

specific to particular groups of mammal species and to particular sound types (NMFS 

2005). Recently, a committee of specialists on noise impact issues has proposed new 

science-based impact criteria (Southall et al. 2007). Thus, for projects subject to U.S. 

jurisdiction, changes in procedures may be required in the near future."

The referenced NMFS proceeding "(NMFS 2005)" is the proper process for proposing 

The Draft PEIS presents acoustic impact analyses based on both rms SPL and SEL 

metrics (refer to Section 2.3.2 of the Final PEIS). While both metrics are used to describe 

potential impacts to marine mammals from acoustic sources, as is current NMFS policy, 

only the rms SPL metric is used to estimate potential levels of take and to describe 

mitigation measures. The discussion of the recommendations of the Noise Criteria Group 

(Southall et al. 2007) is provided in Section 2.3.2.3 of the Final PEIS. It essentially 

reiterates what was stated in the referenced USGS IHA application. NMFS has not yet 

proposed changes to the acoustic criteria but potential changes are possible in the future. 

NOAA is currently developing acoustic guidelines for assessing the effects of 

anthropogenic sound on marine mammal species under its jurisdiction. The guidelines 

will provide past acoustic criteria, as well as updated procedures for assessing acoustic 

effects based on recent advances in science. NOAA is working toward numerical criteria 

where appropriate and possible, while general analytical paradigms will be used in other 

cases (i.e., for instances where context- or environmental-specific factors reduce or

eliminate the relevance of broadly applicable numerical criteria). The guidelines will also 

include an approach for updating acoustic criteria and policy guidance. The process to 

finalize the guidelines includes the following steps: (1) NOAA internal review; (2) 

external peer review; (3) public comment; and (4) finalize and release of guidelines. 

NOAA is currently still conducting step 1 of this process. 
Response to Public Comments –October 2010 Draft NSF-USGS PEIS/OEIS

Page 3 of 19

CENTER FOR REGULATORY EFFECTIVENESS (CRE), WASHINGTON, DC (NOVEMBER 16, 2010)

Comment NSF Response

these dramatic changes. These changes would affect several different agencies (e.g., 

USGS and the bureau of Ocean Energy Management), and many stakeholders (e.g., 

scientific researchers, the Navy, oil and gas exploration, shipping, indigenous 

communities and NGOs). NMFS should be express, direct and transparent if it intends 

to make these changes.

In addition, NMFS should comply with all applicable laws, including its Information 

Quality Act guidelines, if NMFS wants to change its regulation of sound in the oceans.

NMFS will comply with all applicable laws, including the Information Quality Act for 

producing its updated acoustic guidelines. These will not be issued as regulations.

This acoustic modeling scheme has no practical utility because it cannot be used to 

demonstrate compliance with NMFS' and other agencies' regulation of seismic effects 

on marine mammals. This regulatory uselessness results from the models' inability to 

accurately predict rms SPL sound levels, which are the current federal regulatory 

metric.

The models in the PEIS are used to estimate marine mammal take estimates at the Level A 

& B harassment isopleths regulated by NMFS and are presented in SEL and rms SPL

metrics. NMFS, NSF and USGS believe that the models can be accurate on a SEL metric. 

The impact analyses discussed in the PEIS are based on the best available science. The 

PEIS presents take estimates in both SEL and SPL metrics, allowing for estimates to be 

predicted based on NMFS’ current use of an rms SPL metric for implementing mitigation 

measures.

There are other Information Quality Act problems with these models. They are 

proprietary, and NSF's IQA guidelines state that when "estimates and projections 

included in NSF information products are not directly reproducible by the public 

because the underlying data sets used to produce them are either confidential or 

proprietary ... NSF will apply rigorous robustness checks and document what checks 

were undertaken." 

NMFS' IQA guidelines impose a similar requirement of especially rigorous robustness 

checks. 

Where are NMFS' and NSF's documentation of their "rigorous robustness checks" on 

the proprietary models used in the draft PEIS/OEIS? We have found none in the record.

The PEIS was reviewed by NMFS’ acoustics expert. This individual made 

recommendations and comments on the acoustic information and components of the 

document. These comments were reviewed by NSF and USGS and incorporated into the 

PEIS as appropriate. Modeling portions of the draft PEIS were reviewed by an expert 

identified by NSF and USGS. The expert, Dr. John Diebold of Columbia University’s 

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, provided advice and guidance on these portions of 

the document. Reviews of the modeling portions of the document were conducted by the 

lead and cooperating agencies and noted acoustic experts throughout the development of 

the document. The comments provided by these individuals are part of the complete 

Administrative Record for this PEIS.

NMFS previously had the AIM model peer reviewed. The resulting AIM Peer review 

report states in part as follows:

"The three terms of reference required that the Panel evaluate whether AIM correctly 

implements the models and data upon which it is based; whether animal movements are 

adequately simulated; and whether AIM meets the Council for Regulatory Monitoring 

(CREM) guidelines for model development and evaluation.

The Panel agreed that AIM appears to be correctly implemented. However, all panelists

had recommendations for further testing to be undertaken. They also agreed that animal 

movement appears to be appropriately modelled within AIM given the inadequacies of -

-the available data.

With regard to whether AIM satisfies the CREM guidelines there was some diversity of 

opinion. This is understandable given that the CREM guidelines are not directly 

The PEIS was reviewed by NMFS’ acoustics expert. This individual made 

recommendations and comments on the acoustic information and components of the 

document. These comments were reviewed by NSF and USGS and incorporated into the 

PEIS as appropriate. Modeling portions of the draft PEIS were reviewed by an expert 

identified by NSF and USGS. The expert, Dr. John Diebold of Columbia University’s 

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, provided advice and guidance on these portions of 

the document. Reviews of the modeling portions of the document were conducted by the 

lead and cooperating agencies and noted acoustic experts throughout the development of 

the document. 
Response to Public Comments –October 2010 Draft NSF-USGS PEIS/OEIS

Page 4 of 19

CENTER FOR REGULATORY EFFECTIVENESS (CRE), WASHINGTON, DC (NOVEMBER 16, 2010)

Comment NSF Response

applicable to AIM since it is not an application model (but a. tool for developing such 

models).

One of the requirements of the CREM guidelines is for the "model" to have undergone 

"adequate" peer review. The panelists were split on this question. NMFS clearly thought 

that an independent peer review was required and hence they initiated this review. The 

Panel have now reviewed AIM (in what appears to be the first independent peer 

review), but it is not for them to judge whether their review was an "adequate peer 

review".

The Panel did agree that the principles of credible science had been addressed during 

the development of AIM. They agreed that AIM is a useful and credible tool for 

developing application models. The need for expertise in the use of AIM was noted 

(e.g., in the choice of transmission loss model); as was the absence of appropriate 

uncertainty and sensitivity tests in the current applications of AIM. It follows, that the 

Panel agree that the use of AIM can lead to models which will meet the CREM 

guidelines. However, such models, at this stage, would need to be evaluated on a caseby-case basis (i.e., merely using AIM is not sufficient; it must be used appropriately for 

the specific application)."

In other words, the AIM peer review report requires that NSF peer review the proposed 

specific applications of AIM and the two JASCO models, and the conjunctive use of 

these models in each application, in order to determine whether they meet the CREM 

guidelines. We have not found this peer review in the draft PEIS/OEIS record or 

anywhere else.

The draft PEIS/OEIS should be revised to delete any use of the JASCO/MONM/AIM 

models to determine compliance with a regulation based on an rms SPL metric.

The acoustic modeling and associated results are provided in both rms SPL and SEL, and 

the PEIS does provide impact analyses based on the rms SPL metric. NMFS, NSF and 

USGS believe that the models can be accurate on a SEL metric. 

If NMFS wants to change from an rms SPL metric to a SEL regulatory metric, then 

NMFS should continue with its 2005 proceeding or institute another proceeding which 

transparently announces and addresses the scope of such a major regulatory change, and 

which solicits the participation of all stakeholders in federal regulation of ocean sound.

The Draft PEIS presents acoustic impact analyses based on both rms SPL and SEL 

metrics. The discussion of the recommendations of the Noise Criteria Group (i.e., 

Southall et al. [2007]) is provided in Section 2.3.2.3 of the Draft PEIS. It essentially 

reiterates what was stated in the referenced USGS IHA application. NMFS has not yet 

proposed changes to the acoustic criteria but potential changes are possible in the future. 

NOAA is currently developing acoustic guidelines for assessing the effects of 

anthropogenic sound on marine mammals under its jurisdiction. The guidelines will 

provide past acoustic criteria, as well as updated procedures for assessing acoustic 

effects based on recent advances in science. NOAA is working toward numerical criteria 

where appropriate and possible, while general analytical paradigms will be used in other 

cases (i.e., for instances where context- or environmental-specific factors reduce or 

eliminate the relevance of broadly applicable numerical criteria). The guidelines will also 
Response to Public Comments –October 2010 Draft NSF-USGS PEIS/OEIS

Page 5 of 19

CENTER FOR REGULATORY EFFECTIVENESS (CRE), WASHINGTON, DC (NOVEMBER 16, 2010)

Comment NSF Response

include an approach for updating acoustic criteria and policy guidance. It is not intended 

to be a regulatory change but rather national guidelines. The process to finalize the 

guidelines includes the following steps: (1) NOAA internal review; (2) external peer 

review; (3) public comment; and (4) finalize and release of guidelines. NOAA is currently 

still conducting step 1 of this process. 

Each application of any and all acoustic models used by the federal government should 

be externally peer reviewed to determine their compliance with the CREM guidelines.

The CREM guidelines are EPA guidelines and are not legally binding or required for 

other federal agencies. In addition, within the 2009 CREM guidelines, EPA includes a 

disclaimer stating: “This document provides guidance to those who develop, evaluate, 

and apply environmental models. It does not impose legally binding requirements; 

depending on the circumstances, it may not apply to a particular situation.” NSF does not 

require peer review of models and their application is required for NEPA documentation. 

Further, the IQA peer review requirements are triggered by dissemination of "influential 

scientific information" which is defined to include scientific information that will have a 

"clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions."

Given the nature of the PEIS and acknowledgment that future cruise-specific surveys will 

be reviewed and analyzed, the PEIS alone will not impact important public polices and 

thus does not amount to a dissemination of influential scientific information. This 

reaffirms the conclusion that external review of the models and their application is not 

necessary. Although NSF came to this conclusion, the PEIS was reviewed by NMFS’ 

acoustics expert. This individual made recommendations and comments on the acoustic 

information and components of the document. These comments were reviewed by NSF 

and USGS and were incorporated into the PEIS as appropriate. Modeling portions of the 

Draft PEIS were reviewed by an expert identified by NSF and USGS. The expert, Dr. 

John Diebold of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, provided 

advice and guidance on these portions of the document. Reviews of the modeling portions 

of the document were conducted by the participating agencies and noted acoustic experts 

throughout the development of the document. 

There should be an easily accessible record demonstrating that any and all proprietary 

acoustic models used by NSF and NMFS meet the requirements of NSF's IQA 

guidelines.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) allows each agency the discretion of 

selecting an appropriate peer review method for disseminating “influential” information. 

As noted in the response above, NSF believes the PEIS alone will not impact important 

public polices and thus does not amount to a dissemination of influential scientific 

information and external peer review is therefore not necessary. Although the models 

used to determine the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine organism were 

proprietary, the model validation and results were published in peer-reviewed journals

and used in reports and EISs of other agencies. Records of peer-reviewed journals that 

examined the Marine Acoustics Inc. (MAI) Acoustic Integration Model© (AIM) and the 

JASCO’s Marine Operations Noise Model (MONM) can be found in Appendix B of the 

PEIS. In addition, an independent assessment of AIM was initiated by NMFS in 

September 2006 and can be accessed at http://www.marineacoustics.com/AIM.htm. 
Response to Public Comments –October 2010 Draft NSF-USGS PEIS/OEIS

Page 6 of 19

W. STEVEN HOLBROOK, PROFESSOR OF GEOPHYSICS, UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING

ON BEHALF OF THE MARCUS LANGSETH SCIENCE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (MLSOC) (NOVEMBER 18, 2010)

Comment NSF Response

Appended below are comments on the draft PEIS for marine seismic work, submitted 

on behalf of the Marcus Langseth Science Oversight Committee (MLSOC). MLSOC 

strongly supports adoption of the draft PEIS.

W. Steven Holbrook, MLSOC member

Professor of Geophysics, University of Wyoming

The R/V Marcus G. Langseth is a national facility with unique capabilities to 

seismically image the solid Earth beneath the oceans. The Marcus Langseth Science 

Oversight Committee (MLSOC), which oversees the facility on behalf of the Earth 

science community, endorses the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

drafted by NSF and USGS. The rationale for this support, which is detailed below, 

stems from our recognition that marine seismic data provide an indispensable means of 

imaging many Earth processes that directly impact human societies. 

Numerous key geological processes occur in the solid Earth beneath the oceans:

 Many of the world‟s most threatening geological hazards, such as devastating 

earthquakes and tsunami, occur beneath the oceans. Eight-five percent of 

global earthquake energy is released beneath the seas. 

 Ocean sediments contain the longest and most continuous record of Earth‟s 

geological and climate history available. 

 80% of the world‟s population lives at or near the coast, and they influence, 

and are affected by, marine geological processes. 

 Most of the world‟s petroleum resources are hosted in marine sediments.

In order to peer beneath the blue ocean, which covers 70% of the planet‟s surface, 

research vessels equipped with specialized seismic gear (including, but not limited to, 

the R/V Langseth) are required. Without these capabilities, Earth scientists would be 

“blind” to many of the processes that govern Earth‟s climate, tectonics, environment, 

and hazards. Moreover, marine seismic imaging undergirds many U.S. and international 

science initiatives, including: (1) IODP, the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program; (2) 

GeoPRISMS (the MARGINS successor program); (3) R2K (the RIDGE 2000 

initiative); (4) Continental Dynamics; (5) the Ocean Bottom Seismometer Instrument 

Pool; and (6) IRIS/PASSCAL.

Formal adoption of Action Alternative B will streamline planning and permitting 

important scientific work while retaining stringent guidelines for compliance with all 

relevant federal environmental statutes. 

Thank you for your comments. No responsive changes have been made to the PEIS 

based on your comments.
Response to Public Comments –October 2010 Draft NSF-USGS PEIS/OEIS

Page 7 of 19

AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE (API), INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GEOPHYSICAL CONTRACTORS (IAGC), NATIONAL OCEAN INDUSTRIES 

ASSOCIATION (NOIA), AND U.S. OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION (USOGA) (NOVEMBER 22, 2010)

Comment NSF Response

Overall Approach and Methodology 

We commend NSF for undertaking the development of this comprehensive DPEIS. The 

scientific description of the environment and potential effects to the environment, the 

overall methodology and acoustic modeling are excellent. The level of scientific detail 

and analysis for acoustic impacts on marine mammals is exceptional. This DPEIS 

represents a good synthesis of the best available science presented in an objective and 

scientifically professional manner. We support the general approach and methodology, 

such as the use of representative areas and acoustic modeling, utilized in the DPEIS and 

recommend that other US government agencies consider a similar approach when 

preparing programmatic environmental impact statements (PEIS) for commercial 

geophysical surveys. However, we have some concerns which we expand upon in the 

following points.

Thank you for your comment. No responsive changes have been made to the PEIS based 

on your comment.

Regulatory and Policy

As mentioned previously, we strongly support NSF‟s decision to prepare a PEIS for its 

planned global marine seismic research operations. In the DPEIS (pages ES-3 and 1-4), 

the stated purpose is to address cumulative effects and to reduce duplication of effort in 

preparing environmental documentation. As stated, the PEIS should replace the 

duplicative EAs which have been used previously to analyze the effects of individual 

marine seismic research surveys. The comprehensive analysis in the PEIS more than 

adequately evaluates the potential individual and cumulative effects of proposed marine 

seismic research cruises. We encourage NSF to use this PEIS as the NEPA document 

for all upcoming marine seismic operations until additional relevant data is available 

which might prompt a need for a project specific EA or supplemental environmental 

assessment. Additional EAs should only be necessary if the proposed action or 

geographic area is significantly different from what is described in the DPEIS or if 

significant new scientific information becomes available.

As future marine seismic cruises are proposed, the appropriate environmental 

compliance documents will be prepared for all such activities. It is expected that future 

surveys proposed by NSF or USGS would be covered by or tiered from the current 

PEIS, depending on the specifics of the proposed research and survey area. Future 

projects that are not covered by the analysis contained in the PEIS will likely require 

additional NEPA. However, those NEPA documents will incorporate by reference as 

much of the analysis from the PEIS as possible in accordance with the CEQ 

regulations.

Use of precautionary approach 

Overall, the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences, Acoustic Impact 

Criteria, and Acoustic Modeling sections provide well-written descriptions and reviews 

of the best available science on these topics. However, we are disappointed that in the 

DPEIS, NSF seems to advocate using a precautionary approach when estimating the 

numbers of animals exposed to seismic sources and in recommending mitigation 

measures. 

Even though the science described in the sections on the environment and potential 

effects does not indicate that biologically significant effects to marine animal 

populations have resulted from geophysical operations, the authors repeatedly state that 

the most conservative values and assumptions were used as input for the acoustic model

The lead and cooperating agencies agree with the commenters that a conservative 

approach to modeling has been employed in the draft PEIS. Employing conservative 

values and assumptions at various stages in the modeling allows for consistency in 

approach, and for an overall conclusion that the modeling results are conservative. This 

approach while conservative, allows both the action proponent and regulators 

confidence that actions will unlikely exceed modeled take estimates. Although the 

modeling approach may be conservative, results are still viewed to represent potential 

conditions. This would not preclude the action agency from identifying in future NEPA 

analyses instances where conservative take estimate results are unlikely to be realized. 

Underestimating takes has potential for negatively impacting the seismic research 

community as it could result in the premature termination of a survey and future

surveys, since a robust schedule is needed to keep vessels operating efficiently. 
Response to Public Comments –October 2010 Draft NSF-USGS PEIS/OEIS

Page 8 of 19

AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE (API), INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GEOPHYSICAL CONTRACTORS (IAGC), NATIONAL OCEAN INDUSTRIES 

ASSOCIATION (NOIA), AND U.S. OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION (USOGA) (NOVEMBER 22, 2010)

Comment NSF Response

(e.g. page 2-57, Table 2-10; page 2-62, Figure 2-27; page 2-63, section 2.3.3.3) and in 

estimating the received exposure level (page 3-141, Section 3.6.5.1). By using the most 

conservative values and assumptions, the end result is an overestimate of the number of 

animals exposed. We suggest a more balanced approach, incorporating the best 

available science and risk assessment, be utilized when determining the inputs for the 

model and calculating received exposure levels. 

We are opposed to a government agency adopting the “precautionary principle” as 

regulation. The US statutory framework is supposed to incorporate a risk-based 

approach that relies upon the use of sound scientific data and the objective assessment 

of risk to determine the potential effects from human activity. This is in marked contrast 

to the precautionary approach, utilized in the EU, which does not require demonstrated 

adverse impact. NEPA does not require or recommend the use of the precautionary 

approach in preparing environmental documents. 

We recommend NSF reconsider using this precautionary approach in its environmental 

assessment.

NMFS uses the best available science to make its decisions under the MMPA. NMFS 

decisions concerning whether or not to issue authorizations for the incidental take of 

marine mammals under Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA may be made only 

after the agency sets forth and supports specific determinations, including 

determinations that the authorization will result in no more than a negligible impact on 

the affected species or stock, and that mitigation will achieve the least practicable 

adverse impact on the affected marine mammal species or stock. The authorization must 

also set forth the permissible methods of taking and requirements for the monitoring 

and reporting of such taking. The analyses contained in the PEIS will provide useful 

information for NMFS in evaluating the potential impacts of marine seismic surveys on 

marine mammals and their habitat and other marine resources. NSF and USGS 

appropriately rely on NMFS for these determinations, as NMFS is the federal 

regulatory agency with statutory responsibility for authorizing take under the MMPA 

and the necessary technical expertise in determining underwater acoustics impacts to 

marine mammals.

Noise exposure criteria 

We applaud NSF for considering the Southall et al. (2007) noise exposure criteria and 

including estimates of exposure using this criterion in the DPEIS. In our view, Southall 

et al. (2007) is the best available peer-reviewed scientific paper on noise exposure 

criteria and associated metrics. Southall et al. provides valuable information to assist in 

risk assessment of the potential for physical harm to individual animals during seismic 

operations. The criteria proposed by Southall et al. can and should help inform whether 

there is a risk of physical harm to animals both during regular operation and soft-start of 

a source array.

The current NMFS guidelines for Level A harassment under the MMPA are based on 

the root-mean-square (rms) sound pressure metric. “However, there is now scientific 

evidence that suggests that auditory effects of transient sound on marine mammals are 

better correlated with the amount of received energy than with the level of strongest 

pulse” (DPEIS, page 2-47). Therefore, we strongly recommend the use the Southall et 

al. noise exposure criteria, which uses a sound exposure level (SEL) metric or at least 

development of a criteria based on SEL and not rms. 

In addition, we support the recommendation that “allowance should be given to the 

differential frequency responsiveness of various marine mammal groups” (DPEIS page 

2-52) by applying frequency-weighting functions when calculating the effective SELs.

Given the potential for NMFS to change its acoustic guidelines in the future, the PEIS 

provides both M-weighted and flat-weighted and rms SPL and SEL metrics in the 

impact analyses. At present, NMFS still requires the use of the rms SPL metric for 

estimating acoustic exposures of marine mammals. Should NMFS incorporate a SEL 

approach for estimating acoustic exposures of marine mammals and use of Mweighting, the PEIS will still be effective. 

NOAA is currently developing acoustic guidelines for assessing the effects of 

anthropogenic sound on marine mammal species under its jurisdiction. The guidelines 

will provide past acoustic criteria, as well as updated procedures for assessing acoustic 

effects based on recent advances in science. NOAA is working toward numerical 

criteria where appropriate and possible, while general analytical paradigms will be 

used in other cases (i.e., for instances where context- or environmental-specific factors 

reduce or eliminate the relevance of broadly applicable numerical criteria). The 

guidelines will also include an approach for updating acoustic criteria and policy 

guidance. The process to finalize the guidelines includes the following steps: (1) NOAA 

internal review; (2) external peer review; (3) public comment; and (4) finalize and 

release of guidelines. NOAA is currently still conducting step 1 of this process. Until 

such time that these guidelines are finalized, NMFS shall continue to use the rms SPL 

metric for estimating take and establishing mitigation measures.
Response to Public Comments –October 2010 Draft NSF-USGS PEIS/OEIS

Page 9 of 19

AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE (API), INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GEOPHYSICAL CONTRACTORS (IAGC), NATIONAL OCEAN INDUSTRIES 

ASSOCIATION (NOIA), AND U.S. OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION (USOGA) (NOVEMBER 22, 2010)

Comment NSF Response

Mitigation zones

Overall, we agree with the methodology outlined in the DPEIS: identification of 

representative analysis areas and detailed acoustic modeling for a subset of those areas 

to define mitigation zones (MZ) and evaluate potential acoustic impacts. However, NSF 

states that in addition to the acoustic modeling conducted for the 5 representative areas 

in the DPEIS, "...cruise-specific MZs would need to be modeled to determine the 

effective MZs for marine mammals and turtles" (pages ES-8 and 2-72). Though it might 

be possible to perform detailed acoustic modeling and determine a specific MZ for 

every marine seismic research survey, we caution other government agencies about 

requiring this for commercial geophysical surveys. The amount of resources (time, 

personnel, financial) required to model the MZ for every proposed Industry geophysical 

survey would be prohibitive. An alternative approach would be to define „generic‟ MZs, 

perhaps for shallow and deep water, for marine seismic surveys based on the acoustic 

modeling performed for the representative areas. Defining a generic MZ based on the 

representative areas modeled would eliminate the need for redundant modeling for 

every seismic survey and would still protect marine mammals from physical or auditory 

harm.

NSF funds approximately 4-8 seismic surveys per year and USGS conducts 

approximately 8-12 per year. These surveys are conducted worldwide with little 

repetition in the same survey area from year-to-year as they are driven by scientific 

goals and objectives. This is different from the oil and gas industry, which conducts 

several different types of surveys in the same geographic area. At present, NSF and 

USGS perform modeling to identify the mitigation zone for each survey and therefore 

viewed it feasible to continue operating in this manner. Based on information gleaned 

from recent publications and workshops on the topic of monitoring and mitigation for 

acoustic sources, incorporating geographically specific data into the mitigation zone 

modeling enhances the accuracy of determining acoustic propagation and associated 

regulated mitigation zone. Therefore, NSF and USGS have attempted to incorporate 

this approach into the monitoring and mitigation program. Based on past surveys and 

certain conditions, a fixed mitigation zone was identified for the low-energy surveys. In 

the future should it be determined that a fixed mitigation zone can be employed 

successfully rather than modeled for high-energy surveys, NSF and USGS can reevaluate the PEIS. The monitoring and mitigation program outlined in the PEIS was 

designed for NSF and USGS purposes and may not be feasible or appropriate for other 

entities. 

Passive Acoustic Monitoring

We support NSF‟s use of passive acoustics as a monitoring tool. However, we question 

if NSF‟s proposal to use passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) during “both daytime and 

nighttime seismic operations as well as when the sources are not active” is feasible and 

practicable. The PAM operators will need periods of rest and time to repair equipment; 

it would require several operators to run PAM continuously. Also, there is limited bunk 

space on seismic vessels and it would be difficult if not impossible to accommodate the 

number of people that continuous 24/7 PAM operations would require. In addition, the 

global pool of experienced PAM operators is limited. 

Though there are limitations to current PAM technology (as described in the DPEIS), 

there are also limitations to visual observations. PAM offers another tool, in addition to 

visual observers, to use for monitoring. We support the use of PAM as a monitoring 

tool during certain conditions, such as to allow soft-starts during low-visibility 

conditions. PAM is useful under certain conditions and for certain species which have 

somewhat regular vocalization patterns, such as sperm whales. However, at this time, 

PAM systems are not able to reliably and accurately determine the location of the 

vocalizing animal automatically. An experienced operator is needed to optimize 

detection capability and interpret the data displayed in the user interface to estimate 

range to a vocalizing animal. A significant amount of research is underway to improve 

the localization capabilities of PAM systems. 

NSF-USGS agrees with the comments regarding the current state and efficacy of PAM. 

PAM is viewed as a useful tool in assisting marine mammal observers and will be used 

as appropriate and as recommended by NMFS as part of the MMPA compliance 

process. In determining what mitigation and monitoring should be included in an 

MMPA authorization, NMFS must assess the benefit to the species of implementing the 

measure, practicability for applicant implementation, and effectiveness of the measure. 

Whether or not PAM should be used or required in a MMPA authorization will be 

assessed on a cruise-by-cruise basis and on an applicant-by-applicant basis. NMFS 

works with each individual applicant to determine the most appropriate mitigation and 

monitoring requirements. NSF and USGS will continue to monitor the advances made 

with PAM technology and incorporate any advanced systems when viewed beneficial 

and feasible, or conversely, should it be proven to not be beneficial in monitoring or 

mitigating for marine mammals. 

At present PAM is used on the primary seismic vessel, the R/V Langseth. The technical 

support for 24/7 PAM operations is currently being met aboard the R/V Langseth and 

therefore was viewed feasible to continue operating in this manner. Columbia 

University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO), ship operator of the R/V 

Langseth, subcontracts for PAM and PAM support; LDEO has successfully obtained 

satisfactory PAM support for past surveys. The PAM program outlined in the PEIS 

however was designed for NSF and USGS activities and may not be feasible or 
Response to Public Comments –October 2010 Draft NSF-USGS PEIS/OEIS

Page 10 of 19

AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE (API), INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GEOPHYSICAL CONTRACTORS (IAGC), NATIONAL OCEAN INDUSTRIES 

ASSOCIATION (NOIA), AND U.S. OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION (USOGA) (NOVEMBER 22, 2010)

Comment NSF Response

We recommend that basic training criteria, such as that specified by many countries for 

PSVOs, be developed and required for PAM operators. In addition, minimum 

requirements for PAM equipment should also be considered. 

A period of confidence in the current PAM capabilities, understanding of limitations, 

and experienced operator capacity-building is needed before government agencies 

consider requiring PAM as a mandatory monitoring tool during seismic operations.

appropriate for other entities and their associated activities.

Regarding the comment to require basic training criteria for PAM operators, NMFS is 

currently in the process of developing national standards for PSVOs, which include 

information about requirements for PAM operators.

No responsive changes have been made to the PEIS based on your comments regarding 

PAM.

Ramp-up procedures 

We agree with NSF‟s use of a ramp-up procedure as an operational mitigation measure 

but recommend an alternative description of the procedure. 

In the DPEIS (pages ES-12 and 2-69), the recommended ramp-up procedure is 

described as follows, “Airguns would be added in a sequence such that the source level 

of the array would increase in steps not exceeding 6 dB per 5-min period. A 36-airgun 

array would take approximately 30 min to achieve full operation via ramp-up." 

The procedure described above is prescriptive and may not be possible to achieve for all 

seismic source array configurations. Therefore, we recommend that the following 

guidance for ramp-up, as described in the 2007 MMS Notice to Lessees and Operators 

(NTL), be used in the DPEIS instead: “Initiate ramp-up procedures by firing a single 

airgun. The preferred airgun to begin with should be the smallest airgun, in terms of 

energy output (dB) and volume (in3). Continue ramp-up by gradually activating 

additional airguns over a period of at least 20 minutes, but no longer than 40 minutes, 

until the desired operating level of the airgun array is obtained.”

The PEIS describes the airgun sources and configurations used by NSF or USGS and 

therefore prescribe a ramp-up procedure logical for those sources. The text has been 

revised to account for the ramp-up of low-energy sources (e.g., 2 GI guns) (see Section 

2.4.1.1 of the Final PEIS). The ramp-up procedure outlined in the PEIS was designed 

for NSF and USGS energy sources and activities and is based on the requirements 

specified by NMFS in previous IHAs for these agency activities. These procedures may 

not be feasible or appropriate for other entities and their associated activities. In 

determining what mitigation and monitoring should be included in an MMPA 

authorization, NMFS must assess the benefit to the species of implementing the 

measure, practicability for applicant implementation, and effectiveness of the measure. 

NMFS works with each individual applicant to determine the most appropriate 

mitigation and monitoring requirements and procedures for implementing them. Refer 

to Sections 1.4 and 1.8.3 of the Final PEIS for a more detailed discussion of the MMPA 

and associated IHA requirements.

Protected Species Visual Observers

We support the use of Protected Species Visual Observers (PSVOs) to visually monitor 

the MZ. However, it is not the role of PSVOs to determine if an observed marine 

animal‟s change in behavior is biologically significant or to estimate the numbers of 

marine mammals potentially „taken‟ by harassment as defined by MMPA (page 2-66). 

The primary responsibility of the PSVOs onboard the seismic vessel is to visually 

monitor the MZ and record their observations. Also, while we recognize that additional 

data on the distribution and abundance of marine life is needed, this type of data 

collection is not the primary responsibility of PSVOs and it should not detract from 

their primarily responsibility of visually monitoring the MZ. We recommend NSF 

clarify the roles and responsibilities of PSVOs in the DPEIS.

The roles and responsibilities of PSVOs as well as the data collection and 

documentation requirements are defined by NMFS and are based on the required 

procedures identified in previous marine seismic research survey IHAs funded by NSF 

or conducted by USGS. Section 2.4.1.1, PSVO Data and Documentation, of the Final 

EIS/OEIS has been revised to provide clarification on the roles and responsibilities of 

the PSVOs.
Response to Public Comments –October 2010 Draft NSF-USGS PEIS/OEIS

Page 11 of 19

AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE (API), INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GEOPHYSICAL CONTRACTORS (IAGC), NATIONAL OCEAN INDUSTRIES 

ASSOCIATION (NOIA), AND U.S. OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION (USOGA) (NOVEMBER 22, 2010)

Comment NSF Response

Seismic Sources 

We applaud NSF for including language in the DPEIS which describes why the values 

for source levels provided in Table 2-3 are not actually realized in the water column, 

"Because the actual source would be a distributed sound source (typically 2, 4, 18, or 36 

airguns) rather than a single point source, the highest sound levels listed in Table 2-3 

apply only to downward propagating signals. Because of the directional nature of the 

sound from large airgun arrays, the effective source level for sound propagating in nearhorizontal directions would be substantially lower than that for downward propagation” 

(page 2-23 Table 2-3; page 2-29). 

The source levels in Table 2-3 are the back-calculated, modeled sound pressure values 

and are not actually realized at any point in the water column. Numbers of this sort are 

regularly quoted but they require explanation in order for the reader to have a clear 

understanding of the numbers. In virtually all cases they are derived from modeling and 

are an over-estimate of the true source sound level (sound output from a seismic source 

array at 1 meter distance from the array). This is an extremely significant point and we 

suggest NSF add the following text or similar and a graphic to further expand upon this 

important point: 

“It is difficult to measure the actual sound pressure level close to a full source array that 

is being activated, due to the physical environment surrounding an active seismic array. 

Therefore assumptions are made that enable the response of a given source array to be 

modeled. 

The „far field‟ assumption suggests that at some distance away from a source array, 

which is much greater than the dimensions of the source array, the peak energy pulses 

from the various individual source elements („near field‟ signature) arrive at the same 

time and add together constructively to form the „far field‟ response of the source. This 

response is corrected or back-projected to one meter from the source array to produce 

the „far field‟ signature of the source at one meter, which is a standard modeled measure 

of a source array output. It is well known that the peak energy pulses from individual 

source elements no longer align at locations close to the seismic source array (in the 

„near field‟) as a seismic source array is a „distributed‟, rather than a „point‟ source. 

Therefore, the emitted sound pressure level close to the source array is lower than that 

calculated using the „far field‟ calculation.”

Suggested text has been added to the end of Section 2.2.3 of the Final PEIS. Additional 

discussion of source levels and far/near field signatures can be found in Appendix B, 

Acoustic Modeling Report, Sections 4.1, 5.1, and 8.3.

Effectiveness of previous mitigation measures 

Scientific evaluation of the effectiveness of mitigation measures is needed. We are 

pleased to read that NSF is developing a paper describing the effectiveness and 

limitations of the mitigation measures used during its previous marine seismic research 

cruises. We look forward to the publication of the final report. According to the 

Thank you for your comments. LGL is still preparing the data for future publication 

regarding the effectiveness of current mitigation and monitoring procedures, however 

since no specific journal or date for publication has yet been identified by LGL, the 

reference in the document has been changed to “LGL unpublished data.” No further 

responsive changes have been made to the PEIS based on your comment.
Response to Public Comments –October 2010 Draft NSF-USGS PEIS/OEIS

Page 12 of 19

AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE (API), INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GEOPHYSICAL CONTRACTORS (IAGC), NATIONAL OCEAN INDUSTRIES 

ASSOCIATION (NOIA), AND U.S. OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION (USOGA) (NOVEMBER 22, 2010)

Comment NSF Response

summary of the preliminary results from the Holst et al. paper, “...monitoring and 

mitigation measures have been effective in reducing the potential exposure of marine 

mammals and sea turtles to high-level seismic sounds and, presumably, of biologically 

significant effects (Holst et al. in prep.). Various monitoring and mitigation methods 

and measures can be combined to complement one another” (page 2-71). This is a 

significant finding. The information in this section of the DPEIS should be highlighted 

as it demonstrates that current mitigation and monitoring measures during marine 

seismic research surveys have been effective and therefore, additional precautionary 

mitigation measures are not necessary.
Response to Public Comments –October 2010 Draft NSF-USGS PEIS/OEIS

Page 13 of 19

M. LYLE, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF OCEANOGRAPHY, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE STATION, TX

Comment NSF Response

I am a Principal Investigator responsible for seismic reflection data acquisition funded 

by the National Science Foundation (3 expeditions since 2000). I strongly support this 

programmatic EIS, because individual environmental impact statements for each cruise 

have proven costly and are for the most part redundant efforts. In addition, they make it 

difficult to schedule seismic reflection operations and add to uncertainty about what 

parts of a scientific program can be carried out. Finally, rules for conducting the seismic 

reflection surveys have changed with each survey in what seems to be an arbitrary 

fashion.

In terms of mitigation alternatives, I strongly recommend that Alternative B--generic 

mitigation measures for low-energy acoustic

sources-- be chosen as the best mitigation option. Alternative B provides for 

customizing mitigation measures when environmental factors require it to minimize 

affecting marine mammals, yet minimizes red tape when standard operations are 

envisioned.

Thank you for your comments. No responsive changes have been made to the PEIS 

based on your comments.
Response to Public Comments –October 2010 Draft NSF-USGS PEIS/OEIS

Page 14 of 19

STATE OF HAWAII, OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS, HONOLULU, HI (NOVEMBER 17, 2010)

Comment NSF Response

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) is in receipt of your October 1, 2010 request for 

comments on the above-referenced project. OHA understands that the project entails a 

series of marine seismic surveys funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) or 

conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). As lead agency, NSF prepared the 

subject draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental 

Impact Statement (hereinafter Draft PElS) to cover the research activities of academic 

and U.S. government scientists who will perform scientific research to better understand 

the structure and stratigraphy of the crust and overlying sediment of the ocean floor. The 

Draft PElS does not examine the impacts of a specific research activity; rather, it

analyzes the impacts of future marine seismic research on thirteen exemplary analysis 

areas. The surveys will primarily involve the use of high-energy sources of sound, in 

addition to mapping, dredging, drilling, and coring research.

Based on the documentation provided, OHA does not have comments on the Draft 

PElS. In the event a seismic survey is planned around Hawai 'i, the impacts associated 

with said survey would likely be most similar to those of the Marianas Qualitative 

Analysis Area, as both are volcanic archipelagos within the Pacific Trade Wind 

Longhurst Biome. Should a seismic survey be planned around Hawai'i, OHA requests 

that we be directly notified prior to its commencement.

Thank you for your comments. Per OHA request, the action agencies will contact OHA 

should a seismic survey be planned around Hawai’i prior to its commencement. No 

responsive changes have been made to the PEIS based on your comment.
Response to Public Comments –October 2010 Draft NSF-USGS PEIS/OEIS

Page 15 of 19

MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION, BETHESDA, MD (NOVEMBER 24, 2010)

Comment NSF Response

Programmatic Approach and Site-Specific Analyses

Federal agencies are required to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act 

before they make final decisions about proposed federal actions that could impact the 

human environment. The National Science Foundation has identified proposed marine 

seismic research that it will fund or that the U.S. Geological Survey will conduct as 

federal actions requiring such environmental review. In the past, the Foundation has 

prepared environmental assessments to analyze the environmental impact of individual 

cruises or surveys and posted the assessments on the Foundation‟s website for public 

review and comment. The Marine Mammal Commission concurs with the Foundation 

and the Survey that a programmatic analysis such as the one under consideration here 

may help streamline environmental reviews needed for marine seismic research.

However, a programmatic approach also has its limitations. The Foundation and the 

Survey state that they cannot anticipate fully the actual types of research activities that 

they will fund or conduct during the next several years and therefore have limited their 

programmatic analyses to “exemplary areas” based on past activities. Although a focus 

on such areas may be useful for the purpose of completing a programmatic analysis, 

such a focus does not provide assurance that all area-specific considerations are 

adequately described in the analysis. In addition, other factors such as season, protected 

resources at risk, environmental conditions, and the precise nature of future studies may 

not be adequately described using a programmatic approach based on exemplary areas. 

The Foundation‟s Federal Register notice acknowledges such limitations and states that 

subsequent project- and cruise-specific analyses will be needed to evaluate specific 

research projects. The Marine Mammal Commission concurs with this assessment and 

recommends that the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Geological Survey be 

prepared to conduct supplemental environmental analyses under the National 

Environmental Policy Act once the details pertaining to specific proposed seismic 

studies become available. The Marine Mammal Commission requests that the National 

Science Foundation and the U.S. Geological Survey provide the Commission with 

copies of these supplemental environmental analyses as they are made available for 

public review and comment.

We appreciate that the MMC is in agreement with the approach identified in paragraph 

1, pg 1-5 of the Draft PEIS, that in accordance with NEPA and other regulatory 

requirements (e.g., ESA, MMPA), NSF and USGS will conduct supplemental 

environmental analyses as appropriate and as specific details for proposed cruises are 

identified. NSF and the USGS will make copies of these supplemental or tiered 

environmental documents available to the public for review and comment. No 

responsive changes have been made to the PEIS based on your comment.

Action Alternatives

Past environmental assessments have generally discussed only two alternatives; the No 

Action Alternative (i.e., research is not conducted) and the Preferred Alternative (a 

single statement of proposed mitigation measures for a specific research program). This 

narrow range of alternatives is contrary to guidance provided by the Council on 

Environmental Quality in regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy 

Act. This guidance states that environmental documents “should present the 

environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus 

sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the 

In order to respond as effectively as possible to this comment, NSF, USGS, and NMFS 

contacted MMC to obtain further clarification regarding this comment. 

We appreciate the MMC’s comments with regard to the action alternatives presented in 

the Draft PEIS. The Draft PEIS provides a description of the various types of vessels 

and technology that would be utilized during proposed marine seismic surveys 

conducted by USGS or funded by NSF (Chapter 2), their utility for various purposes 

and in various locations, and their characteristics (Sections 2.1 and 2.2). Section 2.6 

also provides a description of alternative technologies that were considered for 
Response to Public Comments –October 2010 Draft NSF-USGS PEIS/OEIS

Page 16 of 19

MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION, BETHESDA, MD (NOVEMBER 24, 2010)

Comment NSF Response

decisionmaker and the public.”

The draft programmatic environmental impact statement identifies two action 

alternatives. Alternative A would require cruise-specific mitigation measures for all 

energy sources, whereas Alternative B (the preferred alternative) would require cruisespecific mitigation measures except for low-energy acoustic sources, which would 

require only generic mitigation measures. The Commission does not consider these 

proposed alternatives to be sufficient to define sharply the issues and provide a clear 

basis for choice among alternatives. Indeed, both of these alternatives would be carried 

out in identical fashion for all but low-energy sources. Undoubtedly, the programmatic 

analysis will be limited because the specifics of future seismic studies are not known. 

However, in developing the analysis, the Foundation and the Survey should be able to 

provide a full description of the various types of technology that are involved, their 

utility for various purposes and in various locations, their characteristics (in addition the 

amount of energy involved), and the types and severities of the risks involved. By 

including such information in the analysis the agencies will inform the public and 

decision-makers regarding the various technologies and research approaches that are 

available and the tradeoffs in terms of information gained versus risks presented. In 

addition, the agencies should be able to provide a full description of the kinds of 

mitigation measures that might be used, and their utility and shortcomings under 

different circumstances. Also, the Commission understands that the Foundation helps 

researchers design their proposed actions in ways that minimize effects on marine 

mammal populations. The Commission gratefully acknowledges such efforts, and 

believes that the guidance given to researchers should be described in the programmatic 

analysis and may provide a basis for additional alternatives to be considered.

The alternatives in the programmatic analysis will determine whether and to what extent 

it provides an adequate foundation from which to tier future project-specific analyses. 

To that end, the Marine Mammal Commission recommends that the National Science 

Foundation and the U.S. Geological Survey redefine the alternatives considered in the 

programmatic analysis to encompass the broad technological, monitoring, and 

mitigation issues that pertain to all marine seismic research and provide a clear basis for 

choosing among options by decision-makers and the public. Doing so should then allow 

the agencies to focus their attention on specific matters when particular studies are 

analyzed.

conducting marine seismic surveys but were dismissed from further consideration as 

they currently do not meet the scientific objectives of the proposed surveys. 

A full description of the kinds of mitigation measures, based on past and ongoing 

marine seismic surveys, is provided in Section 2.4.1.1.

A description of pre-cruise planning procedures is presented in Section 2.4.1.1. The 

action agencies respond to specific research requests and, therefore, it is often not 

appropriate to add additional action alternatives. Nevertheless, the agencies will 

attempt to better characterize pre-cruise planning efforts which shape surveys in future 

site-specific NEPA documentation.

Given that the technologies for potential future surveys and monitoring and mitigation 

are in fact well defined in the PEIS (See Section 2.6), the action agencies feel that the 

alternatives presented in the PEIS are appropriate. The action agencies feel that the 

approach to alternatives proposed by MMC do not effectively take into consideration 

the comprehensive descriptions in the PEIS of technologies, the pre-cruise planning 

mitigation, and other monitoring and mitigation activities, which make the MMC’s 

proposed approach for alternatives less applicable. The PEIS, by design, is broad and 

comprehensive in approach. It has identified and discussed all known effective 

mitigation measures, including various technologies even though they have not been 

presented as separate action alternatives. This approach is appropriate to the decision 

being made and the scope and level of analysis necessary to inform that decision. 

Though the range of action alternatives is limited to the two fully evaluated, the PEIS in 

no way forecloses or limits the development and evaluation of a broader range of 

alternatives structured around different mitigation approaches in tiered project-level 

NEPA documents prepared for specific cruises. The PEIS presents data and analyses to 

foster development of such alternatives. Therefore the action agencies feel that 

alternatives presented in the Draft PEIS and carried forward to the Final PEIS 

establish a range of reasonable alternatives effective at informing both the public and 

agency decision makers within NSF and USGS on the environmental issues, impacts 

and trade-offs associated with the programmatic decision at hand.. NSF, therefore, has 

not included additional action alternatives in the PEIS in response to this comment.

Site- and Species-Specific Mitigation and Monitoring Measures

The National Marine Fisheries Service has indicated that cruise-specific analyses of 

impacts will be required for the issuance of incidental take authorizations under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act and/or incidental take statements under the Endangered 

Species Act. These authorizations likely will have cruise-specific mitigation and 

monitoring requirements based on potential impacts on the marine mammal species 

As MMC encourages, NSF and USGS will continue to incorporate appropriate, surveyspecific mitigation and monitoring based on survey-specific factors such as species 

present in the survey area, oceanographic features, and any unique survey activities. 

NSF and USGS will also work in conjunction with NMFS to develop survey-specific 

monitoring and mitigation measures and will comply with subsequent authorizations 

and recommendations made through the MMPA and ESA processes. No responsive 
Response to Public Comments –October 2010 Draft NSF-USGS PEIS/OEIS

Page 17 of 19

MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION, BETHESDA, MD (NOVEMBER 24, 2010)

Comment NSF Response

expected to be in the study area. The Marine Mammal Commission agrees with the need 

for such specificity and recommends that the National Science Foundation and the U.S. 

Geological Survey require for each proposed project specific mitigation and monitoring 

requirements tailored to such things as the species present in the research area, their 

natural history and status (e.g., endangered, threatened), pertinent oceanographic and 

bathymetric features, and the proposed operations.

changes have been made to the PEIS based on your comment.

Guidance for Applicants

The draft programmatic environmental impact statement indicates that the design of any 

specific survey requires consideration of the trade-off among the range and resolution of 

different sound sources, the timing of the survey and seasonal sea conditions, research 

vessel transit times, and the availability of properly outfitted vessels. Whether and to 

what extent researchers consider potential impacts on marine mammals and other 

protected species is not clear. If staff from the Foundation and/or Survey spend 

considerable time and effort helping researchers redesign their studies to minimize 

impacts on marine mammals, then it may be useful for the agencies to provide 

guidelines for research that scientists could incorporate into their original research 

design and planning efforts. For that reason, the Marine Mammal Commission 

recommends that the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Geological Survey 

develop guidelines for cruise research design and planning that would minimize the 

potential impacts of seismic research on marine mammals and other protected species. 

The Commission would be pleased to assist in developing such guidelines.

Pre-cruise planning for applicants is an important and vital part of the marine seismic 

survey process (see Section 2.4.1.1.) NSF currently has a guidance document for 

scientists interested in marine seismic research and is available on the NSF website at: 

http://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/pubs/Seismic_Reflection_Permitting_Procedures.pdf. 

Although the focus of this document is on seismic surveys conducted in foreign waters, 

many of its underlining principles, such as those related to pre-cruise planning, are 

relevant to all seismic surveys, and therefore the document serves more for the science 

community than the document’s noted titled purpose. This information has been added 

to Section 2.4.1.1 of the Final PEIS. NSF accepts the MMC’s offer to provide 

assistance with improving existing pre-cruise planning procedures and will consider

suggestions to incorporate into seismic survey guidelines. In addition to written 

guidance, outreach and education regarding optimizing survey design, considering 

potential environmental consequences, and best practices is conducted through 

presentations at scientific meetings, conferences, and workshops; University-National 

Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) meetings and oversight committees; and, 

pre-cruise planning meetings held by the vessel operators.

Collection of Information by Protected Species Observers

The Foundation and the Survey propose to deploy protected species observers aboard 

seismic survey vessels, whether the research is funded by the Foundation or conducted 

by the Survey. The agencies would consult with the Office of Protected Resources at the 

National Marine Fisheries Service regarding the observers‟ qualifications. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service has developed standards for the selection and training of 

fisheries observers, and it has made preliminary recommendations to improve protected 

species observer programs generally, including recommendations for program 

management, data reporting, training and eligibility, standards of conduct and conflict 

of interest, and safety. Those recommendations have not yet been implemented in the 

training of observers for seismic studies and the qualifications and training of observers 

on seismic vessels varies considerably. The lack of uniform standards undermines the 

quality (e.g., accuracy, reliability) of information available to assess the impact of 

seismic activities on marine mammals. To address this concern, the Marine Mammal 

Commission recommends that the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Geological 

Survey work with their observers, observer service providers, the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, the Fish and stakeholders to establish and implement standards for 

As MMC has noted, NSF and USGS currently use PSVOs on seismic surveys and are 

typically required as part of the associated governing IHA issued by the NMFS. While it 

is outside the agency mission and staff expertise of NSF and USGS to develop a PSVO 

Standards and Training Program, the action agencies are willing to comply with the 

PSVO requirements established by NMFS and/or USFWS, the regulating agencies for 

these activities. NMFS is currently in the process of developing national standards for 

PSVOs, including PSVOs on research seismic vessels. Once these national standards 

are finalized, NSF and USGS will ensure that the PSVOs placed on their marine seismic 

research surveys will meet the required standards. Per requirements established in the 

survey IHAs, data collected by PSVOs are compiled and analyzed and submitted to 

NMFS in a report within 90 days of survey completion. Reports currently, and will 

continue to, estimate potential effects on marine mammals and provide information

regarding the effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures. Data collected by 

PSVOs are viewed by the action agencies as public information and any further 

analysis of them is allowable, and encouraged, at user’s expense. A discussion of 

PSVOs is provided in Section 2.4.1.1 of the Final PEIS. 
Response to Public Comments –October 2010 Draft NSF-USGS PEIS/OEIS

Page 18 of 19

MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION, BETHESDA, MD (NOVEMBER 24, 2010)

Comment NSF Response

protected species observers to improve the quality and usefulness of information 

collected during marine seismic surveys. In addition, the Commission recommends that 

the Foundation and Survey establish requirements for analysis of data collected by the 

observers to ensure that those data are used both to estimate potential effects on marine 

mammals and to inform the continuing development of mitigation and monitoring 

measures.

Future NSF survey PSVO reports will be available on the NSF website at: 

http://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/envcomp/index.jsp. Future USGS survey PSVO reports will 

be available on a yet to be determined USGS website. The 90-day reports submitted to 

NMFS are also made available on the NMFS Office of Protected Resources website at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications. 

Visual Mitigation and Monitoring Measures

The Foundation‟s analysis of impact on marine mammals is based, in part, on the 

presumed efficacy of the proposed visual mitigation and monitoring measures. The 

effectiveness of visual monitoring is limited and varies considerably depending on 

conditions, as has been determined from extensive data and experience in the field of 

marine mammal assessment. For example, visual monitoring typically is not effective at 

night or during periods of bad weather and, even with good visibility, observers are 

unable to detect marine mammals when they are below the surface or beyond visual 

range. Determining the efficacy of mitigation and monitoring measures may require not 

only collecting opportunistic data but also designing and conducting studies to test 

specific hypotheses regarding the utility of visual observations and to evaluate 

responses of the various species encountered. Because the efficacy of visual observation 

can vary markedly depending on circumstances, the Marine Mammal Commission 

recommends that the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Geological Survey 

provide additional justification for their preliminary determination that the mitigation 

and monitoring measures that depend on visual observations would be sufficient to 

detect, with a high level of confidence, all marine mammals within or entering 

identified mitigation zones. At a minimum, such justification should describe (1) 

detection probability as a function of distance from the vessel and (2) changes in 

detection probability under various sea state and weather conditions. If such information 

is not available, the Foundation and the Survey should undertake the studies needed to 

verify that the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are likely to detect all or 

nearly all marine mammals in or near mitigation zones and, if necessary, to develop 

alternative means of detecting marine mammals in or near those zones. The 

Commission would be pleased to continue discussions with the Foundation and the 

Survey regarding the design of such experiments to promote a better understanding of 

the utility and shortcomings of visual observations for monitoring and mitigation 

purposes.

The Agencies believe that the described visual monitoring program, which is consistent 

with current practices, will be sufficient to visually detect, with reasonable certainty, 

most marine mammals within or entering identified mitigation zones (MZ). At present, 

NMFS views the combination of visual and passive acoustic monitoring as the most 

effective mitigation techniques available for detecting marine mammals within or 

entering the exclusion zone. The action agencies are receptive to incorporating proven 

technologies and techniques to enhance the monitoring and mitigation program. In this 

vein, NSF, in collaboration with other federal agencies have offered a funding 

opportunity through the National Oceanographic Partnership Program to improve the 

technologies and existing capabilities to detect, classify and locate marine mammals in 

survey areas during seismic operations. Results from this funding opportunity may push 

the boundaries of current technologies and methodologies for monitoring exclusion 

zones. Until proven technological advances or enhancements are made for visual 

observation practices, the action agencies will continue to provide the current visual 

observation services during surveys. In cooperation with NMFS, LDEO, ship operator 

for the primary seismic vessel R/V Langseth, will conduct efficacy experiments of night 

vision devices during a future R/V Langseth cruise. In addition, in response to a 

recommendation from NMFS, LDEO is evaluating the use of handheld thermal imaging 

cameras to supplement nighttime mitigation practices. These devices were successfully 

utilized by another federal agency while conducting nighttime seismic operations. 

Section 2.4.1.1 of the Final PEIS has been revised to address the concerns regarding 

the effectiveness of current marine mammal monitoring methods.

Analysis of Cumulative Impacts

The Council on Environmental Quality‟s regulations implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act require that an analysis of cumulative impacts include not 

only the impacts of the proposed action, but also the “incremental impact of the action 

when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless 

of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 

The cumulative impacts analysis in the Draft PEIS examined potential impacts at a 

programmatic level. Consistent with MMC recommendations, NSF and USGS will be 

prepared to conduct additional cumulative impact analyses for future specific seismic 

studies in the context of all other factors in the pertinent human environment within a 

proposed study area as appropriate. Section 4.1 of the Final PEIS has been revised to 

address your comments.
Response to Public Comments –October 2010 Draft NSF-USGS PEIS/OEIS

Page 19 of 19

MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION, BETHESDA, MD (NOVEMBER 24, 2010)

Comment NSF Response

CFR § 1508.7). Therefore, the Foundation and the Survey must not limit their analysis 

of cumulative effects only to the expected impact of research funded by the Foundation 

or conducted by the Survey.

Contrary to the Council‟s regulations, that appears to be exactly what the Foundation 

and Survey have done in the draft impact statement. The statement lists other activities, 

such as oil and gas exploration and production, recreation, tourism and commercial 

vessel traffic, military exercises and operations, fishing operations, hunting and/or 

incidental mortality, and pollution, but provides few details regarding the impact of 

these activities on marine mammals. It also does not mention other potentially important 

natural and human-related impacts, such as disease, natural toxins, predation, weather 

and climatic influences, or ingestion of debris. More importantly, the impact statement 

provides little analysis or discussion of how the proposed action, together with the total 

effects of all of these factors, might affect marine mammals. Instead, the draft impact 

statement mentions only the impacts of proposed marine seismic research funded by the 

Foundation or conducted by the Survey when it concludes there would not be any 

significant cumulative impacts to marine resources.

Furthermore, the Foundation justifies this conclusion simply by stating that pre-cruise 

planning and coordination with other ongoing and planned activities, as well as 

mitigation and monitoring during proposed seismic operations, would minimize 

cumulative impacts to an insignificant level. The Commission does not agree that such a 

blanket statement can be made without a reasoned analysis to support it. First, it is not 

possible to do a cumulative effects analysis that encompasses all future seismic projects. 

Such an analysis must take into account not only the effects of a specific project, but 

also the effects of all other human impacts in the area and at the time of the proposed 

study. Because the Foundation and the Survey have recognized already that they cannot 

predict exactly where and when they will fund or conduct such studies, the Commission 

does not see how the agencies can describe in advance the other factors that must be 

considered in a cumulative effects analysis. Second, the added effects of a specific 

project cannot be dismissed based simply on an expectation or promise of future 

remedies. To do so would be contrary to the whole purpose of an environmental impact 

statement. To address this shortcoming, the Marine Mammal Commission recommends

that the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Geological Survey provide, to the 

extent possible, a comprehensive analysis of the cumulative impacts expected from 

seismic surveys themselves, but then be prepared to conduct additional cumulative 

impact analyses for future specific seismic studies in the context of all the other factors 

in the pertinent human environment; that is, the human environment where seismic 

studies have been proposed.