U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region

OCS EIS/EA

BOEM 2017-051

Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Proposed Geological and Geophysical Activities

Western, Central, and Eastern Planning Areas

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Volume IV: Appendices M and N

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region

OCS EIS/EA

BOEM 2017-051

Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Proposed Geological and Geophysical Activities

Western, Central, and Eastern Planning Areas

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Volume IV: Appendices M and N

Author

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region

Prepared under

Contract No. GS-10F-0443M

and

Task Order No. M1PD00025

by

CSA Ocean Sciences Inc.

8502 SW Kansas Avenue

Stuart, Florida 34997

Published by 

New Orleans

August 2017

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Volume I

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................................... xxixv

LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................... xxxivii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................................. lxi

CONVERSION CHART ..................................................................................................................... lxvii

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1-3

1.1 Proposed Action and Purpose and Need.............................................................................. 1-3

1.1.1 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 1-3

1.1.2 Purpose and Need..................................................................................................... 1-4 

1.1.3 Area of Interest .......................................................................................................... 1-6

1.2 Background............................................................................................................................ 1-7

1.2.1 History of G&G Environmental Review in the GOM.................................................. 1-8 

1.2.2 Petition for Authorization to Take Marine Mammals Incidental to Conducting 

Oil and Gas Exploration Activities in the Gulf of Mexico........................................... 1-9

1.2.3 Litigation Settlement................................................................................................ 1-10

1.2.3.1 Interim Mitigation Measures..................................................................... 1-11

1.2.3.2 Settlement Agreement Items for Analysis in This Programmatic EIS..... 1-13

1.2.3.3 Non-Duplicative Surveys and Lowest Practicable Source Levels 

Panels ...................................................................................................... 1-13

1.2.3.4 Monitoring Plan ........................................................................................ 1-14

1.2.3.5 Incentives for the Use of Noise Reduction Technology........................... 1-17

1.2.4 Environmental Baseline and the Deepwater Horizon Explosion, Oil Spill, and 

Response................................................................................................................. 1-17

1.2.5 Model Overview....................................................................................................... 1-18

1.2.6 Risk Assessment Framework.................................................................................. 1-24

1.3 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................................ 1-26

1.3.1 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Agreements ......................................................... 1-26 

1.3.2 State Laws, Regulations, and Agreements............................................................. 1-27

1.4 Programmatic Approach to the NEPA Process................................................................... 1-27

1.5 Objectives and Scope.......................................................................................................... 1-29

2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................... 2-3

2.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................ 2-3 

2.2 Additional Information Applicable to the Alternatives............................................................ 2-3
iv Table of Contents

2.3 Alternative A – Pre-Settlement (June 2013) Alternative........................................................ 2-7

2.3.1 Description................................................................................................................. 2-7 

2.3.2 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................. 2-7 

2.3.3 Rationale.................................................................................................................... 2-8

2.4 Alternative B – Settlement Agreement Alternative................................................................ 2-8

2.4.1 Description................................................................................................................. 2-8 

2.4.2 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................. 2-9 

2.4.3 Rationale.................................................................................................................. 2-10

2.5 Alternative C – Alternative A Plus Additional Mitigation Measures (Preferred 

Alternative)........................................................................................................................... 2-11

2.5.1 Description............................................................................................................... 2-11

2.5.2 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................ 2-12

2.5.3 Rationale.................................................................................................................. 2-13

2.6 Alternative D – Alternative C Plus Marine Mammal Shutdowns ......................................... 2-13

2.6.1 Description............................................................................................................... 2-13

2.6.2 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................ 2-13

2.6.3 Rationale.................................................................................................................. 2-15

2.7 Alternative E – Alternative C At Reduced Activity Levels ................................................... 2-15

2.7.1 Description............................................................................................................... 2-15

2.7.2 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................ 2-15

2.7.3 Rationale.................................................................................................................. 2-17

2.8 Alternative F – Alternative C Plus Area Closures................................................................ 2-17

2.8.1 Description............................................................................................................... 2-17

2.8.2 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................ 2-17

2.8.3 Rationale.................................................................................................................. 2-19

2.9 Alternative G – No New Activity Alternative ........................................................................ 2-20

2.9.1 Description............................................................................................................... 2-20

2.9.2 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................ 2-22

2.9.3 Rationale.................................................................................................................. 2-22

2.10 Issues ................................................................................................................................... 2-22

2.10.1 Issues to be Analyzed ............................................................................................. 2-23

2.10.2 Issues Considered but Not Analyzed...................................................................... 2-24

2.11 Alternatives Considered but Not Carried Forward .............................................................. 2-25

2.11.1 Shutdown for All Marine Mammals Within the Level A Harassment Exclusion 

Zone......................................................................................................................... 2-26

2.11.2 Require Alternative Technology Use....................................................................... 2-26

2.11.3 Requirement to Obtain an LOA or IHA Prior to Receiving BOEM’s Approval........ 2-28

2.12 Mitigation Measures Considered but Not Carried Forward................................................. 2-29

2.12.1 Active Acoustic Monitoring ...................................................................................... 2-29

2.12.2 Aerial Surveys.......................................................................................................... 2-30

2.13 Comparison of Impacts by Alternative................................................................................. 2-31
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS v 

2.14 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Effectiveness............................................................................ 2-38

2.14.1 Time and Area Restrictions and Closures............................................................... 2-39

2.14.2 Minimum Separation Distances............................................................................... 2-40

2.14.3 Non-Duplicative Surveys and Lowest Practicable Source...................................... 2-41

2.14.4 Exclusion Zone ........................................................................................................ 2-42

2.14.5 Exclusion Zone Monitoring ...................................................................................... 2-43

2.14.6 Ramp-Up ................................................................................................................. 2-48

2.14.7 Shutdowns of Sources for Protected Species......................................................... 2-48

2.14.8 Reduction in G&G Activity Levels............................................................................ 2-49

2.15 Adaptive Management......................................................................................................... 2-50

3 G&G ACTIVITIES AND PROPOSED ACTION SCENARIO.......................................................... 3-3

3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3-3 

3.2 Proposed Action Scenario by Program Area......................................................................... 3-3

3.2.1 Oil and Gas Program G&G Surveys ......................................................................... 3-4

3.2.1.1 Proposed Action Scenario ......................................................................... 3-5 

3.2.1.2 Projected Activity Levels............................................................................ 3-5

3.2.2 Renewable Energy Program G&G Surveys.............................................................. 3-7

3.2.2.1 Proposed Action Scenario ......................................................................... 3-8 

3.2.2.2 Projected Activity Levels............................................................................ 3-9

3.2.3 Marine Minerals Program G&G Surveys................................................................. 3-10

3.2.3.1 Proposed Action Scenario ....................................................................... 3-11

3.2.3.2 Projected Activity Levels.......................................................................... 3-14

3.3 Impact-Producing Factors from the Proposed Action ......................................................... 3-16

3.3.1 Impact-Producing Factors for Routine Activities..................................................... 3-17

3.3.1.1 Active Acoustic Sound Sources............................................................... 3-17

3.3.1.1.1 Airguns.................................................................................. 3-17

3.3.1.1.2 Non-Airgun (Electromechanical) HRG Sources ................... 3-18

3.3.1.2 Vessel and Equipment Noise................................................................... 3-20

3.3.1.2.1 Vessel Noise......................................................................... 3-20

3.3.1.2.2 Equipment Noise Including Drilling Noise ............................ 3-21

3.3.1.3 Vessel Traffic ........................................................................................... 3-22

3.3.1.3.1 Surveys for Oil and Gas Exploration .................................... 3-22

3.3.1.3.2 Renewable Energy Surveys ................................................. 3-24

3.3.1.3.3 Marine Minerals Surveys ...................................................... 3-25

3.3.1.4 Aircraft Traffic and Noise ......................................................................... 3-25

3.3.1.5 Stand-Off Distance................................................................................... 3-27

3.3.1.6 Vessel Discharges ................................................................................... 3-27

3.3.1.7 Trash and Debris...................................................................................... 3-28

3.3.1.8 Seafloor Disturbance ............................................................................... 3-29

3.3.1.8.1 Seafloor or Bottom Sampling Activities ................................ 3-30

3.3.1.8.2 Placement of Anchors, Nodes, Cables, and Sensors .......... 3-31
vi Table of Contents

3.3.1.8.3 COST Wells and Shallow Test Drilling................................. 3-31

3.3.1.8.4 Bottom-Founded Monitoring Buoys...................................... 3-31

3.3.1.9 Drilling Discharges ................................................................................... 3-32

3.3.1.10 Entanglement........................................................................................... 3-33

3.3.2 Impact-Producing Factors for Accidental Fuel Spills .............................................. 3-34

3.4 Cumulative Activities Scenario ............................................................................................ 3-35

3.4.1 OCS Program .......................................................................................................... 3-37

3.4.1.1 OCS Oil and Gas Exploration and Development..................................... 3-37

3.4.1.2 Decommissioning..................................................................................... 3-38

3.4.1.3 Renewable Energy Development ............................................................ 3-39

3.4.1.4 Marine Minerals Use ................................................................................ 3-39

3.4.1.5 Geological and Geophysical Activity Related to the Oil and Gas 

Program.................................................................................................... 3-40

3.4.2 Oil and Gas Activities in State Waters .................................................................... 3-41

3.4.3 Other Major Factors Affecting Offshore Environments ........................................... 3-41

3.4.3.1 Deepwater Ports ...................................................................................... 3-41

3.4.3.2 Commercial and Recreational Fishing..................................................... 3-42

3.4.3.3 Shipping and Marine Transportation........................................................ 3-43

3.4.3.4 Dredged Material Disposal....................................................................... 3-44

3.4.3.5 Existing, Planned, and New Cable Infrastructure.................................... 3-45

3.4.3.6 Military Activities....................................................................................... 3-45

3.4.3.7 Scientific Research .................................................................................. 3-47

3.4.3.8 Maintenance Dredging of Federal Channels........................................... 3-47

3.4.3.9 Coastal Restoration Programs................................................................. 3-48

3.4.3.10 Mississippi River Hydromodification and Subsidence............................. 3-48

3.4.3.11 Natural Processes.................................................................................... 3-49

3.4.3.12 Recreational Activities.............................................................................. 3-50

4 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED RESOURCES AND IMPACT ANALYSIS .......................... 4-3

4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4-3

4.1.1 Preliminary Screening of Activities and Affected Resources.................................... 4-4

4.1.1.1 Activity Screening....................................................................................... 4-5 

4.1.1.2 Resource Screening .................................................................................. 4-5

4.1.2 Impact-Level Definitions ............................................................................................ 4-7 

4.1.3 Impact-Producing Factors ......................................................................................... 4-9 

4.1.4 Other Considerations............................................................................................... 4-10

4.1.4.1 Analysis and Incomplete or Unavailable Information .............................. 4-10

4.1.4.2 Cumulative Scenario Summary ............................................................... 4-11

4.1.4.3 NMFS’ Technical Guidance ..................................................................... 4-12

4.1.4.4 Risk Assessment Framework .................................................................. 4-14

4.1.4.5 Space-Use Conflicts ................................................................................ 4-14

4.1.5 Effects of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill .............................................................. 4-15
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS vii

4.2 Marine Mammals ................................................................................................................. 4-18

4.2.1 Description of the Affected Environment................................................................. 4-18

4.2.2 Impacts – Alternative A (Pre-Settlement [June 2013] Alternative) ......................... 4-24

4.2.2.1 Impacts of Routine Activities.................................................................... 4-25

4.2.2.1.1 Characteristics of Active Acoustic Sound Sources .............. 4-25

4.2.2.1.2 Analysis of Active Acoustic Sound Sources......................... 4-45

4.2.2.1.3 HRG Survey Activities .......................................................... 4-58

4.2.2.1.4 Vessel and Equipment Noise ............................................... 4-64

4.2.2.1.5 Drilling-Related Noise........................................................... 4-66

4.2.2.1.6 Vessel Traffic ........................................................................ 4-67

4.2.2.1.7 Aircraft Traffic and Noise ...................................................... 4-69

4.2.2.1.8 Trash and Debris .................................................................. 4-70

4.2.2.1.9 Entanglement........................................................................ 4-71

4.2.2.1.10 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ................................. 4-72

4.2.2.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill.......................................................... 4-73

4.2.2.3 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................................. 4-75

4.2.2.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities................................... 4-75

4.2.2.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities................................................................................ 4-75

4.2.2.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions ........................................... 4-85

4.2.3 Impacts – Alternative B (Settlement Agreement Alternative).................................. 4-88

4.2.3.1 Impacts of Routine Activities.................................................................... 4-88

4.2.3.1.1 Coastal Waters Seasonal Restrictions ................................. 4-88

4.2.3.1.2 Expanded PSO Program ...................................................... 4-90

4.2.3.1.3 Minimum Separation Distances............................................ 4-92

4.2.3.1.4 Seismic Restrictions in the Areas of Concern within 

the EPA................................................................................. 4-93

4.2.3.1.5 Use of PAM Required........................................................... 4-95

4.2.3.1.6 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ................................. 4-96

4.2.3.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill.......................................................... 4-97

4.2.3.3 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................................. 4-98

4.2.3.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities................................... 4-98

4.2.3.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities................................................................................ 4-99

4.2.3.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions ........................................... 4-99

4.2.4 Impacts – Alternative C (Proposed Action – Alternative A Plus Additional 

Mitigation Measures)............................................................................................... 4-99

4.2.4.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-100

4.2.4.1.1 Coastal Waters Seasonal Restrictions (February 1 to 

May 31)...............................................................................4-100

4.2.4.1.2 Expanded PSO Program ....................................................4-100

4.2.4.1.3 Use of PAM Required.........................................................4-101
viii Table of Contents

4.2.4.1.4 Non-Airgun HRG Survey Protocol......................................4-102

4.2.4.1.5 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-103

4.2.4.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-104

4.2.4.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-105

4.2.4.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-105

4.2.4.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-105

4.2.4.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-105

4.2.5 Impacts – Alternative D (Alternative C Plus Marine Mammal Shutdowns) ...........4-106

4.2.5.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-106

4.2.5.1.1 Expanded PSO Program with Additional Shutdowns.........4-106

4.2.5.1.2 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-107

4.2.5.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-108

4.2.5.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-108

4.2.5.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-108

4.2.5.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-109

4.2.5.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-109

4.2.6 Impacts – Alternative E (Alternative C at Reduced Activity Levels) .....................4-109

4.2.6.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-109

4.2.6.1.1 Reduced Level of Activity ...................................................4-109

4.2.6.1.2 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-110

4.2.6.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-112

4.2.6.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-112

4.2.6.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-112

4.2.6.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-113

4.2.6.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-113

4.2.7 Impacts – Alternative F (Alternative C Plus Area Closures).................................4-113

4.2.7.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-113

4.2.7.1.1 Closure Areas .....................................................................4-113

4.2.7.1.2 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-118

4.2.7.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-120

4.2.7.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-120

4.2.7.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-120

4.2.7.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-121

4.2.7.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-121

4.2.8 Impacts – Alternative G (No New Activity Alternative)..........................................4-121

4.2.8.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities....................................................4-121

4.2.8.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-124
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS ix

4.2.8.3 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................4-124

4.2.8.4 Cumulative Impact Conclusions ............................................................4-124

4.2.9 Summary Conclusion ............................................................................................4-125

4.3 Sea Turtles.........................................................................................................................4-126

4.3.1 Description of the Affected Environment...............................................................4-126

4.3.2 Impacts – Alternative A (Pre-Settlement [June 2013] Alternative)........................4-129

4.3.2.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-130

4.3.2.1.1 Characteristics of Active Acoustic Sound Sources ............4-130

4.3.2.1.2 Analysis of Active Acoustic Sound Sources.......................4-138

4.3.2.1.3 Vessel and Equipment Noise .............................................4-142

4.3.2.1.4 Vessel Traffic ......................................................................4-144

4.3.2.1.5 Aircraft Traffic and Noise ....................................................4-145

4.3.2.1.6 Trash and Debris ................................................................4-146

4.3.2.1.7 Entanglement and Entrapment...........................................4-147

4.3.2.1.8 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-148

4.3.2.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-149

4.3.2.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-151

4.3.2.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-151

4.3.2.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-151

4.3.2.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-159

4.3.3 Impacts – Alternative B (Settlement Agreement Alternative)................................4-160

4.3.3.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-161

4.3.3.1.1 Coastal Waters Seasonal Restrictions ...............................4-161

4.3.3.1.2 Expanded PSO Program ....................................................4-162

4.3.3.1.3 Minimum Separation Distances..........................................4-163

4.3.3.1.4 Seismic Restrictions in the Areas of Concern within 

the EPA...............................................................................4-164

4.3.3.1.5 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-165

4.3.3.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-166

4.3.3.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-166

4.3.3.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-166

4.3.3.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-167

4.3.3.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-167

4.3.4 Impacts – Alternative C (Proposed Action – Alternative A Plus Additional 

Mitigation Measures) ..............................................................................................4-168

4.3.4.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-168

4.3.4.1.1 Coastal Waters Seasonal Restrictions (February 1 to 

May 31)...............................................................................4-168

4.3.4.1.2 Expanded PSO Program ....................................................4-168

4.3.4.1.3 Non-Airgun HRG Survey Protocol......................................4-169

4.3.4.1.4 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-170
x Table of Contents

4.3.4.2 Impacts of Accidental Fuel Spills ...........................................................4-171

4.3.4.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-171

4.3.4.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-171

4.3.4.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-171

4.3.4.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-172

4.3.5 Impacts – Alternative D (Alternative C Plus Marine Mammal Shutdowns)...........4-172

4.3.5.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-172

4.3.5.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-172

4.3.5.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-173

4.3.5.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-173

4.3.5.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-173

4.3.5.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-173

4.3.6 Impacts – Alternative E (Alternative C at Reduced Activity Levels) .....................4-173

4.3.6.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-174

4.3.6.1.1 Reduced Level of Activity ...................................................4-174

4.3.6.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-174

4.3.6.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-174

4.3.6.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-174

4.3.6.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-175

4.3.6.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-175

4.3.7 Impacts – Alternative F (Alternative C Plus Area Closures).................................4-175

4.3.7.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-175

4.3.7.1.1 Closure Areas .....................................................................4-175

4.3.7.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-176

4.3.7.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-176

4.3.7.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-176

4.3.7.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-177

4.3.7.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-177

4.3.8 Impacts – Alternative G (No New Activity Alternative)..........................................4-177

4.3.9 Summary Conclusion ............................................................................................4-179

4.4 Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat.......................................................................4-179

4.4.1 Description of the Affected Environment...............................................................4-179

4.4.2 Impacts – Alternative A (Pre-Settlement [June 2013] Alternative) .......................4-182

4.4.2.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-183

4.4.2.1.1 Background: Potential Effects of Noise on Fishes ............4-183

4.4.2.1.2 Analysis of Active Acoustic Sound Sources.......................4-189

4.4.2.1.3 Vessel and Equipment Noise .............................................4-192

4.4.2.1.4 Trash and Debris ................................................................4-193

4.4.2.1.5 Seafloor Disturbance ..........................................................4-194
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS xi

4.4.2.1.6 Drilling Discharges..............................................................4-195

4.4.2.1.7 Entanglement......................................................................4-195

4.4.2.1.8 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-196

4.4.2.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-196

4.4.2.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-197

4.4.2.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-197

4.4.2.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-197

4.4.2.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-203

4.4.3 Impacts – Alternative B (Settlement Agreement Alternative)................................4-204

4.4.3.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-204

4.4.3.1.1 Coastal Waters Seasonal Restrictions ...............................4-204

4.4.3.1.2 Minimum Separation Distances..........................................4-205

4.4.3.1.3 Seismic Restrictions in the Areas of Concern within 

the EPA...............................................................................4-205

4.4.3.1.4 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-206

4.4.3.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-206

4.4.3.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-207

4.4.3.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-207

4.4.3.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-207

4.4.3.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-207

4.4.4 Impacts – Alternative C (Proposed Action – Alternative A Plus Additional 

Mitigation Measures).............................................................................................4-208

4.4.4.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-208

4.4.4.1.1 Coastal Waters Seasonal Restrictions (February 1 to 

May 31)...............................................................................4-208

4.4.4.1.2 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-208

4.4.4.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-209

4.4.4.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-209

4.4.4.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-209

4.4.4.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-209

4.4.4.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-210

4.4.5 Impacts – Alternative D (Alternative C Plus Marine Mammal Shutdowns)...........4-210

4.4.5.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-210

4.4.5.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-210

4.4.5.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-211

4.4.5.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-211

4.4.5.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-211

4.4.5.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-211
xii Table of Contents

4.4.6 Impacts – Alternative E (Alternative C at Reduced Activity Levels) .....................4-211

4.4.6.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-212

4.4.6.1.1 Reduced Level of Activity ...................................................4-212

4.4.6.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-212

4.4.6.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-213

4.4.6.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-213

4.4.6.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-213

4.4.6.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-213

4.4.7 Impacts – Alternative F (Alternative C Plus Area Closures) .................................4-214

4.4.7.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-214

4.4.7.1.1 Closure Areas .....................................................................4-214

4.4.7.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-215

4.4.7.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-215

4.4.7.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-215

4.4.7.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-215

4.4.7.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-216

4.4.8 Impacts – Alternative G (No New Activity Alternative)..........................................4-216

4.4.9 Summary Conclusion ............................................................................................4-217

4.5 Benthic Communities.........................................................................................................4-217

4.5.1 Description of the Affected Environment...............................................................4-217

4.5.1.1 Soft Bottom Communities ......................................................................4-219

4.5.1.2 Hard Bottom Communities.....................................................................4-219

4.5.1.2.1 Deepwater Coral Communities...........................................4-219

4.5.1.2.2 Live Bottoms (Pinnacle Trend) ...........................................4-220

4.5.1.2.3 Live Bottoms (Low Relief)...................................................4-220

4.5.1.2.4 Topographic Features.........................................................4-220

4.5.1.2.5 Artificial Reefs.....................................................................4-221

4.5.1.3 Chemosynthetic Communities ...............................................................4-221

4.5.1.4 Listed, Candidate, and Species of Concern ..........................................4-222

4.5.2 Impacts – Alternative A (Pre-Settlement [June 2013] Alternative) .......................4-222

4.5.2.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-224

4.5.2.1.1 Active Acoustic Sound Sources..........................................4-224

4.5.2.1.2 Trash and Debris ................................................................4-225

4.5.2.1.3 Seafloor Disturbance ..........................................................4-226

4.5.2.1.4 Drilling Discharges..............................................................4-228

4.5.2.1.5 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-229

4.5.2.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-230
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS xiii

4.5.2.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-230

4.5.2.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-230

4.5.2.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-230

4.5.2.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-235

4.5.3 Impacts – Alternative B (Settlement Agreement Alternative)................................4-235

4.5.3.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-236

4.5.3.1.1 Coastal Waters Seasonal Restrictions (January 1 to 

April 30)...............................................................................4-236

4.5.3.1.2 Seismic Restrictions in the Areas of Concern within 

the EPA...............................................................................4-236

4.5.3.1.3 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-236

4.5.3.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-236

4.5.3.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-236

4.5.3.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-236

4.5.3.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-237

4.5.3.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-237

4.5.4 Impacts – Alternative C (Proposed Action – Alternative A Plus Additional 

Mitigation Measures).............................................................................................4-237

4.5.4.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-238

4.5.4.1.1 Coastal Waters Seasonal Restrictions (February 1 to 

May 31) ...............................................................................4-238

4.5.4.1.2 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-238

4.5.4.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-238

4.5.4.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-238

4.5.4.3.1 OCS Program G&G survey activities .................................4-238

4.5.4.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-238

4.5.4.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-239

4.5.5 Impacts – Alternative D (Alternative C Plus Marine Mammal Shutdowns)...........4-239

4.5.5.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-239

4.5.5.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-239

4.5.5.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-240

4.5.5.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-240

4.5.5.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-240

4.5.5.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-240

4.5.6 Impacts – Alternative E (Alternative C at Reduced Activity Levels) .....................4-240

4.5.6.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-241

4.5.6.1.1 Reduced Level of Activity ...................................................4-241

4.5.6.1.2 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-241

4.5.6.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-241
xiv Table of Contents

4.5.6.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-241

4.5.6.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-241

4.5.6.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-242

4.5.6.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-242

4.5.7 Impacts – Alternative F (Alternative C Plus Area Closures).................................4-242

4.5.7.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-242

4.5.7.1.1 Closure Areas .....................................................................4-242

4.5.7.1.2 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-242

4.5.7.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-243

4.5.7.2.1 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................4-243

4.5.7.2.2 OCS Program G&G survey activities .................................4-243

4.5.7.2.3 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-243

4.5.7.2.4 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-244

4.5.8 Impacts – Alternative G (No New Activity Alternative)..........................................4-244

4.5.9 Summary Conclusion ............................................................................................4-245

4.6 Marine and Coastal Birds ..................................................................................................4-245

4.6.1 Description of the Affected Environment...............................................................4-245

4.6.1.1 Unlisted Species ....................................................................................4-245

4.6.1.2 Listed Species........................................................................................4-247

4.6.1.3 Effects of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on Marine and Coastal 

Birds .......................................................................................................4-247

4.6.2 Impacts – Alternative A (Pre-Settlement [June 2013] Alternative) .......................4-249

4.6.2.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-250

4.6.2.1.1 Active Acoustic Sound Sources..........................................4-250

4.6.2.1.2 Vessel and Equipment Noise and Vessel Traffic ...............4-253

4.6.2.1.3 Aircraft Traffic and Noise ....................................................4-258

4.6.2.1.4 Trash and Debris ................................................................4-259

4.6.2.1.5 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-260

4.6.2.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-260

4.6.2.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-261

4.6.2.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-261

4.6.2.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-261

4.6.2.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-267

4.6.3 Impacts – Alternative B (Settlement Agreement Alternative)................................4-269

4.6.3.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-269

4.6.3.1.1 Coastal Waters Seasonal Restrictions ...............................4-269

4.6.3.1.2 Minimum Separation Distances..........................................4-270

4.6.3.1.3 Seismic Restrictions in the Areas of Concern within 

the EPA...............................................................................4-270
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS xv

4.6.3.1.4 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-271

4.6.3.1.5 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill.....................................4-272

4.6.3.2 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-272

4.6.3.2.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-272

4.6.3.2.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-272

4.6.3.2.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-273

4.6.4 Impacts – Alternative C (Proposed Action – Alternative A Plus Additional 

Mitigation Measures).............................................................................................4-273

4.6.4.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-273

4.6.4.1.1 Coastal Waters Seasonal Restrictions (February 1 to 

May 31)...............................................................................4-273

4.6.4.1.2 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-274

4.6.4.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-274

4.6.4.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-275

4.6.4.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-275

4.6.4.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-275

4.6.4.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-275

4.6.5 Impacts – Alternative D (Alternative C Plus Marine Mammal Shutdowns)...........4-275

4.6.5.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-276

4.6.5.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-276

4.6.5.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-277

4.6.5.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-277

4.6.5.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-277

4.6.5.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-277

4.6.6 Impacts – Alternative E (Alternative C at Reduced Activity Levels) .....................4-277

4.6.6.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-278

4.6.6.1.1 Reduced Level of Activity ...................................................4-278

4.6.6.1.2 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-279

4.6.6.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-279

4.6.6.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-279

4.6.6.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-279

4.6.6.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-280

4.6.6.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-280

4.6.7 Impacts – Alternative F (Alternative C Plus Area Closures).................................4-280

4.6.7.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-280

4.6.7.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-281
xvi Table of Contents

4.6.7.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-281

4.6.7.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-281

4.6.7.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-281

4.6.7.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-282

4.6.8 Impacts – Alternative G (No New Activity Alternative)..........................................4-282

4.6.9 Summary Conclusion ............................................................................................4-283

4.7 Marine Protected Areas......................................................................................................4-283

4.7.1 Description of the Affected Environment...............................................................4-283

4.7.1.1 Offshore Marine Protected Areas ..........................................................4-284

4.7.1.2 Coastal Marine Protected Areas............................................................4-287

4.7.2 Impacts – Alternative A (Pre-Settlement [June 2013] Alternative) .......................4-289

4.7.2.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-291

4.7.2.1.1 Active Acoustic Sound Sources..........................................4-291

4.7.2.1.2 Trash and Debris ................................................................4-295

4.7.2.1.3 Seafloor Disturbance ..........................................................4-296

4.7.2.1.4 Drilling Discharges..............................................................4-296

4.7.2.1.5 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-298

4.7.2.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-298

4.7.2.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-299

4.7.2.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-299

4.7.2.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-299

4.7.2.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-302

4.7.3 Impacts – Alternative B (Settlement Agreement Alternative)................................4-302

4.7.3.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-302

4.7.3.1.1 Coastal Waters Seasonal Restrictions ...............................4-302

4.7.3.1.2 Expanded PSO Program ....................................................4-303

4.7.3.1.3 Minimum Separation Distances..........................................4-303

4.7.3.1.4 Seismic Restrictions in the Areas of Concern within 

the EPA...............................................................................4-303

4.7.3.1.5 Use of PAM Required.........................................................4-303

4.7.3.1.6 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-303

4.7.3.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-304

4.7.3.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-304

4.7.3.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-304

4.7.3.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-304

4.7.3.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-305
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS xvii

4.7.4 Impacts – Alternative C (Proposed Action – Alternative A Plus Additional 

Mitigation Measures).............................................................................................4-305

4.7.4.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-305

4.7.4.1.1 Coastal Waters Seasonal Restrictions (February 1 to 

May 31)...............................................................................4-305

4.7.4.1.2 Expanded PSO Program ....................................................4-306

4.7.4.1.3 Use of PAM Required.........................................................4-306

4.7.4.1.4 Non-Airgun HRG Survey Protocol......................................4-306

4.7.4.1.5 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-306

4.7.4.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-306

4.7.4.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-307

4.7.4.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-307

4.7.4.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-307

4.7.4.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-307

4.7.5 Impacts – Alternative D (Alternative C Plus Marine Mammal Shutdowns)...........4-307

4.7.5.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-308

4.7.5.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-308

4.7.5.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-309

4.7.5.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-309

4.7.5.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-309

4.7.5.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-309

4.7.6 Impacts – Alternative E (Alternative C at Reduced Activity Levels) .....................4-309

4.7.6.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-309

4.7.6.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-310

4.7.6.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-310

4.7.6.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-310

4.7.6.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-311

4.7.6.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-311

4.7.7 Impacts – Alternative F (Alternative C Plus Area Closures).................................4-311

4.7.7.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-311

4.7.7.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-312

4.7.7.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-312

4.7.7.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-312

4.7.7.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-313

4.7.7.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-313

4.7.8 Impacts – Alternative G (No New Activity Alternative)..........................................4-313

4.7.9 Summary Conclusion ............................................................................................4-314
xviii Table of Contents

4.8 Sargassum and Associated Communities .........................................................................4-315

4.8.1 Description of the Affected Environment...............................................................4-315

4.8.2 Impacts – Alternative A (Pre-Settlement [June 2013] Alternative) .......................4-316

4.8.2.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-318

4.8.2.1.1 Vessel Traffic ......................................................................4-318

4.8.2.1.2 Vessel Discharges ..............................................................4-318

4.8.2.1.3 Trash and Debris ................................................................4-319

4.8.2.1.4 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-320

4.8.2.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-320

4.8.2.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-321

4.8.2.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-321

4.8.2.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-322

4.8.2.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-325

4.8.3 Impacts – Alternative B (Settlement Agreement Alternative)................................4-325

4.8.3.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-325

4.8.3.1.1 Coastal Waters Seasonal Restrictions ...............................4-325

4.8.3.1.2 Seismic Restrictions in the Areas of Concern within 

the EPA...............................................................................4-326

4.8.3.1.3 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-326

4.8.3.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-326

4.8.3.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-327

4.8.3.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-327

4.8.3.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-327

4.8.3.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-327

4.8.4 Impacts – Alternative C (Proposed Action – Alternative A Plus Additional 

Mitigation Measures).............................................................................................4-327

4.8.4.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-328

4.8.4.1.1 Coastal Waters Seasonal Restrictions (February 1 to 

May 31)...............................................................................4-328

4.8.4.1.2 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-328

4.8.4.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-328

4.8.4.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-329

4.8.4.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-329

4.8.4.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-329

4.8.4.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-329

4.8.5 Impacts – Alternative D (Alternative C Plus Marine Mammal Shutdowns)...........4-329

4.8.5.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-330

4.8.5.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-330
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS xix

4.8.5.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-330

4.8.5.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-330

4.8.5.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-331

4.8.5.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-331

4.8.6 Impacts – Alternative E (Alternative C at Reduced Activity Levels) .....................4-331

4.8.6.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-331

4.8.6.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-331

4.8.6.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-332

4.8.6.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-332

4.8.6.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-332

4.8.6.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-332

4.8.7 Impacts – Alternative F (Alternative C Plus Area Closures).................................4-332

4.8.7.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-332

4.8.7.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-333

4.8.7.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-333

4.8.7.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-333

4.8.7.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-333

4.8.7.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-333

4.8.8 Impacts – Alternative G (No New Activity Alternative)..........................................4-334

4.8.9 Summary Conclusion ............................................................................................4-334

4.9 Commercial Fisheries.........................................................................................................4-335

4.9.1 Description of the Affected Environment...............................................................4-335

4.9.2 Impacts – Alternative A (Pre-Settlement [June 2013] Alternative) .......................4-336

4.9.2.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-337

4.9.2.1.1 Active Acoustic Sound Sources..........................................4-337

4.9.2.1.2 Vessel Traffic ......................................................................4-340

4.9.2.1.3 Stand-Off Distance .............................................................4-340

4.9.2.1.4 Seafloor Disturbance ..........................................................4-341

4.9.2.1.5 Entanglement......................................................................4-342

4.9.2.1.6 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-343

4.9.2.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-343

4.9.2.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-343

4.9.2.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-343

4.9.2.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-344

4.9.2.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-348

4.9.3 Impacts – Alternative B (Settlement Agreement Alternative)................................4-348

4.9.3.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-348

4.9.3.1.1 Coastal Waters Seasonal Restrictions ...............................4-348

4.9.3.1.2 Minimum Separation Distances..........................................4-349
xx Table of Contents

4.9.3.1.3 Seismic Restrictions in the Areas of Concern within 

the EPA...............................................................................4-349

4.9.3.1.4 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-350

4.9.3.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-350

4.9.3.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-351

4.9.3.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-351

4.9.3.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-351

4.9.3.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-351

4.9.4 Impacts – Alternative C (Proposed Action – Alternative A Plus Additional 

Mitigation Measures).............................................................................................4-351

4.9.4.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-351

4.9.4.1.1 Coastal Waters Seasonal Restrictions (February 1 to 

May 31)...............................................................................4-352

4.9.4.1.2 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-352

4.9.4.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-352

4.9.4.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-353

4.9.4.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-353

4.9.4.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-353

4.9.4.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-353

4.9.5 Impacts – Alternative D (Alternative C Plus Marine Mammal Shutdowns)...........4-353

4.9.5.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-354

4.9.5.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-354

4.9.5.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-354

4.9.5.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-354

4.9.5.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-354

4.9.5.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-355

4.9.6 Impacts – Alternative E (Alternative C at Reduced Activity Levels) .....................4-355

4.9.6.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-355

4.9.6.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-356

4.9.6.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-357

4.9.6.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-357

4.9.6.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-357

4.9.6.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-357

4.9.7 Impacts – Alternative F (Alternative C Plus Area Closures).................................4-357

4.9.7.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-358

4.9.7.1.1 Closure Areas .....................................................................4-358

4.9.7.1.2 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-358

4.9.7.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-358
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS xxi

4.9.7.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-359

4.9.7.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-359

4.9.7.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-359

4.9.7.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-359

4.9.8 Impacts – Alternative G (No New Activity Alternative)..........................................4-359

4.9.9 Summary Conclusion ............................................................................................4-360

4.10 Recreational Fisheries.......................................................................................................4-361

4.10.1 Description of the Affected Environment...............................................................4-361

4.10.2 Impacts – Alternative A (Pre-Settlement [June 2013] Alternative) .......................4-363

4.10.2.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-364

4.10.2.1.1 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-367

4.10.2.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-367

4.10.2.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-367

4.10.2.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-368

4.10.2.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-368

4.10.2.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions ........................................4-371

4.10.3 Impacts – Alternative B (Settlement Agreement Alternative)................................4-371

4.10.3.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-371

4.10.3.1.1 Seasonal Restriction for Federal Coastal Waters ..............4-371

4.10.3.1.2 Minimum Separation Distances..........................................4-372

4.10.3.1.3 Seismic Restrictions in the EPA .........................................4-372

4.10.3.1.4 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-373

4.10.3.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-373

4.10.3.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-373

4.10.3.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-373

4.10.3.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-374

4.10.3.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-374

4.10.4 Impacts – Alternative C (Proposed Action – Alternative A Plus Additional 

Mitigation Measures).............................................................................................4-374

4.10.4.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-375

4.10.4.1.1 Seasonal Restriction for all Coastal Waters (February 1 

to May 31)...........................................................................4-375

4.10.4.1.2 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-375

4.10.4.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-376

4.10.4.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-376

4.10.4.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-376

4.10.4.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-376

4.10.4.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-376
xxii Table of Contents

4.10.5 Impacts – Alternative D (Alternative C Plus Marine Mammal Shutdowns)...........4-377

4.10.5.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-377

4.10.5.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-377

4.10.5.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-377

4.10.5.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-377

4.10.5.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-377

4.10.5.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-377

4.10.6 Impacts – Alternative E (Alternative C at Reduced Activity Levels) .....................4-378

4.10.6.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-378

4.10.6.1.1 Reduction of G&G Activity Levels.......................................4-378

4.10.6.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-379

4.10.6.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-379

4.10.6.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-379

4.10.6.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-379

4.10.6.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-379

4.10.7 Impacts – Alternative F (Alternative C Plus Area Closures).................................4-380

4.10.7.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-380

4.10.7.1.1 Area Closures .....................................................................4-380 

4.10.7.1.2 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-380

4.10.7.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-380

4.10.7.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-380

4.10.7.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-380

4.10.7.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-381

4.10.7.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-381

4.10.8 Impacts – Alternative G (No New Activity Alternative)..........................................4-381

4.10.9 Summary Conclusion ............................................................................................4-382

4.11 Archaeological Resources.................................................................................................4-382

4.11.1 Description of the Affected Environment...............................................................4-382

4.11.2 Impacts – Alternative A (Pre-Settlement [June 2013] Alternative) .......................4-383

4.11.2.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-385

4.11.2.1.1 Seafloor Disturbance and Entanglement............................4-385

4.11.2.1.2 Drilling Discharges..............................................................4-387

4.11.2.1.3 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-387

4.11.2.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-388

4.11.2.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-388

4.11.2.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-388

4.11.2.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-388

4.11.2.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-393
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS xxiii

4.11.3 Impacts – Alternatives B through F.......................................................................4-393

4.11.3.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-393

4.11.3.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-394

4.11.3.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-394

4.11.3.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-394

4.11.3.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-394

4.11.3.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-394

4.11.4 Impacts – Alternative G (No New Activity Alternative)..........................................4-395

4.11.5 Summary Conclusion ............................................................................................4-396

4.12 Multiple-Use Areas ............................................................................................................4-396

4.12.1 Description of the Affected Environment...............................................................4-396

4.12.1.1 Shipping and Marine Transportation......................................................4-397

4.12.1.2 Military Warning Areas and Other Military Uses....................................4-398

4.12.1.3 Sand and Gravel Mining ........................................................................4-398

4.12.1.4 Renewable Energy Development – Wind Energy .................................4-399

4.12.1.5 Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites................................................4-399

4.12.1.6 Oil and Gas Exploration, Development, and Production.......................4-400

4.12.2 Impacts – Alternative A (Pre-Settlement [June 2013] Alternative) .......................4-401

4.12.2.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-402

4.12.2.1.1 Vessel Traffic and Stand-Off Distance ...............................4-402

4.12.2.1.2 Aircraft Traffic......................................................................4-405

4.12.2.1.3 Seafloor Disturbance ..........................................................4-405

4.12.2.1.4 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-407

4.12.2.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-407

4.12.2.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-408

4.12.2.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-408

4.12.2.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-408

4.12.2.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-410

4.12.3 Impacts – Alternative B (Settlement Agreement Alternative)................................4-411

4.12.3.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-411

4.12.3.1.1 Coastal Waters Seasonal Restrictions (January 1 to 

April 30)...............................................................................4-411

4.12.3.1.2 Minimum Separation Distances..........................................4-411

4.12.3.1.3 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-412

4.12.3.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-412

4.12.3.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-412

4.12.3.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-412

4.12.3.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-412

4.12.3.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-413
xxiv Table of Contents

4.12.4 Impacts – Alternative C (Proposed Action – Alternative A Plus Additional 

Mitigation Measures).............................................................................................4-413

4.12.4.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-413

4.12.4.1.1 Coastal Waters Seasonal Restrictions (February 1 to 

May 31)...............................................................................4-413

4.12.4.1.2 Routine Activities Impact Conclusions ...............................4-414

4.12.4.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-414

4.12.4.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-414

4.12.4.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-414

4.12.4.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-414

4.12.4.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-414

4.12.5 Impacts – Alternative D (Alternative C Plus Marine Mammal Shutdowns)...........4-415

4.12.5.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-415

4.12.5.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-415

4.12.5.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-415

4.12.5.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-415

4.12.5.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-415

4.12.5.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-415

4.12.6 Impacts – Alternative E (Alternative C at Reduced Activity Levels) .....................4-416

4.12.6.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-416

4.12.6.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-416

4.12.6.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-417

4.12.6.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-417

4.12.6.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-417

4.12.6.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-417

4.12.7 Impacts – Alternative F (Alternative C Plus Area Closures).................................4-417

4.12.7.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-417

4.12.7.2 Impacts of an Accidental Fuel Spill........................................................4-418

4.12.7.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-418

4.12.7.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-418

4.12.7.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-418

4.12.7.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-419

4.12.8 Impacts – Alternative G (No New Activity Alternative)..........................................4-419

4.12.9 Summary Conclusion ............................................................................................4-419

4.13 Human Resources, Land Use, and Economics ................................................................4-420

4.13.1 Description of the Affected Environment...............................................................4-420

4.13.1.1 Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure.....................................................4-420

4.13.1.2 Environmental Justice............................................................................4-421
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS xxv

4.13.1.3 Demographics........................................................................................4-422

4.13.1.4 Regional Economic Factors...................................................................4-423

4.13.2 Impacts – Alternative A (Pre-Settlement [June 2013] Alternative.........................4-425

4.13.2.1 Impacts of Routine Events.....................................................................4-426

4.13.2.1.1 Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure..................................4-426

4.13.2.1.2 Environmental Justice.........................................................4-427

4.13.2.1.3 Demographics.....................................................................4-427

4.13.2.1.4 Regional Economic Factors................................................4-428

4.13.2.2 Impacts of an Accidental Spill................................................................4-429

4.13.2.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-429

4.13.2.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-429

4.13.2.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-430

4.13.2.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-436

4.13.3 Impacts – Alternative B (Settlement Agreement Alternative)................................4-436

4.13.3.1 Impacts of Routine Events.....................................................................4-436

4.13.3.1.1 Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure..................................4-436

4.13.3.1.2 Environmental Justice.........................................................4-437

4.13.3.1.3 Demographics.....................................................................4-437

4.13.3.1.4 Regional Economic Factors................................................4-437

4.13.3.2 Impacts of an Accidental Spill................................................................4-440

4.13.3.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-440

4.13.3.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-440

4.13.3.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-440

4.13.3.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-440

4.13.4 Impacts – Alternative C (Proposed Action – Alternative A Plus Additional 

Mitigation Measures).............................................................................................4-441

4.13.4.1 Impacts of Routine Activities..................................................................4-441

4.13.4.1.1 Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure..................................4-441

4.13.4.1.2 Environmental Justice.........................................................4-441

4.13.4.1.3 Demographics.....................................................................4-442

4.13.4.1.4 Regional Economic Factors................................................4-442

4.13.4.2 Impacts of an Accidental Spill................................................................4-444

4.13.4.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-444

4.13.4.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-444

4.13.4.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-445

4.13.4.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-445

4.13.5 Impacts – Alternative D (Alternative C Plus Marine Mammal Shutdowns)...........4-445

4.13.5.1 Impacts of Routine Events.....................................................................4-445

4.13.5.1.1 Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure..................................4-445

4.13.5.1.2 Environmental Justice.........................................................4-446
xxvi Table of Contents

4.13.5.1.3 Demographics.....................................................................4-446

4.13.5.1.4 Regional Economic Factors................................................4-446

4.13.5.2 Impacts of an Accidental Spill................................................................4-448

4.13.5.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-449

4.13.5.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-449

4.13.5.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-449

4.13.5.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-449

4.13.6 Impacts – Alternative E (Alternative C at Reduced Activity Levels) .....................4-449

4.13.6.1 Impacts of Routine Events.....................................................................4-449

4.13.6.1.1 Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure..................................4-449

4.13.6.1.2 Environmental Justice.........................................................4-450

4.13.6.1.3 Demographics.....................................................................4-450

4.13.6.1.4 Regional Economic Factors................................................4-451

4.13.6.2 Impacts of an Accidental Spill................................................................4-453

4.13.6.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-453

4.13.6.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-453

4.13.6.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-454

4.13.6.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-454

4.13.7 Impacts – Alternative F (Alternative C Plus Area Closures).................................4-454

4.13.7.1 Impacts of Routine Events.....................................................................4-454

4.13.7.1.1 Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure..................................4-454

4.13.7.1.2 Environmental Justice.........................................................4-455

4.13.7.1.3 Demographics.....................................................................4-455

4.13.7.1.4 Regional Economic Factors................................................4-455

4.13.7.2 Impacts of an Accidental Spill................................................................4-458

4.13.7.3 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-458

4.13.7.3.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-458

4.13.7.3.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-458

4.13.7.3.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-458

4.13.8 Impacts – Alternative G (No New Activity Alternative)..........................................4-459

4.13.8.1 Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure.....................................................4-459

4.13.8.2 Environmental Justice............................................................................4-459

4.13.8.3 Demographics........................................................................................4-459

4.13.8.4 Regional Economic Factors...................................................................4-460

4.13.8.5 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................4-462

4.13.8.5.1 OCS Program G&G Survey Activities.................................4-462

4.13.8.5.2 Activities Other Than OCS Program G&G Survey 

Activities..............................................................................4-462

4.13.8.5.3 Cumulative Impact Conclusions .........................................4-462

4.13.9 Summary Conclusion ............................................................................................4-462
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS xxvii

5 OTHER NEPA CONSIDERATIONS............................................................................................... 5-3

5.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts of the Proposed Action......................................................... 5-3

5.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources...................................................... 5-4

5.3 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and 

Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity.............................................................................. 5-5

6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ................... 6-3

6.1 Development of the Proposed Action.................................................................................... 6-3 

6.2 Notice of Intent....................................................................................................................... 6-3 

6.3 Scoping and Development of the Draft Programmatic EIS................................................... 6-3

6.3.1 Scoping Meetings...................................................................................................... 6-4 

6.3.2 Comments Received During Scoping ....................................................................... 6-4 

6.3.3 Cooperating Agencies ............................................................................................... 6-5 

6.3.3.1 Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement ................................... 6-6 

6.3.3.2 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ................................... 6-7

6.4 Distribution of the Draft Programmatic EIS for Review and Comment ................................. 6-8 

6.5 Public Meetings.................................................................................................................... 6-12

6.6 Development of the Final Programmatic EIS...................................................................... 6-13

6.6.1 Major Differences Between the Draft and Final Programmatic EISs...................... 6-13

6.6.2 Record of Decision .................................................................................................. 6-13

6.7 Comments Received on the Draft Programmatic EIS......................................................... 6-13

6.8 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................................ 6-14

6.8.1 Coastal Zone Management Act............................................................................... 6-14

6.8.2 Endangered Species Act......................................................................................... 6-16

6.8.3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act .......................... 6-16

6.8.4 National Historic Preservation Act........................................................................... 6-17

6.8.5 National Marine Sanctuaries Act............................................................................. 6-18

6.8.6 Department of Defense ........................................................................................... 6-18

6.8.7 Government-to-Government Tribal Consultation.................................................... 6-18

7 LITERATURE CITED...................................................................................................................... 7-3

8 PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS .................................................................................................. 8-3

8.1 BOEM, BSEE, and NMFS Preparers .................................................................................... 8-3 

8.2 BOEM, BSEE, and NMFS Reviewers ................................................................................... 8-3 

8.3 Contractor Preparers ............................................................................................................. 8-5

9 GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................................... 9-3 
xxviii Table of Contents

Volume II 

Page

LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................................. xxix 

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................................... xxxi

FIGURES ................................................................................................................................. Figures-3 

TABLES......................................................................................................................................Tables-3 

KEYWORD INDEX................................................................................................................Keywords-3 

APPENDIX A AGREEMENTS AND COOPERATING AGENCY LETTERS................................... A-3 

APPENDIX B PROTECTIVE MEASURES AND MITIGATION AND REGULATORY 

REQUIREMENTS..................................................................................................... B-1 

APPENDIX C SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION TO AMEND SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENT ........................................................................................................... C-3 

APPENDIX D ACOUSTIC PROPAGATION AND EXPOSURE MODELING ................................. D-1 

Volume III

Page

LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................................. xxix 

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................................... xxxi

APPENDIX E EXPANDED AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT INFORMATION.................................... E-3 

APPENDIX F G&G SURVEY DESCRIPTIONS.............................................................................. F-1 

APPENDIX G SCREENING OUT TEAM REPORT......................................................................... G-1 

APPENDIX H MARINE MAMMAL HEARING AND SENSITIVITY TO ACOUSTIC IMPACTS....... H-1 

APPENDIX I SEA TURTLE HEARING AND SENSITIVITY TO ACOUSTIC IMPACTS ................. I-1 

APPENDIX J FISH HEARING AND SENSITIVITY TO ACOUSTIC IMPACTS .............................. J-1 

APPENDIX K CUMULATIVE AND CHRONIC EFFECTS IN THE GULF OF MEXICO ................. K-1 

APPENDIX L PANEL REPORTS..................................................................................................... L-1 

Volume IV

Page

LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................................. xxix 

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................................... xxxi

APPENDIX M RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT GULF OF MEXICO 

G&G PROGRAMMATIC EIS .................................................................................... M-3 

APPENDIX N PROPAGATION AND EXPOSURE MODELING IN THE GULF OF MEXICO........ N-1 
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS xxix

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure ES-1. Area of Interest for the Proposed Action.................................................................... ix

Figure 1.1-1. Area of Interest for the Proposed Action....................................................... Figures-3 

Figure 1.2-1. Comparison of the M-Weighting Curves for the 2012 Criteria and the 

July 2016 New Acoustic Criteria. .................................................................. Figures-4 

Figure 2.2-1. Alternative B Seasonal Restrictions for Coastal Waters and Areas of 

Concern as Defined in the Settlement Agreement. ...................................... Figures-5 

Figure 2.3-1. Alternatives C through F Seasonal Restrictions for Coastal Waters 

Between February 1 and May 31 and Areas Requiring Passive Acoustic 

Monitoring (PAM) for All Seismic Airgun Surveys. ....................................... Figures-6 

Figure 2.8-1. Alternative F Closure Areas (the Central Planning Area Closure Area; 

the Eastern Planning Area Closure Area; the Dry Tortugas Closure Area; 

and the Flower Gardens Closure Area) and Seasonal Restrictions for 

Coastal Waters Between February 1 and May 31 and Areas Requiring 

Passive Acoustic Monitoring for All Seismic Airgun Surveys. ...................... Figures-7 

Figure 3.4-1. Cumulative Activities Occurring in the Area of Interest................................. Figures-8 

Figure 4.2-1. Locations of Selected Northern Gulf of Mexico Cetacean Stocks in 

Relation to the Cumulative Surface Oiling Footprint of the Deepwater 

Horizon Oil Spill............................................................................................. Figures-9 

Figure 4.2-2. Distribution of Sperm Whale Sightings........................................................ Figures-10

Figure 4.2-3. Distribution of Bryde’s Whale Sightings ...................................................... Figures-11

Figure 4.2-4. Bays and Sounds of the Northern Gulf of Mexico....................................... Figures-12

Figure 4.3-1. Location of the Four Recovery Units for the Loggerhead Turtle in the 

U.S............................................................................................................... Figures-13

Figure 4.3-2. Designated Critical Habitat for Hatchling Loggerhead Turtles, Including 

Sargassum Habitat...................................................................................... Figures-14

Figure 4.3-3. Sea Turtle Nesting Locations Reported for Individual Counties Adjacent 

to the Area of Interest from 1992 to 2014................................................... Figures-15

Figure 4.3-4. Frequency Range of Hearing in Sea Turtles and Typical Frequency 

Output from Seismic Airguns ...................................................................... Figures-16

Figure 4.4-1. Smalltooth Sawfish and Gulf Sturgeon Critical Habitat in the Area 

of Interest .................................................................................................... Figures-17

Figure 4.5-1. Distribution of Known Hard/Live Bottom and Chemosynthetic 

Communities Locations in the Area of Interest for Which Notices to 

essees and Operators Apply....................................................................... Figures-18

Figure 4.5-2. Topographic Features Located in the Area of Interest ............................... Figures-19

Figure 4.5-3. Location of Artificial Reefs (deliberately placed objects/structures 

of human origin) in the Area of Interest ...................................................... Figures-20

Figure 4.6-1. Mississippi Flyway Migratory Routes .......................................................... Figures-21

Figure 4.6-2. Bird Conservation Regions.......................................................................... Figures-22
xxx List of Figures

Figure 4.6-3. U.S. Important Bird Areas ........................................................................... Figures-23

Figure 4.6-4. Important Bird Areas of Louisiana that Include Nearshore Waters 

Within the Area of Interest. ......................................................................... Figures-24

Figure 4.7-1. National System Offshore Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) Within the 

Area of Interest............................................................................................ Figures-25 

Figure 4.7-2. National System Coastal Marine Protected Areas Within the Area of 

Interest ........................................................................................................ Figures-26

Figure 4.9-1. Locations of Selected Seasonal and/or Area Closures to Commercial 

Fishing in the Area of Interest..................................................................... Figures-27

Figure 4.12-1. Aids to Navigation, Shipping Lanes, Precaution Areas, Fairways, and 

Traffic Separation Schemes in the Area of Interest.................................... Figures-28

Figure 4.12-2. Military Use and Ordnance Disposal Areas in the Area of Interest ............ Figures-29

Figure 4.12-3. Outer Continental Shelf Sand and Gravel Borrow Areas Within the 

Area of Interest............................................................................................ Figures-30

Figure 4.12-4. Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites in the Area of Interest ................. Figures-31

Figure 4.12-5. Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA) Areas............................... Figures-32

Figure 4.12-6a. Oil and Gas Platforms and Pipelines in the Western Planning Area 

in the Area of Interest.................................................................................. Figures-33

Figure 4.12-6b. Oil and Gas Platforms and Pipelines in the Central Planning Area 

in the Area of Interest.................................................................................. Figures-34

Figure 4.12-6c. Oil and Gas Platforms and Pipelines in the Eastern Planning Area 

in the Area of Interest.................................................................................. Figures-35

Figure 4.12-7. Existing Submarine Telecommunications Cables Located in the Area 

of Interest .................................................................................................... Figures-36
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS xxxi

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table ES-1. Applicability of Mitigation Measures to G&G Surveys by Alternative........................... xii 

Table ES-2. Preliminary Screening of Potential Impacts (Leopold Matrix)...................................... xv 

Table ES-3. Impact Levels by Resource and Applicable Impact-Producing Factor Across 

Alternatives A Through G, as Discussed in Chapter 2.13 .........................................xviii

Table ES-4. Impact Levels for Marine Mammals from Airguns and the Species Groups 

Protected Across Alternatives A through G, as Discussed in Chapters 2.13 

and 4.2......................................................................................................................... xxii 

Table 1.1-1. Federal Regulations Applicable to Pre-Lease and Post-Lease Activities 

by Mineral Resource of Interest .........................................................................Tables-3 

Table 1.1-2. Program Area, Geological and Geophysical Activity, Permitting Authority, 

and Typical National Environmental Protection Agency Action.........................Tables-5 

Table 1.2-1. Modeled and New Acoustic Guideline Criteria for Pulsed Sources...................Tables-6 

Table 1.2-2. Modeled and New Acoustic Guideline Criteria for Non-Impulsive Sources.......Tables-6 

Table 2.2-1. Applicability of Mitigation Measures to Geological and Geophysical Surveys 

by Alternative......................................................................................................Tables-7 

Table 2.2-2. Summary of Mitigation Measures Included in Alternatives A through G ...........Tables-8 

Table 2.7-1. Alternative E1: 10-Percent Reduction of Deep-Penetration Seismic, 

Multi-Client Surveys (in line miles) from the Maximum Projected Activity 

Levels of Geological and Geophysical Activities for Oil and Gas Exploration 

in the Area of Interest .......................................................................................Tables-13

Table 2.7-2. Alternative E2: 25-Percent Reduction of Deep-Penetration Seismic, 

Multi-Client Surveys (in line miles) from the Maximum Projected Activity 

Levels of Geological and Geophysical Activities for Oil and Gas Exploration 

in the Area of Interest .......................................................................................Tables-15

Table 2.9-1. Alternative G, the No New Activity Alternative: Projected Activity Levels 

of Geological and Geophysical Activities in the Area of Interest Over the 

10-Year Period..................................................................................................Tables-17

Table 2.13-1. Impact Levels by Resource and Applicable Impact-Producing Factors 

Across Alternatives A through G, as Discussed in Chapter 2.13.....................Tables-18

Table 2.13-2. Impact Levels for Marine Mammals from Airguns and Those Species 

Groups Protects Across Alternatives A through G, as Discussed in 

Chapter 4.2.......................................................................................................Tables-22

Table 3.1-1. Types of Geological and Geophysical Activities Included in this 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement .............................................Tables-24

Table 3.2-1. Projected Range of Activity Levels of Acoustic Geophysical Activities 

for Oil and Gas Exploration in the Area of Interest Over the 10-Year Time 

Period (numbers of surveys) and Survey Line Distance (miles) ......................Tables-26
xxxii List of Tables

Table 3.2-2. Projected Activity Levels of Non-Acoustic and Geological Activities for Oil 

and Gas Exploration in the Area of Interest Over the 10-Year Time Period 

(numbers of surveys) and Survey Line Distance (miles) or Cores ..................Tables-29

Table 3.2-3. Projected Activity Levels of Geological and Geophysical Activities for 

Renewable Energy Site Characterization and Assessment in the Area of 

Interest Over the 10-Year Time Period ............................................................Tables-30

Table 3.2-4. Projected Activity Levels of Geological Surveys for Outer Continental 

Shelf Marine Minerals Projects in the Area of Interest Over the 10-Year 

Time Period ......................................................................................................Tables-31

Table 3.2-5. Projected Activity Levels of Geophysical Surveys for Marine Minerals 

Projects in the Area of Interest Over the 10-Year Time Period .......................Tables-32

Table 3.2-6. Characteristics of the Proposed Geological and Geophysical Activities 

Scenario in the Area of Interest Over the 10-Year Time Period ......................Tables-34

Table 3.2-7. Summary of All Projected Maximum Activity Levels of Geological and 

Geophysical Activities in the Area of Interest Over the 10-Year Time Period 

for the Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals Program 

Areas (sum of survey activities from Tables 3.2-2 through 3.2-6) ...................Tables-38

Table 3.3-1. Impact-Producing Factor Descriptions .............................................................Tables-39

Table 3.3-2. Characteristics of Active Acoustic Sound Sources Included in the 

Proposed Action ...............................................................................................Tables-40

Table 3.4-1. Cumulative Scenario Activities that Include Coincident Impact-Producing 

Factors with the Proposed Action Geological and Geophysical Activities.......Tables-42

Table 3.4-2. Summary of Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities in the 

U.S. Gulf of Mexico Projected 10-Year Projections (based on 40-year 

projections) .......................................................................................................Tables-43

Table 3.4-3. Structure Removal Permit Applications on the Area of Interest, 2004 to 

2015..................................................................................................................Tables-44

Table 3.4-4. Structures Removed from the Area of Interest, 2004 to 2015 .........................Tables-44

Table 3.4-5. Summary of Annual Oil and Gas Production from State Waters of Several 

Gulf Coast States .............................................................................................Tables-45

Table 3.4-6. Summary of Deepwater Ports in the Area of Interest ......................................Tables-46

Table 3.4-7. Summary of Commercial Vessel Port Visits for Vessels >1,000 Gross 

Tons to Area of Interest Ports in 2012 .............................................................Tables-48

Table 3.4-8. Vessel Trips in the Area of Interest in 2012 Recorded by Vessels 

Equipped with Automatic Identifications Systems............................................Tables-49

Table 3.4-9. Cruise Ship Departures from Gulf of Mexico Ports by Year ............................Tables-50

Table 4.1-1. Types of Geological and Geophysical Activities by Survey Type and 

Associated Impact-Producing Factors Associated with Each Survey Type 

as Described in Appendix F .............................................................................Tables-51

Table 4.1-2. Preliminary Screening of Potential Impacts (Leopold Matrix)..........................Tables-53

Table 4.1-3. Length and Area of Oiling of State and Federal Lands along the Northern 

Gulf Coast Caused by the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill...................................Tables-54

Table 4.2-1. Marine Mammals Potentially Occurring in the Area of Interest........................Tables-55
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS xxxiii

Table 4.2-2. Stocks of Common Bottlenose Dolphins within the Area of Interest ...............Tables-60

Table 4.2-3. Generalized Marine Mammal Hearing Groups, Associated Auditory 

Bandwidths, and Marine Mammal Species Present in the Area of Interest.....Tables-61

Table 4.2-4. Dual Injury Criteria for Marine Mammals Exposed to Impulsive Noise Over 

a 24-Hour Period ..............................................................................................Tables-61

Table 4.2-5. Existing and Proposed Injury and Behavior Exposure Criteria for 

Cetaceans and Manatees Exposed to Pulsed Sounds....................................Tables-62

Table 4.2-6. Density Ratios for Each of the Modeling Zones and Seasonal Restrictions/ 

Closure Areas1 ................................................................................................. Tables-63

Table 4.3-1. Sea Turtles Occurring in the Area of Interest...................................................Tables-64

Table 4.4-1. Hard Bottom Species and Life Stages with Essential Fish Habitat Identified 

within the Area of Interest.................................................................................Tables-65

Table 4.4-2. Coastal Migratory Pelagic Species and Life Stages with Essential Fish 

Habitat Identified within the Area of Interest ....................................................Tables-72

Table 4.4-3. Highly Migratory Species and Life Stages with Essential Fish Habitat 

Identified within the Area of Interest................................................................. Tables-73

Table 4.4-4. Shark Species and Life Stages with Essential Fish Habitat Identified 

within the Area of Interest.................................................................................Tables-75

Table 4.5-1. Topographic Features (Banks) of the Gulf of Mexico ......................................Tables-77

Table 4.6-1. Families of Seabirds, Waterfowl, and Shorebirds Occurring in the Area 

of Interest..........................................................................................................Tables-78

Table 4.7-1. National System Marine Protected Areas Within or Partially Within the 

Area of Interest ................................................................................................. Tables-81

Table 4.9-1. 2014 Economic Impacts of the Gulf of Mexico Region Seafood Industry 

(thousands of dollars).......................................................................................Tables-86

Table 4.9-2. Total Landings and Landings of Key Species/Species Groups (thousands 

of pounds).........................................................................................................Tables-86

Table 4.9-3. Primary Commercial Fishing Methods, Target Species, Seasons, and 

General Areas Fished in the Gulf of Mexico ....................................................Tables-87

Table 4.9-4. Summary of Seasonal and/or Area Closures to Commercial Fishing in 

Federal Waters in the Gulf of Mexico...............................................................Tables-88

Table 4.10-1. 2014 Recreational Gulf of Mexico Fishing Effort by Mode (thousands of 

dollars and trips)...............................................................................................Tables-89

Table 4.10-2. Economic Impacts of Gulf of Mexico Recreational Fishing Expenditures 

(thousands of angular trips)..............................................................................Tables-89

Table 4.10-3. Gulf of Mexico Recreational Harvest and Release of Key Species and 

Species Groups (thousands of fish)................................................................. Tables-89

Table 4.10-4. Summary of Recreational Fishing Tournaments in the Gulf of Mexico ...........Tables-90

Table 4.12-1. Recent Marine Mineral Projects in Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi...........Tables-99

Table 4.13-1. 2012 Economic Impact of the Gulf of Mexico on Coastal Communities..........Tables-99

Table 4.13-2. Population Living in Gulf of Mexico Coastal Watershed Communities 

(1970 to 2010) ..................................................................................................Tables-99
xxxiv List of Tables

Table 4.13-3. 2012 Minority Populations in Geographic Areas Associated with Ports 

Serving the Geological and Geophysical Industry in the Area of Interest ..... Tables-100

Table 4.13-4. 2012 Low-Income Populations in Geographic Areas Associated with Ports 

Serving the Geological and Geophysical Industry in the Area of Interest .....Tables-101

Table 4.13-5. Average Survey Incremental Cost and Percent Cost Change by 

Alternative.......................................................................................................Tables-102

Table 4.13-6. Total Discounted Survey Incremental Cost by Alternative from 

2018-2027.......................................................................................................Tables-103

Table 4.13-7. Percent Change in Operational Efficiency by Alternative ..............................Tables-104
APPENDIX M 

RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 

ON THE DRAFT GULF OF MEXICO G&G PROGRAMMATIC EIS 

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-3 

M RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT GULF OF 

MEXICO G&G PROGRAMMATIC EIS

M.1 OVERVIEW

To initiate the public review and comment period of the Draft Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS), the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) took the following 

actions: (1) published a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register (2016) on September 30, 2016, 

announcing a 60-day comment period that ended on November 29, 2016; (2) mailed a special public 

notice that reported the availability of the Draft Programmatic EIS and how to comment to the groups 

and agencies identified in Chapters 6.3 and 6.4 of the Draft Programmatic EIS; (3) emailed a group 

notification that reported the availability of the Draft Programmatic EIS and how to comment to 

people who had given BOEM their email address during scoping or who had requested to be on 

such a mailing list; (4) placed multiple notices announcing the availability of the Draft Programmatic 

EIS, all public meeting locations and times, and how to comment on the document on Facebook and 

Twitter and in the newspapers that served local media markets, i.e., The Gambit, and 

Times-Picayune (New Orleans, Louisiana), Lagniappe and Press-Register (Mobile, Alabama), The 

Sun Herald (Gulfport/Biloxi, Mississippi), The Business Journal (Houston, Texas), The Northwest 

Florida Daily News (Fort Walton Beach, Florida; and (5) posted the Draft Programmatic EIS on 

BOEM’s Gulf of Mexico OCS Region’s website at http://www.boem.gov/Gulf-of-Mexico-Geologicaland-Geophysical-Activities-Programmatic-EIS/#Draft. 

All comments received during the public comment period for the Draft Programmatic EIS 

were considered during preparation of this Final Programmatic EIS. Public comments on the Draft 

Programmatic EIS were received via www.regulations.gov, by mail, by email via 

gomggeis@boem.gov, and in oral and written form at the five public meetings conducted by BOEM 

at five locations along the Gulf Coast adjacent to the Area of Interest. The review and response 

process is intended to ensure that improvements are made to the Final Programmatic EIS for its use 

as a decisionmaking document through the inclusion of new or substantive information or to explain 

the rationale for how the evaluation was carried out.

M.1.1 Comment Review and Response Protocol

Regardless of stakeholder type or mode of transmittal, all comments received were reviewed 

in the same manner. Upon receipt by BOEM, each individual comment document (submission) 

submitted during the public comment period was entered into a comment database as a unique 

submission. A document identification number (the “Submission ID”) was assigned to each 

comment document; the documents were consecutively numbered with a Submission ID based on 

the order of submittal/processing. Within each comment document unique comments were then 

consecutively numbered as a suffix to the Submission ID (e.g., 1130-0001 and 1130-0002). If a 

comment was resubmitted by different commenters, and/or if there were multiple signatories, the 

original occurrence of the letter was considered unique, and the others were classified as a duplicate 

form letter. The duplicate form letters were reviewed to determine if they were identical duplicates or 
M-4 Responses to Public Comments

if they contained additional and unique comments. Unique form letters were handled in the same 

manner as the other unique submissions. 

A total of 1,128 unique comment submissions were received during the public comment 

period, including 10 unique form letters. A total of 60,232 duplicate form letters were received; of 

these, 3,574 contained additional comments that were further reviewed to determine if a detailed 

response would be required. Therefore, a total of 4,702 unique comment submissions and

56,658 duplicate form letters were received.

Following review and identification that unique comments were included within the letters, 

each unique comment submission was then reviewed to determine if it contained general and similar 

concerns or if it contained specific comments requiring detailed technical responses and/or changes 

to the Final Programmatic EIS. The 1,128 unique comment letters identified to require either general 

or technical responses were divided into categories (Table M-1), and BOEM developed responses 

to the public comments, modifying text and analyses in the Final Programmatic EIS, as necessary.

M.1.1.1 General Comments

If the comment expressed a general concern that was similar in content to other 

submissions, it was assigned a General Comment Code to categorize the general topic/concern. 

Similar concerns were addressed with an appropriate common response to avoid repeating the 

same response numerous times. A comment code was also assigned to comments that were 

general in nature but did not require a technical or detailed response.

General comment codes and topics are provided in Table M-1. Section 3 summarizes the 

general comments, including those that are unique and those that BOEM grouped together, and it 

provides responses to those concerns.

Table M-1. General Comment Code Categories

Comment Code Comment Code Topic

A. Accidental Fuel Spills

A-1 Accidental fuel spills

B. Alternatives

B-1 Supports Alternative A/Supports seismic exploration as it has always been carried 

out

B-2 Supports Alternatives B through G

B-3 Alternatives presented are too cautionary/Support for lesser restrictions/

Alternative A

B-4 Support for seismic exploration if done responsibly/Based on sound science and 

agency participation

B-5 Seismic exploration is critical for the country’s energy needs/Oil and gas 

development and should therefore not be hindered

B-6 No need for additional exploration/End seismic exploration/Supports a different

alternative
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-5 

Comment Code Comment Code Topic

B-7 Rejects Alternatives B through G

B-8 Supports a different alternative

C. Archaeological Resources

C-1 Archaeological resources

D. Environmental Setting

D-1 Climate change

D-2 Need for appropriate data

E. Natural/Biological Resources

E-1 Potential negative impacts to oceans and marine life

E-2 Potential harm from seismic surveys to marine mammals

E-3 Seismic exploration techniques and impacts to the environment

E-4 Impacts from airgun use

E-5 Chronic negative impacts to marine life

F. Regulatory

F-1 No further regulations needed

F-2 Increased regulations would not increase safety factors for marine life

F-3 Increased regulations would impact the economy negatively

F-4 Comment extension/Public availability

F-5 Agency consultation 

G. Socioeconomic Resources

G-1 Employment

G-2 Seismic exploration is vital for the economy/Benefits the economy

G-3 U.S. energy independence and security

G-4 Impacts on ports

G-5 Impacts on military missions in the Gulf of Mexico

H. Multiple/Other1

1 Submissions categorized as “Multiple/Other” include comments that did not fall under the above subcategories but 

were general in nature and did not require a technical response. These submissions are summarized and 

responded to in Table M-3. Category H also includes concerns that may not have been submitted multiple times 

but which were general in nature.

M.1.1.2 Comments Requiring Detailed Technical Responses

If the comment submission contained specific comments or recommendations requiring 

detailed technical responses and/or changes to this Programmatic EIS, subject-matter experts 

reviewed it and provided a response specifically addressing the comment. Changes, if required, 

were incorporated into this Final Programmatic EIS (refer to Section 4 for the comments requiring 

detailed technical responses).

M.2 REVIEWING COMMENT RESPONSES

Table M-2, the Comment Index, was developed to provide accessibility, a full understanding 

of who provided comments, and how comments received during the public comment period were 

addressed. All commenters are listed under their stakeholder type (i.e., Federal Government, State 

government, local government, industry, non-governmental organization, academia, Tribe, or private 
M-6 Responses to Public Comments

citizen) and are then organized alphabetically by last name. Table M-2 also provides the comment’s 

unique Submission ID and notes if the comment was a duplicate form letter.

To review a response provided for a specific comment, readers should refer to the Comment 

Index and look for the stakeholder type or commenter’s name. The last column of the table provides 

a comment code assigned to each unique comment. Readers can refer to the appropriate table to 

locate a response to their concern; responses to general comments are provided in Table M-3, and 

comments that required a detailed technical response are provided in Tables M-4 through M-21. 

Table M-2. Comment Index

Submission ID Last Name First Name Organization Form Letter Comment Codes

Federal Government

1063 Epperson Deborah

Bureau of Safety 

and Environmental 

Enforcement

No

Refer to Tables M-4

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

1130 Harrison Jolie 

National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric 

Administration

No

Refer to Tables M-4

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

0343 Lent Rebecca Marine Mammal 

Commission No

Refer to Tables M-4

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

1080 Tomiak Robert U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency

No

Refer to Tables M-4 

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

State Government

1072 Grider Galen

Alabama 

Department of 

Conservation and 

Natural Resources

No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code F-5. 

0001 Haydel Don

Louisiana 

Department of 

Natural Resources

No

Refer to Tables M-4 

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

1071 KinseyCarlsen Shana

Florida Department 

of Environmental 

Protection

No

Refer to Tables M-4 

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

0044 McBride Amanda

Alabama Historical 

Commission, State 

Historic Preservation 

Office

No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code F-5. 

Local Government

0680 Russell Stephen

Mobile Area 

Chamber of 

Commerce

No

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code 

H-11.
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-7 

Submission ID Last Name First Name Organization Form Letter Comment Codes

Industry

1055 AustinRamsaran Joy BP Exploration & 

Production Inc. No

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Codes 

B-1, B-3, E-2, F-3, 

H-1.

0998 Bradshaw John IMCA No

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Codes 

B-3, B-1, F-1, H-2.

1093 Chalenski David

Shell International 

Exploration and 

Production Inc.

No

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Codes 

E-2, E-4.

0052 Chiasson Chett Greater Lafourche 

Port Commission No

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Codes 

G-2, E-3, G-4, H-3.

0670 Fayard Cecil Ship to Shore No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code E-2.

1127 Form Multiple Form Multiple N/A

Master of 

462 

duplicates

Refer to Tables M-4

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

0037 Graham Barry Barry Graham Oil 

Service No

Refer to Tables M-4 

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

0676 Greenfield Brent Consumer Energy 

Alliance No

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Codes 

B-1, B-5.

1070 Greenfield Brent Consumer Energy 

Alliance

Master of 

437 

duplicates

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Codes 

B-1, E-2, H-9.

1068 Holt David Consumer Energy 

Alliance No Refer to Table M-3, Comment Code B-1.

0053 LeBlanc Lori Gulf Economic 

Survival Team No Refer to Table M-3, Comment Code B-1.

0614 LeBlanc Lori

Louisiana 

Mid-Continent Oil 

and Gas Association

No

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Codes 

B-1, G-2, E-3.

1073 Orgeron Joseph Montco, Inc.

Yes, with 

additional 

comment

Refer to Tables M-4

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

1069 Perry Ruth Shell Offshore Inc. No

Refer to Tables M-4

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

0051 Rolland Gabriel TGS No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code H-5.

0678 Ross Kim Rethink Energy 

Florida No

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Codes 

D-1, H-10.
M-8 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Last Name First Name Organization Form Letter Comment Codes

0999 Sales Mark Tidewater Inc. No

Refer to Tables M-4

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

0049 Seidel Peter TGS No

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Codes 

B-1, E-2.

0673 Snowman Leo Geokinetics No

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Codes 

A-1, B-1.

1076 Steen Ryan IAGC, API, NOIA, 

OOC No

Refer to Tables M-4

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

1077 Tsoflias Sarah IAGC No

Refer to Tables M-4

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

0038 Veal Stephen ARC Controls No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code F-1.

1088 Wilson Frank Geokinetics No

Refer to Tables M-4

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

Non-governmental Organization

0031 Gutierrez Mary Earth Action, Inc. No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code B-8.

0677 Gutierrez Mary Earth Action No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code B-6.

1074 Jasny Michael NRDC No

Refer to Tables M-4 

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

1001 Knowles Cybele Center for Biological 

Diversity

Master of 

6,541 

duplicates

Refer to Tables M-4 

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

1067 Patriana Zarah Earthjustice

Master of 

40,062 

duplicates

Refer to Tables M-4 

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

1062 Sakashita Miyoko N/A Master of 27 

duplicates

Refer to Tables M-4 

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

0899 Slaughter Scott

Center for 

Regulatory 

Effectiveness

No

Refer to Tables M-4 

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-9 

Submission ID Last Name First Name Organization Form Letter Comment Codes

Academia

1091 Nowacek Douglas Duke University No

Refer to Tables M-4 

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

Tribe

1126 Bilyeu Lindsey Choctaw Nation of 

Oklahoma No Refer to Table M-3, Comment Code C-1.

Private Citizen

0008 Abruzzese Rick N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code B-1.

0674 Akers Carol N/A No

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Codes 

E-2, B-1

0050 Ali Asif N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code B-1.

0040 Anonymous Anonymous N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code E-3.

0055 Anonymous Anonymous N/A No

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Codes 

E-1, E-4.

0002 Anonymous Sandi N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code E-1.

0682 Antalan Jackie Operation Home 

Care No Refer to Table M-3, Comment Code F-4.

0691 Archer John N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code E-2.

0047 Auten Barbara N/A No

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Codes 

A-1, G-2.

0007 Baker-Fox Charmaine Israelite B.C. No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code G-1.

0672 Barron Eliot Gardner Realtors No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code F-4.

0010 Bass Shelia N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code G-1.

0011 Baumbach John N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code G-1.

0012 Beduze Graham CFACT No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code F-3.

0036 Bingert Jack Cummins 

Mid-South, L.L.C. No Refer to Table M-3, Comment Code B-1

1120 Bolen DK N/A Duplicate

Refer to Tables M-4

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

0014 Boyer Brian BT Gap, LLC No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code E-3.
M-10 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Last Name First Name Organization Form Letter Comment Codes

1083 Briley Arlin N/A Duplicate

Refer to Tables M-4

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

0598 Brooks Scott N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code B-5.

0015 Brumfield Brittany N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code G-1.

0045 Calhoon Melidy N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code G-2.

0046 Carnes Billy N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code G-2.

0275 Carrell Richard N/A 

Form letter 

with 

additional 

comment

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code B-1. 

0016 Cotton Lewis N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code G-1.

1105 Cournayer Noreen N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code B-6.

0349 Day Marie N/A No

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Codes 

B-1, G-3.

1109 Engelman Stewart N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code B-1.

1121 Eustis Scott N/A 

Form letter 

with 

additional 

comment

Refer to Tables M-4 

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

0056 Fahey Melanie N/A 

Master of 

963 

duplicates

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Codes 

B-1, B-3, B-5, E-2, 

F-2.

0035 Favre Thomas N/A No

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Codes 

G-1, G-3.

1108 Form Multiple Form Multiple N/A 

Master of 

723 

duplicates

Refer to Tables M-4 

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

1116 Form Multiple Form Multiple N/A 

Master of 

1,178 

duplicates

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Codes 

B-6, E-1 E-5. 

1128 Form Multiple Form Multiple N/A

Master of 

907 

duplicates

Refer to Tables M-4 

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

1129 Form Multiple Form Multiple N/A

Master of 

5,358 

duplicates

Refer to Tables M-4 

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-11

Submission ID Last Name First Name Organization Form Letter Comment Codes

0032 Fornell Gordon N/A No

Refer to Tables M-4 

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

0473 Fosdick Jason N/A 

Form letter 

with 

additional 

comment

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code D-2. 

0613 Gandy Murry Defense Support 

Initiatives No Refer to Table M-3, Comment Code H-4.

0668 Hackney Robin N/A No

Refer to Tables M-4 

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

0612 Heald James N/A No

Refer to Tables M-4 

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

0043 Heffron Joshua N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code E-4.

0017 Herbert Jason TPF No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code F-3.

0018 Hetrick Teresa N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code F-3.

0019 Hobbs Scott N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code H-6.

0006 Hudiburg Peter N/A No

Refer to Tables M-4 

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

0973 Jones Jack N/A 

Form letter 

with 

additional 

comment

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code G-2. 

0020 Keefe Patrick N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code B-1.

0487 Klug Chris N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code B-2.

1075 Landry Christopher N/A No

Refer to Tables M-4 

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

1064 Lish Christopher N/A No

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Codes 

B-6, E-1, E-5, H-7.

1110 Lowrey Shane N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code H-8.

0005 Mabry Kate N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code E-1.
M-12 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Last Name First Name Organization Form Letter Comment Codes

0042 Mathis Pheobe N/A No

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Codes 

G-2, G-3.

0592 Meeks Kurt N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code G-5.

0021 Melancon Mike Offshore Technical 

Compliance, LLC No

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Codes 

E-3, G-2.

0022 Melillo Allan New Orleans 

Geological Society No

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Codes 

F-2, G-2, G-3.

0023 Meyers De'Cartia N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code G-1.

0048 Morris John N/A No

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Codes 

B-4, G-2.

0024 Name No N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code F-3.

0602 Op de 

Weegh Kelly N/A 

Form letter 

with 

additional 

comment

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code B-4. 

0675 Orange Dan N/A No

Refer to Tables M-4 

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

0882 Orange Daniel N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code B-1.

0033 Prater Mitzi N/A No

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Codes 

E-3, G-2, G-3.

0030 Rasmussen Kay 

Economic 

Development 

Council

No

Refer to Tables M-4 

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

0025 Reinhard Greg N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code F-1.

1066 Roberts Jason N/A No

Refer to Tables M-4

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

0671 Rushing Randall N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code B-1.

0026 Ryder Korey N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code G-2.

1113 Schmalz Steve & 

Robyn N/A 

Form letter

with 

additional 

comments

Refer to Tables M-4 

to M-21 for detailed 

technical responses.
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-13

Submission ID Last Name First Name Organization Form Letter Comment Codes

0027 Schneider Paul Primerica No

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Codes 

F-1, G-2.

0028 Settoon Deborah Energynation No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code B-1.

0029 Shamp Joseph CFACT No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code F-3.

0336 Sheddrick Da N/A 

Form letter 

with 

additional 

comment

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code B-1. 

0233 Sheen Mark N/A 

Form letter 

with 

additional 

comment

Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code B-7. 

1111 Sherfick Debbie N/A 

Form letter 

with 

additional 

comment

Refer to Tables M-4 

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

0681 Spriggs Kevin Spriggs Enterprise No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code F-4.

1095 Steitz Jim N/A No

Refer to Tables M-4 

through M-21 for 

detailed technical 

responses.

0693 Stieglitz Ted N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code B-4.

0440 Sullivan David N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code E-4.

1123 Taylor Ben N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code B-4.

0701 Thomson James N/A No Refer to Table M-3, 

Comment Code B-1.

N/A = not applicable.

M.3 COMMENT SUMMARY AND RESPONSES

Each unique general comment was reviewed, summarized, and grouped with similar 

concerns (Table M-1). A summary of the comments and a concise response to each general 

concern is provided in Table M-3. Table M-3 also includes responses to concerns that may not 

have been submitted multiple times but were general in nature and did not require a technical 

response.
M-14 Responses to Public Comments

Table M-3. General Comment Summary and Responses

Comment Code Comment Code 

Name Comment Summary Response

Accidental Fuel Spills

A-1 Accidental Fuel 

Spills

The Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management (BOEM) received 

comments noting the oil and gas 

industry's safety record and 

sensitivity to the environment in 

which they operate, despite the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Thank you for your comments. BOEM is committed to managing 

the development of U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) energy 

and mineral resources in an environmentally and economically 

responsible way. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement (BSEE) works to promote safety, protect the 

environment, and conserve resources offshore through vigorous 

regulatory oversight and enforcement; nevertheless, some 

accidental spills are reasonably foreseeable and therefore 

analyzed in this Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) in Chapter 4 under each resource. Reasonably 

foreseeable accidental spills and adverse effects also are 

analyzed in the Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 

2017-2022; Gulf of Mexico Lease Sales 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 

254, 256, 257, 259, and 261—Final Multisale Environmental 

Impact Statement (2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS), which is 

hereby incorporated by reference (USDOI, BOEM, 2017a). 

Large-scale catastrophic oil spills are not considered reasonably 

foreseeable and therefore are not considered in this 

Programmatic EIS. An analysis of a large-scale catastrophic oil 

spill can be found in the Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis white 

paper (USDOI, BOEM, 2017b).

Alternatives

B-1 Supports 

Alternative A/

Supports seismic 

exploration as it 

has always been 

carried out

BOEM received comments 

expressing overall support for 

geological and geophysical (G&G) 

surveys in the Gulf of Mexico 

(GOM); these comments were 

presented as a vote. Support for 

the proposed action was generally 

associated with support for oil and 

gas production.

Thank you for your comment. This Programmatic EIS is not the 

decision document under the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). The decision of which alternative would be 

implemented will be provided in the Record of Decision (ROD)

following publication of this Final Programmatic EIS. This

Programmatic EIS describes and evaluates potential 

environmental impacts related to reasonably foreseeable G&G 

survey activities in the Area of Interest (AOI) for BOEM’s three 

Program Areas: Oil and Gas; Renewable Energy; and Marine 

Minerals. The scope of this Programmatic EIS does not include 

a NEPA analysis for oil and gas leasing in the AOI and does not 

authorize an OCS lease sale. The procedures under the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) to set up a lease sale 
Table M-3. General Comment Summary and Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-15

Comment Code Comment Code 

Name Comment Summary Response

include a specific NEPA evaluation for the proposed action.

B-2 Supports 

Alternatives B 

through G

BOEM received comments 

expressing support for Alternatives 

B through G, citing a need for 

additional regulations and 

safeguards in order to conduct 

G&G surveys safely and 

responsibly.

Thank you for your comment. This Programmatic EIS is not the 

decision document under NEPA. Alternative selection will be 

provided in the ROD following publication of this Final 

Programmatic EIS. Potential impacts to resources from the 

implementation of Alternatives A through G are analyzed in 

Chapter 4. All of this information will be considered by the 

decisionmaker in determining which alternative is selected in the 

ROD.

B-3 Alternatives 

presented are too 

cautionary/

Support for lesser 

restrictions/

Alternative A

BOEM received several comments 

in support of Alternative A, stating 

that the other alternatives 

presented in the Draft 

Programmatic EIS are too 

cautionary. Commenters stated 

that Alternatives E through G, in 

particular, should be eliminated 

because evidence and best 

available data show seismic 

surveying has little to no impact on 

marine life.

Thank you for your comment. In accordance with the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR part 1502) and U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI

or DOI) implementing procedures for NEPA (43 CFR part 46), a 

range of alternatives must be rigorously explored and objectively 

evaluated, and a decisionmaker must not consider alternatives 

beyond the range of alternatives evaluated in this Programmatic 

EIS but must consider all of the alternatives evaluated in this

Programmatic EIS.

BOEM has determined that a reasonable range of alternatives 

includes conditions prior to (Alternative A) and including the 

Settlement Agreement (Alternative B) since on February 10, 

2016, the parties formally agreed to extend the stay until final 

action by the agencies or September 25, 2017, whichever occurs 

first. Thus, the conditions of the Settlement Agreement currently 

are being implemented in the GOM and are evaluated in this

Programmatic EIS. Inclusion of the Settlement Agreement’s

conditions will enable decisionmakers to compare the magnitude 

of the environmental effects of the action alternatives.

Alternatives C through F contain mitigation measures designed 

to minimize disturbance and potential auditory injuries to marine 

mammals (and sea turtles) during seismic surveys, and they 

contain elements that are continually evolving but represent 

current standards. Moreover, through the Monitoring Plan 

(Chapter 1.2.3.4), BOEM will consider future data on the efficacy 

of mitigation measures to adjust mitigation requirements for 
Table M-3. General Comment Summary and Responses (continued)

M-16 Responses to Public Comments

Comment Code Comment Code 

Name Comment Summary Response

individual surveys based on the best available information at that 

time.

Regarding Alternative G, CEQ regulation 40 CFR § 1502.14(d) 

specifies that NEPA analyses require the alternatives analysis in 

an EIS to "include the alternative of no action."

Finally, this Programmatic EIS is not the decision document 

under NEPA. The decision of which alternative would be 

implemented will be provided in the ROD following publication of 

this Final Programmatic EIS. Potential impacts to resources 

from the implementation of Alternatives A through G are 

analyzed in Chapter 4. The analyses were developed using the 

best available data by the subject-matter experts, All of this 

information will be considered by the decisionmaker in 

determining which alternative is selected in the ROD.

B-4 Support for seismic 

exploration if done 

responsibly/Based 

on sound science 

and agency 

participation 

BOEM received several comments 

in support of seismic exploration if 

done in a responsible manner, with 

appropriate oversight/regulations to 

protect marine life. Commenters 

also supported an alternative 

based on solid science and agency 

participation. Specifically, 

commenters noted the need to 

continue seismic exploration 

across industries, agencies, and 

interested parties to enhance 

understanding, to better guide 

surveys, and to make prudent 

energy decisions. Commenters 

also stated that solid science must 

guide the selection of an 

alternative, and science does not 

show that seismic surveys harm 

marine life.

Thank you for your comment. This Programmatic EIS is not the 

decision document under NEPA. The decision of which 

alternative would be implemented will be provided in the ROD

following publication of this Final Programmatic EIS. Each 

alternative presented in this Programmatic EIS includes 

implementation of standard mitigation measures, monitoring, 

reporting, survey protocols, and guidance designed to minimize 

environmental impacts. Potential impacts to resources from the 

implementation of Alternatives A through G are analyzed in 

Chapter 4. The analyses were developed using the best 

available data by the subject-matter experts. All of this 

information will be considered by the decisionmaker in 

determining which alternative is selected in the ROD. 
Table M-3. General Comment Summary and Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-17

Comment Code Comment Code 

Name Comment Summary Response

B-5 Seismic exploration 

is critical for the 

country’s energy 

needs/Oil and gas 

development and 

therefore should 

not be hindered

BOEM received several comments 

stating that seismic exploration is 

critical to the country's energy 

needs and oil/gas development. 

Commenters stated that seismic 

exploration is key to understanding 

our resources; developing the oil 

and gas industry; and supporting 

renewable resources, sand, and 

gravel.

This Programmatic EIS was developed to analyze the potential 

impacts of G&G activities associated with BOEM’s three 

Program Areas (i.e., Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and 

Marine Minerals) within the AOI. This Programmatic EIS does 

not address topics beyond the stated proposed action, purpose 

and need, and alternatives (Chapters 1.1 and 2), such as the 

Nation’s broader energy policy. The potential beneficial and 

adverse impacts to resources from Alternatives A through G are 

analyzed in Chapter 4. These analyses were developed by the 

subject-matter experts using the best available data. All of this 

information will be considered by the decisionmaker in 

determining which alternative is selected in the ROD.

B-6 No need for 

additional 

exploration/End 

seismic exploration/

Supports a different 

alternative

BOEM received several comments 

opposing what the commenters 

referred to as ”seismic blasting”, 

specifically requesting an 

alternative that limits surveys to 

only what is necessary to support 

development of existing leases and 

offshore renewable resources; 

includes area closures to protect 

marine mammals, closure of the 

Eastern Planning Area (EPA), 

overall reduction in seismic 

surveys, and requirements for 

industry to achieve noise reduction 

targets. Commenters also stated 

that existing leases will provide oil 

and gas for up to 70 years. 

Commenters urged BOEM to 

restrict oil and gas leases in 

Federal waters.

Thank you for your comment. This Programmatic EIS is not the 

decision document under NEPA. The decision of which 

alternative would be implemented will be provided in the ROD

following publication of this Final Programmatic EIS. BOEM 

developed a reasonable range of proposed alternatives, 

including a suite of proposed mitigations to analyze the potential 

impacts from G&G activities associated with BOEM’s three 

Program Areas (i.e., Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and 

Marine Minerals) within the AOI. BOEM developed the proposed 

mitigations and alternatives in close coordination with the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) using the best 

available data by the subject-matter experts. All of this 

information will be considered by the decisionmaker in 

determining which alternative is selected in the ROD. 

This Programmatic EIS does not address topics beyond the 

stated proposed action, purpose and need, and alternatives 

(Chapters 1.1 and 2), such as the Nation’s broader energy 

policy. The scope of this Programmatic EIS does not include a 

NEPA analysis for oil and gas leasing in the AOI and does not 

authorize an OCS lease sale. The procedures under the OCSLA 

to set up a lease sale include a specific NEPA evaluation for the 

proposed action. The Nation’s energy policy is determined at the 

national level and is analyzed in the 2017-2022 Outer 

Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing: Proposed Final Program 
Table M-3. General Comment Summary and Responses (continued)

M-18 Responses to Public Comments

Comment Code Comment Code 

Name Comment Summary Response

(Five-Year Program) and the associated Five-Year Program EIS 

(USDOI, BOEM, 2017).

B-7 Rejects 

Alternatives B 

through G

BOEM received a comment 

opposing Alternatives B through G, 

citing a lack of scientific data to 

support them.

Thank you for your comment. This Programmatic EIS is not the 

decision document under NEPA. The decision of which 

alternative would be implemented will be provided in the ROD

following publication of this Final Programmatic EIS. BOEM 

developed a reasonable range of proposed alternatives, 

including a suite of proposed mitigations to analyze the potential 

impacts from G&G activities associated with BOEM’s three 

Program Areas (i.e., Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and 

Marine Minerals) within the AOI. BOEM’s subject-matter experts

developed the proposed mitigations and alternatives in close 

coordination with NMFS, using the best available data. 

Chapter 2 outlines the alternatives and mitigation measures to 

the proposed action. All of this information will be considered by 

the decisionmaker in determining which alternative is selected in 

the ROD.

B-8 Supports a different 

alternative

BOEM received a comment in 

support of Alternative G, stating 

current leases will produce enough 

oil for up to 70 years, and 

additional surveys are not needed.

Thank you for your comment. This Programmatic EIS is not the 

decision document under NEPA. The decision of which 

alternative would be implemented will be provided in the ROD

following publication of this Final Programmatic EIS. This

Programmatic EIS was developed to analyze the potential 

impacts from G&G activities associated with BOEM’s three 

Program Areas (i.e., Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and 

Marine Minerals) within the AOI. 

This Programmatic EIS does not address topics beyond the 

stated proposed action, purpose and need, and alternatives 

(Chapters 1.1 and 2) such as the Nation’s broader energy 

policy. The scope of this Programmatic EIS does not include a 

NEPA analysis for oil and gas leasing in the AOI and does not 

authorize an OCS lease sale. The procedures under the OCSLA 

to set up a lease sale include a specific NEPA evaluation for the 

proposed action. The Nation’s energy policy is determined at the 

national level and is analyzed in the Five-Year Program and 

Five-Year Program EIS.
Table M-3. General Comment Summary and Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-19

Comment Code Comment Code 

Name Comment Summary Response

Archaeological Resources

C-1 Archaeological 

resources

BOEM received a comment 

requesting work be stopped 

immediately and that the Choctaw 

Nation of Oklahoma be contacted if 

artifacts or human remains are 

encountered.

Thank you for your comment. The potential effects of each 

alternative on archaeological resources are analyzed in 

Chapter 4.11. If archeological resources or human remains are 

encountered, BOEM will adhere to the applicable rules and 

regulations of the National Historic Preservation Act, 30 CFR § 

250.194(c), 30 CFR § 250.1010(c), 30 CFR § 250.194(c), 

30 CFR § 250.1010(c), and the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act, as appropriate.

Environmental Setting

D-1 Climate change BOEM received a few comments 

stating climate change was not 

addressed in the Draft 

Programmatic EIS.

Thank you for your comment. This Programmatic EIS describes 

and evaluates potential environmental impacts related to 

reasonably foreseeable G&G survey activities in the AOI for 

BOEM’s three Program Areas (i.e., Oil and Gas, Renewable 

Energy, and Marine Minerals). However, many comments noted 

that downstream emissions from oil and gas leasing on the OCS 

should be included in this Programmatic EIS. Oil and gas 

leasing in the AOI is not part of the proposed action, and this 

NEPA document does not analyze or authorize an OCS lease 

sale. Oil and gas leasing activities and the impacts that may 

result from them are outside of the scope of this Programmatic 

EIS. This Programmatic EIS is limited in scope to the stated 

proposed action, purpose and need (Chapter 1.1.2), and

reasonable range of alternatives (Chapter 2). Nevertheless, as 

part of its mission, BOEM does consider these activities and 

issues in other NEPA documents. BOEM directs these 

commenters to the Five-Year Program and Five-Year Program 

EIS. As part of that analysis, BOEM considers the effects of 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Chapter 3.3 of the Five-Year 

Program EIS considers climate change and the baseline 

environment in the areas proposed for oil and gas leasing. In 

addition, the GOM lease sale-stage NEPA analyses will further 

specify impacts of GHG emissions related to a single proposed 

lease sale (e.g., the 2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS).

D-2 Need for 

appropriate data

BOEM received a comment noting 

that seismic data are needed and 

Thank you for your comment. BOEM recognizes the benefits of 

and need for G&G activities (as described in Chapter 1.1.2). 
Table M-3. General Comment Summary and Responses (continued)

M-20 Responses to Public Comments

Comment Code Comment Code 

Name Comment Summary Response

that a lack of appropriate data 

could lead to incidents that may 

harm the environment.

Information obtained and developed as a result of G&G activities 

are used to make informed business, management, design, 

stewardship, and environmental protection decisions for BOEM’s 

three Program Areas (i.e., Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and 

Marine Minerals). Additionally, the information presented in the 

comment was considered by BOEM in determining the Preferred 

Alternative.

Natural/Biological Resources

E-1 Seismic exploration 

negatively impacts 

oceans and marine 

life

BOEM received numerous 

comments stating seismic 

exploration harms marine life. 

Commenters specifically stated the 

following: research shows the oil 

and gas industry, including seismic 

blasting and associated noise, 

adversely affects the health of 

oceans, including habitats, wildlife, 

and endangered marine mammals. 

Commenters were generally 

opposed to seismic exploration.

Thank you for your comment. This Programmatic EIS is not the 

decision document under NEPA. The decision of which 

alternative would be implemented will be provided in the ROD

following publication of this Final Programmatic EIS. BOEM's 

subject-matter experts developed the proposed mitigations and 

alternatives in close coordination with NMFS using the best 

available data. Chapter 2 outlines the alternatives and 

mitigation measures to the proposed action. All of this 

information will be considered by the decisionmaker in 

determining which alternative is selected in the ROD. 

BOEM and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) are working together to meet statutory obligations (e.g., 

NEPA, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and Endangered Species 

Act) to manage G&G activities and their potential impacts to 

marine resources, including marine mammals, in the GOM.

E-2 Science shows no 

evidence that 

seismic surveys 

harm marine 

mammals

BOEM received several comments 

stating that science and years of 

industry experience show no 

evidence that seismic surveys, 

including associated sound 

produced, harm marine mammals, 

impact commercial fishing, or affect 

coastal communities. Comments 

further state that seismic surveys 

are safe and compatible with GOM 

uses and that the proposed 

restrictions in the Draft 

Thank you for your comment. The potential beneficial and 

adverse impacts resulting from the proposed action are analyzed 

in detail throughout Chapter 4; specifically, marine mammals are 

addressed in Chapter 4.2; commercial fishing is addressed in 

Chapter 4.9; coastal communities are addressed in Chapters 

4.4, 4.5, and 4.8; and economic factors are addressed in 

Chapter 4.13.9. According to this Programmatic EIS, potential 

impacts range from nominal to moderate in these resource 

areas.

BOEM prepared this Programmatic EIS using the best available 

data and included reasonable assumptions to estimate potential 
Table M-3. General Comment Summary and Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-21

Comment Code Comment Code 

Name Comment Summary Response

Programmatic EIS would directly 

impact the ability to explore GOM 

energy resources without any 

overall benefits. Commenters 

generally expressed support for 

seismic exploration.

impacts.

All of this information will be considered by the decisionmaker in 

determining which alternative is selected in the ROD. 

E-3 Experience shows 

current seismic 

exploration is done 

in an 

environmentally 

responsible way

BOEM received several comments 

citing that years of industry 

experience proves seismic 

exploration is done in an 

environmentally responsible 

manner. Commenters support oil 

and gas exploration in the GOM 

and state that seismic exploration 

methods have not been 

demonstrated to harm or result in 

long-term impacts to marine life. 

Commenters also stated that

seismic exploration has occurred 

without negative impacts to marine 

life, commercial fishing, and 

seafood production.

Thank you for your comment. The potential beneficial and 

adverse impacts resulting from the proposed action are analyzed 

in detail throughout Chapter 4; specifically, marine mammals are 

addressed in Chapter 4.2; commercial fishing is addressed in 

Chapter 4.9; coastal communities are addressed in Chapters 

4.4, 4.5, and 4.8; and economic factors are addressed in 

Chapter 4.13.9. According to this Programmatic EIS, potential 

impacts range from nominal to moderate in these resource 

areas.

BOEM prepared this Programmatic EIS using the best available 

data and included reasonable assumptions to estimate potential 

impacts.

All of this information will be considered by the decisionmaker in 

determining which alternative is selected in the ROD.

E-4 Impacts from 

airgun use

BOEM received several comments 

stating that airgun use disrupts vital 

behavior in marine mammals 

(comments cite 37 species in the 

GOM) in areas larger than 

100,000 square nautical miles

(132,429 square miles). 

Commenters stated that the sound 

produced from airguns can impact 

marine life thousands of miles from 

the source, negatively affecting the 

ability to find prey, navigate, 

reproduce, and communicate.

Thank you for your comment. BOEM’s subject-matter experts, in 

close coordination with NMFS’ subject-matter experts, note 

21 species of marine mammals likely to occur within the AOI 

(refer to Table 4.2-1 and Appendix E). As stated in 

Chapter 4.2, BOEM's analysis concludes that effects of G&G 

deep-penetration airgun seismic survey activity noise would be 

moderate because the potential impacts on marine mammals 

could be extensive but are not expected to be severe or lethal. 

Additional details can be found in Chapter 4.2. 
Table M-3. General Comment Summary and Responses (continued)

M-22 Responses to Public Comments

Comment Code Comment Code 

Name Comment Summary Response

E-5 Chronic negative 

impacts to marine 

life

BOEM received a comment 

regarding the chronic negative 

effects of seismic exploration on 

marine life. The commenter cited 

inadequate regulations, violation of 

environmental law, the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill, and seismic 

blasting as negatively impacting 

marine life cumulatively, over time.

Thank you for your comment. Chapter 4.2.2.1.2 and 

Appendix K discuss the chronic and cumulative effects of noise 

produced by seismic activities in the GOM.

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.2.1.2, modeling results included in 

Appendix K indicate significant losses in the listening area and 

communication space from G&G survey activities. BOEM, in 

coordination with NMFS, presents the best available data at this 

time regarding chronic noise and potential exposure and effects 

to marine mammals. The science on chronic noise in the ocean 

will continue to progress and be used as appropriate when 

available. BOEM acknowledges that there is incomplete or

unavailable information regarding chronic noise and potential 

effects to marine mammals, discussing what is used in lieu of 

having more detailed information in Chapter 4.2.2.1.2. 

Regarding the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, BOEM considered the 

potential changes to the environmental baseline conditions of the 

physical, biological, and economic resources resulting from the 

oil spill.

Regulatory

F-1 No further 

regulations needed

BOEM received several comments 

opposing further regulations on 

seismic exploration, stating that 

G&G surveys already are carried 

out in a safe manner, minimizing 

environmental impacts. 

Commenters also stated the lack of 

facts and proven negative impacts 

of G&G surveys negate the need 

for further restrictions.

Thank you for your comment. The potential beneficial and 

adverse impacts resulting from the proposed action are analyzed 

in detail throughout Chapter 4; specifically, marine mammals are 

addressed in Chapter 4.2; commercial fishing is addressed in 

Chapter 4.9; coastal communities are addressed in Chapters 

4.4, 4.5, and 4.8; and economic factors are addressed in 

Chapter 4.13.9. According to this Programmatic EIS, potential 

impacts range from nominal to moderate in these resource 

areas.

BOEM prepared this Programmatic EIS using the best available 

data and included reasonable assumptions to estimate potential 

impacts.

All of this information will be considered by the decisionmaker in 
Table M-3. General Comment Summary and Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-23

Comment Code Comment Code 

Name Comment Summary Response

determining which alternative is selected in the ROD.

F-2 Increased

regulations would 

not increase safety 

factors for marine 

life

BOEM received a comment stating 

that additional restrictions on 

seismic exploration would not 

materially increase the safety 

factors for marine mammals but 

would make exploration more 

difficult and costly.

Thank you for your comment. Alternatives B through F include 

continued G&G activities with a suite of proposed mitigation 

measures. Each alternative includes additional mitigation 

measures that afford protection to specific marine species. 

Table 2.13-2 illustrates the species afforded protection under 

each alternative. In addition, Alternative E would require a 

reduction in activity. Alternative F would result in reduced 

impacts to marine mammals from seismic sound, reducing the

potential impacts of deep-penetration airgun survey noise from 

moderate to minor. Additional detail is included in Chapter 4.2. 

All of this information will be considered by the decisionmaker in 

determining which alternative is selected in the ROD.

F-3 Increased 

regulations would 

negatively impact 

the economy 

BOEM received several comments 

opposing increased regulations, 

citing negative impacts to the 

economy. Specifically, 

commenters state that increased 

regulations would hinder oil and 

gas production, decrease the 

number of jobs and job growth, 

increase energy costs, impact our 

ability to identify new oil and gas 

resources essential for the country, 

and threaten the economic and 

operational feasibility of the oil and 

gas industry in the GOM.

Thank you for your comment. BOEM has considered beneficial 

and adverse potential effects associated with each alternative. 

Chapter 4 analyzes each alternative's potential effects on 

environmental and human resources. Chapter 4.13 specifically 

focuses on human resources, including land use and economic 

factors.

F-4 Comment 

extension/Public 

availability

BOEM received several comments 

related to public outreach, public 

participation, and the public 

comment period. One commenter 

expressed appreciation for public 

outreach efforts undertaken by 

BOEM. Another commenter 

expressed concern over the limited 

time that was provided to the public 

to review and comment on the 

Thank you for your comment. As stated in the Notice of 

Availability (NOA) for this Programmatic EIS, which was

published on September 30, 2016, the comment period was to 

be 45 days with an automatic 15-day extension, and no further 

extensions would be granted. The extended 60-day comment 

period was from September 30 to November 29, 2016. The Draft 

Programmatic EIS was publicly available on BOEM’s Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region’s Internet website at http://www.boem.gov/

Gulf-of-Mexico-Geological-and-Geophysical-ActivitiesProgrammatic-EIS/#Draft. Compact discs containing this
Table M-3. General Comment Summary and Responses (continued)

M-24 Responses to Public Comments

Comment Code Comment Code 

Name Comment Summary Response

Draft Programmatic EIS, as well as 

the availability of supplemental 

documents/information pertaining 

to the Draft Programmatic EIS; 

requested a comment extension 

period of 90 days; and requested

publicly available supplemental 

documents/information at public 

meeting locations.

Programmatic EIS were mailed to BOEM’s mailing lists. Paper

copies were mailed out upon request. The length of the 

comment period was consistent with CEQ’s guidelines 

implementing NEPA (40 CFR § 1501.7). In addition, BOEM 

conducted public meetings in each of the Gulf Coast States. The 

meetings were advertised in local magazines and newspapers, 

and were 4-hour open house format meetings that spanned work 

and evening hours to accommodate various schedules and to 

ensure that attendees could take full advantage of the meeting 

material and availability of the subject-matter experts.

BOEM believes that the information provided in the Draft 

Programmatic EIS was sufficient under NEPA to allow interested 

stakeholders to provide informed comments on the analysis and 

conclusions.

F-5 Agency 

consultation

Several commenters requested

that BOEM correspond with the 

Alabama State Historic 

Preservation Office, Alabama 

Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources, and other 

affected/applicable Alabama State 

agencies throughout the 

Programmatic EIS process.

Thank you for your comment. BOEM performed public outreach 

and consultation with stakeholders throughout the development 

of this Programmatic EIS. BOEM will comply with all application 

rules and regulations pertaining to activities covered in this

Programmatic EIS and will have additional consultations during 

site-specific evaluations, as needed. 

Socioeconomic Resources

G-1 Employment BOEM received several comments

in general support of the oil and 

gas industry, noting that it brings 

much needed employment to the 

region.

Thank you for your comment. BOEM addressed the potential 

adverse and beneficial impacts on employment within the 

economic factors analysis in Chapter 4.13. 

G-2 Seismic exploration 

is vital and 

beneficial to the 

economy

BOEM received several comments 

stating that seismic exploration is 

vital for the economy. Specifically, 

commenters state that seismic 

exploration and production 

provides thousands of jobs, 

Thank you for your comment. BOEM addressed the potential 

adverse and beneficial effects within the economic factors 

analysis in Chapter 4.13. 
Table M-3. General Comment Summary and Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-25

Comment Code Comment Code 

Name Comment Summary Response

creates economic opportunity, 

increases revenue and the local 

tax base, reduces foreign 

dependence, and reduces the cost 

of energy. Some commenters also 

pointed out how the oil and gas 

industry supports a vibrant 

economy in combination with other 

uses of the GOM, including 

commercial fishing, hunting, and 

recreation.

G-3 U.S. energy 

independence and 

security 

BOEM received several comments 

stating seismic exploration in the 

GOM is vital for U.S. energy 

independence as well as national 

and economic security.

Thank you for your comment. This Programmatic EIS was 

developed to analyze the potential impacts from G&G activities 

associated with BOEM’s three Program Areas (i.e., Oil and Gas, 

Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals) within the AOI.

This Programmatic EIS does not address topics beyond the 

stated proposed action, purpose and need, and alternatives 

(Chapters 1.1 and 2), such as the Nation’s broader energy 

policy. The Nation’s energy policy is determined at the national 

level and was analyzed in the Five-Year Program and Five-Year 

Program EIS.

G-4 Impacts on ports BOEM received one comment 

stating that the Nation’s coastal 

ports and port channel deepening 

projects across the GOM will rely 

on G&G surveys to advance ports 

and port projects, thereby affecting 

a multitude of industries, not just oil 

and gas.

Thank you for your comment. BOEM conducted a robust 

cumulative effects analysis, including the potential effects on 

deepwater ports. Deepwater ports are discussed in Chapter 

3.4.3.1 and Appendix E, Section 12.6. Additionally, impacts on 

ports and port facilities resulting from the proposed action are 

evaluated in Chapter 4.13. 

G-5 Impacts on military 

missions in the 

GOM

BOEM received one comment 

supporting seismic exploration as 

long as the environment and 

military testing/training in the GOM 

are protected. The commenter 

stated that seismic exploration 

must be coordinated in advance 

Thank you for your comment. BOEM will continue to require 

military coordination within specific areas. Chapter 3.4.3.6 and 

Appendix E, Section 12.2 discuss military areas and other 

military uses.
Table M-3. General Comment Summary and Responses (continued)

M-26 Responses to Public Comments

Comment Code Comment Code 

Name Comment Summary Response

with the Gulf Military Test Range to 

protect the missions of BOEM and 

the military.

Multiple/Other

H-1 Subcategories 

were not assigned 

to general 

comments 

categorized as 

multiple. 

BOEM received one comment 

supporting comments submitted by 

the International Association of 

Geophysical Contractors (IAGC), 

American Petroleum Institute (API), 

National Ocean Industries 

Association (NOIA), and Offshore 

Operators Committee (OOC).

Thank you for your comment. Refer to the technical responses 

in Tables M-3 through M-18. 

H-2 Subcategories 

were not assigned 

to general 

comments 

categorized as 

multiple.

BOEM received one comment 

supporting survey activity, stating 

that the OCS is capable of 

supporting survey activity, as well 

as fishing, tourism, and the marine 

ecosystem.

Thank you for your comment. BOEM conducted a robust effects 

analysis that considered resources (e.g., marine mammals, 

fisheries, fish habitat, recreational fishing, tourism, and 

economics) within the AOI. Chapter 4 presents the effects 

analysis and conclusions for all of the resources considered.

H-3 Subcategories 

were not assigned 

to general 

comments 

categorized as 

multiple. 

BOEM received one comment 

supporting seismic exploration 

stating that continued surveying 

provides the Nation with economic 

and environmental sustainability 

benefits. 

Thank you for your comment. Chapter 4.13 provides an 

analysis of the potential impacts to human resources, including 

economic factors and land use. This Programmatic EIS does not 

address topics beyond the stated proposed action, purpose and 

need, and alternatives (Chapters 1.1 and 2) such as the 

Nation’s broader energy policy. The Nation’s energy policy is 

determined at the national level and is analyzed in the Five-Year 

Program and Five-Year Program EIS.

H-4 Subcategories 

were not assigned 

to general 

comments 

categorized as 

multiple. 

BOEM received one comment 

supporting seismic exploration 

when carried out in an 

environmentally responsible way 

that protects the environment, 

fishing, tourism, and military 

training in the GOM.

Thank you for your comment. BOEM analyzed a suite of 

proposed mitigation measures to reduce the effects of proposed 

G&G activities. Chapter 2 describes the proposed alternatives 

and mitigation measures in detail. Potential impacts to resources 

from proposed G&G activities are analyzed in Chapter 4. 

Additionally, Chapter 3.4.3.6 and Appendix E, Section 12.2

discuss military areas and other military uses. BOEM will 

continue to require military coordination within specific areas.
Table M-3. General Comment Summary and Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-27

Comment Code Comment Code 

Name Comment Summary Response

H-5 Subcategories 

were not assigned 

to general 

comments 

categorized as 

multiple. 

BOEM received comments 

supporting seismic exploration 

stating that not only does 

exploration help us understand the 

extent and location of our offshore 

resources but exploration is also 

critical to meeting the energy 

needs throughout the country.

Thank you for your comment. This Programmatic EIS was 

developed to analyze the potential beneficial and adverse 

impacts that could result from G&G activities within the AOI. The 

G&G activities are associated with BOEM’s three Program Areas 

(i.e., Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals). 

Chapter 4 presents the potential effects analysis and 

conclusions for all of the resources considered.

This Programmatic EIS does not address topics beyond the 

stated proposed action, purpose and need, and alternatives 

(Chapters 1.1 and 2), such as the Nation’s broader energy 

policy. The Nation’s energy policy is determined at the national 

level and is analyzed in the Five-Year Program and Five-Year 

Program EIS.

H-6 Subcategories 

were not assigned 

to general 

comments 

categorized as 

multiple. 

BOEM received one comment 

stating that constant public 

education regarding seismic 

exploration is needed to ensure 

that the environment is protected.

Thank you for your comment. Educational opportunities were 

provided by BOEM staff members who were available at the 

public meetings. In addition, public information and educational 

material relating to this Programmatic EIS are available on 

BOEM’s website at https://www.boem.gov/Gulf-of-MexicoGeological-and-Geophysical-Activities-Programmatic-EIS/#Draft. 

As this Programmatic EIS is finalized, the website will be 

updated with additional information.

H-7 Subcategories 

were not assigned 

to general 

comments 

categorized as 

multiple. 

BOEM received a comment 

opposing seismic exploration as 

exploration harms marine wildlife. 

The commenter stated that there is 

no need for additional exploration 

as the country's demand for fossil 

fuel decreases and climate change 

already negatively impacts oceans.

Thank you for your comment. This Programmatic EIS was 

developed to analyze the potential beneficial and adverse 

impacts that could result from G&G activities within the AOI. The 

G&G activities are associated with BOEM’s three Program Areas 

(i.e., Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals). 

Chapter 4 presents the effects analyses and conclusions for all 

of the resources considered.

This Programmatic EIS does not address topics beyond the 

stated proposed action, purpose and need, and alternatives 

(Chapters 1.1 and 2), such as the Nation’s broader energy 

policy. The Nation’s energy policy is determined at the national 

level and is analyzed in the Five-Year Program and Five-Year 

Program EIS.
Table M-3. General Comment Summary and Responses (continued)

M-28 Responses to Public Comments

Comment Code Comment Code 

Name Comment Summary Response

H-8 Subcategories 

were not assigned 

to general 

comments 

categorized as 

multiple. 

BOEM received a comment 

opposing seismic exploration as 

there is no way to assure the 

safety of deepwater drilling. Until 

exploration can occur safely, 

drilling should be restricted.

Thank you for your comment. This Programmatic EIS describes 

and evaluates the potential environmental impacts related to 

reasonably foreseeable G&G survey activities in the AOI for 

BOEM’s three Program Areas (i.e., Oil and Gas, Renewable 

Energy, and Marine Minerals). The scope of this Programmatic 

EIS does not include a NEPA analysis for oil and gas leasing in 

the AOI and does not authorize an OCS lease sale or associated 

drilling activity.

H-9 Sub-categories 

were not assigned 

to general 

comments 

categorized as 

multiple. 

BOEM received a comment 

supporting Alternative A, stating 

that experience shows seismic 

operations can occur without harm 

to marine life or fisheries. 

Furthermore, the commenter 

stated that marine seismic 

exploration is an effective method 

to locate oil and natural gas and 

that exploration reinforces national 

energy security and independence.

Thank you for your comment. This Programmatic EIS was 

developed to analyze the potential beneficial and adverse 

impacts that could result from G&G activities within the AOI, 

including BOEM’s Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine 

Minerals Programs. This Programmatic EIS does not address

topics beyond the stated proposed action, purpose and need, 

and alternatives (Chapters 1.1 and 2), such as the Nation’s 

broader energy policy. Chapter 2 describes in detail the 

proposed alternatives and a suite of mitigation measures. 

Potential impacts to resources resulting from proposed G&G 

activities are evaluated in Chapter 4.

H-10 Subcategories 

were not assigned 

to general 

comments 

categorized as 

multiple. 

BOEM received a comment stating 

that the Draft Programmatic EIS 

does not consider the long-term

infrastructure and economic 

impacts to the United States 

resulting from climate change and 

how seismic, as a precursor to 

additional oil and gas exploration, 

contributes to climate change. 

Also, that the Draft Programmatic 

EIS did not acknowledge additional 

exploration and ocean acidification.

The scope of this Programmatic EIS does not include a NEPA 

analysis for oil and gas leasing in the AOI and does not authorize 

an OCS lease sale. It does not address topics beyond the stated 

proposed action, purpose and need, and alternatives

(Chapters 1.1. and 2), such as the Nation’s energy policy. The 

Nation’s energy policy is determined at the national level and is 

analyzed in the Five-Year Program and Five-Year Program EIS. 

As part of that analysis, BOEM considers the effects of GHG 

emissions. Chapter 3.3 of the Five-Year Program EIS considers 

climate change and the baseline environment in areas proposed 

for oil and gas leasing. In addition, the 2017-2022 GOM

Multisale EIS (USDOI, BOEM, 2017a) considers the effects of 

climate change on infrastructure.

H-11 Subcategories 

were not assigned 

to general 

comments 

BOEM received a comment 

supporting seismic exploration, 

specifically Alternative A, as 

exploration is critical for the 

Thank you for your comment. Chapter 4.13 provides an 

analysis of the potential impacts to human resources, including 

the economy and employment as well as land use, resulting from 

implementation of the alternatives. BOEM recognizes the 
Table M-3. General Comment Summary and Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-29

Comment Code Comment Code 

Name Comment Summary Response

categorized as 

multiple. 

economy, energy environment, and 

national security. In addition, 

exploration has occurred for 

decades without evidence of 

negative impacts to marine life, 

fishing, or coastal communities. 

The commenter states that seismic 

exploration helps us better 

understand the location and extent 

of offshore energy resources.

benefits of and need for G&G activities (as described in 

Chapter 1.1.2). Information obtained and developed as a result 

of G&G activities is used to make informed business, 

management, design, stewardship, and environmental protection 

decisions for BOEM’s three Program Areas (i.e., Oil and Gas, 

Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals). Additionally, the 

information presented in the comment was considered by BOEM 

in determining the Preferred Alternative.
M-30 Responses to Public Comments

M.4 COMMENTS REQUIRING A DETAILED TECHNICAL RESPONSE

As described in Section M.1.1, if a comment was technical in nature or required changes to 

this Programmatic EIS, subject-matter experts reviewed it and provided a response; changes, if 

required, were incorporated into this Final Programmatic EIS.

Tables M-4 through M-21 present a tabular listing of specific comments provided in detailed 

submissions, organized by Programmatic EIS chapter/topic; provide the subject-matter expert’s

response; and identify changes made in this Final Programmatic EIS, if any. The comments were 

reproduced verbatim as they were received. Refer to Table M-2 for the Comment Index developed 

to provide a full understanding of who provided which comments. Sections M.4.1 through M.4.8

summarize the types of technical comments received by Programmatic EIS chapter. 

M.4.1 Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview

Several comments questioned the compatibility of the proposed action with the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), and the 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) requirements. The basis of these comments either promoted using G&G surveys to 

continue safe and effective energy development or disputed the need for additional G&G data 

collection and future development. Some comments expressed that exclusion of a cost-benefit 

analysis resulted in an analysis that was arbitrary and capricious. In regards to the MMPA, some 

comments noted that the level of takes presented in this Programmatic EIS may pose 

population-level impacts; conversely, other comments stated that the presented takes were not 

reasonable because the benefits of mitigation measures were not taken into account. Comments 

indicated that the Monitoring Plan should be completed to increase the understanding of impacts to 

marine mammals and to analyze the efficacy of mitigation measures prior to finalizing this

Programmatic EIS. Comments asserted that the summary presented in Chapter 1 describing the 

marine mammal impact analysis as worst-case and conservative was contrary to NEPA and CEQ. 

Section M.4.16 more thoroughly describes technical comments related to the modeling inputs, their 

limitations, and the model outputs. Detailed responses to specific comments are provided in 

Table M-4.

Several comments noted that the scope of this Programmatic EIS omitted adequate analysis 

of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts resulting from G&G activities over the 

time period of the analysis. Many comments outlined deficiencies in the cumulative scenario relative 

to coastal resources, as well as reasonably foreseeable offshore commercial aquaculture activities. 

Detailed responses to specific comments are provided in Table M-4.

Many comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS indicated a preference on which alternative 

should be selected. Several comments proposed additional mitigation measures, altering mitigation 

measures, changes to the way that BOEM handles mitigation, or that alternative G&G technologies 

should be preferentially used. Many of the suggested mitigations are addressed in other chapters.
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-31

Many comments asserted that existing mitigation measures (e.g., Federal laws and 

regulations, lease stipulations) provide sufficient protection for this stage of the OCLSA process, and 

suggested strengthening this conclusion in this Final Programmatic EIS. Conversely, some 

comments asserted that existing regulatory restrictions already are overly burdensome and 

hindering industry, while other comments stressed that newly introduced mitigation measures would 

be too economically burdensome and would hinder industry. Additional comments expressed that 

mitigation measures were inadequate to afford protection to natural resources. Other comments 

stated that mitigation measures were not supported by best available science or that adequate 

rationale was not provided for their inclusion in this Programmatic EIS. Some comments questioned 

why mitigation measures were geared toward marine mammals and why measures for other marine 

species were lacking.

Various comments indicated that the purpose of each alternative was vague and that certain 

alternatives lacked detail with respect to how BOEM would implement related mitigation measures. 

Some comments stated that assumptions made relative to mitigation measures under the 

alternatives were flawed or that certain alternatives lacked a legal basis for their implementation. 

Finally, comments contended that shutdown requirements as part of various alternatives were not 

clearly explained and that newly introduced mitigation measures were difficult to discern from 

measures carried forward from other alternatives. Detailed responses to specific comments are 

provided in Table M-4. 
M-32 Responses to Public Comments

Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses

Submission ID Comment Response

Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview

0001-0002 Louisiana continues to suffer losses to its coastal resources 

as a result of offshore energy development, as it has 

throughout the history of BOEM’s lease sale program. When 

past, present and future lease sales are considered, 

cumulative impacts to coastal resources are considerable. 

OCM firmly believes that BOEM must provide leadership to 

minimize these losses and mitigate for impacts in subsequent 

National Environmental Policy Act evaluations.

The proposed activities in this Programmatic EIS are geological 

and geophysical activities on Federal OCS waters of the Gulf of 

Mexico. Oil and gas leasing is outside the scope of this 

Programmatic EIS. Nevertheless, in our leasing EISs, we 

acknowledge that Louisiana has experienced coastal land loss in 

the cumulative impacts analyses and will continue to consider 

potential mitigations in future OCS leasing environmental 

analyses.

BOEM included in this Programmatic EIS information relevant to 

its cumulative effects analysis, including the proposed action and 

all OCS activities in its consideration, as described in 

Chapter 3.4.

0006-0007 Stop coddling the oil and gas industry and start protecting our 

sea life and environment.

This Programmatic EIS provides a programmatic-level evaluation 

for reasonably foreseeable G&G activities that could be utilized 

for any of BOEM’s three Program Areas (i.e., Oil and Gas, 

Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals). BOEM will address 

the impacts of future site-specific actions in subsequent NEPA 

evaluations (40 CFR § 1502.20) using a tiered process based on 

this programmatic evaluation.

0668-0001 It is critically important if any Alternative that is enacted 

includes any limitations on seismic ship array for pre-drilling 

exploration, is absolutely imperative that operational drilling 

sensors such as telemetry or logging while drilling (LWD) be 

allowed to continue such as they do today. There is no way to 

conduct oil and gas operations safely without earth sensors 

including seismic.

This Programmatic EIS provides a programmatic-level evaluation 

for reasonably foreseeable G&G activities that could be utilized 

for any of BOEM’s three Program Areas (i.e., Oil and Gas, 

Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals). Operational 

monitoring is not included in this Programmatic EIS because 

those monitoring technologies are not authorized by BOEM 

under the OCSLA; they are safety related and would be 

addressed by a NEPA review of the company-submitted Plan of 

Development.

0899-0001 The PEIS violates OMB’ Peer Review Bulletin because it is 

“Influential Scientific Information” that must be peer reviewed 

under OMB’s Bulletin.1

 In fact, the PEIS is a “Highly Influential 

Scientific Assessment,” which is a subset of Influential 

Scientific Information that is subject to rigorous requirements 

under OMB’s Bulletin.2

BOEM, as the lead agency with BSEE and NOAA as cooperating 

agencies, prepared this Programmatic EIS in accordance with 

CEQ regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR part 1502), 

USDOI implementing procedures for NEPA (43 CFR part 46), 

and NOAA procedures for implementing NEPA (USDOC, NOAA, 

2017). The NEPA documents are not identified in the OMB 
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-33

Submission ID Comment Response

Yet the PEIS has never been peer reviewed. Given this 

violation of the OMB Peer Review Bulletin requirements, 

BOEM should withdraw the PEIS; subject it to public peer 

review in accordance with OMB’s Peer Review Bulletin; and 

make any appropriate changes in the PEIS based on the peer 

review. 

OMB’s Peer Review Bulletin defines “Influential Scientific 

Information” as “scientific information the agency reasonably 

can determine will have or does have a clear and substantial 

impact on important public policies or private sector decisions. 

In the term ‘influential scientific information,’ the term 

‘influential’ should be interpreted consistently with OMB's 

government-wide information quality guidelines and the 

information quality guidelines of the agency. Information 

dissemination can have a significant economic impact even if 

it is not part of a rulemaking. For instance, the economic 

viability of a technology can be influenced by the 

government’s characterization of its attributes. Alternatively, 

the federal government's assessment of risk can directly or 

indirectly influence the response actions of state and local 

agencies or international bodies.”3 

The PEIS will be used to determine whether oil and gas 

exploration is allowed to occur in the Gulf of Mexico and, if so, 

then under what conditions and where it can occur. 

Consequently, in the words of OMB’s Peer Review Bulletin, 

the PEIS “will have or does have a clear and substantial 

impact on important public policies or private sector 

decisions.” Yet the PEIS has never been peer reviewed, in 

clear violation of OMB’s Peer Review Bulletin.

OMB’s Peer Review Bulletin defines “Highly Influential 

Scientific Assessment” in two parts. First, the term “Scientific 

Assessment” is defined as “an evaluation of a body of 

scientific or technical knowledge, which typically synthesizes

multiple factual inputs, data, models, assumptions, and/or 

Bulletin and have not been routinely subjected to the peer review 

contemplated by the bulletin. The underlying scientific 

information on which this Programmatic EIS relies and analyzes 

for impact conclusions may be subject to the OMB Peer Review 

Bulletin. While it is always BOEM’s preference that the science 

on which it relies and uses to inform decisions is peer reviewed, 

NEPA neither expressly requires such review nor does it allow 

an agency to limit its review to such information. NEPA goes 

further and requires an agency to consider and evaluate 

“incomplete and unavailable information” (refer to 40 CFR § 

1502.22) and to evaluate how relevant incomplete or unavailable

information may affect agency analyses and decisions. For 

these reasons, while BOEM’s preference is to rely on peerreviewed scientific information, BOEM acknowledges in process 

studies, modeling efforts not peer reviewed, and other relevant 

information in this Programmatic EIS. This is consistent with the 

statutory obligations and intent of NEPA. The OMB Bulletin does 

not supersede this broader statutory obligation under NEPA.

Nevertheless, BOEM provided ample opportunity for public input 

and review (including by scientists, peer experts at other 

agencies, and nongovernmental organizations) of this 

Programmatic EIS and the underlying scientific information and 

modeling efforts contained herein. BOEM published the 

availability of the Draft Programmatic EIS on September 30, 

2016, to initiate the 60-day public comment period, during which 

time informational public meetings were held in the states 

adjacent to the AOI. All public comments received were 

considered during preparation of this Final Programmatic EIS.

BOEM conducted early coordination with appropriate Federal 

and State agencies and other concerned parties to develop the 

proposed action in this Programmatic EIS. Key agencies and 

organizations were contacted, including FWS, NOAA, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Defense, and the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The analyses in 

this Programmatic EIS are based on the best available scientific 

knowledge, acknowledging where there is incomplete or 
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-34 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

applies best professional judgment to bridge uncertainties in 

the available information. These assessments include, but 

are not limited to, state-of-science reports; technology 

assessments; weight-of-evidence analyses; meta-analyses; 

health, safety, or ecological risk assessments; toxicological 

characterizations of substances; integrated assessment 

models; hazard determinations; or exposure assessment.”4

The PEIS is “health, safety or ecological risk 

assessments...hazard determinations, or exposure 

assessment” that obviously fits the first part of OMB’s 

definition.

Second, the PEIS also fits OMB’s definition of “highly 

influential,” which is “scientific information that the agency or 

the [OMB] Administrator determines to be a scientific 

assessment that: (i) could have a potential impact of more 

than $500 million in any year, or (ii) is novel, controversial, or 

precedent-setting or has significant interagency interest.”5

Alternative G under consideration by BOEM in the PEIS is the 

prohibition of any new G&G activity in the Gulf of Mexico, and 

the phasing out of all already approved G&G activity.6

 This 

PEIS Alternative “could have a potential impact of more than 

500 million in any year.” The PEIS explains that many 

individuals and companies depend on G&G in the Gulf: “In 

addition to the oil and gas industry, G&G services and 

activities in the GOM are utilized by a wide variety of scientific, 

research, educational, governmental, and commercial 

enterprises. Studies into geomorphology, cartology and 

climate change; cultural resource surveys; fisheries research; 

military and USCG activities; and BOEM’s Marine Minerals 

Program all require G&G services. As a result, G&G services 

support the multimillion dollar industries that employ 

thousands of workers throughout the Gulf Coast.”7

By contrast, the PEIS does not identify a single marine 

mammal that has actually been injured by oil and gas G&G in 

the GOM after over 50 years of G&G operations there.

unavailable information, in compliance with NEPA.

In addition, please note that this Programmatic EIS will be used 

to inform decisions by BOEM on seismic survey permit 

applications and potentially by NOAA for MMPA authorizations 

for those same activities. This Programmatic EIS does not 

extend to oil and gas exploration generally in the Gulf of Mexico.
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-35

Submission ID Comment Response

The PEIS has “significant interagency interest.” BOEM, NMFS 

and BSEE are all involved in preparation of the PEIS. The 

Marine Mammal Commission will be commenting on the PEIS. 

The Department of Energy is interested in the energy impacts 

of the PEIS. The PEIS was prepared in violation of the OMB 

Peer Review Bulletin and in violation of other Government-

wide Data Quality and regulatory review requirements that are 

supervised by OMB.

There has never before been a Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement devoted solely to G & G in the Gulf of 

Mexico. Consequently, the PEIS is “novel...or precedent 

setting.” Finally, the PEIS is in large part BOEM’s attempt to 

satisfy an ill-advised settlement agreement in federal court 

litigation.

8

 The PEIS is obviously “controversial.” It was born 

in litigation.

For these and other reasons, the PEIS is a “High Influential 

Scientific Assessment” subject to the most rigorous 

requirements of OMB’s Peer Review Bulletin. We will not 

discuss those requirements in detail at this point. However, 

we do stress that they require that BOEM ensure adequate 

public participation in the peer review process when BOEM 

withdraws the PEIS and provides for peer review of it, as 

required by OMB’s Peer Review Bulletin.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDED ACTION: BOEM’s 

proposed use of the PEIS violates OMB’ Peer Review Bulletin 

because the PEIS has not been peer reviewed. If BOEM still 

hopes to use the PEIS, then BOEM should schedule peer 

review of it in accordance with the Peer Review Bulletin 

requirements. These requirements include but are not limited 

to public participation in the peer review. In addition, the Peer 

Review Bulletin requires that “Reviewers shall be informed of 

applicable access, objectivity, reproducibility and other quality 

standards under federal information quality laws.”

9
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-36 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

0999-0002 The parameters of Geological and Geophysical (G&G) 

activities are described in general terms. While Tidewater 

recognizes that the main direction being addressed suggests 

interest in sound energy being imparted to the seawater 

medium; the inclusion of ‘bottom-disturbing’ activities brings in 

a much wider scope. Current generation workboat activities 

include not only supply support to offshore oil & gas facilities, 

but also anchor-handling, subsea lifting projects and remote 

operated vehicles (ROV) work. OCS energy projects, both 

hydrocarbon and renewable, require construction of 

foundations on the seafloor, which may fall under this 

description. ROV work can use subsea transducers and other 

energy-radiating equipment. For these reasons, we would 

submit that, detailed as the draft PEIS is, it is not yet mature 

enough for complete, cogent comment or action at this time.

For the purpose of the proposed action and scope of this 

Programmatic EIS, BOEM evaluated G&G activities and the 

associated seafloor-disturbing activities used in all three of 

BOEM’s Program Areas (e.g., core samples to truth survey data) 

to assess the suitability of seafloor sediments for supporting 

structures such as platforms, pipelines, cables, and renewable 

energy facilities (e.g., wind turbines) or to evaluate the quantity 

and quality of sand for beach nourishment and coastal 

restoration projects, as described in Appendix F, Section 2. 

This Programmatic EIS does not include all seafloor-disturbing 

activities associated with all types of OCS energy projects. 

Many OCS energy-related, seafloor-disturbing activities are 

associated specifically with oil and gas activities (e.g., anchoring, 

pipeline installation and trenching, and site clearance trawling) 

and are outside the scope of this Programmatic EIS. This 

Programmatic EIS is being prepared to serve as the 

programmatic NEPA analysis from which BOEM will tier its 

site-specific NEPA analyses for BOEM to permit or authorize 

G&G activities under the OCSLA. BOEM prepares separate 

NEPA evaluations for lease sales and site-specific activities 

(refer to the 2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS.

1001-0003 Seismic oil exploration not only harms the Gulf's sensitive 

wildlife, but also destroys the acoustic environment and paves 

the path for more oil drilling. There are already thousands of 

offshore oil and gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico and most 

of the area has already been surveyed for oil exploration. The 

expansion of oil and gas development in the Gulf is a step in 

the wrong direction, especially when this activity is 

unrestrained.

Under the OCSLA, the Secretary of the Interior is responsible for 

the administration of mineral exploration and development of the 

OCS. Within DOI, BOEM is responsible for managing and 

regulating the development of OCS resources in accordance 

with the provisions of the OCSLA. Therefore, BOEM promotes 

environmental protection and economic development through 

responsible, science-based management of offshore 

conventional and renewable energy resources. The purpose of 

this Programmatic EIS is to evaluate potential significant 

environmental effects of G&G activities on the Gulf of Mexico 

OCS. Chapter 2 outlines the alternatives to the proposed 

action, which contain various mitigation measures offering 

protection to biological resources. The scope of this 

Programmatic EIS does not include a NEPA analysis that 

evaluates a specific proposal for oil and gas leasing in the AOI 

and does not authorize an OCS lease sale. BOEM prepares 

separate NEPA evaluations for lease sales and site-specific 
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-37

Submission ID Comment Response

activities (refer to the 2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS).

1063-0008 Chapter 1 Pages 1-19-20: The last paragraph begins on 

Page 1-19 seems to be largely a repeat of the paragraph from 

Section 1.2.5 (Page 1-15) and from other sections before. 

Suggest deleting. 

Chapter 1.2.6 has been revised to incorporate NMFS’ new

acoustic criteria.

1067-0004 Vast areas of the Gulf are already producing oil and gas, with 

millions of additional areas already leased. This development, 

combined with declining future demand for fossil fuels, 

undercuts the need to engage in a speculative search for 

additional and risky deposits. At a time when climate change 

is already impacting our oceans, it simply doesn't make sense 

to harm the Gulf's marine wildlife merely to identify oil deposits 

that must stay where they are if we are to prevent the worst 

impacts of climate change.

This Programmatic EIS describes and evaluates potential 

environmental impacts related to reasonably foreseeable G&G 

survey activities in the AOI for BOEM’s three Program Areas 

(i.e., Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals).

Oil and gas leasing in the AOI is not part of the proposed action, 

and this NEPA document does not analyze or authorize an OCS 

lease sale. Those activities, and the impacts that may result 

from them, are outside of the scope of this Programmatic EIS. 

This Programmatic EIS is limited in scope to the stated proposed 

action, purpose and need, and reasonable range of alternatives 

(Chapters 1.1.2 and 2). Nevertheless, as part of its mission, 

BOEM does consider these activities and issues in other NEPA 

documents such as the Five-Year Program and Five-Year 

Program EIS. As part of that analysis, BOEM considered the 

effects of GHG emissions. Chapter 4.2 of the Five-Year 

Program EIS considers climate change and the baseline 

environment in the areas proposed for oil and gas leasing. In 

addition, Wolvovsky and Anderson (2016) assess the potential 

lifecycle GHG emissions and social cost of carbon under the 

Five-Year Program. In addition, the GOM lease sale-stage 

NEPA analyses will further specify impacts of GHG emissions 

related to a single proposed lease sale. To supplement the 

Five-Year Program and Five-Year Program EIS, BOEM prepared 

a document to explain the analytic approaches used for the 

economic analyses in the decision document, including 

comprehensive tables and references to original studies 

(https://www.boem.gov/Economic-Analysis-Methodology/). 

BOEM completed the 2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS for oil and 

gas lease decisions in the GOM; it can be found on BOEM’s 

website at https://www.boem.gov/nepaprocess/.

1069-0008 Alternatives B through G conflict with the law and mission 

underpinning the OCS program. The DPEIS must not function 

The purpose of the proposed action, described in Chapter 1.1.2, 

is to gather state-of-the-practice data about the ocean bottom 
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-38 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

to administratively repeal or contravene entire provisions of 

the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). For the 

statutory ramifications alone, Alternatives B through G are not 

feasible and must be dismissed. Shell notes for the record 

that the OCSLA requires the expeditious and orderly 

development of OCS resources for the benefit of the nation: 

The outer Continental Shelf is a vital national resource reserve 

held in trust by the Federal Government for the public, which 

should be made available for expeditious and orderly 

development, subject to environmental safeguards, in a 

manner which is consistent with the maintenance of 

competition and other national needs;14

This statute requires that the government (1) “make resources 

available to meet the nation’s energy needs”, (2) “insure the 

extent of OCS resources is assessed at the earliest 

practicable time”, (3) “balance orderly energy resource 

development with protection of the human, marine, and 

coastal environments.”15 Seismic and other G&G data 

acquisition is in many ways the most advanced and least 

impactful means to both assess and advance the availability 

of the resources as directed here. To effectively prohibit that 

data acquisition would run contrary to the requirement to 

balance development with the enumerated protections.

The previously cited examples, wherein Shell has utilized 

G&G data to optimize and achieve better production results 

and fulfill the policy goal of maximizing benefits to the U.S. 

Treasury and taxpayer, link back to these provisions of law.

It is incumbent upon operators to take measures to ensure 

that resource recovery is conducted safely and diligently in a 

manner lending itself towards greatest ultimate recovery. 

Section 1337(d) requires that “No bid for a lease may be 

submitted if the Secretary finds, after notice and hearing, that 

the bidder is not meeting due diligence requirements on other 

leases.” Because G&G technology, particularly seismic, is 

demonstrably safe with the current standard mitigations, and 

and subsurface. Data collected through G&G surveys provide 

information about the location and extent of oil and gas reserves, 

other marine mineral reserves, seafloor topography, and 

geological hazards for the installation of structures. The 

information obtained through surveys is used to (1) make 

informed decisions regarding development of OCS minerals; 

(2) protect existing biological and human resources; and 

(3) provide a knowledge base for economic purposes to allow 

BOEM to best benefit the public in the management of offshore 

resources and minerals to provide the best return and for 

industry to identify the best and safest development options.

Section 11(g) of the OCSLA specifies that permits for geological 

explorations shall be issued only if the Secretary of the Interior 

determines that “such exploration will not be unduly harmful to 

aquatic life in the area....” BOEM’s regulations at 30 CFR § 

551.6 state that permit holders for G&G activities must not 

“cause harm or damage to life (including fish and other aquatic 

life), property, or to the marine, coastal, or human environment.” 

This Programmatic EIS analyzes impacts with respect to context 

and intensity as required by NEPA regulations at 40 CFR § 

1508.27.

As part of the Settlement Agreement (Chapter 1.2.3.4), BOEM is 

required to analyze certain mitigation measures as potential 

COAs for permit applications for deep-penetration seismic 

surveys in this Programmatic EIS (Chapter 2.4). Through the 

Environmental Studies Program (https://www.boem.gov/

Environmental-Studies-Planning/), BOEM is funding and 

planning to fund additional studies and workshops to examine 

the effectiveness and feasibility of mitigation measures in the 

GOM. BOEM’s Environmental Studies Program develops, 

conducts, and oversees world-class scientific research 

specifically to inform policy decisions regarding development of 

OCS energy and mineral resources. Research covers physical 

oceanography, atmospheric sciences, biology, protected 

species, social sciences and economics, submerged cultural 

resources, and environmental fates and effects. BOEM is a 
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-39

Submission ID Comment Response

is well documented as an effective tool in responsible and 

efficient exploration and production, it is unacceptable and 

illogical to ignore its benefits to lease maintenance and 

development. In this sense, an unnecessary restriction on 

seismic and other G&G data acquisition would oddly force 

agencies to choose between enforcing unnecessary seismic 

restrictions versus enforcing statutory due diligence 

requirements. This conflict of authority would create waste, 

inefficiency, and uncertainty in a period when it is least 

affordable and least excusable.

Elsewhere in the OCSLA, clear language similarly favors 

policies to promote development or increased production on 

producing or non-producing leases and to encourage 

production of marginal resources.16 These efforts toward 

improved ultimate recovery for the benefit of the U.S. Treasury 

would be needlessly and seriously frustrated by significant 

restrictions on G&G activities, particularly seismic surveys.

Perhaps most relevant is the clear language of the OCSLA 

expressly authorizing seismic and other G&G activities as an 

expected and normal element in the course of OCS 

operations and fulfillment of the law’s mission: Any agency of 

the United States and any person authorized by the Secretary 

may conduct geological and geophysical explorations in the 

outer Continental Shelf, which do not interfere with or 

endanger actual operations under any lease maintained or 

granted pursuant to this subchapter, and which are not unduly 

harmful to aquatic life in such area.” 43 U.S.C. 1340(a).

leading contributor to the growing body of scientific knowledge

about the Nation’s marine and coastal environment. A listing of 

the currently active studies addressing this broad range of topics 

can be found on BOEM’s website at http://www.boem.gov/

GMStudies/. 

Nonetheless, this Programmatic EIS is not the decision 

document under NEPA. The decision will be provided in the 

ROD following publication of this Final Programmatic EIS. Each 

alternative presented in this Programmatic EIS includes the 

implementation of standard mitigation measures, monitoring, 

reporting, survey protocols, and guidance designed to minimize 

environmental impacts. Potential impacts to resources from the 

implementation of Alternatives A through G are analyzed in 

Chapter 4. These analyses were developed by the subjectmatter experts using the highest quality and best available 

information. All of this information will be considered by the 

decisionmaker in determining which alternative is selected in the 

ROD.

1071-0001 Florida supports G&G activities on the Gulf of Mexico OCS as 

they will play a significant role in helping to locate offshore 

sand deposits important to beach and shoreline restoration 

and supporting the siting of renewable energy projects. 

However, care must be taken to ensure that marine and 

coastal resources, especially protected species and 

ecosystems are provided maximum protection. Florida 

recommends that final requirements be the most protective 

without imposing unnecessary regulation or restrictions that 

Thank you for your comment. As stated in Chapter 1, BOEM's 

mission is to manage development of the Nation’s OCS energy 

and mineral resources in an environmentally and economically 

responsible way. Each alternative presented in this 

Programmatic EIS includes the implementation of standard 

mitigation measures, monitoring, reporting, survey protocols, and 

guidance designed to minimize environmental impacts. Potential 

impacts to resources (e.g., marine mammals, sea turtles, and 

economics) from Alternatives A through G are analyzed in 
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-40 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

increase costs unless those regulations provide significant 

benefits to environmental resources. We defer to NOAA 

Fisheries for final recommendations of protected resources 

under their jurisdiction.

Chapter 4. These analyses were developed by the subjectmatter experts using the best available data. In addition, NOAA 

and BSEE are cooperating agencies for this Programmatic EIS 

and BOEM worked closely with both agencies to include their 

input into this Final Programmatic EIS. All of this information will 

be considered by the decisionmaker in determining which 

alternative is selected in the ROD.

1071-0008 FWC staff appreciates the opportunity to provide comments 

on the BOEM DPEIS for Proposed Geological and 

Geophysical Activities in the Gulf of Mexico and we find this 

action consistent with FWC enforceable policies included in 

the Florida Coastal Management Program.

Thank you for your comment. BOEM will continue to ensure that 

the Florida Coastal Management Program receives consistency 

reviews for G&G permitted activities in the GOM when the 

proposed activity is in the designated offshore administrative 

boundary. These activities will be consistent with the 

enforceable policies of the State's coastal management plan.

1074-0006 In all, the DEIS estimates as many as 31 million instances of 

“take” of Gulf marine mammals over the next ten years, 

representing chronic disruption of vital behaviors such as 

feeding and nursing and on top of tens of thousands of cases 

of injury. Given the sheer extent of disruption, the substantial 

scientific concern about both seismic surveys and cumulative 

acoustic stressors, and the acute vulnerability of Gulf 

populations, particularly in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon

disaster, it is vitally important that NMFS approach this EIS, 

and its associated rulemaking under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (“MMPA”), carefully and conservatively.

Thank you for your comment. There has been some confusion 

in this Programmatic EIS regarding terminology, specifically 

“exposure” versus “take.” BOEM has clarified language in this 

Programmatic EIS to be more consistent in terminology. Refer 

to Chapter 1.2.5. 

Each alternative presented in this Programmatic EIS includes the 

implementation of standard mitigation measures, monitoring, 

reporting, survey protocols, and guidance designed to minimize 

environmental impacts.

Potential impacts to resources from Alternatives A through G are 

analyzed in Chapter 4. Appendix D presents the modeling 

conducted to estimate the number of marine mammal 

exposures. These analyses were developed by the subjectmatter experts using the best available data. In addition, NOAA 

is a cooperating agency for this Programmatic EIS and BOEM 

worked closely with NOAA to include their input into this Final 

Programmatic EIS. All of this information will be considered by 

the decisionmaker in determining which alternative is selected in 

the ROD.

1074-0007 ...current levels of seismic exploration in the northern Gulf of 

Mexico are not compatible with the MMPA or OCSLA, the 

underlying statutes for which the DEIS was prepared. Neither 

As stated in Chapter 1, BOEM's mission is to manage 

development of the Nation’s OCS energy and mineral resources 

in an environmentally and economically responsible way. Each 
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-41

Submission ID Comment Response

BOEM nor NMFS can ensure against significant adverse 

population-level impacts on Gulf marine mammals, or bring 

themselves into compliance with federal environmental law, 

without making a focused effort to reduce the environmental 

footprint of these activities.

alternative presented in this Programmatic EIS includes the 

implementation of standard mitigation measures, monitoring, 

reporting, survey protocols, and guidance designed to minimize 

environmental impacts. Potential impacts to resources (e.g., 

marine mammals, sea turtles, and economics) from Alternatives 

A through G are analyzed in Chapter 4. These analyses were 

developed by the subject-matter experts using the best available 

data. In addition, NOAA and BSEE are cooperating agencies for 

this Programmatic EIS and BOEM worked closely with both 

agencies to include their input into this Final Programmatic EIS. 

All of this information will be considered by the decisionmaker in 

determining which alternative is selected in the ROD.

To comply with NEPA, this Programmatic EIS will help ensure 

the necessary documentation and analyses to support informed 

decisions regarding future OCSLA permit and MMPA 

authorization actions related to G&G activities on the OCS. This 

Programmatic EIS provides information that can be used when 

complying with other applicable laws, including the ESA, 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act, National Historic Preservation 

Act, and Coastal Zone Management Act.

In addition, site-specific analyses will be performed for each 

survey activity.

1074-0019 The agencies should carefully consider the recommendations 

we made in previous comments in developing its long-term 

monitoring plan (which is not included in the DEIS). We 

recommend, inter alia, that the monitoring program be 

hypothesis-driven to the greatest extent possible; that it 

provide focused research effort for populations of special 

concern, especially Bryde’s whales, sperm whales, and nearcoastal bottlenose dolphins; and that it provide meaningful 

public participation, transparency, and data accessibility 

regardless of what funding structure is employed.

As agreed upon in the revised Settlement Agreement in 2015, 

BOEM has analyzed the development of the monitoring plan 

developed by industry (Chapter 1.2.3.4). 

1074-0048 As the monitoring plan is still in agency development, with 

comment apparently deferred to the MMPA process (id.), we 

are unable to respond now to an agency proposal. We will 

As agreed upon in the revised Settlement Agreement in 2015, 

BOEM has analyzed the development of the monitoring plan 
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-42 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

therefore reiterate, and incorporate into these comments, the 

points we made in our response to BOEM’s 2013 request for 

information, namely

(1) The monitoring program should be hypothesis-driven to 

the greatest extent possible;

(2) The program should provide focused research effort for 

populations of special concern, especially Bryde’s whales, 

sperm whales, and near-coastal bottlenose dolphins;

(3) The program should include regular distribution and 

abundance surveys;

(4) The program should include research on the most 

pertinent topics related to the industry’s noise impacts on Gulf 

marine mammals, including research on masking and impacts 

on acoustic habitat, research on chronic stress, analysis of the 

population consequences of cumulative impacts, and data 

acquisition on the potential impacts of new seismic 

technology; and

(5) The program should provide meaningful public 

participation, transparency, and data accessibility regardless 

of what funding structure is employed.

developed by industry (Chapter 1.2.3.4).

1074-0071 We recommend that BOEM consult the Advisory Group’s 

2011 report, which we have attached to these comments;2 and 

we urge the agency to ensure that work conducted under its 

monitoring program, with the exception of real-time monitoring 

for mitigation purposes, meets scientific objectives.

...It is essential that the monitoring program focus resources 

on these populations...Near-coastal bottlenose dolphins.... 

Bryde’s whales...Sperm whales....

...The program [Long-Term Monitoring Program] should 

include regular distribution and abundance surveys.

...The program should include research on the most pertinent 

topics related to the industry’s noise impacts on Gulf marine 

mammals.

As agreed upon in the revised Settlement Agreement in 2015, 

BOEM has analyzed the development of the monitoring plan 

developed by industry (Chapter 1.2.3.4).
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-43

Submission ID Comment Response

...The program [Long-Term Monitoring Plan] should provide 

meaningful public participation, transparency, and data 

accessibility regardless of what funding structure is employed.

1074-0076 C. NEPA compliance in the Gulf of Mexico

Despite considerable evidence of harm to marine mammals, 

fish, and other marine species, BOEM initially declined to 

prepare an EIS for Gulf of Mexico seismic surveys, releasing 

instead, in 2004, a programmatic environmental assessment 

that found the activity would have “no significant impact.”20 

Four months later, NMFS took the extraordinary step of 

noticing, in the Federal Register, its own intent to prepare an 

EIS, an implicit rebuke of BOEM’s decision. 69 Fed. Reg. 

67535, 67536 (Nov. 18, 2004). Yet neither agency produced 

an EIS or, for that matter, issued or received an MMPA 

authorization for the numerous annual seismic surveys taking 

place in the Gulf during the next six years. Finally, in 2010, in 

the wake of the Macondo disaster, a Plaintiff group that 

included most of our organizations brought suit against BOEM 

for violating NEPA. The resulting settlement agreement 

requires, inter alia, that the agency undertake programmatic 

compliance under NEPA and other statutes for seismic 

surveys in the Gulf of Mexico. Settlement Agreement, 

NRDC v. Jewell, Case No. 2:10-cv-01882 (E.D. La.) (Ordered 

June 24, 2013).

The background, including the history of G&G environmental 

review, MMPA petition, litigation, and Deepwater Horizon

baseline changes are described in Chapters 1.2.1 through 

1.2.4. This Programmatic EIS was prepared to (1) serve as the 

programmatic NEPA analysis from which BOEM will tier its sitespecific NEPA analyses to permit or authorize G&G activities 

under the OCSLA; (2) provide necessary information and 

assessment under NEPA to support NMFS’ decision regarding 

MMPA authorizations for G&G activities on the OCS; and 

(3) support additional coordination and consultation requirements 

under other statutes, including the ESA, Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Coastal Zone 

Management Act, National Marine Sanctuaries Act, and National 

Historic Preservation Act.

1076-0012 We also wish to clarify at the outset the relevance of the 

settlement agreement and subsequent stipulation that were 

entered into by the parties in NRDC et al. v. Jewell et al., No. 

2:10-cv-01882 (E.D. La.) (“NRDC v. Jewell”). See id. at Dkt. 

118-2 (“Settlement Agreement”); id. at Dkt. 127-2 (“Stipulation 

to Amend”). The Settlement Agreement and the Stipulation to 

Amend were expressly agreed to for the sole purpose of 

settling litigation. The mitigation measures currently 

implemented through the terms of those agreements are not 

representative of measures that have been traditionally 

employed in the GOM. Moreover, the parties to the 

Settlement Agreement and the Stipulation to Amend did not 

agree, and there has otherwise been no subsequent 

In accordance with CEQ regulations implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR part 1502) and USDOI implementing procedures for 

NEPA (43 CFR part 46), a range of alternatives must be 

rigorously explored and objectively evaluated. Additionally, the 

decisionmaker must not consider alternatives beyond the range 

of alternatives analyzed in this Programmatic EIS but must 

consider all the alternatives evaluated in this Programmatic EIS.

BOEM has determined that a reasonable range of alternatives 

includes conditions prior to (Alternative A) and including the 

Settlement Agreement (Alternative B) since on February 10, 

2016, the parties formally agreed to extend the stay until final 

action by the agencies or September 25, 2017, whichever occurs 
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-44 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

demonstration, that the mitigation measures imposed through 

those documents are feasible, appropriate, or supported by 

the best available science.

first. Thus, the conditions of the Settlement Agreement are 

being implemented in the GOM and are evaluated in this

Programmatic EIS. Inclusion of the Settlement Agreement’s

conditions will enable decisionmakers to compare the magnitude 

of the environmental effects of the alternatives.

Alternatives C through F contain mitigation measures designed 

to minimize disturbance and potential auditory injuries to marine 

mammals (and sea turtles) during seismic surveys, and they 

contain elements that are continually evolving but represent 

current standards. Moreover, through the Monitoring Plan 

(Chapter 1.2.3.4), BOEM will consider future data on the efficacy 

of mitigation measures to adjust mitigation requirements for 

individual surveys based on the best available data at that time.

Regarding Alternative G, CEQ regulation 1502.14(d) specifies 

that NEPA analyses require the alternatives’ analysis in an EIS 

to "include the alternative of no action."

Finally, as stated in Chapter 1, BOEM's mission is to manage 

development of the Nation’s OCS energy and mineral resources 

in an environmentally and economically responsible way. Each 

alternative presented in this Programmatic EIS includes the 

implementation of standard mitigation measures, monitoring, 

reporting, survey protocols, and guidance designed to minimize 

environmental impacts. Potential impacts to resources (e.g., 

marine mammals, sea turtles, and economics) from 

Alternatives A through G are analyzed in Chapter 4. These 

analyses were developed by the subject-matter experts using the 

best available data. In addition, NOAA and BSEE are 

cooperating agencies for this Programmatic EIS, and BOEM 

worked closely with both agencies to include their input in this 

Final Programmatic EIS. All of this information will be 

considered by the decisionmaker in determining which 

alternative is selected in the ROD.

1076-0015 We encourage BOEM to issue the final PEIS on a schedule 

that is compliant with court-ordered deadlines; it must do so in 

a manner that produces a final PEIS that does not contain the 

Thank you for your comment.
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-45

Submission ID Comment Response

inadequacies described in the following comments.

1076-0016 ...the DPEIS provides no meaningful discussion of OCSLA’s 

mandates and specifically fails to show how each of the 

proposed alternatives is consistent with those mandates.

This Programmatic EIS analyzes the potential impacts of BOEM 

authorizing G&G survey activities in the GOM. The statutory 

authority for BOEM to issue such permits or authorizations is 

provided by the OCSLA. This Programmatic EIS does not 

address elements beyond those required by NEPA (e.g., the 

stated proposed action, purpose, and need as described in 

Chapter 1.1.2).

1076-0018 ...the DPEIS does not meaningfully address the environmental 

benefits of G&G activities and, accordingly, fails to 

“adequately set forth sufficient information to allow the 

decision maker to consider alternatives and make a reasoned 

decision after balancing the risks of harm to the environment 

against the benefits of the proposed action.”8

 In sum, wellestablished NEPA law requires BOEM to fully consider the 

statutory authority for the proposed action as well as all of the 

environmental benefits of the proposed action.

This Programmatic EIS describes and evaluates potential 

environmental impacts related to reasonably foreseeable G&G 

survey activities in the AOI. BOEM recognizes the benefits and 

need for G&G activities to occur (as described in Chapters 1.1.2 

and 2.9.1). Information obtained and developed as a result of 

G&G activities are used to make informed business, 

management, design, stewardship, and environmental protection 

decisions for BOEM’s three Program Areas (i.e., Oil and Gas, 

Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals).

1076-0021 “Biological significance” is not further evaluated or considered 

in the DPEIS even though, as addressed below, relevant 

information is available. This is a particularly arbitrary error 

because it results in a DPEIS that does not evaluate the 

actual effects that are anticipated to be “caused by the action” 

or that are “reasonably foreseeable.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8 

(definitions for “direct” and “indirect” effects).

The biological significance of impacts was left to interpretation by 

the subject-matter experts and incorporated into the impact 

determination for each alternative.

The NEPA requires consideration of the context and intensity in 

determining impact significance (40 CFR § 1508.27). However, 

there is no quantitative, qualitative, consistent, or agreed-upon 

measure of adequacy for NEPA with respect to characterizing 

impacts. Although NEPA does not require it, BOEM chose an 

approach (described in Chapter 4.1.2) and defined significance 

criteria. Significance criteria are judgmental in nature and are 

defined by qualitative descriptors. Where they were applied, 

there is an explanation regarding how each determination was 

made. Criteria reflect consideration of the context and intensity 

of the impact (40 CFR § 1508.27) based on four parameters: 

detectability (i.e., measurable or detectable impact); duration 

(i.e., short term, long term); spatial extent (i.e., localized, 

extensive); and severity (i.e., severe, less than severe). The 

evaluation process to determine significance considered the 

potential impacts by context (e.g., short term versus long term) 

and intensity (e.g., severity), following NEPA regulations as 
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-46 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

guidance. An assessment of environmental impacts within a 

context of where they occur and by their intensity and duration 

have been provided.

1076-0023 Moreover, by performing an effects analysis that is “purposely 

developed to be conservative,” based on the highest sound 

levels and erroneously high marine mammal densities, and 

purposely intended to overestimate adverse effects, BOEM 

has performed precisely the type of “worst case analysis” that 

was rejected by both CEQ and the U.S. Supreme Court many 

years ago. By its terms, and as expressly stated in the 

DPEIS, the analysis of marine mammal impacts is 

intentionally designed to be inaccurate and to evaluate the 

worst possible consequences that could hypothetically result 

from unmitigated seismic surveying.

At this stage, the modeling used the best available data to 

support assumptions and inputs. For this Programmatic EIS, the 

existing modeling outputs fully inform the potential range of 

exposures, with a reasonable margin of conservatism over the 

10-year timeframe of this analysis. Appendix C of Appendix D

explains how densities were derived for each modeling region.

There were some erroneous occurrences of “worst case” in 

Appendix D, and they have been removed and/or clarified. 

Chapter 1.2.5 has been revised to provide clarity on the 

modeling effort. While the modeling results may be 

conservative, they are the most credible, science-based 

information available at this time.

1076-0024 In sum, the DPEIS’s analysis of marine mammal effects is 

plainly not credible; it evaluates effects that, by BOEM’s 

admission, will not occur, and, therefore, it is “unworthy of 

belief.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(b)(1); 51 Fed. Reg. at 15,622-23.

The DPEIS violates NEPA because it relies exclusively on a 

“worst case” analysis of seismic impacts on marine mammals, 

contrary to well-established law.

The impact analysis considered the modeling results in 

conjunction with subject-matter expert review of scientifically 

credible information using accepted approaches and research 

methods. While this analysis required some professional 

judgement by the subject-matter experts, the resulting impact 

conclusions remain credible in light of the available scientific 

record.

There were some erroneous occurrences of “worst case” in 

Appendix D, and they have been removed and/or clarified. 

Chapter 1.2.5 has been revised to provide clarity on the 

modeling effort. While the modeling results may be 

conservative, they are the most credible, science-based 

information available at this time.

1076-0028 BOEM’s refusal to incorporate the known benefits of mitigation 

measures, many of which are standard best practices that the 

seismic industry already implements, is arbitrary, 

unsupported, and contrary to well-established NEPA 

principles.11 An agency cannot simply ignore certain effects of 

an action because they “cannot be quantified with statistical 

confidence” (DPEIS at 1-19), particularly when it chooses not 

Throughout this Programmatic EIS, BOEM has clarified the 

assumptions and scenarios used in the modeling as well as 

limitations that may be inherent in any modeling effort (e.g., 

inability to account for mitigation measures and aversion). While 

the results of the modeling may be conservative, they are the 

most credible, science-based information available at this time. 

The question of implementing mitigation in the modeling was 
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-47

Submission ID Comment Response

to ignore admittedly incorrect assumptions that inaccurately 

estimate impact levels. This is the very definition of “arbitrary 

and capricious” agency action. Rather, BOEM must evaluate 

all reasonably foreseeable effects that will be caused by the 

proposed action, including the offsetting effects of mitigation 

measures, perform a high quality and accurate assessment of 

those effects, and reach reasoned conclusions regarding the 

effects that are likely to occur.

considered at length. There are currently no generally accepted 

metrics on the effectiveness of mitigation. Therefore, inclusion of 

a quantification of mitigation effects was not reasonable. Though 

mitigation could be not considered directly in the modeling effort, 

it is incorporated in the interpretation of the modeling results in 

the impact analysis presented in Chapter 4.2. It is reasonable to 

conclude that the proposed mitigation measures would likely 

reduce the potential impacts to marine mammals, though the 

amount of such reduction cannot be quantified at this time.

Mitigation measures included in this Programmatic EIS 

(Appendix B, Section 1.2.4) are designed to minimize 

disturbance and potential auditory injuries to marine mammals 

(and sea turtles) during seismic surveys. The elements of these 

mitigation measures are continually evolving, and those included 

in this Programmatic EIS represent best available scientific 

knowledge. All of the elements have limitations that may reduce 

their effectiveness, as discussed in Appendix B, Section 1.2.4. 

BOEM prepared this Programmatic EIS using the best available 

data and included reasonable assumptions to estimate potential 

impacts. BOEM is involved in several ongoing programs to

acquire new data and improve existing knowledge on marine 

mammals and underwater noise, and future analyses will use the 

best available data at that time. Through the Environmental 

Studies Program (https://www.boem.gov/Environmental-StudiesPlanning/), BOEM is funding and is planning to fund additional 

studies and workshops to examine the effectiveness and 

feasibility of mitigation measures in the GOM. BOEM’s 

Environmental Studies Program develops, conducts, and 

oversees world-class scientific research specifically to inform 

policy decisions regarding development of OCS energy and 

mineral resources. The currently active studies addressing this 

broad range of topics can be found on BOEM’s website at 

http://www.boem.gov/GMStudies/. 

BOEM will consider future data on the efficacy of mitigation 

measures to adjust mitigation requirements for individual surveys 
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-48 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

based on the best available data at that time.

1076-0050 G&G exploration activities authorized by BOEM may be 

denied or conditioned if they “would probably cause serious 

harm or damage to life (including fish and other aquatic life).” 

See 43 U.S.C. § 1340(c)(1); see also id. § 1340(a)(1) (“any 

person authorized by the Secretary may conduct geological 

and geophysical explorations in the outer Continental Shelf ... 

which are not unduly harmful to aquatic life in such area”). 

BOEM may also temporarily stop off-lease exploration or 

scientific research activities under a permit when the Regional 

Director determines that the “[a]ctivities pose a threat of 

serious, irreparable, or immediate harm. This includes 

damage to life (including fish and other aquatic life) ... [and] to 

the marine, coastal, or human environment.” 30 C.F.R. § 

551.9(a)(1); see also 30 C.F.R. § 551.6(a)(2) (prohibiting a

permittee from causing harm to marine life). None of these 

requirements are satisfied based upon the information 

provided in the DPEIS. Even the unrealistic and overly 

conservative effects analysis does not conclude that there will 

be any “serious harm or damage” or “serious, irreparable, or 

immediate harm” to marine life. Moreover, such arbitrary 

reductions in activity levels directly contradict OCSLA’s 

primary mandates, particularly because no adverse effects 

from the original activity levels have been demonstrated.

The impact conclusions are a synthesis of a variety of qualitative 

and quantitative available scientific information. The impact 

analysis considered the modeling results, in conjunction with 

subject-matter experts’ review of scientifically credible 

information using accepted approaches and research methods. 

While this analysis required some professional judgement by the 

subject-matter experts, the resulting impact conclusions remain 

credible in light of the available scientific record.

Refer to Chapter 4 for specific information on potential impacts 

to the analyzed resources. Studies have shown that marine 

mammals react to underwater noise. Reactions may include 

physical displacement from or avoidance of the area of 

ensonification and/or by altering their vocalizations. This

Programmatic EIS acknowledges that acute physical injury other 

than auditory, or death of marine mammals is not likely to be a 

direct result of seismic noise. It does, however, acknowledge 

that disruption of behavioral patterns or auditory injury is

possible, which may reduce fitness for individual animals. 

Population-level impacts related to energetic effects or other 

impacts of noise are difficult to determine. BOEM, however, 

does not assume that lack of demonstrated adverse populationlevel effects from seismic surveys means that those effects may 

not occur.

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives and mitigations in 

this Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 

viability, and other factors, and consider them a reasonable 

range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. This Programmatic EIS 

will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory responsibilities associated 

with permitting and authorizing G&G activities connected with 

activities conducted in support of the Oil and Gas, Renewable 

Energy, and Marine Minerals Programs for the Gulf of Mexico 

OCS. This Programmatic EIS would also support NOAA 

authorization of the incidental take of marine mammals under the 

MMPA for these activities. The full consideration of alternatives 

and mitigations assists both agencies in meeting their NEPA 
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-49

Submission ID Comment Response

obligations and provide the decisionmakers with the necessary 

information, including the relative need and costs of mitigations, 

to evaluate and implement prospective actions.

1076-0085 Respectfully, the DPEIS is poorly organized and presented. 

For some sections and appendices, it is almost impossible to 

clearly review and understand many of the underlying 

technical analyses. The body of the DPEIS contains a 

substantial amount of both conflicting and redundant material, 

which is repeated in appendices, and in appendices to 

appendices. For example, Appendix D itself has six 

appendices, many details of which conflict with portions of the 

body of the DPEIS or with Appendix D itself. As another 

example, sections addressing threshold criteria in the body of 

the DPEIS (pages 4-12; 4-33; 4-45) and in Appendix D (D-50; 

D-25; D-56; Table 6) conflict with Appendix H. Assumptions 

and conclusions are buried in the details of Appendix D, but

the other documents (i.e., the DPEIS and Appendix H) present 

no conclusions that clearly correspond to those presented in 

Appendix D’s Phase II model. The three sections on 

threshold criteria in these three separate documents appear to 

have been written by three different people who did not view 

each other’s work.44 There appears to be hundreds of 

referential and typographical errors in the DPEIS and its 

appendices. In short, the overall quality and clarity of the 

analyses presented in the DPEIS and its appendices is poor 

and inhibits meaningful review and input, particularly in light of 

the relatively short period that was provided for review and 

comment on the DPEIS.45

Edits were made throughout this Final Programmatic EIS to 

ensure consistency across all chapters and appendices, and to 

ensure that pertinent details and assumptions from the 

appendices were made evident in their application in the main 

text of this Programmatic EIS.

BOEM believes that the information provided in the Draft 

Programmatic EIS was sufficient under NEPA to allow interested 

stakeholders to provide informed comments on the analysis and 

conclusions included in the Draft Programmatic EIS.

1076-0086 The flaws in the DPEIS (as described above), to the extent 

they are not cured in the final PEIS, may have unintended and 

undesired negative consequences for any agency that relies 

on the final PEIS for the authorization of future federal actions 

and, specifically, for the issuance of MMPA ITAs in the GOM. 

For example, the DPEIS makes unrealistic, incorrect effects 

findings that will almost certainly contradict findings made in 

reviews of future federal actions (assuming those reviews are 

performed correctly). Additionally, the DPEIS’s failure to 

address the effects of mitigation measures will very likely 

The impact conclusions are a synthesis of available qualitative 

and quantitative scientific information. The impact analysis 

considered the modeling results, in conjunction with the subjectmatter experts’ review of scientifically credible information using 

accepted approaches and research methods. However, species 

and the evaluation of the effects of an action on ESA-listed 

species and critical habitat and on marine mammals are 

ultimately under the purview of the appropriate agencies (i.e., 

NMFS and/or FWS) charged with implementation of those 

statutes, which is discussed in Chapter 1.2.5.
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-50 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

contradict subsequent MMPA Section 101(a)(5) evaluations, 

which require the permitting agency to consider the effects of 

mitigation measures in making a determination that the 

authorized take will have a “negligible impact” on marine 

mammal species or stocks. 16 U.S.C. § 1371(a)(5)(A), (D). 

By failing to evaluate the actual anticipated effects of G&G 

activities in the GOM, and by failing to consider the effects of 

mitigation measures, BOEM has created a scenario in which 

the final PEIS will likely (if not corrected) present significant 

contradictions and inconsistencies with subsequent actionspecific regulatory processes. For this additional reason, the 

serious flaws in the DPEIS must be corrected before a final 

PEIS is issued.

Throughout this Programmatic EIS, BOEM has clarified the 

assumptions and scenarios used in the modeling, as well as the 

limitations that may be inherent in any modeling effort (e.g., 

inability to account for mitigation measures and aversion). While 

the results of the modeling may be conservative, they are the 

most credible, science-based information available at this time. 

Mitigation measures included in this Programmatic EIS 

(Appendix B, Section 1.2.4) are designed to minimize 

disturbance and potential auditory injuries to marine mammals 

(and sea turtles) during seismic surveys. The elements of these 

mitigation measures are continually evolving, and those included 

in this Programmatic EIS represent best available scientific 

knowledge. All of the elements have limitations that may reduce 

their effectiveness, as discussed in Appendix B, Section 1.2.4.

1076-0091 This indicates that site-specific EA’s will be required for G&G 

activities. The industry would appreciate greater clarity on 

what the future permit application and supporting NEPA 

process will look like for individual applicants.

Approval processes currently in place will continue, and they 

include BOEM’s commitment to comply with NEPA for G&G 

activities. As described below, this can take a number of forms, 

from this Programmatic EIS to tiered environmental 

assessments, categorical exclusions, or determinations of NEPA 

adequacy.

During site-specific analyses for a variety of G&G survey 

activities, including geological sampling and geophysical 

surveys, BOEM may need to prepare additional NEPA analyses 

in the form of an EA or EIS to support authorization for the 

proposed activity. When a request to conduct G&G activities is 

received, BOEM evaluates whether an EIS, EA, or categorical 

exclusion is appropriate. BOEM typically prepares site-specific 

EAs for proposed G&G activities that include airguns, such as 

2D and 3D seismic surveys, some ocean bottom nodes, and 

ocean bottom cables and any non-airgun activities that could 

include high-resolution surveys or that could impact benthic or 

archaeological resources such as geologic cores and grab 

samples. BOEM expects future site-specific NEPA reviews to 

tier from this Programmatic EIS.

1076-0093 Using the Atlantic G&G PEIS as a reference for showing that 

significant strides have been made in quantifying the effects of 

The nature of modeling always requires some assumptions and 

forecasts by subject-matter experts, and each model has its 
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-51

Submission ID Comment Response

noise on marine mammals is not useful or appropriate. That 

document used a similar approach to estimated exposures as 

used in this DPEIS for the GOM, but there are no data to 

indicate how accurate these methods are in representing 

actual exposures or impacts from the modeled activities.

limitations. Throughout this Programmatic EIS, BOEM has 

clarified the assumptions and scenarios used in the modeling, as 

well as the limitations that may be inherent in any modeling effort 

(e.g., inability to account for mitigation measures and aversion). 

While the results of the modeling may be conservative, they are 

the most credible, science-based information available at this 

time. The question of implementing mitigation in the modeling 

was considered at length. There are currently no generally 

accepted metrics on the effectiveness of mitigation. Therefore, 

inclusion of a quantification of mitigation effects was not 

reasonable. Though mitigation could be not considered directly 

in the modeling effort, it is incorporated in the interpretation of 

the modeling results in the impact analysis presented in 

Chapter 4.2. It is reasonable to conclude that the proposed 

mitigation measures would likely reduce the potential impacts to 

marine mammals, though the amount of such reduction cannot 

be quantified at this time.

1076-0094 Text in the Adaptive Monitoring Plan section of Chapter 1.2.3 

does not include any materials that address the efficacy of 

proposed mitigation measures.

The Monitoring Plan would focus on monitoring marine mammal 

populations and behavior, as well as the effectiveness of 

mitigation measures. The implemented mitigation measures 

would be evaluated and, through an adaptive management 

process, may be altered depending on effectiveness. BOEM will 

consider future data on the efficacy of mitigation measures to 

adjust mitigation requirements for individual surveys based on 

the best available information at that time. Through the 

Environmental Studies Program (https://www.boem.gov/

Environmental-Studies-Planning/), BOEM is funding and is 

planning to fund additional studies and workshops to examine 

the effectiveness and feasibility of mitigation measures in the 

GOM.

The data collected from implementing the Monitoring Plan will 

provide additional information regarding the efficacy of the 

implemented mitigation measures. BOEM will continue to 

coordinate with industry and external stakeholders to understand 

how a marine mammal monitoring plan in the GOM for G&G 

activities may fit into other efforts in order to prevent duplication 

and to address monitoring needs in the context of the larger 
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-52 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

GOM ecosystem.

1077-0003 First, BOEM’s failure to conduct a cost-benefit analysis or 

even to consider beneficial effects of existing mitigation 

measures is arbitrary and capricious. E.g., Friends of the 

Boundary Waters Wilderness v. Dombeck, 164 F.3d 1115, 

1128 (8th Cir. 1999) (EIS must allow a balancing of costs and 

benefits). Second, NEPA regulations prohibit BOEM’s use of 

admittedly “unrealistic” data; they require BOEM to rely on 

“high quality” information and “accurate scientific analysis.” 

40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b) (“Accurate scientific analysis [is] 

essential to implementing NEPA.”); see also id. § 1502.22 

(evaluation must be based upon “credible scientific 

evidence”). Third, the Council on Environmental Quality 

concluded long ago that the type of “worst case analysis” 

BOEM used in the DPEIS is “an unproductive and ineffective 

method of achieving [NEPA’s] goals; one which can breed 

endless hypothesis and speculation.” 51 Fed. Reg. 15,618 

(Apr. 25, 1986). The Supreme Court has agreed. Robertson 

v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 354-56 

(1989) (confirming that worst case analysis is no longer 

applicable).

A cost-benefit analysis is not required to satisfy NEPA analysis 

requirements, particularly if there are important qualitative 

considerations (40 CFR § 1502.23). However, an EIS should 

indicate considerations, including factors not related to 

environmental quality, that are likely to be relevant and important 

to a decision (40 CFR § 1502.23). Therefore, a cost-benefit 

analysis for inclusion of the proposed mitigation measures was 

performed. Chapter 4.13 provides an analysis of and tables 

showing the incremental cost and percent cost change per 

survey, the total annual survey incremental cost, and the percent 

reduction in efficiency per survey for Alternatives B through F. 

BOEM considered many factors, including the cost of 

implementing mitigation measures, in selecting the Preferred 

Alternative. If NOAA moves forward with their proposed action 

(i.e., issuance of MMPA incidental take regulations), then an 

Regulatory Impact Analysis would accompany the MMPA rule.

BOEM prepared this Programmatic EIS using the best available 

data and included conservative assumptions to avoid 

underestimating impacts. BOEM is committed to complying with 

the requirements and intent of NEPA in preparing a sound 

Programmatic EIS based on the best available scientific 

information and professional judgment of subject-matter experts.

BOEM developed this in-depth Programmatic EIS to inform the 

public and decisionmaker of the potential reasonably foreseeable 

impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to ensure that 

any decision regarding G&G activities is fully supported.

There were some erroneous occurrences of “worst-case” in 

Appendix D, and they were removed. Throughout this 

Programmatic EIS, BOEM clarified the assumptions and 

scenarios used in the modeling, as well as limitations that may 

be inherent in any modeling effort (e.g., inability to account for 

mitigation measures and aversion). While the results of the 

modeling may be conservative, they are the most credible, 

science-based information available at this time.
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-53

Submission ID Comment Response

1077-0008 Chevron urges BOEM to correct the errors identified above 

and in the Associations’ comments and recognize G&G 

activities as imperative for safe, effective, and environmentally 

responsible resource development.

Comment noted. BOEM has reviewed and taken into 

consideration all comments received on the Draft Programmatic 

EIS in the development of this Final Programmatic EIS.

BOEM prepared this Programmatic EIS using the best available 

data and included conservative assumptions to avoid 

underestimating impacts. BOEM is committed to complying with 

the requirements and intent of NEPA, in preparing a sound 

Programmatic EIS based on the best-available scientific 

information and professional judgment of its subject-matter 

experts. BOEM has developed this Programmatic EIS to inform 

the public and decisionmaker of the potential reasonably 

foreseeable impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to 

ensure that any decision regarding G&G activities is fully 

supported.

1085-0002 Of course, we know that marine mammal populations in the 

Gulf already have suffered from inadequate regulation of 

offshore oil and gas activities from loss of habitat and the 

disastrous Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

As stated in Chapter 1, BOEM's mission is to manage 

development of the Nation’s OCS energy and mineral resources 

in an environmentally and economically responsible way. Each 

alternative presented in this Programmatic EIS includes the 

implementation of standard mitigation measures, monitoring, 

reporting, survey protocols, and guidance designed to minimize 

environmental impacts. Potential impacts to resources (e.g., 

marine mammals, sea turtles, and economics) from 

Alternatives A through G are analyzed in Chapter 4. These 

analyses were developed using the best available data by 

subject-matter experts and include analysis of baseline trends for 

each resource. In addition, NOAA and BSEE are cooperating 

agencies for this Programmatic EIS, and BOEM worked closely 

with both agencies to include their input in this Final 

Programmatic EIS. All of this information will be considered by 

the decisionmaker in determining which alternative is selected in 

the ROD.

1088-0009 Continuing to conduct geophysical surveys in the GOM will 

produce known discoveries safely and more efficiently and will 

help uncover new sources of oil and natural gas. This data 

will allow people to make informed decisions about the 

potential for continued job creation and economic growth from 

offshore energy production in the Gulf.

Thank you for your comment. BOEM analyzed the potential 

effects of each alternative, including the potential benefits of 

G&G activities and acquiring G&G data. This information is 

located in Chapter 4.13. All of this information will be 

considered by the decisionmaker in determining which 

alternative is selected in the ROD.
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-54 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

The geophysical industry remains committed to improving the 

scientific understanding of the potential impacts of our 

operations on marine life. Seismic and other geophysical 

surveys in the GOM are a critical part of the safe offshore 

energy development that is necessary to harness our nation’s 

energy potential for the benefit of American energy 

consumers.

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives and mitigations in 

this Programmatic EIS using the best available science, along 

with consideration of technical feasibility, economic viability, and 

other factors, and consider them a reasonable range of 

alternatives for NEPA analysis. This Programmatic EIS will 

enable BOEM to fulfill statutory responsibilities associated with 

permitting and authorizing G&G activities connected with 

activities conducted in support of the Oil and Gas, Renewable 

Energy, and Marine Minerals Programs for the Gulf of Mexico 

OCS. This Programmatic EIS also would support NOAA’s

authorization of the incidental take of marine mammals under the 

MMPA for these activities. The full consideration of alternatives 

and mitigations assists both agencies in meeting their NEPA 

obligations and provide the decisionmakers with the necessary 

information, including the relative need and costs of mitigations, 

to evaluate and implement prospective actions.

1091-0026 BOEM mentions it is developing a G&G Marine Mammal 

Monitoring Plan collaboratively with NMFS, which would allow 

for increased monitoring and understanding of impacts to 

marine mammals from G&G activities (Volume I, Chapter 

1.2.3.2). It would be wise to have this plan in place before a 

new Alternative action is adopted for G&G activity in the Gulf 

of Mexico.

As agreed upon in the revised Settlement Agreement in 2015, 

BOEM has analyzed the development of the monitoring plan 

developed by industry (Chapter 1.2.3.4).

1091-0027 As BOEM states in Section 1.2.6 of the PEIS (2016), BOEM 

has used NMFS’ traditional acoustic guidance for assessing 

Level A and Level B Harassment to marine mammals 

throughout the PEIS. BOEM also acknowledges that it has 

referenced and used NMFS’ July 2016 final “Technical 

Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound 

on Marine Mammal Hearing” throughout the EIS, though 

BOEM acknowledges that this is based on BOEM’s “initial 

review” and that it “intends to further review these new 

guidelines and work with NMFS for further clarification and 

guidance” (Chapter 1.2.6). Notwithstanding that the 

guidelines came out just shortly before this PEIS was 

published, it is critical that BOEM has a full understanding and 

achieves full implementation of these guidelines before 

Thank you for your comment. This Programmatic EIS has been 

revised to include the 2016 Technical Guidance issued by 

NMFS, and updated modeling results using this guidance are

included in Appendix N. This represents the best available 

scientific information and criteria issued by NOAA.
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-55

Submission ID Comment Response

projecting acoustic impacts and standards moving forward.

1091-0028 BOEM states in Volume I, Chapter 1.2.7 that it is in the 

process of developing a new Risk Assessment Framework 

(RAF) on marine mammal hearing and sound, which 

presumably fully integrates the new NMFS Technical 

Guidance. It is true that agencies often have to evaluate 

potential acoustic impacts to marine mammals under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act using Level A or Level B 

exposures based on a more qualitative assessment, and that 

this assessment is not foolproof and leaves room for error. 

Therefore, it would be in BOEM’s best interest to finish 

developing this RAF before authorizing new G&G activity in 

order to use the best available science and methods for 

projecting impacts to marine mammals in the Gulf of Mexico.

Thank you for your comment. BOEM acknowledges that it would 

be useful to have the Risk Assessment Framework (RAF) final 

report prior to finalizing this Final Programmatic EIS, but it is not 

possible within the timeframe of this NEPA document or the 

other activities under consideration, including the ESA 

consultation and MMPA petition. Ideally, a Federal agency 

would have complete information when undertaking a NEPA 

analysis or agency action. However, with the rapid pace of 

scientific study, the ongoing and overlapping timelines for 

completion of studies, and the constant evaluation and 

refinement of existing data and modeling, such perfect 

information is not always possible. At some point, the agency 

must move forward and complete its analyses and move forward 

with agency’s mission. The CEQ regulations specifically 

acknowledge this and, instead of mandating that Federal 

agencies cannot move forward with scientific uncertainty, direct 

agencies to evaluate where there is incomplete or unavailable 

information when preparing NEPA documents and implementing 

agency decisions (40 CFR § 1502.22). 

BOEM has tried to apply this directive in this Programmatic EIS 

whenever there was relevant incomplete or unavailable 

information, including acknowledging that the RAF study is in 

process but not available yet. However, this information is not 

essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives (refer to

Chapter 1.2.6). The RAF study results will help fill in and refine 

certain exposures estimates, but they are not expected to 

significantly deviate from the existing exposure estimates from the 

JASCO modeling since the estimates rely on the same underlying 

density data. When the RAF study results become available, 

BOEM will evaluate them, consistent with CEQ regulations, to 

determine whether supplementation of this Programmatic EIS is 

necessary or if additional analysis in future site-specific NEPA 

documents for G&G survey requests is appropriate. The NOAA 

expects to incorporate the results of the RAF into its MMPA 

rulemaking or authorization decisions, through the rulemaking 

itself, or individual decisions on Letters of Authorization and 
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-56 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

Incidental Harassment Authorizations.

1095-0004 This proposal clearly does not seek an appropriate or rational 

balance between energy production and the existence rights 

of marine mammals, and its serious entertainment by the 

BOEM is an affront to the moral decency that we owe these 

precious and profoundly intelligent creatures.

Such a horrifying acoustic assault upon the liquid medium that 

defines and envelops the conscious life of cetaceans, plainly 

violates the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act.

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives and mitigations in 

this Programmatic EIS using the best available science, along 

with consideration of technical feasibility, economic viability, and 

other factors, and consider them a reasonable range of 

alternatives for NEPA analysis. This Programmatic EIS will 

enable BOEM to fulfill statutory responsibilities associated with 

permitting and authorizing G&G activities connected with 

activities conducted in support of the Oil and Gas, Renewable 

Energy, and Marine Minerals Programs for the Gulf of Mexico 

OCS. This Programmatic EIS also would support NOAA 

authorization of the incidental take of marine mammals under the 

MMPA for these activities. The full consideration of alternatives 

and mitigations assists both agencies in meeting their NEPA 

obligations and provide the decisionmakers with the necessary 

information, including the relative need and costs of mitigations, 

to evaluate and implement prospective actions.

1095-0006 Moreover, our atmosphere cannot safely absorb any more 

carbon dioxide, and this liability to human welfare and survival 

negates the net economic value of the oil to be extracted. At 

this moment, when vast areas of the Gulf have already been 

leased to oil and gas production, to the detriment of our 

national security and our ecological wealth, to cut further into 

the Gulf for the last hydrocarbons, is unbecoming a 

government agency in ostensible service to the public interest. 

The carbon content of the oil that may result from the 

exploration is a material threat to America’s national security. 

This Administration, across agencies and audiences, has 

articulated the need to curb global warming as an urgent 

matter of national security and human health. For the BOEM 

to commit to production of a new long-term supply of fossil 

fuels from a new block of the Gulf of Mexico would cripple this 

important national goal. The decision to extract oil and gas 

does not occur in a policy vacuum, triggered by industry 

interest, but in the context of an urgent national need to shift 

from carbon-based fuels. Unmolested marine ecosystems are 

becoming scarcer over time, while excess carbon dioxide is 

becoming a lethal liability. Therefore, any sane and rational 

This Programmatic EIS describes and evaluates potential 

environmental impacts related to reasonably foreseeable G&G 

survey activities in the AOI for BOEM’s three Program Areas 

(i.e., Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals). 

Although downstream emissions from oil and gas leasing on the 

OCS should be included in this Programmatic EIS, oil and gas 

leasing in the AOI is not part of the proposed action and this 

NEPA document does not analyze or authorize an OCS lease 

sale. Those activities, and impacts that may result from them, 

are outside the scope of this Programmatic EIS. This 

Programmatic EIS is limited in scope to the stated proposed 

action, purpose and need, and reasonable range of alternatives 

(Chapters 1.1.2 and 2). Nevertheless, as part of its mission, 

BOEM considers these activities and issues in other NEPA 

documents. BOEM directs these commenters to the Five-Year 

Program and Five-Year Program EIS. As part of that analysis, 

BOEM considered the effects of GHG emissions. Chapter 4.2 of 

the Five-Year Program EIS considers climate change and the 

baseline environment in the areas proposed for oil and gas 

leasing. In addition, Wolvovsky and Anderson (2016) assess the 

potential lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions and social cost of 
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-57

Submission ID Comment Response

balance of values to occur in BOEM offices must reach toward 

preservation of the former and discouraging the latter.

carbon under the Five-Year Program.

In addition, the 2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS’ NEPA analyses 

further specify the impacts of GHG emissions related to a single

proposed lease sale.

1095-0008 I urge the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to withdraw 

your proposed acoustic exploration assault on the Gulf of 

Mexico in search of fossil fuels that our country does not 

need, and in fact cannot tolerate.

Thank you for your comment. This Programmatic EIS is not the 

decision document under NEPA. The decision will be provided 

in the ROD following publication of the Final Programmatic EIS. 

BOEM developed a reasonable range of proposed alternatives, 

which includes a reasonable suite of proposed mitigations to 

analyze the potential impacts from G&G activities associated 

with BOEM’s three Program Areas (i.e., Oil and Gas, Renewable 

Energy, and Marine Minerals) within the AOI. BOEM developed 

the proposed mitigations and alternatives in close coordination 

with NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service using the highest 

quality and best available information. All of this information will 

be considered by the decisionmaker in determining which 

alternative is selected in the ROD.

This Programmatic EIS does not address topics beyond the 

stated proposed action, purpose and need, and alternatives 

(Chapters 1.1.2 and 2). The scope of this Programmatic EIS 

does not include a NEPA analysis for oil and gas leasing in the 

AOI, and it does not authorize an OCS lease sale. The 

procedures under the OCSLA to set up a lease sale include a 

specific NEPA evaluation for that proposed action. The Nation’s

energy policy is determined at the national level and is analyzed 

in the Five-Year Program and Five-Year Program EIS.

1108-0003 Seismic surveying makes oil and gas development safer and 

reduces damage caused by test drilling and other, more 

invasive, exploratory methods.

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives and mitigations in 

this Programmatic EIS using the best available science, along 

with consideration of technical feasibility, economic viability, and 

other factors, and consider them a reasonable range of 

alternatives for NEPA analysis. This Programmatic EIS will 

enable BOEM to fulfill statutory responsibilities associated with

permitting and authorizing G&G activities connected with 

activities conducted in support of the Oil and Gas, Renewable 

Energy, and Marine Minerals Programs for the Gulf of Mexico 

OCS. This Programmatic EIS also would support NOAA 
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-58 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

authorization of the incidental take of marine mammals under the 

MMPA for these activities. The full consideration of alternatives 

and mitigations assists both agencies in meeting their NEPA 

obligations and provide the decisionmakers with the necessary 

information, including the relative need and costs of mitigations, 

to evaluate and implement prospective actions.

1108-0004 Advances in seismic imaging technology over the last few 

years have made this proven way to locate oil and gas 

deposits even more effective. We must not do anything that 

would take this valuable tool out of the hands of the men and 

women who work to deliver Gulf of Mexico energy resources 

to U.S. consumers. 

Thank you for your comment. As stated in Chapter 1, BOEM's 

mission is to manage development of the Nation’s OCS energy 

and mineral resources in an environmentally and economically 

responsible way. Each alternative presented in this

Programmatic EIS includes the implementation of standard 

mitigation measures, monitoring, reporting, survey protocols, and

guidance designed to minimize environmental impacts while 

allowing development of OCS oil and gas, renewable, and 

mineral resources.

This Programmatic EIS describes and evaluates potential 

environmental impacts (adverse and beneficial) to all resources 

(e.g., marine mammals, sea turtles, economics, etc.) related to 

reasonably foreseeable G&G survey activities in the AOI for 

BOEM’s three Program Areas (i.e., Oil and Gas, Renewable 

Energy, and Marine Minerals [Chapter 4]). These analyses 

were developed using the highest quality and best available 

information. All of the information in this Final Programmatic EIS 

will be considered by the decisionmaker in determining which 

alternative is selected in the ROD.

1108-0005 Certain proposed mitigation rules in the Draft PEIS would 

dramatically curtail seismic testing in the Gulf, by some 

estimates reducing the overall number of seismic surveys 

performed as much as 25 percent. This could have an 

enormous negative impact on domestic oil and gas 

production, U.S. energy security, and employment 

opportunities for American workers. Please make sure the 

final EIS protects seismic surveying, and safeguards this 

crucial support for U.S. energy development.

Comment noted. BOEM developed the alternatives and 

associated mitigations in this Programmatic EIS based on 

technical feasibility, economic viability, and other factors, and 

considers them a reasonable range of alternatives for NEPA 

analysis. A proposed alternative is reasonable only if it will fulfill 

this Programmatic EIS’s purpose and need. This Programmatic 

EIS will enable BOEM and NMFS to fulfill statutory 

responsibilities associated with permitting or authorizing G&G 

activities/the take of marine mammals in connection with 

activities conducted in support of BOEM’s Oil and Gas, 

Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals Programs for the Gulf 

of Mexico OCS. In addition, only one alternative, Alternative E, 
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-59

Submission ID Comment Response

includes a reduction in the activity levels; all of the other 

alternatives evaluated in this Programmatic EIS reflect the same 

projected level of activity, which is based on input from industry 

and historical survey permit data.

Chapter 4 describes and evaluates potential environmental 

impacts (adverse and beneficial) to all resources (including

economic factors) related to reasonably foreseeable G&G survey 

activities in the AOI for BOEM’s three Program Areas (i.e., Oil 

and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals). All of the 

information in this Final Programmatic EIS will be considered by 

the decisionmaker in determining which alternative is selected in 

the ROD.

The scope of this Programmatic EIS does not include a NEPA 

analysis for nor does it address topics beyond the stated 

proposed action, purpose, and need (Chapter 1.1.2), such as 

the Nation’s energy policy. The national energy policy is 

determined at the national level and is analyzed in the Five-Year 

Program and Five-Year Program EIS. Consultations were also 

conducted with NMFS regarding the ESA and MMPA, and 

information regarding those consultations is included in 

Chapter 6.7.

1111-0002 We need an "all of the above" solution for energy 

independence and energy independence is what we need to 

secure our country right now. Again, please make sure the 

final EIS protects seismic surveying, and safeguards this 

crucial support for U.S. energy development.

As stated in Chapter 1, BOEM's mission is to manage 

development of the Nation’s OCS energy and mineral resources 

in an environmentally and economically responsible way. This 

Programmatic EIS was developed to analyze the potential 

impacts from G&G activities within the AOI from BOEM’s three 

Program Areas (i.e., Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and 

Marine Minerals). Chapter 4 describes and evaluates potential 

environmental impacts (adverse and beneficial) to all resources 

(including economic factors) related to reasonably foreseeable 

G&G survey activities. All of the information in this Final 

Programmatic EIS will be considered by the decisionmaker in 

determining which alternative is selected in the ROD.

This Programmatic EIS does not address topics beyond the 

stated proposed action, purpose and need, and alternatives 
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-60 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

(Chapters 1.1 and 2), such as the Nation’s broader energy 

policy. The Nation’s energy policy is determined at the national 

level and is analyzed in the Five-Year Program and Five-Year 

Program EIS.

1127-0003 Why, then, in the Draft PEIS, is BOEM proposing high-cost, 

unwieldy regulations to address a problem that does not 

exist? I accept that the energy industry will be attacked by 

activists without scientific basis. It is inappropriate, however, 

for the federal government to bend to these attacks and create 

regulatory policies that are unwarranted by scientific evidence. 

As a scientist, you must understand my frustration.

I urge your Office to review the scientific literature and revise 

the PEIS accordingly. Rules concerning seismic surveying 

should not be molded by ideology and politics.

BOEM prepared this Programmatic EIS using the best available 

data. BOEM promotes environmental protection and economic 

development through responsible, science-based management 

of offshore conventional and renewable energy resources. The 

purpose of this Programmatic EIS is to evaluate potential 

environmental effects of multiple G&G activities on the Gulf of 

Mexico OCS by utilizing the most current scientific research in 

analyzing the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed 

action.

In addition, through the Monitoring Plan (Chapter 1.2.3.4), 

BOEM will consider future data on the efficacy of mitigation 

measures to adjust mitigation requirements for individual surveys 

based on the best available information at that time. Through 

the Environmental Studies Program (https://www.boem.gov/

Environmental-Studies-Planning/), BOEM is funding and is 

planning to fund additional studies and workshops to examine 

impacts to marine mammals, as well as the effectiveness and 

feasibility of mitigation measures in the GOM.

1129-0001 I am writing to show my support for the continued use of 

seismic surveys in the Gulf of Mexico. Seismic surveys help 

make offshore energy development safer and more efficient 

and are essential to locating potential new sources of energy.

Thank you for your comment. As stated in Chapter 1, BOEM's 

mission is to manage development of the Nation’s OCS energy 

and mineral resources in an environmentally and economically 

responsible way. Each alternative presented in this

Programmatic EIS includes the implementation of standard 

mitigation measures, monitoring, reporting, survey protocols, and 

guidance designed to minimize environmental impacts while 

allowing development of OCS oil and gas, renewable, and 

mineral resources.

This Programmatic EIS describes and evaluates potential 

environmental impacts (adverse and beneficial) to all resources 

(e.g., marine mammals, sea turtles, economics, etc.) related to 

reasonably foreseeable G&G survey activities in the AOI for 

BOEM’s three Program Areas (i.e., Oil and Gas, Renewable 
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-61

Submission ID Comment Response

Energy, and Marine Minerals [Chapter 4]). These analyses 

were developed using the highest quality and best available 

information. All of the information in this Final Programmatic 

EIS will be considered by the decisionmaker in determining 

which alternative is selected in the ROD.

1130-0004 Revise the proposed action description in Section 1.1.1, last 

paragraph (as provided below) for accuracy and consistency 

regarding the purpose and intent of including a proposed 

action description for NMFS. Although NOAA’s previous 

comments concerning this topic were partially addressed 

during pre-draft versions, the description in the Draft PEIS for 

public review requires additional changes. Reference: 

Chapter 1, Section 1.1.1, Page 1-4. “NOAA’s National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposed action will be a direct 

outcome of responding to BOEM’s petition for incidental take 

regulations and subsequent applicants’ requests for incidental 

take authorizations per the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 

1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.). U.S. 

citizens seeking to obtain authorization for the incidental take 

of marine mammals must submit requests (in the form of an 

application). Once NMFS determines an application is 

complete, NMFS has a corresponding duty to determine 

whether and how to authorize take of marine mammals 

incidental to the activities described in an application. NMFS’s 

responsibilities under Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 216, 

Subpart I) establish and frame NMFS’s proposed action. To 

authorize the incidental take of small numbers of marine 

mammals, NMFS evaluates the best available scientific 

information to determine whether the total taking would have a 

negligible impact on the affected marine mammals or stocks 

and whether the activity would have an unmitigable adverse 

impact on the their availability for subsistence use, as well as 

prescribing the means of effecting the least practicable 

adverse impact. NMFS cannot issue an incidental take 

authorization if it cannot make those findings in the 

affirmative.”

In response to this comment, and based on discussions between 

BOEM and NOAA, text has been revised in Chapter 1.1.1 to 

include clarifying language.
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-62 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

1130-0005 NMFS’s action to authorize the take of marine mammals 

under the MMPA incidental to geological and geophysical 

survey (G&G) activities under the MMPA is not substantially 

the same as BOEM’s action to permit or authorize G&G 

activities. Therefore, delete “NMFS” and “/the take of marine 

mammals” from the first sentence in the fourth paragraph of 

Section 1.1.2 because NMFS’s purpose and need is also not 

the same as BOEM’s and requires some degree of separation 

from BOEM’s purpose and need. Although NOAA’s previous 

comments concerning this topic were partially addressed 

during pre-draft versions, the description in the Draft PEIS for 

public review is inconsistent. Reference: Chapter 1, Page 1-5, 

Section 1.1.2.

Text has been edited in Chapter 1.1 to differentiate between 

BOEM's and NMFS' proposed actions.

1130-0006 Remove duplicate and inconsistent explanations why NMFS is 

relying on BOEM’s PEIS and replace with the explanation (as 

provided below). It is important to note there is a difference 

between NOAA adopting BOEM’s Programmatic EIS for 

NMFS’s proposed action (which is the potential authorization 

of incidental take of marine mammals) and relying on the 

analysis within this Programmatic EIS to support consultation 

efforts. These are two distinct efforts with different purposes, 

in particular, under NEPA. The beginning of Chapters 1 and 6 

indicate that Chapter 6, Section 6.3.3 provides the details of 

cooperating agency status, process and roles. Therefore, 

NOAA’s preference is to provide the following explanation as 

the second paragraph in section 6.3.3.2 and move the MOA 

explanation as the last paragraph. We do not believe it is 

necessary to duplicate this statement throughout the 

document. However, if BOEM does repeat this information, it 

needs to be consistent throughout. Reference: Some 

examples of inconsistent explanations concerning this topic 

can be found in Chapter 1, Section 1.1.1, 1.2 and 1.2.2, and 

Appendix B, Page B-29, B-34, B48-B49. “Since the issuance 

of an incidental take authorization would allow for the taking of 

marine mammals, consistent with the provisions under the 

MMPA and incidental to the G&G activities, NOAA considers 

this issuance to be a major federal action subject to NEPA. 

Therefore, NOAA’s NMFS intends to adopt this Programmatic 

Clarifying language has been added to address this concern. 

BOEM acknowledges that NOAA intends to adopt this NEPA 

document to support its own proposed action (i.e., issuance of 

MMPA take authorizations through ITRs or IHAs). However, 

NOAA is correct that while the analyses in this document may be 

useful and relevant to NOAA in engaging in consultations under 

the ESA or other related statutes, those consultations are not 

“proposed actions” for the purposes of NEPA or this 

Programmatic EIS. BOEM has attempted to clarify this in this

Final Programmatic EIS.
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-63

Submission ID Comment Response

EIS as the NEPA documentation associated with authorizing 

incidental take of marine mammals. In addition, NMFS and 

ONMS may rely on the analysis within this Programmatic EIS 

to support consultation efforts under the ESA, MSA and 

NMSA.”

1130-0013 Summary of impacts to non-marine mammal ImpactProducing Factors (IPF) under Alternative 4: FGB is the only 

closure designed for resources other than marine mammals; 

however, in assessing potential effects associated with 

Alternative F vs. status quo, assessment is made either over 

individual resources or over all offshore MPAs in the Gulf. 

This dilutes any assessment of whether this closure is 

projected to lead to reduced impacts to the resources of the 

only designated NMS in the AOI. Reference: Executive 

Summary, beginning Page xxiii. 

The additional mitigation measures in Alternative F will reduce 

potential direct impacts to resources within Marine Protected 

Areas that may occur in the four closure areas (i.e., the CPA 

Closure Area, the EPA Closure Area, the Dry Tortugas Closure 

Area, and the Flower Gardens Closure Area), as well as 

secondary impacts to resources near the closure areas. 

However, at the programmatic level, impact ratings were 

designed to address impact probability, severity, and duration to 

resource categories as a whole, rather than to individual 

components of a resource. The definitions of each impact level 

were purposely broad to avoid exceptions to a single impact 

rating due to the complexities of program-related IPFs to 

resources that occur within the AOI and over the 10-year period 

of this Programmatic EIS. This level of detail is expected to 

accompany analyses of impacts for future site-specific EAs and 

permit application evaluations.

1130-0022 Statements concerning whether “every exposure to sound 

results in a ‘take’” must be revised. NOAA concurs that not 

every exposure to sound results in a take, as marine 

mammals may be exposed to sound at levels above that of 

ambient but below those at which take is assumed to occur. 

However, the referenced exposure estimates are in fact 

definitively equated with “take” (as defined by the MMPA) 

because the estimates are for exposures to sound exceeding 

the levels at which “take” is assumed to occur. Therefore, 

NOAA disagrees with the evident intent of this statement. 

Reference to injury should be eliminated, as it confuses the 

statement. Under the MMPA, “injury” is a type of “take.” 

Under the ESA, injury may be the result of “harm” (a type of 

taking), whereas harassment (another form of taking under 

the ESA) is an act that creates the likelihood of injury 

(pursuant to NMFS’ Interim Guidance on the ESA Term 

“Harass”). Reference to injury should be clarified or removed. 

BOEM thanks NOAA for its comment. Because other comments 

noted some confusion between exposures and takes, and 

because the term “take” has a specific legal significance under 

the ESA and MMPA, BOEM has opted for clarity to refer to 

“exposures” throughout this Programmatic EIS. The estimation 

of takes of listed species and evaluating the effects of an action 

on ESA-listed species, critical habitat, and marine mammals are 

under the purview of the services charged with implementation of 

those statutes (namely, NOAA and FWS). The focus of NEPA, 

however, is broader. Prior to undertaking a major action, NEPA 

mandates that Federal agencies identify and analyze potentially 

significant impacts to the environment from the proposed action 

and alternatives, direct and indirect effects, and incremental 

contributions to cumulative effects. The NEPA analysis is to be 

made available to the public and to inform the decisionmaker in 

reaching a decision.
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-64 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

Reference: Chapter 1, Section 1.2.5, pg 1-15, Section 1.2.6, 

pg 1-19; Chapter 2, pg 2-6; Chapter 4, pgs 4-14, 4-46, 4-48. 

We note for the record that, despite NOAA having previously 

expressed to BOEM its disagreement with this statement, 

BOEM did not clarify or remove it from the PEIS. Rather, 

BOEM edited the document to state that BOEM and NMFS 

(vs. BOEM alone) “does not believe that every exposure to 

sound results in a ‘take’” and “exposure estimates used in this 

Programmatic EIS are not the same as a ‘take’...”, without 

notifying NOAA of the change prior to publication. This is 

unacceptable.

However, modeling done to estimate potential exposures at 

certain decibel thresholds was limited in several ways. Mitigation 

could not be included in the model predictions, but some or all of 

the mitigation measures, as evaluated under the various 

alternatives, will be implemented during actual surveys. While 

mitigation effectiveness is difficult to predict, BOEM believes it 

will have some value in avoiding certain animal exposures and/or 

reducing certain exposures to below NMFS’ decibel thresholds. 

In addition, the Level of Effort (i.e., the number of surveys based 

on industry input and historical data) is a reasonable forecast, 

but the actual number of surveys for the next 10 years may differ 

from the estimated and modeled level of effort. Given recent oil 

and gas prices and leasing interest, the actual number of 

surveys may be lower, at least over the short term. Finally, 

airgun exposure predictions are based on a single nominal 

8,000-in3 airgun array, which may over-represent many of the 

arrays that actually would be used, but this array size was used 

as a realistic representative proxy to ensure that potential 

impacts were not underestimated after discussions with several 

industry companies.

1130-0023 Following the trend of calling the modeling results into 

question in vague and unsupported fashion, BOEM adds what 

appears to be a vague criticism of the density models used to 

provide information regarding marine mammal occurrence to 

the exposure modeling effort. BOEM states that density 

information may not be an accurate representation of the 

population “due to the model’s assumptions.” It is unclear 

which model assumptions BOEM is referring to or in what way 

BOEM believes that these assumptions impact the ultimate 

results of the exposure modeling effort. BOEM must remove 

or further develop this statement. Reference: Chapter 1, 

Section 1.2.6, pg 1-20.

The text in Chapter 1.2.5 has been clarified to address the use 

of density data in the modeling efforts for this Programmatic EIS. 

1130-0024 BOEM states that “Without a rigorous methodology to 

[interpret biological significance]...must move forward with an 

overly conservative scenario equating the numbers of 

exposures to the number of ‘takes’....” This is not correct. 

The “Risk Assessment Framework” is not about some new 

way of equating exposures with takes, but rather is about 

Chapter 1.2.7 has been revised to clarify the role and goals of 

the Risk Assessment Framework.
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-65

Submission ID Comment Response

assessing the significance of the assumed takes, and does 

not influence the methodology of estimating exposures (and 

therefore takes). Reference: Chapter 1, Section 1.2.7, 

p 1-21; Chapter 4, Section 4.1.4.4, pg 4-16.

1130-0045 Remove all references to NOAA’s 1999 Administrative Order 

in Chapter 1, Section 1.4 and elsewhere.

Changes have been made in Chapter 1.4 and throughout this 

Programmatic EIS where necessary.

1130-0047 Text edit as follows: The National Marine Fisheries Service’s 

(NMFS) proposed action will be a direct outcome of 

responding to BOEM’s (or another applicant’s) request for 

authorization under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 

1972....Reference: Chapter 1, pg 1-4.

Text has been revised in Chapter 1.1.1 in accordance with 

NOAA Comment 1130-0004, which supersedes this comment.

1130-0048 Text edit as follows: The NMFS intends to use this 

Programmatic EIS as the NEPA documentation associated 

with the issuance of incidental “take” authorizations and rulemaking process under the MMPA and the Section 7 

Consultation process under the ESA for the incidental taking 

of marine mammals and ESA-listed species during G&G 

survey activities.

Text has been revised in Chapter 1.2. 

1130-0050 Historical harassment thresholds were never put forward in 

formal guidance; therefore this statement is incorrect and 

must be revised. Reference: Chapter 1, Section 1.2.6, pg 

1-17, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence; Chapter 4, Section 4.1.4.3, 

2nd paragraph.

Text in Chapters 1.2.6 and 4.1.4.3 have been revised 

accordingly.

1130-0051 The figure displaying differences between frequency weighting 

curves displays both sets of curves as being from 2012 and 

therefore does not adequately show the differences between 

the two sets of curves. Reference: Chapter 1, Section 1.2.6, 

pg 1-18; Chapter 4, Section 4.1.4.3, pg 4-13. 

Thank you for your comment. This Programmatic EIS has been 

revised to include the 2016 Technical Guidance issued by 

NMFS, and updated modeling results using this guidance are

included in Appendix N. Appendix N replaces the material 

referenced in this comment, and Chapter 1.2.6 has been revised 

to reflect this.

1130-0052 Historical injury criteria did not require summation of energy, 

as the thresholds were based on the root mean square metric 

rather than cumulative sound exposure level. Therefore, the 

table footnote does not make sense and should be revised. 

Reference: Chapter 1, Section 1.2.6, pg 1-19; Chapter 4, 

Section 4.1.4.3, pg 4-14.

Thank you for your comment. This Programmatic EIS has been 

revised to include the 2016 Technical Guidance issued by 

NMFS, and updated modeling results using this guidance are

included in Appendix N. Appendix N replaces the material 

referenced in this comment. Chapter 1.2.6 has been revised to 

reflect this.

1130-0060 The description in Vol. I, Chapter 5, Section 5.3 does not 

address the concept the section implies it does.

Thank you for your comment. While Chapter 5.3 addresses a 

specific regulatory requirement under NEPA and provides 
Table M-4. Purpose and Need/Regulatory Overview Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-66 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

examples of the short-term and long-term impacts analyses, it 

mostly refers back to the fuller impact analyses for individual 

resources in Chapter 4. However, for clarification, BOEM has 

made additional edits to Chapter 5.3. 

1130-0069 How would “future” source levels be expected to differ 

substantively from present source levels, which we have a 

reasonable understanding of? Reference: Chapter 1, 

Section 1.2.5, pg 1-16.

Chapter 1.2.5 has been revised.

1130-0070 Variability associated with the number and exact description of 

the surveys to be conducted does not make the modeling 

results “difficult to interpret.” One performs a modeling 

exercise on the basis of a defined scenario. If in fact a lesser 

amount of activity occurs or the activity in fact shifts in time or 

space to an area where less impact on a resource might be 

expected, then we can reasonably conclude in hindsight that 

the modeling scenario resulted in an inflation of likely actual 

exposures. Description of this modeling limitation should be 

revised for accuracy. Reference: Chapter 1, Section 1.2.5, 

pg 1-16.

Thank you for your comment. The text was revised in 

Chapter 1.2.5. 
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-67

M.4.2 Scope of Programmatic EIS

Several comments noted that the scope of this Programmatic EIS omitted adequate analysis 

of GHG emissions and climate change impacts resulting from G&G activities over the time period of 

the analysis. Several comments outlined deficiencies in the cumulative scenario relative to coastal 

resources, as well as reasonably foreseeable offshore commercial aquaculture activities. Detailed 

responses to specific comments are provided in Table M-5. 
M-68 Responses to Public Comments

Table M-5. Scope of This Programmatic EIS’s Detailed Comment Responses

Submission ID Comment Response

Scope of This Programmatic EIS

0006-0006 "Flooding the ocean with noise from seismic surveys is a 

devastating one-two punch for the ocean," said Steve Mashuda, 

an attorney with Earthjustice. "At a time when our oceans are 

already showing the stress of climate change, it just doesn't 

make sense to harm whales, dolphins, and other ocean wildlife 

in service of drilling for more oil we can't afford to burn." 

Potential impacts from the proposed action are evaluated in 

Chapter 4 for all resources. In addition, this Programmatic 

EIS includes climate change as part of the cumulative impact 

scenario in Chapter 3.4.3.11, and climate change is evaluated 

for each resource in Chapter 4. The relevant effects from 

climate change are identified and evaluated, including that 

physical and biological systems will be subject to rising water 

temperatures, changes in ice cover, ocean acidification, and 

habitat loss. BOEM and NOAA are working together to meet 

statutory obligations (e.g., NEPA, MMPA, and ESA) to 

manage G&G activities and their potential impacts to marine 

resources, including marine mammals, in the GOM. 

Chapter 2 outlines the alternatives and mitigation measures to 

the proposed action.

1069-0012 Shell reiterates to BOEM that, globally, nations are competing 

for private investment as they seek to develop their resources 

and realize the benefits of energy security, government 

revenues, employment, and economic growth. Decisions that 

limit exploration and production of U.S. OCS oil and gas 

resources put the nation behind competing countries that are at 

present making progress in developing their offshore resources.

When companies, like Shell, make decisions about where to 

invest and explore, each opportunity is weighed against others. 

Government policies that needlessly devalue existing leases, 

impose burdensome restrictions, and remove areas from 

exploration may therefore have impacts that reverberate across 

geopolitical boundaries.

As stated in Chapter 1, BOEM's mission is to manage 

development of the Nation’s. OCS energy and mineral 

resources in an environmentally and economically responsible 

way.

The need for the proposed action is to have access to and use 

of the best available information obtained from G&G activities 

in order to make informed business, management, design, 

stewardship, and environmental protection decisions. Such 

decisions are an integral part of several OCS programs, 

including oil and gas (e.g., location, extent, fair market value of 

resources, and orderly development of hydrocarbon reserves), 

renewable energy (e.g., engineering decisions regarding the 

construction of renewable energy projects), and marine 

minerals (e.g., informed estimates regarding the composition 

and volume of marine mineral resources). This Programmatic 

EIS has been developed to analyze the impacts that may 

result from G&G activities within the AOI for BOEM’s three 

program areas (i.e., oil and gas, renewable energy, and 

marine minerals). The impacts from the proposed action are

evaluated in Chapter 4 for all resources, including economic 
Table M-5. Scope of This Programmatic EIS’s Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-69

Submission ID Comment Response

factors.

This Programmatic EIS does not address topics beyond the 

stated proposed action, purpose and need, and alternatives 

(Chapters 1.1 and 2). Therefore, this Programmatic EIS does 

not address out-of-scope topics, such as the Nation’s broader 

energy policy. The Nation’s energy policy is determined at the 

national level and is analyzed in the Five-Year Program and 

Five-Year Program EIS.

1069-0001 It is important that the DPEIS promote flexibility, transparency, 

and robust decisionmaking, and that the scientific analysis 

should adequately inform DPEIS impact determinations for the 

Gulf of Mexico (GOM) environment, marine life, resources and 

communities.

BOEM is responsible for stewardship of OCS energy and 

mineral resources as well as protecting the environment that 

may be impacted by development of those resources. As 

stated in Chapter 1, BOEM's mission is to manage 

development of the Nation’s OCS energy and mineral 

resources in an environmentally and economically responsible 

way.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. §§ 

4321-4347) is the foundation of environmental policymaking in 

the U.S. The intent of the NEPA process is to help public 

officials make decisions based on an understanding of 

environmental consequences and take actions that protect, 

restore, and enhance the environment. BOEM produces 

NEPA documents, such as this Programmatic EIS, for each of 

the major stages of energy development planning. The NEPA 

process provides for public input and transparency as part of 

the decisionmaking process through numerous public 

meetings, emails, and mail outs at the scoping and public 

review stages during EIS development. BOEM prepared this

Programmatic EIS using the best available science and 

highest quality data available.

In addition, the Monitoring Plan developed through the MMPA 

process would focus on monitoring marine mammal 

populations and behavior, as well as the effectiveness of 

mitigation measures. The implemented mitigation measures 

would be evaluated and, through an adaptive management 

process, may be altered depending on effectiveness. BOEM 
Table M-5. Scope of This Programmatic EIS’s Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-70 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

will consider future data on the efficacy of mitigation measures 

to adjust mitigation requirements for individual surveys based 

on the best available information at that time. Through the 

Environmental Studies Program (https://www.boem.gov/

Environmental-Studies-Planning/), BOEM is funding and is 

planning to fund additional studies and workshops to examine 

the effectiveness and feasibility of mitigation measures in the 

GOM.

The data collected from implementing the Monitoring Plan will 

provide additional information regarding the efficacy of the 

implemented mitigation measures. BOEM will continue to 

coordinate with industry and external stakeholders to 

understand how a marine mammal monitoring plan in the 

GOM for G&G activities may fit into other efforts in order to 

prevent duplication and to address monitoring needs in the 

context of the larger GOM ecosystem.

1071-0005 Both Volume 1, Section 3.4.3, and Volume 3, Appendix E, 

Section 12, of the DPEIS identify and discuss cumulative effects

and uses of the marine waters of the AOI, but do not address 

offshore aquaculture activities. Offshore aquaculture is only 

mentioned amongst a suite of potential alternate uses for 

existing platforms in the Outer Continental Shelf (Section 

3.2.2.1), but is dismissed because alternate use of these 

platforms is not foreseeable within the next 10 years.

We would like to note that while offshore aquaculture is a 

developing industry and does not have much of a presence in 

the AOI at this time, it is a foreseeable activity that will likely 

occur within the next 10 years and should be considered within 

the scope of the DPEIS. FWC staff recommends that the 

DPEIS fully include consideration of offshore aquaculture 

activities specifically within these sections and any other section 

of the DPEIS as appropriate.

Thank you for your comment. Text has been added in 

Chapter 4.9 and Appendix E, Section 9 to include 

aquaculture activities.

1074-0049 The approach that BOEM has taken in its impacts analysis is 

arbitrary and capricious in significant ways.

BOEM is committed to complying with the requirements and 

intent of NEPA in preparing a sound Programmatic EIS based 

on the best available scientific information and professional 

judgment of its subject-matter experts. BOEM has developed 
Table M-5. Scope of This Programmatic EIS’s Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-71

Submission ID Comment Response

this in-depth Programmatic EIS to inform the public and the 

decisionmaker of the potential reasonably foreseeable impacts 

of the proposed action and the alternatives to ensure that any 

decision regarding G&G activities is fully supported.

1074-0062 As the DEIS recognizes, impacts from G&G activities can in 

their aggregate cause adverse effects on a population or 

species level. These several impacts can include relatively 

short-term behavioral responses to noise, such as alterations in 

vocalization, behavioral state, dive pattern, location, and other 

factors, that can adversely affect foraging and other vital 

behavior and affect vital rates over time. They can also include 

loss of communication space and listening area, which can have 

a highly detrimental impact on vital behaviors in acoustic 

species; chronic stress, which can affect health outcomes over 

time; and indirect effects through, for example, the loss of prey 

availability. Aside from Appendix K, however, the DEIS does 

little to address these effects or to evaluate how the various 

alternatives might mitigate them.

An assessment of the potential for fitness level consequences 

at both the individual and population level was included in the 

Draft Programmatic EIS, beginning on page 4-54. This 

chapter has been expanded in this Final Programmatic EIS to 

include quantitative analysis results from Appendix D and an 

expanded integrated discussion of the chronic impacts 

analysis of Appendix K. 

1074-0070 Unfortunately, while BOEM, in its “proposed action scenario,” 

briefly considers the contributory effects of global warming on 

the Gulf environment (DEIS at 3-49 to 3-50), it fails to evaluate 

the converse: the upstream effects of seismic exploration on the 

U.S. carbon footprint. The Gulf of Mexico is one of the most 

prospected bodies of water on the planet, and the leading 

source in the United States for offshore oil and gas. Limiting 

seismic exploration in the Gulf, as, at minimum, the agency’s 

Alternatives E and G call for, is likely to reduce oil and gas 

production there, which in turn will have favorable 

consequences for our greenhouse gas emissions.

This Programmatic EIS describes and evaluates potential 

environmental impacts related to reasonably foreseeable G&G 

survey activities in the AOI for BOEM’s three Program Areas

(i.e. Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals). A 

discussion of how G&G activities support existing and future 

oil and gas exploration, development, and production can be 

found in Chapter 3.2.1. The scenario evaluated in this 

Programmatic EIS includes G&G activities for all existing 

leases as well as future leases.

The scope of this Programmatic EIS does not include a NEPA 

analysis for oil and gas leasing in the AOI and does not 

authorize an OCS lease sale. This Programmatic EIS does 

not address topics beyond the stated proposed action and

purpose and need (Chapter 1.1.2), such as the Nation’s 

energy policy.

1074-0070

(continued)

Contrarily, allowing seismic exploration to continue at projected 

rates will result in a larger carbon footprint and a greater 

contribution to global warming, making it more difficult for the 

United States to achieve our Paris obligations. The EIS 

The Nation’s energy policy is determined at the national level 

and is analyzed in the Five-Year Program and Five-Year 

Program EIS. As part of that analysis, BOEM considers the 

effects of GHG emissions. Chapter 4.2 of the Five-Year 
Table M-5. Scope of This Programmatic EIS’s Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-72 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

produced this year, by BOEM, for the 2017-2022 OCS Lease 

Sale Program does not obviate the need to analyze climate 

change contributions in the present impact statement since the 

underlying actions are independent of one another and since the 

G&G EIS covers a substantially longer time period.

The EIS should analyze the relative climate impacts of each 

considered alternative consistent with CEQ’s recent 

memorandum. 

Program EIS considers climate change and the baseline 

environment in areas proposed for oil and gas leasing. In 

addition, Wolvovsky and Anderson (2016) assessed the 

potential lifecycle of GHG emissions and the social cost of 

carbon under the Five-Year Program. The Five-Year Program 

EIS and the Multisale EIS considered the potential impacts to 

downstream GHG emissions should OCS oil and gas leasing 

in the GOM cease. Please refer to those documents for that 

discussion.

In addition, the GOM lease sale-stage NEPA analyses will 

further specify impacts of GHG emissions related to a single 

proposed lease sale.

1076-0013 The economic analysis included in the DPEIS is inadequate, 

particularly regarding the assumptions made about activity 

levels in the face of overly restrictive mitigation measures. The 

analysis appears to completely ignore the potential of reduced 

future drilling and production resulting from the generation of 

less G&G data. ...although the DPEIS describes the potential 

economic impacts of the various alternatives, it provides no cost 

estimates for direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts 

over the 10-year time period covered by the DPEIS. Nor does it 

adequately account for the variability inherent in offshore oil and 

natural gas exploration and development. In short, BOEM has 

failed to provide an economic impact analysis that allows 

stakeholders to meaningfully assess the practicability or 

feasibility of the proposed alternatives.

BOEM has provided adequate information to disclose potential 

effects of the alternatives analyzed within this Programmatic 

EIS. Specifically with regard to potential economic effects, 

Chapter 4.13 provides an analysis of and tables showing the 

incremental cost and percent cost change per survey, the total 

annual survey incremental cost, and the percent reduction in 

efficiency per survey for Alternatives B through F. The 

industry cost analysis for this Programmatic EIS focused only 

on additional expenditures for operating costs from the 

proposed mitigations for Alternatives A through F; therefore, 

this cost analysis represents only one part of the whole 

economic analysis. Therefore, the economic analyses 

consider the additional operating costs to be incurred as well 

as the larger ranging effects to industry, local economy, and 

supply chains from a reduction in activity and closure areas. 

The analysis for each alternative and the associated impact 

conclusion were developed using the best available, 

scientifically credible information and generally accepted 

scientific methodologies. Additional text has been added to 

Chapter 4.13.1.5. 

BOEM has developed this in-depth Programmatic EIS to 

inform the public and decisionmaker of the potential 

reasonably foreseeable impacts of the proposed action and 

alternatives to ensure that any decision regarding G&G 
Table M-5. Scope of This Programmatic EIS’s Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-73

Submission ID Comment Response

activities is fully supported. All of this information will be 

considered by the decisionmaker in determining which 

alternative is selected in the ROD.

The scope of this Programmatic EIS does not include a NEPA 

analysis for oil and gas leasing in the AOI and does not 

authorize an OCS lease sale. The procedures under the 

OCSLA to set up a lease sale include a specific NEPA 

evaluation for the proposed action.

Nevertheless, Chapter 4.13 references the 2017-2022 GOM 

Multisale EIS, which provides forecasts of the direct, indirect, 

and induced economic impacts of offshore oil and gas 

activities. In Chapter 3.1 of the 2017-2022 GOM Multisale 

EIS, BOEM developed a robust range of oil and gas activity. 

After developing the alternatives for this Programmatic EIS, 

BOEM determined that the scenario described in the 2017-

2022 GOM Multisale EIS is broad enough to encompass any 

indirect effects to the oil and gas industry from the range of 

G&G activity described in Alternatives A through F. In 

addition, the 2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS provides a sense

of the geographic patterns of economic impacts that arise due 

to offshore oil and gas activities.

In addition, if NOAA moves forward with their proposed action 

(i.e., issuance of MMPA incidental take regulations), then a 

Regulatory Impact Analysis would accompany the rule.

The impact conclusions are a synthesis of a variety of 

qualitative and quantitative available scientific information. 

While this analysis required some professional judgement by 

the subject-matter experts, the resulting impact conclusions 

remain credible in light of the available scientific record.
Table M-5. Scope of This Programmatic EIS’s Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-74 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

1080-0001 We strongly encourage BOEM to consider including an 

assessment of the potential range of GHG emissions and 

climate change impacts associated with the planned or 

foreseeably anticipated future actions that would prompt tiered 

documents for this PEIS. EPA has rated the draft PEIS as 

LO - "Lack of Objections." A summary of EPA's rating is 

enclosed. The EPA review has not identified any potential 

environmental impacts requiring substantive changes to the 

proposal.

The review may have disclosed opportunities for application of 

mitigation measures that could be accomplished with no more 

than minor changes to the proposal.

This Programmatic EIS describes and evaluates potential 

environmental impacts related to reasonably foreseeable G&G 

survey activities in the AOI for BOEM’s three Program Areas

(i.e., Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals). 

Chapter 4.1.1.2 describes resources that were screened out, 

including air quality.

Oil and gas leasing in the AOI is not part of the proposed 

action, and this NEPA document does not analyze or 

authorize an OCS lease sale. Oil and gas leasing activities 

and the impacts that may result from them are outside the 

scope of this Programmatic EIS. This Programmatic EIS is 

limited in scope to the stated proposed action, purpose and 

need, and reasonable range of alternatives (Chapters 1.1.2

and 2). Nevertheless, as part of its mission, BOEM considers 

these activities and issues in other NEPA documents. BOEM 

directs these commenters to the Five-Year Program and FiveYear Program EIS. As part of that analysis, BOEM considers 

the effects of GHG emissions. Chapter 4.2 of the Five-Year 

Program EIS considers climate change and the baseline 

environment in areas proposed for oil and gas leasing. In 

addition, Wolvovsky and Anderson (2016) assessed the 

potential lifecycle of GHG emissions and the social cost of 

carbon under the Five-Year Program. For example, refer to 

the 2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS.

1121-0006 BOEM must assess the climate impact of this plan under the 

climate executive order and CEQ guidance. The Gulf of Mexico 

is hotter than ever, and BOEM must quantitatively assess to 

what degree these leases contribute to this heat, which is 

fueling mega-rains in Louisiana, Texas, and other states in the 

Mississippi River and Ohio valleys.

BOEM is committed to following CEQ regulations and 

guidance related to GHGs. Oil and gas leasing in the AOI is 

not part of the proposed action, and this NEPA document does 

not analyze or authorize an OCS lease sale. Oil and gas 

leasing activities and the impacts that may result from them 

are outside the scope of this Programmatic EIS. This 

Programmatic EIS is limited in scope to the stated proposed 

action, purpose and need, and reasonable range of 

alternatives (Chapters 1.1.2 and 2). Nevertheless, as part of 

its mission, BOEM considers these activities and issues in 

other NEPA documents. BOEM directs these commenters to 

the Five-Year Program and Five-Year Program EIS. As part of 

that analysis, BOEM considers the effects of GHG emissions. 
Table M-5. Scope of This Programmatic EIS’s Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-75

Submission ID Comment Response

Chapter 4.2 of the Five-Year Program EIS considers climate 

change and the baseline environment in areas proposed for oil 

and gas leasing. In addition, Wolvovsky and Anderson (2016) 

assessed the potential lifecycle of GHG emissions and social 

cost of carbon under the Five-Year Program. For example, 

refer to the 2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS.
M-76 Responses to Public Comments

M.4.3 Alternatives and Mitigation Measures

Many comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS indicated a preference for which alternative 

should be selected. Several comments proposed additional mitigation measures, altering mitigation 

measures, changing the way BOEM handles mitigation, or alternative G&G technologies that should 

be preferentially used. Many of these suggested mitigations are addressed in Chapters 2. 

Many comments asserted that existing mitigation measures (e.g., other Federal laws and 

regulations and lease stipulations) provide sufficient protection for this stage of the OCSLA process

and suggested strengthening this conclusion in this Final Programmatic EIS. Conversely, some 

comments asserted that existing regulatory restrictions are burdensome and hindering industry. 

Other comments stressed that newly introduced mitigation measures would be too burdensome 

economically and would hinder industry. Additional comments expressed that mitigation measures 

were inadequate to protect natural resources. Other comments stated that mitigation measures 

were not supported by best available science or that adequate rationale was not provided for their 

inclusion in this Programmatic EIS. Some comments questioned why mitigation measures were 

geared to marine mammals and why measures for other species were lacking.

Various comments indicated that the purpose of each alternative was vague and that certain 

alternatives lacked detail regarding how BOEM would implement related mitigation measures. 

Some comments stated that assumptions made relative to mitigation measures under alternatives 

were flawed or that certain alternatives lacked a legal basis for implementation.

Finally, comments contended that shutdown requirements as part of various alternatives 

were not clearly explained and that newly introduced mitigation measures were difficult to discern 

from measures carried forward from other alternatives. Detailed responses to specific comments 

are provided in Table M-6. 
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-77

Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses

Submission ID Comment Response

Alternatives and Mitigation Measures

0032-0002 The proposed mitigation to sea life and the environment are not 

adequate. They are a self-imposed best practice that does not 

have adequate testing and analysis.

This Programmatic EIS provides a programmatic-level 

evaluation for reasonably foreseeable G&G activities that 

could be utilized for any of the BOEM’s three Program Areas 

(i.e., Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals). 

BOEM will address the impacts of future site-specific actions in 

subsequent NEPA evaluations (40 CFR § 1502.20) using a 

tiered process based on this programmatic evaluation.

Mitigation measures included in this Programmatic EIS 

(Appendix B, Section 1.2.4) are designed to minimize 

disturbance and potential auditory injuries to marine mammals 

(and sea turtles) during seismic surveys. The elements of 

these mitigation measures are continually evolving, and those 

included in this Programmatic EIS represent best available 

scientific knowledge. All the elements have limitations that 

may reduce their effectiveness, as discussed in Appendix B, 

Section 1.2.4.

0037-0002 I most strongly recommend the BOEM select Alternative A in 

the final EIS. I also urge BOEM to reject adoption of the other 

overly burdensome alternatives as harmful to the US economy, 

detrimental to US Energy Security, and as unsupported by 

sound science.

Thank you for your comment. This Programmatic EIS is not 

the decision document under NEPA. Alternative selection will 

be provided in the ROD following publication of this Final 

Programmatic EIS. Potential impacts to resources (including 

economic factors) from the implementation of Alternatives A 

through G are analyzed in Chapter 4. These analyses were 

developed using the highest quality and best available 

information. All of this information will be considered by the 

decisionmaker in determining which alternative is selected in 

the ROD. 

This Programmatic EIS does not address topics beyond the 

stated proposed action, purpose and need, and alternatives 

(Chapters 1.1.2 and 2), such as the Nation’s broader energy 

policy. The scope of this Programmatic EIS does not include a 

NEPA analysis for oil and gas leasing in the AOI and does not 

authorize an OCS lease sale. The procedures under the 

OCSLA to set up a lease sale include a specific NEPA 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-78 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

evaluation for that proposed action. The national energy 

policy is determined at the national level and is analyzed in the 

Five-Year Program and Five-Year Program EIS.

0343-0011 Given that neither the Commission nor the public can review 

meaningfully the impact assessment, judge the appropriateness 

of the various alternatives, or decipher how BOEM intends to 

interpret takes, suggesting a Preferred Alternative is completely 

impractical. The range of alternatives appears to be suitable 

and includes various measures to reduce impacts on marine 

mammals including implementing shut-down procedures, using 

both visual and passive acoustic monitoring, implementing 

time-area closures, and reducing the overall level of activity. 

However, it appears that no single alternative currently includes 

all of those measures, which the Commission believes would 

be a more appropriate approach for BOEM to take.

BOEM has made revisions within this Programmatic EIS to 

make the comparison of alternatives easier, and BOEM has 

objectively compared the alternatives to determine the 

preferred alternative.

BOEM has identified Alternative C as the preferred alternative 

in this Final Programmatic EIS. The identification of 

Alternative C as the preferred alternative does not constitute a 

commitment or decision in principle, and there is no 

requirement to select Alternative C as the preferred alternative 

in the ROD.

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives in this 

Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 

viability, and other factors, and consider them a reasonable 

range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. This Programmatic 

EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory responsibilities 

associated with permitting or authorizing G&G activities 

connected with activities conducted in support of the Oil and 

Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals Programs for 

the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This Programmatic EIS would also 

support NOAA authorization of the incidental take of marine 

mammals under the MMPA for these activities.

BOEM notes your preference. This information will be 

considered by the decisionmaker in determining which 

alternative is selected in the ROD.

0343-0012 BOEM should evaluate all such factors when determining its 

Preferred Alternative. Accordingly, the Commission 

recommends that BOEM incorporate marine mammal shutdown procedures, visual and passive acoustic monitoring, 

overall activity reduction (rather than redistribution), and 

appropriate time-area closures in its Preferred Alternative to 

maximize the mitigation value for those species that are 

Thank you for your comment. BOEM's mission is to manage 

development of the Nation’s OCS energy and mineral 

resources in an environmentally and economically responsible 

way. This Programmatic EIS focuses on potential 

environmental impacts of BOEM's Oil and Gas, Renewable 

Energy, and Marine Minerals Programs. The impact 

assessment in Chapter 4, as well as all of the comments and 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-79

Submission ID Comment Response

believed to warrant the greatest protection, including sperm 

whales, Bryde’s whales, and bay, sound, and estuarine stocks 

of bottlenose dolphins.

responses received on the Draft Programmatic EIS that are in 

this appendix, will be considered by the decisionmaker in 

determining which alternative is selected in the ROD.

0612-0002 WRT to the protection of marine mammals and other species, I 

do not believe that using only Protected Species Observers is 

adequate. A single observer on duty for a lengthy period of time 

could not adequately monitor all 360 degrees around the towed 

arrays.

Requiring more observers would be marginally better, but still 

inadequate. The use of a PAM operator to acoustically monitor 

for vocalizations of marine mammals should be required at all 

times. Twelve hour shifts for PAM operators are too long to 

maintain adequate attention. A maximum shift should be no 

longer than 6 hours with at least 12 hours between shifts and 8 

hours of uninterrupted rest.

In accordance with CEQ regulations implementing NEPA (40

CFR part 1502) and DOI implementing procedures for NEPA 

(43 CFR part 46), a range of alternatives must be rigorously 

explored and objectively evaluated. BOEM and NOAA 

developed the alternatives in this Programmatic EIS based on 

technical feasibility, economic viability, and other factors, and 

consider them a reasonable range of alternatives for NEPA 

analysis. This Programmatic EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill 

statutory responsibilities associated with permitting or 

authorizing G&G activities connected with activities conducted 

in support of BOEM’s Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and 

Marine Minerals Program on the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This 

Programmatic EIS also would support NOAA authorization of 

the incidental take of marine mammals under the MMPA for 

these activities.

Mitigation measures included in this Programmatic EIS 

(Appendix B, Section 1.2.4) represent current standards. 

The elements of these measures are continually evolving, and 

through adaptive management, BOEM may require additional 

mitigation measures at the site-specific level as mitigation 

measures evolve. NTL 2016-BOEM-G02 describes the 

implementation of the PSO Program and use of PAM, and it 

states that no observer will be allowed more than 4

consecutive hours on watch as a visual observer, a "break" 

time of no less than 2 hours must be allowed before an 

observer begins another visual monitoring watch rotation 

(break time means no assigned observational duties), and no 

person (crew or third party) on watch as a visual observer will 

be assigned a combined watch schedule of more than 12

hours in a 24-hour period.

Both PSOs and PAM are components of alternatives analyzed 

within this Programmatic EIS. The use of PAM at all times is 

included in specific areas in Alternatives C through F and is 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-80 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

evaluated in this Programmatic EIS. All of this information will 

be considered by the decisionmaker in determining which 

alternative is selected in the ROD.

0675-0001 I am not in favor of Alternative B because I don't believe there 

is a scientific basis for a minimum separation distance. 

Although I understand that it seems reasonable that there is a 

calving season for dolphins, I don't believe there is any science 

that specifies what that season is and where. I am strongly 

opposed to the closures for all deep-penetration seismic airgun 

surveys in the EPA.

BOEM developed the alternatives in this Programmatic EIS 

based on technical feasibility, economic viability, and other 

factors, including Settlement Agreement requirements 

(Chapter 1.2.3 and Appendix C) and considers them to be a 

reasonable range of alternatives for this NEPA analysis. This 

Programmatic EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory 

responsibilities associated with permitting or authorizing G&G 

activities in connection with activities conducted in support of 

BOEM’s Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine 

Minerals Programs for the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This 

Programmatic EIS would also support NOAA authorization of 

the incidental take of marine mammals under the MMPA for 

these same activities.

0675-0002 Regarding Alternative C, I don't see any need for the use of 

PAM, Passive Acoustic Monitoring, for all deep-penetration 

seismic at all times in Mississippi Canyon and De Soto Canyon. 

The PAM protocols in Alternative A should suffice. Regarding 

non-airgun HRG survey protocols, there's no distinction 

between narrow-beam, high-frequency, low-power systems and 

omnidirectional systems. I don't believe there's any science to 

support a requirement for a PSO for high-resolution surveys. I 

have personally conducted high-resolution surveys for 30 

years; and we frequently have dolphins playing around the 

vessel, swimming in the bow wave apparently unperturbed by 

our survey activities.

Regarding the seasonal restrictions, same comment as B. It 

seems reasonable, but there's no science to support when and 

where.

The PAM has been used effectively as a mitigation tool in the 

GOM since 2012. Inclusion of the use of PAM in the 

Mississippi Canyon and De Soto Canyon lease blocks 

provides additional protection for marine mammals, targeting 

vocalizing Bryde's, sperm, and other deep-diving odontocetes, 

to reduce the potential for Level A exposures. Additionally, 

seasonal restrictions for coastal waters were expanded for 

additional protection of reproducing dolphins. BOEM will 

consider the value of these and other mitigation measures 

during future NEPA analyses, along with any new information 

available at that time.

Mitigation measures included in this Programmatic EIS 

(Appendix B, Section 1.2.4) are designed to minimize 

disturbance and potential auditory injuries to marine mammals 

(and sea turtles) during seismic surveys. The elements of 

these mitigation measures are continually evolving, and those 

included in this Programmatic EIS represent best available 

scientific knowledge. All the elements have limitations that 

may reduce their effectiveness, as discussed in Appendix B, 

Section 1.2.4. 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-81

Submission ID Comment Response

BOEM recognized the need to identify, quantify, and analyze 

all active acoustic source operations that might occur during 

G&G activities and created a Screening Out Team (ScOT) to 

examine the issue and make recommendations (Appendix G). 

The ScOT indicated which sources and activities, based on 

their potential to affect the environment, required thorough 

analysis in this Programmatic EIS and which sources and 

activities did not. The results of the screening indicated that 

acoustic sources operating at frequencies above 200 kHz do 

not require detailed analysis because these frequencies are 

outside of the hearing range for marine mammals. However, 

the analysis should focus on the impacts of specific equipment 

types that have operational frequencies below 200 kHz and 

airguns. Therefore, only non-airgun HRG surveys with 

equipment that operate at frequencies below 200 kHz are 

required to implement the Non-Airgun HRG Survey Protocol 

that requires PSOs.

0675-0003 Alternative D, same comments regarding C. PAM has been used effectively as a mitigation tool in the GOM 

since 2012. The purpose of the mitigation measures included 

in Alternative D is to further minimize the potential for injury to 

marine mammals and sea turtles, to avoid most Level A 

harassment of marine mammals, and to provide additional 

protection for marine mammals. This alternative was 

developed based on the Alternative C mitigation measures, 

but it includes additional protection for all marine mammals 

species – including manatees but not bow-riding dolphins (i.e., 

bottlenose, Fraser’s, Clymene’s, rough-toothed, striped, 

spinner, Atlantic spotted, pantropical, and Risso’s) – with 

inclusion of an expanded PSO Program to avoid most 

potential Level A exposures to marine mammals in all water 

depths. BOEM will consider the value of these mitigation 

measures when selecting an alternative in the ROD. In 

addition, during future, site-specific NEPA analyses, BOEM 

will use adaptive management and consider any new 

information available regarding mitigation measure 

effectiveness at that time.

0675-0004 Alternative E, there's no science to support that the level of 

sound we are creating now is causing significant harm. So, 

BOEM, through consultation with industry representatives, has 

tried to base the reductions on an attempt to balance 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-82 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

there's no science to support a reduction in harm due to a 

reduction in activity.

environmental impacts with economic impacts to achieve the 

proposed action's purpose and need. Using expert opinion 

and best professional judgement, BOEM determined that 10 

percent and 25 percent reductions offer a reasonable range of 

reduced activity levels while still allowing BOEM to fulfill the 

purpose and need of this Programmatic EIS.

The purpose of the mitigation measures included in Alternative

E is to minimize the potential for injury to marine mammals 

and sea turtles, to provide additional measures to avoid 

opportunities for Level A harassment of marine mammals, and 

to provide additional protective measures for marine 

mammals.

The implementation of this alternative would be essentially first 

come first serve for permit applicants on an annual basis; 

therefore, this alternative is essentially like additional time area 

closures in a calendar year whereby reducing the total amount 

of sound being permitted annually. 

BOEM analyzed the potential effects, both beneficial and 

adverse, of the 10 percent and 25 percent reduction in line 

miles. Chapter 4 describes and evaluates potential 

environmental impacts (adverse and beneficial) to all 

resources (including economic factors) related to reasonably 

foreseeable G&G survey activities in the AOI for BOEM’s three 

Program Areas (i.e., Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and 

Marine Minerals). 

Studies have shown that marine mammals react to underwater 

noise. Reactions may include physical displacement from or 

avoidance of the area of ensonification and/or by altering their 

vocalizations. This Programmatic EIS acknowledges that 

acute physical injury other than auditory injury, or death of 

marine mammals is not likely to be a direct result of seismic 

noise. It does, however, acknowledge that disruption of 

behavioral patterns or auditory injury are possible, which may 

reduce fitness for individual animals. Population-level impacts 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-83

Submission ID Comment Response

related to energetic effects or other impacts of noise are 

difficult to determine. Refer to Chapter 4.2 for further detail on 

the potential impacts to marine mammals. 

All of the information in this Final Programmatic EIS will be 

considered by the decisionmaker in determining which 

alternative is selected in the ROD.

0675-0005 Regarding Alternative F, I view this alternative as extreme with 

significant aerial closures to all new seismic activity and all nonairgun high-resolution geophysical surveys in that it would 

effectively shut down exploration and activity that has 

significance for America's energy needs when there's no 

science to support this. I'd also like to point out that shutting 

down non-airgun high-resolution geophysical surveys would 

have the unintended consequence of shutting down all drilling 

activity because nobody's going to drill a well if they can't show 

that it's safe to do so.

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives in this 

Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 

viability, and other factors, and consider them a reasonable 

range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. A proposed 

alternative is reasonable only if it will fulfill this Programmatic 

EIS’s purpose and need as described in Chapter 1.1.2. This 

Programmatic EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory 

responsibilities associated with permitting or authorizing G&G 

activities in connection with activities conducted in support of 

Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals 

Programs areas for the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This 

Programmatic EIS also would support NOAA authorization of 

the incidental take of marine mammals under the MMPA for 

these activities.

Chapter 4.13 provides an analysis of the potential economic 

effects of Alternatives A through G. Direct mitigation costs are 

quantified in tables showing the incremental cost and percent 

cost change per survey, the total annual survey incremental 

cost, and the percent reduction in efficiency per survey for 

Alternatives B through F. Indirect effects of the alternatives 

are also considered in Chapter 4.13, including potential 

impacts to the programs that rely on the G&G data, e.g., oil 

and gas activities such as exploration and development 

operation.

0675-0006 I am strongly opposed to Alternative G as the complete 

shutdown of activity in the Gulf of Mexico would have significant 

negative consequences for the USA and our citizens. And 

similar to all of the above, there is no science to support a 

shutdown of all activity.

We note your opposition to Alternative G. This Programmatic 

EIS is not a decision document; however, this Programmatic 

EIS will help inform BOEM's decision, and a final decision on 

whether or how to proceed with processing G&G survey 

applications will be announced in the ROD. The CEQ 

regulation at 40 CFR § 1502.14(d) specifies that NEPA 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-84 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

analyses require the alternatives analysis in the EIS to 

"include the alternative of no action." This analysis provides a 

benchmark, enabling decisionmakers to compare the 

magnitude of environmental effects of the action alternatives

and provides an analysis for each resources of the potential 

effects of not selecting one of the action alternatives.

0899-0004 The OMB also made BOEM submit a new ICR Supporting 

Statement that responded to CRE’s comments on the LTMP. 

BOEM’s new Supporting Statement states as follows: 

“CRE stated that it was making these comments to inform 

OMB/OIRA that BOEM is planning an information collection that 

would significantly increase the burden of BOEM’s monitoring 

requirements for G&G activities, including seismic, in the Gulf of 

Mexico. CRE opposed the long-term management plan 

(LTMP), stated that BOEM would need OMB approval for 

LTMP, and stated that the public would need an opportunity to 

comment. CRE made the following recommendations:

- BOEM and NMFS should not proceed with the LTMP. 

Current monitoring requirements are less burdensome and 

all that’s necessary to protect marine mammals.

- If BOEM and NMFS do proceed with the LTMP, then they 

should request new ICRs that cover the LTMP. Those 

new ICRs should be subject to public comment. BOEM 

and NMFS should not try to implement the LTMP until and 

unless the new ICRs have been reviewed and approved 

by OMB/OIRA.

- If BOEM and NMFS do proceed with the LTMP, then they 

should perform predissemination review of compliance 

with the IQA Guidelines and the PRA’s practical utility 

requirements. The public should be allowed to comment 

on this predissemination review before it is final.

- If BOEM and NMFS do proceed with the LTMP, then they 

As agreed upon in the revised Settlement Agreement in 2015, 

BOEM has analyzed the development of the monitoring plan 

developed by industry (Chapter 1.2.3.4).

The agencies will comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA) and ensure that any new information collection 

requirements are appropriately documented and approved by 

OMB. We thank you for your comment, but it is premature at 

this point to determine the outcome of the PRA process which 

is ongoing and separate from this NEPA analysis. 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-85

Submission ID Comment Response

should perform a cost benefit analysis, as required by 

Executive Order 13563, to determine whether the benefits 

of the LTMP, if any, justify its costs.

BOEM is in the early planning stages for LTMP and no 

decisions have been made. We issued a Federal Register

notice on November 7, 2014 (79 FR 66402) requesting 

information to aid in the development of LTMP for the Gulf of 

Mexico. Comments were due on December 8. BOEM will seek 

OMB approval for all information collected by either revising a 

currently approved collection or requesting approval for a new 

collection. At a minimum, the public will have opportunities to 

comment through the Paperwork Reduction Act process.

In addition, BOEM will arrange a meeting with CRE and 

appropriate BOEM offices to discuss the upcoming monitoring 

requirements for G&G activities in the Gulf."36

CRE will not repeat its prior extensive comments on the LTMP, 

which are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 

We will, however, emphasize a few points that are discussed in 

detail in our prior comments.

First, neither BOEM nor NMFS have ICRs authorizing an 

LTMP, and they cannot enforce LTMPs without OMB approving 

ICRs that authorize them.

Second, OMB should not approve ICRs for an LTMP for many 

reasons, as set forth above and in our incorporated prior 

comments.

Third, neither BOEM nor NMFS have legal authority to require a 

LTMP.

Fourth, the NOLA litigation settlement agreement does not and 

cannot dictate that BOEM and NMFS require LTMPs.
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-86 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Neither BOEM 

nor NMFS should require an LTMP.

0999-0001 Tidewater is extremely concerned about the vague nature of 

the reasons for and uses projected for the alternatives currently 

described in the Draft PEIS.

The rationale behind each alternative is provided in Chapter 2. 

BOEM will further consider the value of all mitigation measures 

during future site-specific NEPA analyses, along with any new 

information available at that time.

Appendix G describes the process by which BOEM identified, 

quantified, and analyzed the active acoustic sources that might 

occur during G&G activities in order to identify sources and 

survey types that could affect environmental resources and to 

dismiss those that did not rise to this level of potential impact 

for this Programmatic EIS.

0999-0003 Originally quite crude, the seismic industry has developed bestpractices and procedures designed to minimize and mitigate 

any environmental impact on marine life. It should be noted 

that portions of the Draft PEIS may originate from periods prior 

to the 2013 Notice of Intent (NOI), and as a result may not 

accurately reflect current industry practice. We believe IAGC 

data substantiates the sustainability of their methods; there is 

no evidence of other than temporary changes in marine life 

patterns, restricted to the areas of seismic surveys.

Although the preparation of this Programmatic EIS began in 

2013, BOEM prepared this Programmatic EIS in compliance 

with the requirements and intent of NEPA, preparing a sound 

Programmatic EIS based on the best available scientific 

information and professional judgment of the subject-matter 

experts. BOEM developed this in-depth Programmatic EIS to 

inform the public and the decisionmaker of the potential 

reasonably foreseeable impacts of the proposed action and 

alternatives to ensure that any decision regarding G&G 

activities is fully informed. BOEM is involved in several 

ongoing programs to improve existing data for marine 

mammals and underwater noise, and future analyses will use 

the best data available at that time.

0999-0006 Tidewater urges BOEM that if action beyond regulatorintegration in industry best practice discussions is found to be 

necessary; that Alternative A be selected as the alternative 

adopted.

Thank you for your comment. This Programmatic EIS is not 

the decision document under NEPA. The decision will be 

provided in the ROD following publication of this Final 

Programmatic EIS. This Programmatic EIS describes and 

evaluates potential environmental impacts related to 

reasonably foreseeable G&G survey activities in the AOI for 

BOEM’s three Program Areas (i.e., Oil and Gas, Renewable 

Energy; and Marine Minerals). All of this information will be 

considered by the decisionmaker in determining which 

alternative is selected in the ROD.
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-87

Submission ID Comment Response

1001-0004 I strongly urge the Bureau to reject widespread unchecked 

seismic blasting in the Gulf. Rather, it should thoroughly 

consider and adopt an alternative that (1) limits any seismic oil 

and gas surveys to only what is necessary for existing 

operations; (2) includes area closures that protect important 

habitat for sperm whales, Bryde's whales and coastal 

bottlenose dolphins; (3) closes the Eastern Gulf of Mexico that 

is under a leasing moratorium; (4) reduces the overall amount 

of seismic survey activity; and (5) includes a requirement that 

industry reduce noise levels of oil exploration.

As stated in Chapter 1, BOEM's mission is to manage 

development of the Nation’s OCS energy and mineral 

resources in an environmentally and economically responsible 

way. This Programmatic EIS describes and evaluates 

potential environmental impacts related to reasonably 

foreseeable G&G survey activities in the AOI for BOEM’s three 

Program Areas (i.e., Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and 

Marine Minerals).

BOEM developed the alternatives in this Programmatic EIS 

based on technical feasibility, economic viability, and other 

factors and considers them to be a reasonable range of 

alternatives for NEPA analysis. This Programmatic EIS will 

enable BOEM to fulfill statutory responsibilities associated with 

permitting or authorizing G&G activities in connection with 

activities conducted in support of the oil and gas, renewable 

energy, and marine minerals programs on the Gulf of Mexico 

OCS. This Programmatic EIS would also support NOAA 

authorization of the incidental take of marine mammals under 

the MMPA for these same activities.

Your preference is noted. This Programmatic EIS is not the 

decision document under NEPA. The decision will be 

provided in the ROD following publication of this Final 

Programmatic EIS. All of this information will be considered by 

the decisionmaker in determining which alternative is selected 

in the ROD.

1062-0001 On behalf of the undersigned groups and our millions of 

supporters, we write to express our concern about unfettered 

exploration for oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico and the harmful 

impact of seismic surveys on whales and other wildlife. We 

urge the Bureau to put sensitive habitats in the Gulf off-limits 

and to put a cap on seismic activities that harm marine 

mammals.

Thank you for your comment. As stated in Chapter 1, 

BOEM's mission is to manage development of the Nation’s

OCS energy and mineral resources in an environmentally and 

economically responsible way. This Programmatic EIS 

describes and evaluates potential environmental impacts 

related to reasonably foreseeable G&G survey activities in the 

AOI for BOEM’s three Program Areas (i.e., Oil and Gas, 

Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals).

Chapter 2 outlines the alternatives and mitigation measures to 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-88 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

the proposed action.

Your preference is noted. This Programmatic EIS is not the 

decision document under NEPA. The decision will be 

provided in the ROD following publication of this Final 

Programmatic EIS. All of this information will be considered by 

the decisionmaker in determining which alternative is selected 

in the ROD.

1062-0003 The Bureau should immediately reduce the amount of seismic 

surveys that may occur each year; close important habitat 

areas for Bryde’s whales, sperm whales and coastal bottlenose 

dolphins; close the eastern Gulf of Mexico that is under a 

leasing moratorium; and set reasonable targets to quiet the 

airgun arrays that are now bombarding the Gulf’s habitat.

Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your comment. 

As stated in Chapter 1, BOEM's mission is to manage 

development of the Nation’s OCS energy and mineral 

resources in an environmentally and economically responsible 

way. This Programmatic EIS describes and evaluates 

potential environmental impacts related to reasonably 

foreseeable G&G survey activities in the AOI for BOEM’s three 

Program Areas (i.e., Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and 

Marine Minerals).

Chapter 2 outlines the alternatives and mitigation measures to 

the proposed action.

Your preference is noted. This Programmatic EIS is not the 

decision document under NEPA. The decision will be 

provided in the ROD following publication of this Final 

Programmatic EIS. All of this information will be considered by 

the decisionmaker in determining which alternative is selected 

in the ROD.

1063-0009 Chapter 2 Page 2-6 Paragraph 2 notes that mitigations are 

required of "all seismic airgun surveys" however, please note 

that there are a number of survey activities considered ancillary 

activities that do not require BOEM notification (see NTL 2009-

G34) and as such have no NEPA analyses or mitigations 

required. Also, activities in less than 200m of water in the CPA 

and WPA also do not require the mitigations described in NTL 

BOEM 2016-G02 (though the settlement (Alt B) currently 

requires it). 

Text has been edited in Chapter 2.2 to reflect information 

provided in this comment regarding ancillary activities and 

activities in less than 200 m (656 ft) of water in the CPA and 

WPA.
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-89

Submission ID Comment Response

1063-0010 Page 2-9 The last bullet discussing the PAM requirement 

should read: "the required use of PAM during times of reduced 

visibility for all...add in italics language. The way it reads now 

implies PAM is required at all times. 

Text has been edited in Chapter 2.4.2 to reflect this comment 

regarding the use of PAM.

1063-0011 Page 2-10 Under Rationale section - 2nd paragraph, last 

sentence. Remove "including manatees" as PAM does not 

detect them so does not provide additional protection. 

Text has been edited in Chapter 2.4.2 to reflect this comment 

regarding the use of PAM for manatees.

1063-0012 Page 2-12 Same comment as above - for clarity the first bullet 

should include "during times of reduced visibility" to make it 

clear that PAM is not required at all times, as it is in the next 

bullet. 

Text has been edited in Chapter 2.5.2 to reflect this comment 

regarding use of PAM. 

1063-0013 Page 2-13 Last bullet - same comment as above. Text has been edited in Chapter 2.6.2 to reflect this comment 

regarding the use of PAM.

1063-0014 Page 2-15 - same comment; should consider a global change 

for this mitigation "implementation of expanded PAM 

requirement: the required use of PAM for all deep-penetration 

seismic airgun surveys in water depths >100m.

Text has been edited in Chapter 2.7.2 to reflect this comment 

regarding the use of PAM.

1063-0015 Page 2-39 2.14.3 The last paragraph talks about the panels 

and how the analyses was not available...aren't the reports 

provided as Appendix L? And earlier in the document (Ch 1) it 

talked about the outcomes of the panels. 

Text has been edited in Chapter 2.14.3 to reflect this 

comment regarding the conclusions of the Panel Reports.

1063-0026 Page 4-90 - The season restriction is stated somewhat 

incorrectly. Amended settlement agreement matches this but 

with some geographic limits as per the UME. See Appendix C53. Please check throughout the document for Alt B (Page 4-

97, etc.)

Text has been edited in Chapters 4.2.3.1.1, 4.2.3.1.4, and 

4.2.3.1.6 to reflect this comment regarding the seasonal 

restriction. The remaining chapters and appendices were 

reviewed and changes were made where necessary.

1063-0028 Page 4-155 - Alt B seasonal restriction is stated somewhat 

incorrectly - See Appendix C, Page C-53.

Text has been edited throughout Chapter 4 in reference to the 

seasonal restriction in Alternative B. The remaining chapters 

and appendices were reviewed and changes were made 

where necessary.

1063-0034 Appendix B

Page B-8 - 1.2.1.1 - Update NTL

Page B-14 - Note that the last sentence should include that no 

notification is required if airguns are used in water depths less 

Revisions have been made in Appendix B in response to the 

comments.
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-90 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

than 200m in the CPA and WPA as per NTL 2009-G34.

Page B-14 - 1.2.4 - 2nd paragraph - States that "all of the 

mysticetes" misleading since there is only one resident species 

(Bryde's whale).

Page B-15 - Update NTL on this page and throughout this 

section.

Page B-16 - 1.2.4.3 - This statement is incorrect. "Operators 

may only engage trained third party PSOs." 

From the current NTL: Operators may engage trained third 

party observers, may utilize crew members who have been 

trained as observers, or may use a combination of both third 

party and trained crew observers.

Last paragraph: The write up about the Visual PSOs is not 

accurate. A 3rd observer is not on duty with the other two. Nor 

does the PAM operator coordinate typically with visuals since 

they work at separate times, with the exception of a short 

overlap at dawn/dusk.

Page B-17 - 1.2.4.4 Shutdowns are not required for all marine 

mammals and sea turtles.

1.2.4.5 - PAM is not used to "supplement" visual observations 

in the GOM...they are using PAM at times when visual 

observations are not used (times of reduced visibility).

PAM write-up overall suggests that towed PAM is pretty new 

and not ready for use. This is largely untrue and it has been 

used effectively as a mitigation tool in the GOM for some time 

(required since 2013). Suggest rewording much of this to make 

that point also suggest referencing the ANSI PAM standards 

project at Scripps which BOEM/NAVY/BSEE/NMFS/JNCC 

(BSEE, NAVY, JNCC funded) has been actively engaged in. 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-91

Submission ID Comment Response

http://scripps.ucsd.edu/labs/athode/american-national-standardon-towed-passive-acoustic-monitoring-and-mitigation-systems/

Page b-19 - 1.2.4.6 - Again, 3rd party PSOs are not currently 

required in the GOM. See earlier comment. Make changes in 

Table B-3.

Page B-26. 1.3.6 Check coastal restriction for Alt B. See earlier 

comments. See Page C-53.

Page B-48 - 2.2.2. The section on BSEE seems very brief and 

does not note our environmental compliance role for BOEM on 

G&G activities nor does it mention our cooperating agency 

status on the document.

1067-0005 I strongly urge BOEM to reject widespread and unchecked 

seismic blasting in the Gulf. Rather, it should thoroughly 

consider and adopt an alternative that (1) limits any seismic oil 

and gas surveys to only what is necessary for active 

development of existing leases; (2) limits other seismic surveys 

to those necessary to support development of offshore 

renewables; (3) includes area closures that protect important 

habitat for sperm whales, Bryde's whales, and coastal 

bottlenose dolphins; (4) sets limits on the overall amount of 

seismic survey activity and; (5) includes a requirement that 

industry achieve a noise reduction target from individual 

surveys within five years.

Thank you for your comment. As stated in Chapter 1, 

BOEM's mission is to manage development of the Nation’s

OCS energy and mineral resources in an environmentally and 

economically responsible way. This Programmatic EIS 

describes and evaluates potential environmental impacts 

related to reasonably foreseeable G&G survey activities in the 

AOI for BOEM’s three Program Areas (i.e., Oil and Gas, 

Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals). 

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives in this 

Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 

viability, and other factors, and consider them a reasonable 

range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. This Programmatic 

EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory responsibilities 

associated with permitting and authorizing G&G activities 

connected with activities conducted in support of the Oil and 

Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals Program Areas 

for the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This Programmatic EIS would 

also support NOAA’s authorization of the incidental take of 

marine mammals under the MMPA for these activities.

Your preference is noted. This Programmatic EIS is not the 

decision document under NEPA. The decision will be 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-92 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

provided in the ROD following publication of this Final 

Programmatic EIS. All of this information will be considered by 

the decisionmaker in determining which alternative is selected 

in the ROD.

1069-0001 Alternatives B through G would not result in any meaningful 

environmental, species, or communities benefit; rather, the 

Alternatives create new risks to humans and the marine 

environment.

As this letter and the Joint Trades’ comments reiterate, no 

credible scientific evidence exists that establishes the causation 

of the harm in which Alternatives B-G purport to guard against. 

In fact, any potential risk is already lowered under the current 

mitigation measures already imposed on the industry. Safety 

and protection of people and the environment are top priorities 

for Shell. For decades, the industry has operated G&G 

technology in a safe and responsible manner. Approximately 

65,000 wells have been drilled successfully in the federal and 

state waters of the U.S. GOM since World War II. All the while, 

our industry has co-existed with marine life, commercial and 

recreational fishing, military restricted zones, tourism, 

recreational activities, and even in the proximity of important 

and sensitive environments, including the Flower Garden Banks 

National Marine Sanctuary and in the Mississippi and De Soto 

Canyons. Shell has established a long record of support for 

environmental mitigation and monitoring efforts, as well as 

scientific studies, to improve the understanding of potential 

impacts to the GOM environment, marine life, and communities. 

We continue to support appropriate and reasonable mitigation 

measures and robust environmental monitoring to understand 

potential impacts and to create appropriate environmental 

baselines. Sound environmental science, along with improved

technologies and new G&G data, especially seismic, helps 

drive informed decision making, which can ultimately lead to 

smaller operational footprints, safer management of projects, 

and correspondingly lower risks and potential impacts.

It is with this base of knowledge, interest, and experience that 

BOEM prepared this Programmatic EIS using the best 

available data and included reasonable assumptions to 

estimate impacts. BOEM is involved in several ongoing 

programs to improve existing data for marine mammals and 

underwater noise, and future analyses will use the best data 

available at that time.

Studies have shown that marine mammals react to underwater 

noise. Reactions may include physical displacement from or 

avoidance of the area of ensonification and/or altering 

vocalizations. Acute physical injury, other than auditory injury, 

or death of marine mammals is not likely to be a direct result of 

seismic noise. However, disruption of behavioral patterns or 

auditory injury is possible, which may reduce fitness for 

individual animals. Population-level impacts related to 

energetic effects or other impacts of noise are difficult to 

determine. However, BOEM does not assume that lack of 

demonstrated adverse population-level effects from seismic 

surveys means that those effects may not occur.

Mitigation measures included in this Programmatic EIS 

(Appendix B, Section 1.2.4) are designed to minimize 

disturbance and potential auditory injuries to marine mammals 

(and sea turtles) during seismic surveys. The elements of 

these mitigation measures are continually evolving, and those 

included in this Programmatic EIS represent best available 

scientific knowledge. All of the elements have limitations that 

may reduce their effectiveness, as discussed in Appendix B, 

Section 1.2.4. 

Safety and environmental integrity of OCS operations is of the 

utmost importance to BOEM, and they are considered in all of 

the proposed mitigation measures. All of this information will 

be considered by the decisionmaker in determining which 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-93

Submission ID Comment Response

Shell cautions against new restrictions on G&G activities. 

Safety and environmental integrity of OCS operations could be 

compromised at demonstrable and serious levels by the 

inability to conduct G&G activities as needed. Optimal safety 

performance can best be achieved through comprehensive 

planning and project risk assessment programs managed by 

operators, and G&G data plays a key role in both. A prime 

example, particularly in high density reservoirs, is the manner in 

which good quality velocity-model seismic data can and 

frequently does reduce the risk of kicks and/or loss of well 

control. A virtuous circle currently exists between continuous 

evolution of geophysical technology and safe operations. The 

latest seismic data form the cornerstone of pore-pressure 

prediction models that are necessary to meet Bureau of Safety 

and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) regulations. 

Alternatives B through G would, by way of increased burden to 

the industry, slow the advancement of technology and therefore 

needlessly limit the ability of operators to plan and execute the 

safest and most effective exploratory wells. Seismic 

information thereby proves an effective component of 

continuous improvement in safe operations.

Likewise, processing of the latest seismic data with the 

application of algorithms demonstrated better illumination of 

updip targets at several fields in the GOM. For example, at 

Shell’s Cardamom and Deimos fields, new seismic data 

enhanced the subsalt image, enabling the development team to 

more safely plan recent wells around salt complexities and 

higher pressures, which further reduces potential risks to 

human safety and the environment. Additional examples 

abound and the government must consider and reconcile any 

potential additive risk it could create by constraining access to 

G&G data.

It is also concerning that proposed Alternatives would create 

time or area restrictions or closures, as well as blanket 

prohibitions, which would limit the amount and quality of the 

sort of imagery available to continuously improve the safety in 

alternative is selected in the ROD.

BOEM is responsible for stewardship of OCS energy and 

mineral resources, as well as protecting the environment that 

may be impacted by development of those resources. As 

stated in Chapter 1, BOEM's mission is to manage 

development of the Nation’s OCS energy and mineral 

resources in an environmentally and economically responsible 

way. The NEPA (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347) is the foundation of 

environmental policymaking in the U.S. The intent of the 

NEPA process is to help public officials make decisions based 

on an understanding of environmental consequences and to

take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the 

environment. BOEM produces NEPA documents, such as this 

Programmatic EIS, for each of the major stages of energy 

development planning. The NEPA process provides for public 

input and transparency as part of the decisionmaking process 

through numerous public meetings, emails, and mail outs at 

the scoping and public review stages during EIS development.

BOEM prepared this Programmatic EIS using the best 

available science and highest quality data available. In 

addition, the Monitoring Plan developed through the MMPA 

process would focus on monitoring marine mammal 

populations and behavior, as well as the effectiveness of 

mitigation measures. The implemented mitigation measures 

would be evaluated and, through an adaptive management 

process, may be altered depending on effectiveness. BOEM 

will consider future data on the efficacy of mitigation measures 

to adjust mitigation requirements for individual surveys based 

on the best available information at that time. Through the 

Environmental Studies Program (https://www.boem.gov/

Environmental-Studies-Planning/), BOEM is funding and is 

planning to fund additional studies and workshops to examine 

the effectiveness and feasibility of mitigation measures in the 

GOM.

The data collected from implementing the Monitoring Plan will

provide additional information regarding the efficacy of the 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-94 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

well planning efforts similar to those described above. It would 

be irresponsible for the government to deliberately risk such a 

situation. Shell requests that BOEM formally consult with the 

BSEE on this critical factor, as BSEE recently finalized the Well 

Control Rule and has been working to ensure that all 

technologies with the capacity to yield safer operations are 

encouraged rather than restricted.

implemented mitigation measures. BOEM will continue to 

coordinate with industry and external stakeholders to 

understand how a marine mammal monitoring plan in the 

GOM for G&G activities may fit into other efforts in order to 

prevent duplication and to address monitoring needs in the 

context of the larger GOM ecosystem.

1069-0006 With this context in mind, Shell opposes Alternatives B through 

G. These proposed scenarios for regulating G&G activities are 

untenable and must be rejected due to their severe costs and 

overly restrictive nature, their conflict with the law and mission 

underpinning the U.S. OCS program, and the lack of scientific 

evidence that they would result in any meaningful additional 

safety or environmental benefits to GOM communities and 

marine life. Shell strongly supports Alternative A as the 

preferred course of action. In addition to the comments in this 

letter, Shell incorporates by reference with the comments 

submitted by the American Petroleum Institute (API), National 

Ocean Industries Association (NOIA), International Association 

of Geophysical Contractors (IAGC), and the Offshore Operators 

Committee (OOC) (herein ‘the Joint Trades’).

Also of great importance, the restrictive Alternatives B through 

G further fail on the substantive merits related to the protection 

of marine life. The considerable body of evidence, including 

BOEM’s own findings and those of the expert agency, NMFS, 

demonstrates that the sound produced by exploring for oil and 

gas with seismic surveys under long-standing industry 

mitigations have not resulted in any known physical or auditory 

injury to a marine mammal or negatively impacted marine life 

populations (See I. pg. 3). Also, the evidence reveals that any 

behavioral disturbance that individual animals may experience 

is short-term and temporary and has not resulted in adverse 

consequences to marine life populations.17

Given the weight of evidence, including the fact that existing 

law permits G&G operators to incidentally “take” marine species 

as long as certain standards are not exceeded, BOEM’s 

Thank you for your comment. All of this information will be 

considered by the decisionmaker in determining which 

alternative is selected in the ROD.

Please see the comment responses to letter number 1076 

(IAGC comment letter) for additional details.
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-95

Submission ID Comment Response

proposed mitigation measures must be based on the best 

available science and should logically reflect what the evidence 

does support and suggest. Alternative A includes a 

commensurate scale of mitigation measures, which align with 

industry best practices, including protected species observing 

and shutdown protocols in the event of certain marine mammal 

sightings. These mitigations require appropriate measures to 

ensure that the marine environment and its species are being 

safeguarded from potential impacts. These current and nearterm scientific monitoring and research efforts18 will always be 

an important supporting element for regulatory policy, and Shell 

is proud of such collaborative work to date with interested 

government and academic stakeholders.

1069-0007a Alternatives B through G are overly restrictive and will cause 

unnecessary negative economic impacts.

We find that Alternative A mitigation measures7 in the DPEIS – 

including protected species observing and seismic airgun 

survey protocol, as well as recommended use of passive 

acoustic monitoring – put forth reasonable monitoring mitigation 

measures without imposing duplicative, unnecessary, and/or 

cost-prohibitive restrictions. In contrast, Alternatives B through 

G are needlessly restrictive and drastic in their reach. 

Specifically, BOEM’s analysis of these Alternatives 

demonstrates that with each scenario of additional restrictions, 

there are few, limited, or highly uncertain additional protective 

benefits for marine life, particularly marine mammals and sea 

turtles. More so, for over 60 years, the Department of the 

Interior8

, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)9

, and academic 

scientists have examined the potential impacts of G&G 

activities and concluded they are insignificant.

Mitigation measures included in this Programmatic EIS 

(Appendix B, Section 1.2.4) are designed to minimize 

disturbance and potential auditory injuries to marine mammals 

(and sea turtles) during seismic surveys. The elements of 

these mitigation measures are continually evolving, and those 

included in this Programmatic EIS represent best available 

scientific knowledge. Mitigation measures are discussed in 

more detail in Appendix B. 

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives and mitigations 

in this Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, 

economic viability, and other factors, and consider them a 

reasonable range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. This 

Programmatic EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory 

responsibilities associated with permitting and authorizing 

G&G activities connected with activities conducted in support 

of the Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals 

Programs for the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This Programmatic EIS 

also would support NOAA’s authorization of the incidental take 

of marine mammals under the MMPA for these activities. The 

full consideration of alternatives and mitigations assists both 

agencies in meeting their NEPA obligations and provides 

decisionmakers with information necessary to evaluate and 

implement prospective actions, including the relative need and 

costs of mitigations.
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-96 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

1069-0007b The BOEM Chief Scientist, Dr. Bill Brown, has made many 

statements10 reiterating ‘there has been no documented 

scientific evidence of noise from airguns used in G&G seismic 

activities adversely affecting marine mammals populations or 

coastal communities’ and ‘[G&G technology has] no known 

detrimental impact to marine animal populations or to 

commercial fishing.’ BOEM’s DPEIS fails to demonstrate any 

evidence to modify this long-standing conclusion and includes 

contradictory statements between lack of observed effects on 

marine life and the impact determination factors for proposed 

Alternatives and associated mitigations.11 It is only by 

application of wildly ambitious and “overly conservative”12

activity level estimates wherein the agency is now alleging that 

G&G seismic impacts could be “moderate” to marine mammals.

Given the lack of conservation benefit, additional regulations 

that would constrain, delay, and/or increase costs of seismic 

acquisition or performing other G&G activities are untenable. 

Shell therefore disagrees with the "moderate" impacts 

conclusion and opposes any significant new and costly 

mitigation that would only tend to make domestic OCS 

production less viable and force substitution of foreign products. 

Alternatives B through G would substantially deprive the U.S. 

and its leaseholders of much, and in some cases all, of the 

economic value of the GOM OCS oil and gas resources, 

without the added benefit of greater protection for marine 

species.

This Programmatic EIS analyzes projected scenarios for 

activity levels that are expected to occur over the next 10 

years. While BOEM acknowledges the reduced level of 

exploration G&G activity and the corresponding decrease in 

permit applications in the 2016 calendar year, BOEM assumes 

that future levels will return to previous levels within the next 

10 years. Therefore, BOEM must be prudent and 

conservatively consider the full range of potential impacts. For 

this reason, the scenarios contain projections based on 

analysis of past activity levels and trends made by BOEM’s 

subject-matter experts who also considered industry-projected 

activity levels in their estimates.

While it has been demonstrated that these measures offer 

protection to marine mammals and sea turtles (Appendix B, 

Section 1.2.4), it is not possible to quantify the degree of 

protection. However, Chapter 4.2.2 states that individual and 

small groups of animals may experience some permanent 

hearing loss, and larger numbers of animals may experience 

temporary hearing impairment, some multiple times over the 

course of the 10-year timeframe covered by this Programmatic 

EIS. Impacts are rated as moderate, though not significant to 

populations of individual species.

Overall, the impact analysis considered the modeling results, 

in conjunction with subject-matter expert review of scientifically 

credible information using accepted approaches and research 

methods. While this analysis required some professional 

judgement by the subject-matter experts, the resulting impact 

conclusions are credible in light of the available scientific 

record.

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives in this 

Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 

viability, and other factors, and consider them to be a 

reasonable range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. This 

Programmatic EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory 

responsibilities associated with permitting and authorizing 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-97

Submission ID Comment Response

G&G activities connected with activities conducted in support 

of the Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals 

Programs for the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This Programmatic EIS 

would also support NOAA authorization of the incidental take 

of marine mammals under the MMPA for these activities. The 

range of alternatives was developed based on the underlying 

purpose and need (Chapter 1.1.2), and alternatives that did 

not meet the purpose and need were not carried forward for 

further analysis (Chapter 2.11).

1069-0007c The regular and continuing use of G&G technologies is a 

modern pillar of viable OCS development, fulfilling the policy 

goal of maximizing benefits to the U.S. Treasury and taxpayer. 

Examples wherein Shell has utilized G&G technologies and 

data to optimize and achieve better production results are 

many, highlighting the seriousness of the decisions at stake.

Shell has planned and is relying upon the deployment of G&G 

technologies in coming years. This type of G&G surveys, 

together with their projected activity levels as published in the 

DPEIS demonstrate the extremely disruptive and costly effects, 

on the order of several billions of dollars

13, which Alternatives B 

through G would cause. These forms of G&G acquisition and 

processing are commercially necessary. G&G surveys afford a 

unique value in virtually all stages of field life, and they tend to 

continuously identify additional resources, and pathways to 

their safe recovery, in both exploratory areas and existing 

mature fields. 

A cost-benefit analysis is not required to satisfy NEPA analysis 

requirements, particularly if there are important qualitative 

considerations (40 CFR § 1502.23). However, an EIS should 

indicate considerations, including factors not related to 

environmental quality, which are likely to be relevant and 

important to a decision (40 CFR § 1502.23). Therefore, a cost 

analysis for inclusion of the proposed mitigation measures has 

been performed and included in Chapter 4.13. Chapter 4.13

provides an analysis of and tables showing the incremental 

cost and percent cost change per survey, the total annual 

survey incremental cost, and the percent reduction in 

efficiency per survey for Alternatives B-F. BOEM considers 

many factors, including the cost of implementing mitigation 

measures, in selecting the Preferred Alternative. If NOAA 

moves forward with their proposed action (i.e., issuance of 

MMPA incidental take regulations), then an Regulatory Impact 

Analysis would accompany the rule. BOEM prepared this 

Programmatic EIS using the best available data and included 

conservative assumptions to avoid underestimating impacts. 

BOEM is committed to complying with the requirements and 

intent of NEPA in preparing a sound Programmatic EIS based 

on the best available scientific information and professional 

judgment of its subject-matter experts. BOEM has developed 

this in-depth Programmatic EIS to inform the public and the 

decisionmaker of the potential reasonably foreseeable impacts 

of the proposed action and alternatives to ensure that any 

decision regarding G&G activities is fully informed. In addition, 

additional information regarding forecasts of the direct, 

indirect, and induced economic impacts of offshore oil and gas 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-98 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

activities is referenced in Chapter 4.13 of the 2017-2022 GOM 

Multisale EIS.

1069-0007d Any loss of the ability to obtain G&G data, particularly seismic 

data in the way it is currently employed and with no viable 

alternative technologies commercially in use, would therefore 

immediately and irreversibly impact the economics of GOM 

exploration and production. New fields would be explored and 

developed in less efficient and less productive ways, many 

currently producing fields would be less optimized, and certain 

prospects would simply be passed over or relinquished for lack 

of data supporting further exploration and development. 

Furthermore, few if any options exist for companies to return to 

sub-optimally developed fields and execute improved recovery, 

which is why maintaining seismic throughout the life-of-lease is 

necessary. Implementing Alternatives B through G would 

cause immediate revenue impacts to the U.S. Treasury, 

taxpayers, and private sector investments of GOM operators, 

which would be serious, as lower royalties and rents would 

directly result from poorer volumetric recovery and unwanted 

acreage relinquished to the government for lack of productivity 

or promise. Specifically, it is Shell’s broad estimate that less 

than half of the bids in a given OCS lease sale, and 

correspondingly less than half of new OCS developments, 

would go forward without new seismic data to supplement the 

old and support further investment. Simply put, older seismic 

data loses its value over time as technology advances and 

reinterpretation grows redundant. The government should 

consider, given the $64 billion in value added from the OCS 

program in FY 2014, that this figure would certainly be much 

smaller absent seismic technology. This is a major economic 

value, which would not otherwise be achievable under 

Alternatives B through G, and this is an unacceptable price for 

no meaningful environmental or socioeconomic offset.

Critically, the government must also consider economic impacts 

to its own lease sale program. There is a direct relationship 

between bid levels and the certainty and confidence over the 

target of a given bid. Absent the availability of new and 

This Programmatic EIS provides a programmatic-level 

evaluation for reasonably foreseeable G&G activities that 

could be utilized for any of BOEM’s three Program Areas (i.e., 

Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals). 

BOEM will address the impacts of future site-specific actions in 

subsequent NEPA evaluations (40 CFR § 1502.20) using a 

tiered process based on this programmatic evaluation.

BOEM acknowledges the cost to industry of implementing the 

mitigation measures and includes this analysis in Chapter 

4.13 and its associated tables. In addition, Chapter 4.13

references the 2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS, which provides 

forecasts of the direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts 

of offshore oil and gas activities. In Chapter 3.1 of the 2017-

2022 GOM Multisale EIS, BOEM developed a robust range of 

oil and gas activity. After developing the alternatives for this 

Programmatic EIS, BOEM determined that the scenario 

described in the 2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS is broad 

enough to encompass any indirect effects to the oil and gas 

industry from the range of G&G activity described in 

Alternatives A through F. In addition, the 2017-2022 GOM 

Multisale EIS provides a sense of the geographic patterns of 

economic impacts. 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-99

Submission ID Comment Response

improving G&G data, the attractiveness of available lease 

acreage would necessarily be reduced and likely stagnant at 

best, with potential bidders, and the government itself, having 

no option but to base massive investment decisions and 

resource potential estimates on years - or decades-old data. 

Moreover, lease sale bids made in spite of the substandard 

data would probably be less competitive, resulting to less 

revenue, due to the circumstances described in the previous 

paragraph. The inability to safely optimize recovery would 

make any acreage, no matter how otherwise promising, less 

attractive from an investment standpoint.

1069-0007e

(continued)

A certain outcome would be that lease sales in competing and 

perhaps neighboring regimes, e.g. Mexico, Caribbean and 

other Latin American countries, would draw substantially more 

competitive interest than the U.S. acreage. Since there is no 

evidence that seismic activity, under standard industry 

protocols, would cause physical harm to marine mammals or 

harm to marine species populations or the environment, firms 

with responsibilities to investors may have few reservations 

about shifting investment to those theatres that continue to 

widely permit G&G in a reasonable manner.

These economic impacts are substantial, certain, and 

completely avoidable. They must be factored into a meaningful 

cost-benefit analysis in this NEPA document and the 

forthcoming marine mammal incidental take regulations 

stemming from this analysis, with an accounting for not only the 

major revenue shortfalls to the federal government, but for the 

negative impacts on direct and indirect employment and 

legitimate, investment-backed expectations. Indeed, it is 

foreseeable that the government could be obligated to refund 

bonus bids and other lease payments to operators whose 

acreage might be so badly devalued under the restrictive 

alternatives.

A cost analysis for inclusion of the proposed mitigation 

measures has been performed and included in Chapter 4.13. 

The impact assessment in Chapter 4, as well as all of the 

comments and responses received on the Draft Programmatic 

EIS that are in this appendix, will be considered by the 

decisionmaker in determining which alternative is selected in 

the ROD. 

1071-0002 ...the description of Florida Coastal Management Program 

(FCMP) in Appendix B should be corrected since the 

Department of Community Affairs no longer exists and has 

been replaced by the Department of Economic Opportunity. 

Text in this Programmatic EIS has been edited in response to 

the comment regarding the Florida Coastal Management 

Program.
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-100 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

Please refer to http://www.dep.stateRusicmp/partners/

stateagencies.htm for corrections. In addition, the 2015, not the 

2014, Florida Statutes are the most recent approved by NOAA 

for inclusion in the FCMP.

1073-0008 BOEM's environmental analysis should accurately reflect the 

best available science and research and consider the industry's 

operational experience, which indicates that seismic surveys 

have little-to-no impact on marine mammal and wildlife 

populations. I personally attended the New Orleans information 

session on this topic and spoke directly with subject matter 

experts on hand. From these conversations, I have learned 

that the no "Class-A" infractions (actual death or near-mortal 

casualties) have been documented, and that the primary 

purpose of the adopting alternatives beyond Alternative A is to 

add data to the potential 'changes in eating, reproductive and 

socializing patterns' that occur due to G/G activities.

BOEM is committed to complying with the requirements and 

intent of NEPA, preparing a sound Programmatic EIS based 

on the best available scientific information and professional 

judgment of its subject-matter experts. BOEM developed this 

in-depth Programmatic EIS to inform the public and the 

decisionmaker of the potential reasonably foreseeable impacts 

of the proposed action and alternatives to ensure that any 

decision regarding G&G activities is fully informed.

Studies have shown that marine mammals react to underwater 

noise. Reactions may include physical displacement from or 

avoidance of the area of ensonification and/or altering 

vocalizations. Acute physical injury, other than auditory injury, 

or death of marine mammals is not likely to be a direct result of 

seismic noise. However, disruption of behavioral patterns or 

auditory injury is possible, which may reduce fitness for 

individual animals. Population-level impacts related to 

energetic effects or other impacts of noise are difficult to 

determine. However, BOEM, does not assume that lack of 

demonstrated adverse population-level effects from seismic 

surveys means that those effects may not occur.

1073-0013 ...we urge BOEM not to impose new and unnecessary 

restrictions on such activities and to instead adopt Alternative A 

of the DPEIS.

Thank you for your comment. All of this information will be 

considered by the decisionmaker in determining which 

alternative is selected in the ROD.

1073-0014 Montco Offshore fully supports Alternative A as the preferred 

course of action.

Thank you for your comment. All of this information will be 

considered by the decisionmaker in determining which 

alternative is selected in the ROD

1073-0015 The various measures included in Alternatives B-G threaten the 

operational and economic viability of G/G activities in the GOM, 

which will cause additional costs and lead to fewer wells being 

drilled, diminish future production and cause negative economic 

impacts throughout the Gulf region, which are ALL additional 

negative factors that our industry cannot currently take on. 

Chapter 4.13 provides an analysis of and tables showing the 

incremental cost and percent cost change per survey, total 

annual survey incremental cost, and percent reduction in 

efficiency per survey for Alternatives B through F. In addition, 

Chapter 4.13 references the 2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS, 

which provides forecasts of the direct, indirect, and induced 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-101

Submission ID Comment Response

While the DPEIS describes the potential economic impacts of 

the various alternatives (e.g., increased cost leading to 

decreased profits; supply chain impacts; lost production), it 

does not provide cost estimates for direct, indirect and induced 

economic impacts over the 10-year time period, nor does it 

adequately account for the variability inherent in offshore oil 

and natural gas exploration and development. As such, 

stakeholders cannot evaluate the full economic impacts of the 

alternatives. BOEM has failed to provide an adequate 

accounting of potential economic impacts for stakeholders to 

make an adequate assessment of the practicability or feasibility 

of the proposed alternatives. Perhaps the absence of a trained 

economist listed as one of the preparers/reviewers for chapter 

four of the DPEIS caused the inadequate accounting. Montco 

Offshore respectfully urges BOEM to conduct the required 

quantitative analyses and provide the findings for appropriate 

consideration going forward. ...Alternative A is the only 

alternative that may be consistent with the best available 

science, operational feasibility, and applicable law. Montco 

Offshore strongly objects to any of the other Alternatives 

presented in the DPEIS for all of the reasons stated above and 

particularly because BOEM reaches the same effects 

conclusions for Alternative A as it does for all of the other 

Alternatives except Alternative G). Before the DPEIS is issued 

as a final PEIS, many flaws must be addressed and corrected.

economic impacts of offshore oil and gas activities. In 

Chapter 3.1 of the 2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS, BOEM 

developed a robust range of oil and gas activity. After 

developing the alternatives for this Programmatic EIS, BOEM 

determined that the scenario described in the 2017-2022 GOM 

Multisale EIS is broad enough to encompass any indirect 

effects to the oil and gas industry from the range of G&G 

activity described in Alternatives A through F. In addition, the 

2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS provides a sense of the 

geographic patterns of economic impacts that arise due to 

offshore oil and gas activities.

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives in this 

Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 

viability, and other factors, and consider them a reasonable 

range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. This Programmatic 

EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory responsibilities 

associated with permitting and authorizing G&G activities 

connected with activities conducted in support of the Oil and 

Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals Programs for 

the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This Programmatic EIS also would 

support NOAA authorization of the incidental take of marine 

mammals under the MMPA for these activities.

The impact conclusions are a synthesis of a variety of 

available qualitative and quantitative scientific information. 

BOEM is committed to complying with the requirements and 

intent of NEPA, preparing a sound Programmatic EIS based

on the best available scientific information and professional 

judgment of its subject-matter experts. BOEM developed this 

in-depth Programmatic EIS to inform the public and the 

decisionmaker of the potential reasonably foreseeable impacts 

of the proposed action and alternatives to ensure that any 

decision regarding G&G activities is fully informed.

BOEM notes your preference for Alternative A. This 

Programmatic EIS is not the decision document under NEPA. 

The decision of which alternative would be implemented will 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-102 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

be provided in the ROD following publication of this Final 

Programmatic EIS. All of this information will be considered by 

the decisionmaker in determining which alternative is selected 

in the ROD. In addition to the economists included in the list 

of contract preparers, economists at BOEM assisted in the 

preparation of Chapter 4.13, but they were inadvertently left 

off the draft list of preparers. This has been corrected.

1074-0010 Our organizations support a variant of Alternative G, the “noaction” alternative, that would allow G&G activity for oil and gas 

development on presently leased blocks and for development 

of offshore renewables. Short of this, however, we urge the 

agencies to consider and adopt an alternative that includes the 

complementary safety zone, area closure, activity reduction, 

and other measures set forth in Alternatives D through F, which 

is by far the most appropriate approach among the options 

BOEM has identified.

Thank you for your comment. All of this information will be 

considered by the decisionmaker in determining which 

alternative is selected in the ROD.

1074-0011 The agencies should consider an alternative that excludes 

seismic oil and gas surveys from all portions of the Eastern 

Planning Area subject to the current Congressional moratorium. 

Additionally, given the potential for increased leasing in the 

Eastern Planning Area over the next ten years, they should 

identify what areas are most likely to propagate low-frequency 

sound into the Bryde’s whales’ extremely limited habitat and 

consider establishing area closures in those areas, with the aim 

of protecting this vitally important habitat from chronic noise.

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives in this 

Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 

viability, and other factors, and consider them a reasonable 

range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. This Programmatic 

EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory responsibilities 

associated with permitting and authorizing G&G activities 

connected with activities conducted in support of the Oil and 

Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals Programs for 

the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This Programmatic EIS would also 

support NOAA’s authorization of the incidental take of marine 

mammals under the MMPA for these activities.

The Congressional moratorium is in effect until 2022; 

therefore, the restrictions will remain in place until then. 

Alternative F includes closure areas where Bryde's whales are 

known to occur, namely the EPA Closure Area. BOEM will 

address the impacts of future site-specific actions in 

subsequent NEPA evaluations (40 CFR § 1502.20) using a 

tiered process based on this programmatic evaluation. The 

development of a Monitoring Plan has been evaluated within 

this Programmatic EIS (Chapter 1.2.3.4). This plan would 

allow for adaptive management of mitigation measures and 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-103

Submission ID Comment Response

would be implemented for the life of the MMPA rule.

1074-0012 The agencies should consider other reasonable variants, 

described at § II.A below, of the alternatives it has identified, 

such as including the month of January in the seasonal coastal 

area closure and expanding the Flower Gardens Closure Area 

to improve acoustic habitat within the National Marine 

Sanctuary. If the agency demurs from barring G&G activities 

within the CPA Closure Area, it must thoroughly consider, as 

part of a range of reasonable alternatives, less proscriptive 

protections for the area, including but not limited to a variant 

that would allow continued exploration of presently leased 

blocks.

In accordance with CEQ regulations implementing NEPA (40

CFR part 1502) and DOI implementing procedures for NEPA 

(43 CFR part 46), a range of alternatives must be rigorously 

explored and objectively evaluated, and a decisionmaker must 

not consider alternatives beyond the range of alternatives 

evaluated in this Programmatic EIS but must consider all the 

alternatives evaluated in this Programmatic EIS.

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives in this 

Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 

viability, and other factors, and consider them to be a 

reasonable range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. This 

Programmatic EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory 

responsibilities associated with permitting and authorizing 

G&G activities connected with activities conducted in support 

of the Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals 

Programs for the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This Programmatic EIS 

would also support NOAA’s authorization of the incidental take 

of marine mammals under the MMPA for these activities. 

BOEM believes that it has followed the regulatory standards 

for developing NEPA alternatives, which included to “study, 

develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to 

recommended courses of action in any proposal which 

involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of 

available resources” (Section 102 [42 U.S.C. § 4332]). The 

construction of alternatives followed the simple premise that, in 

order to be a valid alternative, it must fulfill the purpose of and 

need for the proposed action and must be economically 

feasible and technically viable. The range of alternatives was 

developed based on the underlying purpose and need. 

Alternatives that did not meet the purpose and need were not 

carried forward for further analysis

This Programmatic EIS provides a programmatic-level 

evaluation for reasonably foreseeable G&G activities that 

could be utilized for any of the three Program Areas (i.e., Oil 

and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals) for which 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-104 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

BOEM has oversight. BOEM will address the impacts of future 

site-specific actions in subsequent NEPA evaluations (40 CFR 

§ 1502.20) using a tiered process based on this programmatic

evaluation.

Through the Environmental Studies Program 

(https://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Studies-Planning/), 

BOEM is funding and is planning to fund additional studies 

and workshops to examine the effectiveness and feasibility of 

mitigation measures in the GOM. BOEM’s Environmental 

Studies Program develops, conducts, and oversees worldclass scientific research, specifically to inform policy decisions 

regarding development of OCS energy and mineral resources. 

BOEM is a leading contributor to the growing body of scientific 

knowledge about the Nation’s marine and coastal 

environment.

1074-0013 The agencies must identify and evaluate alternatives and 

mitigation measures in light of NMFS’ purpose and need under 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and not simply BOEM’s 

purpose and need under OCSLA. For example, the need to 

meet the “small numbers” and “negligible impact” standards 

might necessitate a greater reduction in seismic airgun activity 

beyond the 10 or 25 percent that BOEM has contemplated; or it 

might alter the DEIS’ evaluation of the time-area closures it has 

identified for sperm whales, Bryde’s whales, and coastal 

bottlenose dolphins—all small populations with high projected 

take numbers.

The NOAA's purpose and need is included in Chapter 1.1.2, 

and NOAA is a cooperating agency for this Programmatic EIS. 

BOEM continues to work closely with NOAA to include its input 

into this Final Programmatic EIS.

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives in this 

Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 

viability, and other factors, and consider them a reasonable 

range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. This Programmatic 

EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory responsibilities 

associated with permitting and authorizing G&G activities 

connected with activities conducted in support of the Oil and 

Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals Programs for

the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This Programmatic EIS also would 

support NOAA authorization of the incidental take of marine 

mammals under the MMPA for these activities.

BOEM believes that it has followed the regulatory standards 

for developing NEPA alternatives, which included to “study, 

develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to 

recommended courses of action in any proposal which 

involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-105

Submission ID Comment Response

available resources” (Section 102 [42 U.S.C. § 4332]). The 

construction of alternatives followed the simple premise that in 

order to be a valid alternative, it must fulfill the purpose of and 

need for the proposed action and be economically feasible 

and technically viable. The range of alternatives was 

developed based on the underlying purpose and need. 

Alternatives that did not meet the purpose and need were not 

carried forward for further analysis.

1074-0014 The agencies must consider a technology-based alternative 

that motivates research, development, and adoption of noisequieting technology, some of which is already available for 

deep-penetration seismic surveys. Options include establishing 

a future noise output standard throughout the northern Gulf or 

in areas with higher habitat value for protected species; 

deferring the permitting of surveys in particular areas where 

effective mitigative technologies could reasonably be expected 

to become available within the life of the EIS; and strongly 

incentivizing the use of alternative technologies.

Appendix F, Section 3, evaluates emerging technologies, 

and Chapter 2.11.2 discusses alternatives considered but not 

carried forward with respect to alternative technology. BOEM 

determined that alternative technologies are in various stages 

of development and that none of the systems with the potential 

to replace airguns as a seismic source are currently 

commercially available for use on a scale of activity 

considered in the proposed action scenario described in 

Chapter 3. Although some alternative technologies are 

available now or will be in the next several years for select 

uses, none are, or will be, in the next 10 years at a stage 

where they can replace airgun arrays outright; however, some 

may be used in select environments when commercially 

available. The alternative proposed in this comment would not 

provide the oil and gas industry or the government with 

sufficiently accurate data on the location, extent, and

properties of hydrocarbon resources or the character of 

formation fluids or gases, or information on shallow geologic 

hazards and seafloor geotechnical properties, in order to 

explore, develop, produce, and transport hydrocarbons safely 

and economically. As this alternative does not meet the stated 

purpose and need, and cannot be analyzed on a 

programmatic scale at this stage, it has not been carried 

forward for detailed environmental impact analysis in this 

Programmatic EIS. Should these technologies become 

commercially available, BOEM can evaluate them in the future 

as a standalone, site-specific request or in a supplemental 

programmatic document. BOEM will consider future data on 

new technologies to adjust mitigation requirements for 

individual surveys based on the best available information at 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-106 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

that time (Chapter 1.2.3.5).

1074-0017 The agencies should consider additional mitigation for powerful, 

lower-frequency multibeam echosounders, such as the system 

implicated in the Madagascar mass strandings, such as area 

closures and required employment of less powerful systems 

except in areas where water depth or other factors necessitate 

their use.

Mitigation measures for powerful lower-frequency MBESs are 

included in Alternatives C through F, depending on the 

operating frequencies of the non-airgun HRG surveys 

Appendix B, Section 1.3.1).

Through the Environmental Studies Program 

(https://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Studies-Planning/), 

BOEM is funding and is planning to fund additional studies 

and workshops to examine the effectiveness and feasibility of 

mitigation measures in the GOM. BOEM’s Environmental 

Studies Program develops, conducts, and oversees worldclass scientific research, specifically to inform policy decisions 

regarding development of OCS energy and mineral resources.

Research covers physical oceanography, atmospheric 

sciences, biology, protected species, social sciences and 

economics, submerged cultural resources, and environmental 

fates and effects. BOEM is a leading contributor to the 

growing body of scientific knowledge about the Nation’s 

marine and coastal environment. Currently active studies 

addressing this broad range of topics can be found at 

http://www.boem.gov/GMStudies/. BOEM will consider future 

data on the efficacy of mitigation measures to adjust mitigation 

requirements for individual surveys based on the best 

available information at that time.

1074-0018 The agencies should consider alternatives and mitigation 

measures for G&G activities that were not addressed, or 

sufficiently addressed, in the DEIS, such as establishing 

additional ship-strike avoidance measures in Bryde’s whale 

habitat, mitigating impacts on non-marine mammal taxa, and 

requiring MMPA authorization as a condition of OCSLA permit.

In accordance with CEQ regulations implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR part 1502) and DOI implementing procedures for 

NEPA (43 CFR part 46), a range of alternatives must be 

rigorously explored and objectively evaluated, and a 

decisionmaker must not consider alternatives beyond the 

range of alternatives evaluated in this Programmatic EIS, but 

must consider all the alternatives evaluated in this

Programmatic EIS.

The alternatives identified in this Programmatic EIS are based 

on technical feasibility and economic viability. BOEM believes 

that it has followed the regulatory standards for developing 

NEPA alternatives, which included to “study, develop, and 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-107

Submission ID Comment Response

describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of 

action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts 

concerning alternative uses of available resources” (Section 

102 [42 U.S.C. § 4332]). The construction of alternatives 

followed the simple premise that, in order to be a valid 

alternative, it would have to fulfill the purpose of and need for 

the proposed action and be economically feasible and 

technically viable. The range of alternatives was developed 

based on the underlying purpose and need. Alternatives that 

did not meet the purpose and need were not carried forward 

for further analysis. Additionally, through the Monitoring Plan 

(Chapter 1.2.3.4), BOEM will consider future data on the 

efficacy of mitigation measures to adjust mitigation 

requirements for individual surveys based on the best 

available information at that time.

Overall, these comments have been noted and considered by 

BOEM when determining the Preferred Alternative.

NOAA is a cooperating agency for this Programmatic EIS, and 

BOEM will continue to work closely with NOAA to include its 

input into this Final Programmatic EIS. This Programmatic 

EIS will be used as the NEPA documentation associated with 

the issuance of ITAs and the rule-making process under the 

MMPA for the incidental taking of marine mammals in 

connection with all G&G survey activities in the GOM.

In addition, BOEM will consider future data on the efficacy of 

mitigation measures to adjust mitigation requirements for 

individual surveys based on the best available information at 

that time.

1074-0021 Under the settlement agreement in NRDC v. Jewell, BOEM is 

required analyze a number of alternatives and mitigation 

measures, including, but not limited to the interim mitigation 

measures adopted under the agreement, which comprise area 

closures, seasonal closures, vessel separation distances, 

expanded safety zone protocols, and other requirements; 

additional mechanisms “to reduce cumulative or chronic 

BOEM respectfully disagrees. Alternative B includes the 

mitigation measures from the Settlement Agreement and the 

amendment to the Settlement Agreement, as described in 

Chapter 2.4. Chapter 4 provides the impact analysis for 

Alternative B for all resources. This Final Programmatic EIS 

has been modified to include the revised mitigation measures 

from the amendment to the Settlement Agreement. In 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-108 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

exposure of marine mammal populations to noise (e.g., limiting 

concurrent surveying, limiting the total amount of survey activity 

in portions of the Gulf of Mexico)”; and “[r]equirements or 

incentives to develop and use emergent alternative 

technologies for Deep Penetration Seismic surveying.” 

Settlement Agreement § IX.A. The agency is also required to 

analyze the development of a “long-term adaptive monitoring 

plan” to address chronic impacts of seismic surveys on Gulf 

marine mammals. Id. § IX.B. Finally, it has had to determine 

the feasibility of developing two potentially important mitigation 

standards, one limiting seismic airgun surveys to the “lowest 

practicable source level” and the other denying permission to

surveys that are “unnecessarily duplicative” in whole or in part. 

Id. § VIII. While an improvement on the analysis offered in 

many of BOEM’s previous environmental compliance 

documents, BOEM’s alternatives and mitigation analyses miss 

the mark in several significant respects. We urge the agencies 

to correct these problems in its Final EIS.

addition, some of the mitigation measures included in 

Alternative B are also included in some form in other 

alternatives evaluated.

As agreed upon in the revised Settlement Agreement in 2015, 

BOEM has analyzed the development of the monitoring plan 

developed by industry (Chapter 1.2.3.4).

Appendix L provides the evaluation by an expert panel of the 

lowest practicable source levels and duplicative surveys.

1074-0021

(continued)

BOEM’s alternatives and mitigation analyses miss the mark in 

several significant respects. We urge the agencies to correct 

these problems in its Final EIS.

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives in this 

Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 

viability, and other factors, and consider them to be a 

reasonable range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. This 

Programmatic EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory 

responsibilities associated with permitting and authorizing 

G&G activities connected with activities conducted in support 

of the Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals 

Programs for the Gulf of Mexico OCS.

1074-0024 The DEIS presently treats Alternatives D, E, and F as 

independent and mutually exclusive options. Yet these 

alternatives are not contradictory and, indeed, may improve 

outcomes in combination.

...the DEIS’ cumulative acoustic exposure modeling, at 

Appendix K, indicates that some area closures (which are 

needed to protect the most vulnerable species) could potentially 

increase chronic noise levels in some areas by redistributing 

rather than reducing activity—a problem that can be addressed 

by combining area closures with activity reduction (see DEIS at 

In accordance with CEQ regulations implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR part 1502) and DOI implementing procedures for 

NEPA (43 CFR part 46), a range of alternatives must be 

rigorously explored and objectively evaluated, and a 

decisionmaker must not consider alternatives beyond the 

range of alternatives evaluated in this Programmatic EIS but 

must consider all the alternatives evaluated in this

Programmatic EIS.

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives and mitigations 

in this Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-109

Submission ID Comment Response

K-31, Table 27). For this and other reasons, the Marine 

Mammal Commission recommends as “more appropriate” an 

alternative that includes the broader set of measures, including 

expanded “shut-down procedures, visual and passive acoustic 

monitoring, overall activity reduction (rather than redistribution), 

and appropriate time-area closures in its Preferred Alternative 

to maximize the mitigation value for those species that are 

believed to warrant the greatest protection, including sperm 

whales, Bryde’s whales, and bay, sound, and estuarine stocks 

of bottlenose dolphins. The agencies should include these 

several mitigation measures in a single proposed alternative.

economic viability, and other factors, and consider them a 

reasonable range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. This 

Programmatic EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory 

responsibilities associated with permitting and authorizing 

G&G activities connected with activities conducted in support 

of the Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals 

Programs for the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This Programmatic EIS 

would also support NOAA’s authorization of the incidental take 

of marine mammals under the MMPA for these activities. The 

full consideration of alternatives and mitigations assists both 

agencies in meeting their NEPA obligations and provides the 

decisionmakers with the necessary information, including the 

relative need and costs of mitigations, to evaluate and 

implement prospective actions. Additionally, through the 

Monitoring Plan (Chapter 1.2.3.4), BOEM will consider future 

data on the efficacy of mitigation measures to adjust mitigation 

requirements for individual surveys based on the best 

available information at that time.

Overall, these comments have been noted and considered.

1074-0025 Alternative C, which is incorporated into Alternatives D through 

F, would primarily establish a seasonal exclusion in waters from 

the 20 meter isobaths shoreward, as a means of protecting 

near-coastal bottlenose dolphin populations. This aspect of the 

alternative is a variant on the seasonal coastal exclusion 

required by the NRDC v. Jewell settlement agreement. More 

protective variants on the concept are also reasonable and 

should be considered.

First, BOEM should consider at least a temporary, adaptive 

restriction on all oil-and-gas exploration activity in the coastal 

exclusion area, to afford near-coastal bottlenose dolphins 

opportunity for recovery. (As a variant, the agency could apply 

the interim year-round restriction only to non-lease activities.) 

The need to reduce stressors on Deepwater Horizon spill-zone 

populations is clear: NMFS estimates that 38% of coastal 

bottlenose dolphins were killed in the recent Unusual Mortality 

Event (“UME”), that 37% of their pregnancies were lost, and 

Thank you; your suggestions regarding additional alternatives 

have been noted. This information was considered by BOEM 

when determining the Preferred Alternative.

This Programmatic EIS is not the decision document under 

NEPA. The decision will be provided in the ROD. The 

Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management can 

select all of the closure areas or a subset of the closures areas 

as part of the decision provided in the ROD. BOEM and 

NOAA developed the alternatives in this Programmatic EIS 

based on technical feasibility, economic viability, and other 

factors, and consider them to be a reasonable range of 

alternatives for NEPA analysis. This Programmatic EIS will 

enable BOEM to fulfill statutory responsibilities associated with 

permitting and authorizing G&G activities connected with 

activities conducted in support of the Oil and Gas, Renewable 

Energy, and Marine Minerals Programs for the Gulf of Mexico 

OCS. This Programmatic EIS would also support NOAA 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-110 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

that 30% of them are suffering from adverse health effects. 

Animals that are in poor health or are limited in range, such as 

the Gulf’s coastal bottlenose dolphins, are more likely to remain 

in a disturbed area despite the biological costs.23 Such a 

restriction is certainly reasonable given the exigent 

circumstances, and may in fact be required in much of the Gulf 

to meet the negligible impact and small numbers provisions of 

the MMPA. It should be considered.

Second, BOEM should consider a variant on its seasonal 

exclusion that adds January to the exclusion period. Our 

proposal focuses on January and February in part because 

these months, together with March and April, correspond with 

periods of higher neonate mortality and of peak calving and late 

gestation for bottlenose dolphins in the central Gulf.

authorization of the incidental take of marine mammals under 

the MMPA for these activities. In addition, BOEM will consider 

future data on the efficacy of mitigation measures to adjust 

mitigation requirements for individual surveys based on the 

best available information at that time.

In accordance with CEQ regulations implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR part 1502) and DOI implementing procedures for 

NEPA (43 CFR part 46), a range of alternatives must be 

rigorously explored and objectively evaluated, and a 

decisionmaker must not consider alternatives beyond the 

range of alternatives evaluated in this Programmatic EIS, but 

must consider all the alternatives evaluated in this

Programmatic EIS.

1074-0025

(continued)

A correspondence between neonate strandings and calving 

peaks has been observed in other U.S. regions, such as the 

southeast.24 In the central Gulf, stranding data from various 

studies show peaks in neonate (<115 cm) mortality in the later 

winter and spring.25 During the first year of the UME 

documented by NOAA, an unusual number (n=186) of perinatal 

(near term to neonatal) bottlenose dolphin mortalities occurred, 

in waters running from Louisiana to western Florida, between 1 

January and 30 April 2011.26 This time period was marked by 

heightened strandings with three distinct peaks: 29 January-4 

February, 19-25 February, and 19-25 March.27 Overall, the 

greatest number of strandings of premature, stillborn, or 

neonatal dolphins reported during the five-year UME have 

occurred in January (range=0-9), February (range=1-35), 

March (range=7-28), and April (range=2-16).28

Similarly, before the recent UME began, the highest incidence 

of neonate strandings in the Mississippi Sound was recorded 

during the months of February through April.29 By contrast, 

neonate strandings generally occur year-round in Sarasota 

Bay, Florida, in the eastern Gulf, with the highest number (n=3) 

reported between February and September, and the mean date 

of strandings occurring on 17 June.30 A stressor can adversely 

Subject-matter experts made a best judgment as to a 

reasonable range that encompasses important reproductive 

periods for bottlenose dolphins in coastal waters. Expert 

interpretation of the long-term data for “neonate” strandings is 

that February through April are the primary months that 

animals are born in the northern GOM and that fewer but 

similar numbers are born in January and May. This refers to 

long-term averages and, in any particular year, the peak 

reproductive period can shift earlier or later. While pregnant 

mothers may be susceptible to the impacts of noise, we 

believe that neonates and/or calves are likely most susceptible 

because behavioral disruption could have more severe 

energetic effects for lactating mothers and/or lead disruption of 

mother-calf bonding and ultimate effects on rates of neonate 

and/or calf survivorship. Therefore, we believe that February 

through May represents a reasonable best estimate of the time 

period of most sensitivity for bottlenose dolphins.
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-111

Submission ID Comment Response

affect reproductive success at any time during gestation; 

however, in the central Gulf, inclusion of January would cover 

the remainder of the dolphins’ peak calving and late gestation 

periods as well as the beginning of the period of highest 

reproductive failure.

Additionally, seasonal changes in the distribution of some 

bottlenose dolphin populations make them more vulnerable to 

seismic activity during the winter months. Gulf bottlenose 

dolphins show varying degrees of residency, with certain 

populations demonstrating strong site fidelity to feeding areas32

and others exhibiting seasonal movements between the coastal 

waters of the Gulf and inshore bay, sound, and estuary 

habitat.33 Notably, some near-coastal bottlenose dolphin 

populations have been observed leaving the Mississippi Sound 

during the winter to temporarily reside outside of the barrier 

islands.34 Populations that seasonally inhabit the Gulf’s coastal 

waters in the winter months, including January, are more likely 

to be at risk of exposure to federally permitted seismic survey 

activity during that time. A winter restriction would substantially 

reduce exposure of these populations.

Third, BOEM should clarify certain elements of this measure. In 

particular, it should clarify that the seasonal exclusion does 

indeed cover activities occurring in state waters, via NMFS’ 

involvement (DEIS at ix). It should also clarify that the 

exclusion includes HRG surveys, as does the analogous 

requirement in the NRDC v. Jewell Settlement Agreement. See 

Settlement Agreement § V.A (referencing archeological 

resources surveys and other preparatory work for deep 

penetration seismic surveys that employ sub-bottom profilers).

1074-0026 Alternative D, as presently described, would extend the shutdown requirement to delphinid species with the exception of 

bowriding dolphins. DEIS at 2-13. This exception is based on 

a simple cost-benefit analysis, that while shutting down in the 

presence of bowriding dolphins would increase shutdowns by 

an estimated 35 to 41 percent, resulting in an additional 44-46 

shutdowns per year across the seismic fleet, protected species 

Mitigation measures included in this Programmatic EIS 

(Appendix B, Section 1.2.4) are designed to minimize 

disturbance and potential auditory injuries to marine mammals 

(and sea turtles) during seismic surveys. The elements of 

these mitigation measures are continually evolving, and those 

included in this Programmatic EIS represent best available 

scientific knowledge. All of the elements have limitations that 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-112 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

observers have “report[ed] no observable impacts” to these 

individuals. DEIS at 2-24. But it is not known why dolphins 

bowride; researchers have cautioned, for example, against 

making longitudinal assumptions about population health based 

on seemingly benign behavioral responses of dolphins around 

vessels;35 and it is not evident how a visual observer would 

detect temporary or permanent hearing loss in a non-captive 

marine mammal. On the contrary, the best available science 

indicates that dolphins are at risk of auditory and other injury at 

relatively close distances to the seismic source. Without further 

analysis of the acoustic field near the sea surface and in the 

immediate vicinity of the vessel, the agency cannot assume 

away this risk; indeed, it is possible that a dolphin’s tendency to 

bowride increases its risk of injury. More analysis is therefore 

needed of the potential costs and benefits of excluding 

bowriding dolphins from this alternative.

Additionally, we recommend that the agencies consider a 

narrower formulation of this measure, requiring shutdown for 

delphinids or, alternatively, for bottlenose dolphins and 

delphinids of unidentified species, within the coastal area 

presently identified for seasonal exclusion. As noted above at 

II.A.3 and elsewhere in these comments, the Gulf’s small nearcoastal bottlenose dolphin populations are suffering severely 

from the consequences of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, with 

precipitous declines. Any cost-benefit analysis under NEPA or 

application of the MMPA’s negligible impact standard must take 

the conservation status of these populations into account.

may reduce their effectiveness, as discussed in Appendix B, 

Section 1.2.4. 

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives and mitigations 

in this Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, 

economic viability, and other factors, and consider them a 

reasonable range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. This 

Programmatic EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory 

responsibilities associated with permitting and authorizing 

G&G activities connected with activities conducted in support 

of the Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals 

Programs for the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This Programmatic EIS 

would also support NOAA authorization of the incidental take 

of marine mammals under the MMPA for these activities. The 

full consideration of alternatives and mitigations assists both 

agencies in meeting their NEPA obligations and provides the 

decisionmakers with the necessary information, including the 

relative need and costs of mitigations, to evaluate and 

implement prospective actions.

Through the adaptive management of the Monitoring Plan 

(Chapter 1.2.3.4), BOEM will consider future data on the

efficacy of mitigation measures to adjust mitigation 

requirements for individual surveys based on the best 

available information at that time.

1074-0027 Under Alternative E, BOEM would cap the amount of deeppenetration, multi-client activity it permits each calendar year, 

with permitting stopped once a specified amount of activity has 

been permitted. DEIS at 2-24 to 2-25. Such a reduction is 

likely to be environmentally beneficial, reducing marine 

mammal take numbers and, as suggested by Appendix K, 

improving acoustic habitat. BOEM does not indicate, however, 

why the particular caps considered in the DEIS, representing a 

10 percent (Alternative E1) or 25 percent (Alternative E2) 

reduction in the number of line miles permitted annually, were 

BOEM, through consultation with industry representatives, has 

tried to base the reductions on an attempt to balance 

environmental impacts with economic impacts to achieve the 

proposed action's purpose and need. Using expert opinion 

and best professional judgement, BOEM determined that 10 

percent and 25 percent reductions offer a reasonable range of 

reduced activity levels while still allowing BOEM to fulfill the 

purpose of and need for this Programmatic EIS.

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives in this 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-113

Submission ID Comment Response

chosen. The agencies should consider other reduction levels 

that meet the purpose and need of BOEM and, separately, 

NMFS. See § II.B below.

Time and place restrictions designed to protect important 

habitat are one of the most effective available means to reduce 

the potential impacts of noise and disturbance on marine 

mammals and is frequently recommended as core mitigation for 

disruptive acoustic activities, including seismic exploration.36 It 

is also a cornerstone of NOAA’s new Ocean Noise Strategy, 

which takes habitat management as one of its priorities.37

Alternative F would establish area closures at four sites in the 

northern Gulf: a Central Planning Area (“CPA”) unit, largely 

corresponding to the Mississippi Canyon, to protect sperm 

whales and beaked whale species; an Eastern Planning Area 

unit, corresponding to the upper northern slope of the De Soto 

Canyon, to protect Gulf Bryde’s whales; a unit near the Dry 

Tortugas in the far eastern Gulf, primarily for the protection of 

sperm whales; and a Flower Gardens unit, to protect the 

National Marine Sanctuary there. The DEIS concurs that the 

areas it has identified, encompassing both the coastal habitat in 

Alternative C and the four habitat areas in Alternative F, are 

important to these target species. DEIS at 2-17 to 2-18. BOEM 

should consider additional reasonable measures to minimize 

effects on these areas.

Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 

viability, and other factors, and consider them to be a 

reasonable range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. This 

Programmatic EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory 

responsibilities associated with permitting and authorizing 

G&G activities in connection with activities conducted in 

support of the Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine 

Minerals Programs for the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This 

Programmatic EIS also would support NOAA’s authorization of 

the incidental take of marine mammals under the MMPA for 

these activities.

BOEM believes that it has followed the regulatory standards 

for developing NEPA alternatives, which included to “study, 

develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to 

recommended courses of action in any proposal which 

involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of 

available resources” (Section 102 [42 U.S.C. § 4332]). The 

construction of alternatives followed the simple premise that, in 

order to be a valid alternative, it must fulfill the purpose of and 

need for the proposed action and be economically feasible 

and technically viable. The range of alternatives was 

developed based on the underlying purpose and need. 

Alternatives that did not meet the purpose and need were not 

carried forward for further analysis. 

Thank you; your suggestions regarding additional alternatives 

have been noted. This Programmatic EIS is not the decision 

document under NEPA. The decision will be provided in the 

ROD. As indicated in Chapter 2.8.1, all the closure areas or a 

subset of the closures areas could be selected as part of 

Alternative F, or as part of the decision provided in the ROD.

1074-0028 First, BOEM should consider extending the “buffer zone,” 

currently set at 160 dB (broadband SPL), around the areas it 

has proposed for closure, including the coastal exclusion area 

proposed in Alternative C, which presently lacks a buffer zone 

entirely. The best available evidence indicates that behavioral 

impacts on sperm whales, baleen whales, and other species 

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives in this 

Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 

viability, environmental impacts, and other factors, and 

consider them a reasonable range of alternatives for NEPA 

analysis. This Programmatic EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill 

statutory responsibilities associated with permitting and 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-114 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

can occur at received levels well below the 160 dB that NMFS 

takes as its current standard. (See § III.A below.) The agency 

should consider the benefits of enlarging the buffer zone.

Second, BOEM should consider how reductions in deeppenetration seismic surveys outside the closure areas could 

reduce chronic noise levels within them. The complex 

bathymetry found in some parts of the northern Gulf makes for 

an apparently complex propagation regime, particularly for lowfrequency sound. For example, the relatively shallow water in 

the EPA Closure Area important to Bryde’s whales, and the 

lack of substantial airgun surveys in the activity zones to the 

area’s north and south, afford it some protection from chronic 

noise produced elsewhere in the Gulf. BOEM should consider 

an alternative that excludes seismic oil and gas surveys from all 

portions of the EPA subject to the current Congressional 

moratorium. But given the potential for increased leasing in the 

Eastern Planning Area over the next ten years, particularly after 

expiration of the existing moratorium in 2022 (see § III.D.1 

below), BOEM should at least identify what areas are most 

likely to propagate low-frequency sound into the Bryde’s 

whales’ extremely limited habitat and consider establishing area 

closures in those areas as well—protecting, as it were, the 

acoustic watershed of this vitally important, and as yet relatively 

unspoiled, habitat. The agency should also consider how 

chronic noise might be reduced within the Flower Gardens 

Closure Area, given that the area closure, apparently, did not 

appreciably improve the listening area available to mid- and 

high-frequency cetaceans. See DEIS at K-42.

authorizing G&G activities connected with activities conducted 

in support of Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine 

Minerals Programs for the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This 

Programmatic EIS also would support NOAA authorization of 

the incidental take of marine mammals under the MMPA for 

these activities.

In addition, BOEM will consider future data on the efficacy of 

mitigation measures to adjust mitigation requirements for 

individual surveys based on the best available information at 

that time.

The current available science was used to determine the 

closure areas to afford the most protection to protected 

species; this includes the EPA. Those closure areas were 

analyzed as part of the programmatic NEPA process.

The BOEM has incorporated Appendix K into the cumulative 

impacts analysis of marine mammals. The best available 

science was used to analyze impacts to marine mammals from 

the proposed activity. 

1074-0028

(continued)

Third, BOEM should put considerable weight in its analysis on 

protecting the “CPA Closure Area.” As the agency recognizes 

(see DEIS at 2-18), it is well established, on the basis of historic 

whaling records, mark-recapture data, and extensive surveys 

including by GulfCet II and the Sperm Whale Seismic Study, 

that this area constitutes important habitat for the Gulf’s small, 

biologically distinct population of sperm whales,38 most likely 

due to the input of a nutrient-rich, freshwater plume from the 

Mississippi Delta.39 Nearly all sightings of females and motherBOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives (including those 

with closure areas) for this Programmatic EIS based on 

technical feasibility, economic viability, and other factors, and 

consider them a reasonable range of alternatives for NEPA 

analysis. Further, BOEM's subject-matter experts developed 

the alternatives in close coordination with NMFS using the 

best available data. 

The attempt in the modeling exercise in Appendix K was to 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-115

Submission ID Comment Response

calf groups have occurred in the Mississippi Canyon area, 

strongly suggesting it functions as a nursery ground.40

Yet this habitat is easily compromised. A controlled exposure 

experiment conducted in the Mississippi Canyon under the 

Sperm Whale Seismic Study (“SWSS”) found that sperm 

whales did not abandon that habitat; but their buzz rates, a 

measure of foraging success, declined substantially, by an 

average of 19 percent, on exposure to even moderate levels of 

airgun noise.41 Moreover, deeper parts of the canyon, where 

deep-diving sperm whales are likely to spend considerable time 

foraging, are particularly susceptible to high levels of chronic 

noise. See DEIS at K-28, K-33. The area was also, of course, 

at the epicenter of the Deepwater Horizon spill, presenting a 

serious long-term risk to sperm whale health. It is worth noting 

that sperm whales sampled in the area during a post-spill 

biopsy study showed levels of nickel and chromium, two 

genotoxic metals found in Macondo oil, that were several times 

higher than the global mean for the species.42 Finally, as the 

DEIS states, deeper waters in the CPA Closure Area also 

constitute relatively high-density habitat for beaked whales 

(DEIS at 2-18), a family of species whose acute sensitivity to 

anthropogenic noise is well known.43

bring a tool that could help evaluate loss of ability to detect 

signals of biological importance over spatial scales relevant to 

the sources and hearing capabilities of a wide variety of 

regional animals. Potential masking realized by individual 

calling and receiving animals due to noise at relatively close 

proximity to a single intermittent source is an important but 

limited evaluation of the real-world contexts within which 

populations of marine mammals and other animals are 

exposed to noise from multiple seismic surveys in a region like 

the Gulf of Mexico.

1074-0028

(continued)

Our organizations fully support the proposed CPA Area Closure 

and believe it is appropriate under OCSLA and, indeed, 

required to satisfy the “negligible impact” standard of the 

MMPA. Given the amount of activity taking place in this area, 

however, we are concerned that BOEM ultimately will demur 

from including it within its Preferred Alternative. If that is 

BOEM’s intent, the agency must thoroughly consider, as part of 

a range of reasonable alternatives, less proscriptive protections 

for the area, including but not limited to a variant that would 

allow continued exploration only of presently leased blocks.

Fourth, and relatedly, BOEM should consider reducing noise in 

areas that may support Bryde’s whale recovery. As noted 

below at III.C.1, whaling logbooks and other evidence suggest 

that the Gulf Bryde’s whale population may have ranged farther 

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives in this

Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 

viability, and other factors, and consider them a reasonable 

range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. This Programmatic 

EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory responsibilities 

associated with permitting and authorizing G&G activities 

connected with activities conducted in support of the Oil and 

Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals Programs for

the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This Programmatic EIS would also 

support NOAA’s authorization of the incidental take of marine 

mammals under the MMPA for these activities. The full 

consideration of alternatives and mitigations assists both 

agencies in meeting their NEPA obligations and provides the 

decisionmakers with the necessary information, including the 

relative need and costs of mitigations, to evaluate and 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-116 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

west than its present, seemingly constricted habitat in the De 

Soto Canyon. The greatest number of whaleship sighting and 

capture records are contained in a cluster south and west of the 

Mississippi River Delta, corresponding to the western portion of 

the CPA Area Closure.44 Given the suggestion made by Rosel 

and Wilcox (2014), that industrial activity may have caused or 

contributed to a contraction of the whales’ range, and given the 

deeply imperiled status of the population, BOEM should 

consider measures to restore acoustic habitat quality in these 

areas, including the CPA Area Closure proposed in this 

alternative.

implement prospective actions.

The current available science was used to determine the 

closure areas to afford the most protection to protected 

species; this includes the CPA and EPA. Closure areas are 

part of different alternatives analyzed.

1074-0029 Alternative G, the “no-action” alternative, is rejected by BOEM 

for failing to meet its purpose and need. DEIS at 2-19. But in 

summarily rejecting the alternative, the agency fails to consider 

reasonable variants. For example, in lieu of barring all new 

G&G permits for oil and gas, the agency could instead 

proscribe only surveys that target unleased blocks, alleviating 

the agency’s safety concerns about support for ongoing

production in leased areas. Id. Additionally, the agency could 

allow G&G activities, including HRG surveys with mitigation, 

related to the development of offshore renewable energy 

projects, alleviating another well-founded concern. Id. The 

agency musts consider these alternative formulations rather 

than simply set up and reject a binary formulation.

The CEQ regulation at 40 CFR § 1502.14(d) specifies that 

NEPA analyses require the alternatives analysis in the EIS to 

"include the alternative of no action." This analysis provides a 

benchmark, enabling decisionmakers to compare the 

magnitude of environmental effects of the action alternatives. 

It is also an example of a reasonable alternative outside the 

jurisdiction of the agency, which must be analyzed (CEQ 

regulation at 40 CFR § 1502.14(c). Inclusion of such an 

analysis in this Programmatic EIS is necessary to inform 

Congress, the public, and the President as intended by NEPA

(CEQ regulation at 40 CFR § 1500.1(a).

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives in this 

Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 

viability, and other factors, and consider them a reasonable 

range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. This Programmatic 

EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory responsibilities 

associated with permitting and authorizing G&G activities 

connected with activities conducted in support of the Oil and 

Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals Programs for

the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This Programmatic EIS also would 

support NOAA’s authorization of the incidental take of marine 

mammals under the MMPA for these activities.

This Programmatic EIS is not the decision document under 

NEPA. The decision regarding which alternative or 

combination of mitigation measures analyzed will be provided 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-117

Submission ID Comment Response

in the ROD.

1074-0030 The DEIS makes clear that NMFS intends to use the document 

for its own NEPA compliance (DEIS at 1-4), and yet, with the 

arguable exception of the “no-action alternative” (DEIS at 2-19 

to 2-20), its alternatives and mitigation analyses do not appear 

to take NMFS’ responsibilities into account in any way. The 

“significance” standard the agencies apply (see section II.C 

below) bears no relation to the MMPA’s standards for incidental 

take authorization; and what summary conclusions are made in 

the document, e.g., that Alternative E would “noticeably reduce 

impacts” (DEIS at 2-14) make no reference to those standards. 

Applying the MMPA is crucial to the agencies’ alternatives 

analysis. For example, the need to meet the “small numbers” 

and “negligible impact” standards might necessitate a greater 

reduction in seismic airgun activity beyond the 10 or 25 percent 

that BOEM has contemplated; or it might alter the DEIS’ 

evaluation of the time-area closures it has identified for sperm 

whales, Bryde’s whales, and coastal bottlenose dolphins—all 

small populations with high projected take numbers. The DEIS, 

in formulating its alternatives, must not “avoid the task actually 

facing NMFS.” Conservation Council, 97 F. Supp. 3d at 1236.

Comment noted. NOAA is a cooperating agency for this 

Programmatic EIS, and BOEM worked closely with NOAA to 

include its input to this Final Programmatic EIS. In addition, 

text has been added in Chapter 1 to more accurately capture 

NOAA's responsibilities and authorities. BOEM and NOAA are 

working together to meet statutory obligations (e.g., NEPA, 

MMPA, and ESA) to manage G&G activities and their potential 

impacts to marine resources, including marine mammals, in 

the GOM.

BOEM intends to use this Programmatic EIS’s analyses to 

support an application for rulemaking under the MMPA and 

intends to apply for rulemaking under the MMPA on behalf of 

the G&G industry. The rulemaking would cover G&G survey 

activities supporting the Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and 

Marine Minerals program areas. Industry then would be 

allowed to apply for individual (company) permits under the 

rulemaking. This Programmatic EIS also would support NOAA 

authorization of the incidental take of marine mammals under 

the MMPA for these activities.

1074-0033 The Marine Mammal Commission has expressed concern 

about the DEIS’ lack of accuracy and transparency, and the 

difficulty that poses for alternatives analysis: “Given that 

neither the Commission nor the public can review meaningfully 

the impact assessment, judge the appropriateness of the 

various alternatives, or decipher how BOEM intends to interpret 

takes, suggesting a Preferred Alternative is completely 

impractical. “For this reason among others, the Commission 

recommends that BOEM adopt all of the DEIS’ mitigation 

alternatives, including area closures, activity reduction, and 

shut-down provisions, as “a more appropriate approach for 

BOEM to take.” Regardless, BOEM should improve its 

analysis.

BOEM has made revisions within this Programmatic EIS to 

make the comparison of impacts from each alternatives easier.

This Programmatic EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory 

responsibilities associated with permitting and authorizing 

G&G activities in connection with activities conducted in 

support of the Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine 

Minerals Programs for the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This 

Programmatic EIS will also support NOAA's authorization of 

the incidental take of marine mammals under the MMPA for 

these activities.

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives in this 

Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 

viability, and other factors, and consider them to be a 

reasonable range of alternatives for NEPA analysis.
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-118 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

Thank you for your recommendation; however, this 

Programmatic EIS is not the decision document under NEPA. 

The decision will be provided in the ROD.

1074-0034 BOEM dismisses a technology-based alternative from 

consideration on the grounds that noise-quieting technologies, 

at least at their current rate of development, will not completely 

supplant existing airgun technology within the ten-year scope of 

the DEIS (DEIS at 2-26). But this is a strawman rationale that 

ignores both the state of noise-quieting in the industry and the 

availability of reasonable alternatives that motivate 

development.

Quieting technologies are among the most promising means of 

mitigating ocean noise, with potentially significant long-term 

reductions in cumulative exposures and impacts on marine 

species. Industry experts and biologists participating in a 

September 2009 workshop reached the following conclusions: 

that airguns produce a great deal of “waste” sound and 

generate peak levels substantially higher than needed for 

offshore exploration; that a number of quieting technologies 

were technically feasible and could be made available for 

commercial use within a few years; and that governments 

should accelerate development and use of these technologies 

through both research and development funding and regulatory 

engagement.50 A 2007 report by Noise Control Engineering 

reached similar conclusions,51 and, in 2013, BOEM hosted an 

international workshop focused in substantial part on seismic as 

a target for mitigation.

Appendix F, Section 3 evaluates emerging technologies, and 

Chapter 2.11.2 discusses alternatives considered but not 

carried forward with respect to alternative technology. BOEM 

has determined that alternative technologies are in various 

stages of development and that none of the systems with the 

potential to replace airguns as a seismic source are currently 

commercially available for use on a scale of activity 

considered in the proposed action scenario described in 

Chapter 3. Although some alternative technologies are 

available now or will be in the next several years for select 

uses, none are, or are anticipated to be in the next 10 years, 

at a stage where they can replace airgun arrays outright; 

however, some may be used in select environments when 

commercially available. This alternative would not provide the 

oil and gas industry or the government with sufficiently 

accurate data on the location, extent, and properties of 

hydrocarbon resources or the character of formation fluids or 

gases, as well as information on shallow geologic hazards and 

seafloor geotechnical properties, in order to explore, develop, 

produce, and transport hydrocarbons safely and economically.

As this alternative does not meet the stated purpose and 

need, and cannot be analyzed on a programmatic scale at this 

stage, it has not been carried forward for detailed 

environmental impact analysis in this Programmatic EIS. 

Should these technologies become commercially available, 

BOEM can evaluate them in the future as a standalone, sitespecific request or in a supplemental programmatic document.

BOEM will consider future data on new technologies to adjust 

mitigation requirements for individual surveys based on the 

best available information at that time (Chapter 1.2.3.5).

1074-0035 As BOEM is well aware, a number of new technologies are now 

commercially available or on the horizon of commercial 

availability—well within the ten-year timeframe encompassed 

by the DEIS. Most immediately, a new type of modified airgun, 

Appendix F, Section 3 evaluates emerging technologies, and 

Chapter 2.11.2 discusses alternatives considered but not 

carried forward with respect to alternative technology. BOEM 

has determined that alternative technologies are in various 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-119

Submission ID Comment Response

known as the eSource (the “e” standing for “environment”), is 

now part of Teledyne Bolt’s product line and is commercially 

available to the seismic industry.53 According to the company, 

the eSource reduces noise output by 15 dB (SPL) or more in 

frequencies above 80–120 Hz.54 Given that the vast majority of 

Gulf marine mammal populations are odontocetes, this 

reduction in source level above the useful energy band would 

be likely to significantly reduce the area in which auditory and 

behavioral impacts would occur, substantially reducing BOEM’s 

take estimates for any survey that uses the eSource.

Perhaps the best known quieting alternative to airguns is 

marine vibroseis, a vibratory source that could, by spreading 

the acoustic energy embedded in a short airgun pulse over 

several seconds, significantly reduce effective source levels 

and all but eliminate acoustic output above 100 Hz, which, 

again, is waste energy for geophysical exploration. A 

Geo-Kinetics system known as AquaVib was field-tested in the 

Gulf of Mexico last year for shallow-water application, with the 

intention of making it available for commercial deployment in 

2016.55 Three other vibroseis systems are in Joint Industry 

Program development under the terms of the NRDC v. Jewell 

settlement agreement, with field tests to be conducted on at 

least one device and final results submitted for publication by 

mid-2017.56 The environmental superiority of such systems is 

indicated in a forthcoming technical paper from Curtin 

University modelers, funded by the International Fund for 

Animal Welfare: it reports general reductions in both SPL and 

SEL exposures from an experimental vibroseis system, as 

compared with a similarly sized airgun array, across several 

operational scenarios. Other quieting technology in some stage 

of development includes BP’s “staggered-fire” (or “popcorn”) 

method of seismic acquisition, which is theoretically compatible 

with both conventional and modified airguns and could reduce 

amplitudes by as much as 20 dB.57

It is not at all self-evident, as BOEM seems to believe (DEIS at 

2-26), that none of these technologies are “currently, or will be 

stages of development and that none of the systems with the 

potential to replace airguns as a seismic source are currently

financially viable for use on a scale of activity considered in the 

proposed action scenario described in Chapter 3 without 

imposing a significant financial burden on industry. Although 

some alternative technologies are available now or will be in 

the next several years for select uses, from a practical 

perspective, none are, at a stage where they can replace 

airgun arrays outright. Should these technologies become 

commercially viable, BOEM can evaluate them in the future as 

a standalone, site-specific request or in a supplemental 

programmatic document. BOEM will consider future data on 

new technologies to adjust mitigation requirements for 

individual surveys based on the best available information at 

that time (Chapter 1.2.3.5).
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-120 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

in the next 10 years, at a stage where they can replace airgun 

arrays outright.” Indeed, the eSource airgun already appears to 

be at a stage where it can replace conventional airguns, 

potentially across all or most of the northern Gulf, and the DEIS 

provides no analysis to the contrary.

1074-0036 BOEM’s consideration of a technology-based alternative 

amounts to conceiving the most extreme variant of such an 

alternative—the immediate proscription of conventional airguns 

in all parts of the northern Gulf—and then rejecting it. This 

approach fails to meet NEPA’s mandate to consider 

“[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable 

alternatives.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a).

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives in this 

Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 

viability, and other factors, and consider them a reasonable 

range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. This Programmatic 

EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory responsibilities 

associated with permitting and authorizing G&G activities 

connected with activities conducted in support of the Oil and 

Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals Programs for

the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This Programmatic EIS would also 

support NOAA authorization of the incidental of marine 

mammals under the MMPA for these activities.

BOEM is engaged in the development of new technologies 

through the Environmental Studies Program 

(https://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Studies-Planning/). 

BOEM determined that alternative technologies currently are 

not commercially available for use on a scale of activity 

considered in the proposed action scenario described in 

Chapter 3. Should these technologies become commercially 

available, BOEM can evaluate them in the future as a 

standalone, site-specific request or in a supplemental 

programmatic document. BOEM will consider future data on 

new technologies to adjust mitigation requirements for 

individual surveys based on the best available information at 

that time (Chapter 1.2.3.5).

1074-0037 Other approaches include establishing a future noise output 

standard only in portions of the northern Gulf, such as those 

with high habitat value for protected species; deferring the 

permitting of surveys in particular areas where effective 

mitigative technologies could reasonably be expected to 

become available within the life of the EIS; and strongly 

incentivizing the use of alternative technologies. Our 

organizations and others have repeatedly called for careful 

BOEM is engaged in the development of new technologies 

through the Environmental Studies Program 

(https://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Studies-Planning/). 

BOEM determined that alternative technologies currently are 

not commercially available for use on a scale of activity 

considered in the proposed action scenario described in 

Chapter 3. Should these technologies become commercially 

available, BOEM can evaluate them in the future as a 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-121

Submission ID Comment Response

consideration of these and other approaches to noisequieting.62 None are considered in the DEIS.

Quieting alternatives have the potential to significantly reduce 

impacts on acoustic habitat and marine wildlife populations. 

That is true not only of large-scale chronic effects, which is why 

their development is considered a priority within NOAA’s new 

Ocean Noise Strategy, but even of near-source auditory injury, 

with a recent study concluding that a seismic source-level 

reduction of 3 dB (broadband RMS) would be more effective 

under most operating conditions at mitigating such harm than 

would a monitoring-based safety zone requirement.63 BOEM’s 

abdication in this DEIS from any serious consideration of a 

noise-quieting alternative is beyond disappointing. It is also 

arbitrary and capricious and must be reconsidered.

standalone, site-specific request or in a supplemental 

programmatic document. BOEM will consider future data on 

new technologies to adjust mitigation requirements for 

individual surveys based on the best available information at 

that time (Chapter 1.2.3.5).

1074-0039 The DEIS states that authorizations “would include guidance for 

implementing... best management practices” where nodes and 

cables are used, including, for example, “shortening the 

acoustic buoy line and tethered acoustic pinger line to the 

shortest length practical using only a single line rather than a 

loop,” and “replacing the line with wire, clasps, or shackles to 

connect directly to the OBN [ocean bottom nodes]” (DEIS at 4-

74). We appreciate these efforts to prevent entanglement and 

ask BOEM to consider the following issues:

(1) BOEM’s characterization of its intended action, to provide 

“guidance [in relevant authorizations] for implementing... best 

management practices” on entanglement risk (DEIS at 4-74), 

leaves some question about the regulatory status of the 

measures it has proposed. The DEIS does not include 

entanglement-prevention measures among its mitigation 

alternatives. See DEIS at 2-1 et seq. Will permittees be 

required to achieve “best practice” in this area as a condition of 

operation? Which agency, BOEM, NMFS, or both, will require 

implementation as part of its “authorizations” (DEIS at 4-74)?

(2) Relatedly, the DEIS does not indicate who will evaluate 

whether companies are indeed implementing best management 

The G&G permit applicants are required to list equipment and 

methods to be used during surveys. Each permit application is 

evaluated by BOEM and NMFS, and considerations are made 

for best practices and for minimizing entanglement risk. This 

evaluation will continue to be conducted by BOEM during the 

G&G permit review process. This Programmatic EIS does not 

include general entanglement prevention measures because 

of the extremely low risk and because the measures will be 

project-specific and therefore evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis so that BOEM can require specific entanglementreduction measures appropriate for the survey to be issued 

within the permit. By doing so, BSEE’s enforcement process 

would be the same for entanglement reduction measures as it 

would be for any other permit requirement. BOEM will 

consider the addition of less flexible cable for the list of best 

practices measures.
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-122 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

practices in this area. BOEM’s use of the term “guidance” (id.) 

suggests that the agencies may be non-prescriptive with 

respect to at least some of these practices, even if achieving 

best practice is mandatory. Will the Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement monitor what actions companies 

take under this requirement? How will it evaluate whether 

companies are indeed achieving best practice, and how will it 

respond to companies that do not comply?

(3) As noted, the DEIS lists a number of useful measures 

among its “best management practices” (id.); however, those 

practices do not include the use of thicker, less flexible cable in 

nodal surveys. Why is that measure, which might have 

prevented the Fairfield Nodal mortality, not included?

1074-0041 The DEIS rejects requiring seismic applicants to obtain MMPA 

authorization from NMFS before receiving a BOEM permit, 

apparently on the grounds (1) that BOEM cannot require 

activities it doesn’t permit to obtain MMPA authorization; and 

(2), with respect to the activities it does permit, that the EIS will 

already provide the requisite environmental analysis and 

already includes the mitigation measures “likely to be 

considered and applied through... MMPA authorizations.” 

DEIS at 2-26 to 2-27. We do not quarrel with (1). With respect 

to activities that fall under BOEM’s jurisdiction, however—

activities that make up the vast majority of those covered under 

the EIS—BOEM’s analysis is mistaken.

First, as noted above at § II.B, the alternatives and mitigation 

measures presented in the DEIS do not reflect the MMPA’s 

authorization standards; nor, relatedly, does the DEIS’ impact 

assessment reflect those standards. Without substantial 

modification then, the EIS will not represent NMFS’ analysis 

under the MMPA, or the analysis it must complete under NEPA 

pursuant to authorizing take under the MMPA, and therefore 

cannot be adopted by NMFS in fulfillment of either 

responsibility. Even if those modifications are made, a 

programmatic EIS cannot stand in for the project specific 

analysis required of NMFS in the MMPA authorization process.

Chapter 1 explains how this Programmatic EIS will be used to 

tier subsequent NEPA analysis under the OCSLA and how it 

will support NOAA regarding MMPA authorizations (Chapters 

1.2.2 and 1.4).

This Programmatic EIS establishes a framework for 

subsequent NEPA analyses of site-specific actions and also 

identifies and analyzes potential mitigation measures for use in 

future G&G activities on the Gulf of Mexico OCS involving 

BOEM’s three Program Areas (i.e., Oil and Gas, Renewable 

Energy, and Marine Minerals). BOEM will address the impacts 

of future site-specific actions in subsequent NEPA evaluations 

(40 CFR § 1502.20) using a tiered process based on this 

programmatic evaluation.

In conjunction with this Programmatic EIS, the MMPA petition 

was submitted to NOAA, requesting the issuance of 

regulations governing the authorization of incidental take of 

marine mammals in the GOM under Section 101(a)(5) of the 

MMPA on behalf of oil and gas and geophysical companies for 

geophysical-permitted (authorized) and ancillary activities. 

The G&G surveys conducted in support of marine mineral 

beach nourishment or coastal restoration projects under a 

non-competitive lease and renewable energy projects would 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-123

Submission ID Comment Response

Second, requiring MMPA authorization as a condition of permit 

is a valuable safeguard for ensuring industry compliance with 

the law. This is particularly true since NMFS itself does not 

preventively enforce the MMPA’s prohibition on take, and the 

Act’s post hoc penalties cannot be said to have any deterrence 

factor since the industry has operated for years in the Gulf 

without obtaining any authorizations under that statute. Third, 

MMPA authorization process has long been used by NMFS for 

adaptive management, which would not be possible if 

companies do not seek authorization under the Act. And fourth, 

we believe that BOEM’s decision not to require MMPA 

authorization as a condition of permit represents an 

abandonment of agency practice as it has proceeded in other 

planning regions, including the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and 

the Atlantic.

We certainly do not suggest that requiring MMPA approval can 

substitute for BOEM’s independent environmental 

responsibilities under OCSLA and NEPA. But, as explained 

above, maintaining such an elementary requirement has value, 

and BOEM has offered no viable argument to the contrary, at 

least for deep-penetration seismic surveys falling within its 

jurisdiction. The requirement should be part of any alternative 

considered in this EIS.

separately comply with the ESA, MMPA, and other relevant 

laws, regulations, and EOs as deemed appropriate by all 

agencies on a project-by-project basis.

The NOAA intends to use this Programmatic EIS as the NEPA 

documentation associated with the issuance of ITAs and the 

rule-making process under the MMPA, as well as the 

Section 7 Consultation process under the ESA for the 

incidental taking of marine mammals and ESA-listed species 

during G&G survey activities. Additional information regarding 

these agencies, roles, and regulations is provided in 

Chapter 6 and Appendix B. 

The NOAA is a cooperating agency for this Programmatic EIS, 

and BOEM will continue to work closely with NOAA to include 

its input to this Final Programmatic EIS to ensure that this 

document meets NOAA's needs.

1074-0042 Given the multiple potential benefits of employing thermal 

detection as a mitigation tool, the agencies should analyze its 

application as a supplement to visual monitoring.

Mitigation measures included in this Programmatic EIS 

(Appendix B, Section 1.2.4) are designed to minimize 

disturbance and potential auditory injuries to marine mammals 

(and sea turtles) during seismic surveys. The elements of 

these mitigation measures are continually evolving, and those 

included in this Programmatic EIS represent best available 

scientific knowledge. All of the elements have limitations that 

may reduce their effectiveness, as discussed in Appendix B, 

Section 1.2.4. 

BOEM is engaged in the development of emerging 

technologies through the Environmental Studies Program 

(https://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Studies-Planning/). 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-124 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

BOEM is funding and is planning to fund additional studies 

and workshops to examine the effectiveness and feasibility of 

mitigation measures in the GOM. BOEM’s Environmental 

Studies Program develops, conducts, and oversees worldclass scientific research, specifically to inform policy decisions 

regarding development of OCS energy and mineral resources.

Research covers physical oceanography, atmospheric 

sciences, biology, protected species, social sciences and 

economics, submerged cultural resources, and environmental 

fates and effects. BOEM is a leading contributor to the 

growing body of scientific knowledge about the Nation’s 

marine and coastal environment. Currently active studies 

addressing this broad range of topics can be found at 

http://www.boem.gov/GMStudies/. BOEM will consider future 

data on the efficacy of mitigation measures to adjust mitigation 

requirements for individual surveys based on the best 

available information at that time.

1074-0043 To further reduce undersea noise, BOEM should consider 

requiring that all vessels used in oil and gas G&G activities 

undergo regular maintenance to minimize propeller cavitation, 

which is the primary contributor to underwater ship noise; and 

that all new industry vessels be required to employ the best 

ship-quieting designs and technologies available for their class 

of ship.71 The agency should also consider requiring those 

vessels to undergo measurement for their underwater noise 

output, optimally though not necessarily per American National 

Standards Institute/Acoustical Society of America standards 

(S12.64), sufficient to identify the loudest vessels for quieting 

purposes.

BOEM appreciates the comment, but the suggested 

requirements are outside of BOEM's jurisdiction.

1074-0044 The agencies should therefore consider requiring that all 

vessels associated with G&G activities, including support 

vessels, avoid known Bryde’s whale habitat, as defined by the 

Eastern Planning Area Closure Area, to the greatest extent 

possible; to otherwise plan their crossings of the area to 

minimize transit distance; and to adhere to a 10-knot speed 

limit when transiting the area. This measure is easily 

practicable for seismic vessels, which proceed at a nominal 4.5 

knots when operating and at generally slow speeds (below 

BOEM appreciates the comment, but the suggested 

requirements are outside of BOEM's jurisdiction.
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-125

Submission ID Comment Response

13-14 knots) when transiting, and should be practicable for 

most support vessel transits given the relatively narrow strip 

(roughly 30 to 45 nm) encompassed by the area.

1074-0045 The DEIS does not, apparently, consider protective measures 

for non-marine mammal taxa, such as sea turtles and fish. 

Certainly some of the mitigation measures set forth in the 

Alternatives would have ancillary benefits for these other taxa, 

as, for example, any overall reduction in permitted survey effort 

(Alternative F) will benefit all marine species in the Gulf. But the 

DEIS does not explicitly consider any measures specifically 

designed for sea turtles, fish, or invertebrates, nor does it 

analyze the effects, if any, on these species of the alternatives 

it has identified. Given the importance of Gulf habitat for 

several endangered sea turtle and fish species, it should have 

done so as part of setting forth a full range of reasonable 

alternatives.

Thank you for your comment. BOEM and NOAA are working 

together to meet statutory obligations (e.g., NEPA, MMPA, and 

ESA) to manage G&G activities and their potential impacts to 

marine resources, including marine mammals, in the GOM. 

Chapter 2 outlines the alternatives and mitigation measures to 

the proposed action. Mitigation measures common to all 

alternatives considered in this Programmatic EIS 

(Chapter 2.2) that afford protective measures for non-marine 

mammal taxa include the following: 

• “Guidance for Vessel Strike Avoidance and 

Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting” (NTL 

2016-BOEM-G01), which requires vigilant watch for 

marine mammals and sea turtles, specifies vessel 

speeds and required distance for vessels to keep 

away from marine mammals and sea turtles, and 

reporting requirements;

• “Guidance for Marine Trash and Debris Awareness 

And Elimination” (NTL 2015-BSEE-G03), which 

provides information on the marine trash and debris

awareness training video and slideshow, as well as 

reporting requirements (expires on November 30, 

2018);

• “Guidance for Avoidance of Biologically Sensitive 

Underwater Features and Areas” (NTL 2009-G39), 

which establishes protection zones around the core of 

the Pinnacle Trend feature and prohibits any contact 

with the seafloor;

• “Guidance for Avoidance of Deepwater Benthic 

Communities” (NTL 2009-G40), which provides 

protective measures for protecting high-density 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-126 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

deepwater benthic communities by requiring set-back 

distance for seafloor-disturbing activities;

• “Guidance for Archaeological Resource Surveys and 

Reports” (NTL 2005-G07), which provides 

archaeological survey and reporting requirements;

• “Guidance for Shallow Hazards Program” (Section 

VI.B of NTL 2008-G05), which provides requirements 

for shallow hazards surveys and reporting for seafloordisturbing activities;

• “Guidance for Activities in or Near National Marine 

Sanctuaries” (NMSs) (15 CFR part 922), which 

provides a listing of prohibited or otherwise regulated 

activities for NMSs; and 

• “Guidance for Activities in or Near Military Warning 

and Water Test Areas” (NTL 2014-BOEM-G04), which 

provides contact information for required coordination 

for activities within military warning areas.

The measures listed above provide protection for marine 

mammals and sea turtles; all marine species; biologically 

sensitive underwater features such as corals, pinnacles, and 

topographic features; deepwater benthic communities such as 

corals and chemosynthetic communities; archaeological 

resources; seafloor habitats; national marine sanctuaries and 

the resources contained within them; and other marine use 

areas; respectively. Additional mitigation measures are listed 

in Chapter 2.2 and Appendix B, Section 1. Mitigation 

measures specific to each alternative are provided in 

Chapters 2.3 through 2.9. New mitigation measures outlined 

in the alternatives were designed to further minimize the 

potential for injury to marine mammals and sea turtles, to 

avoid most potential for Level A harassment of marine 

mammals, and to provide additional protection for marine 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-127

Submission ID Comment Response

mammals (as a whole or targeted groups or species).

The elements of these measures are continually evolving, and 

those included in this Programmatic EIS represent current 

standards. Through the Adaptive Management process, 

mitigation requirements could be revised or new protocols 

developed if new information indicates that the proposed 

mitigation measures are infeasible or could be made more 

effective or if measures are identified for additional species 

(Chapter 1.2.3.4) of this Programmatic EIS. Additionally, 

BOEM will consult with other agencies such as NOAA and 

FWS on EFH and ESA, respectively, to determine if additional 

mitigation measures are warranted.

Chapters 4.2 through 4.13 of this Programmatic EIS provides 

an impact analysis by resource for each alternative considered 

and that analysis considers the effect of mitigation measures 

in determining the impact rating.

1074-0046 Under all the alternatives the DEIS has set forth, the proposed 

activities would still result in millions of instances of marine 

mammal take, and would still degrade acoustic habitat through 

much of the northern Gulf of Mexico. Yet the DEIS does not 

propose mitigation to compensate for the harm that remains. 

Compensatory mitigation is a concept that is routinely 

employed in implementation of the Endangered Species Act, 

Clean Water Act, and other environmental statutes; it is also 

included, along with avoidance and minimization, as one of 

three “federal principles for mitigation” that agencies are 

directed to apply, in the 2015 Presidential Memorandum on 

Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from Development.76 

The EIS should consider mitigation—e.g., a restoration of the 

Gulf’s acoustic habitat—to compensate for the harm the 

agencies cannot prevent.

As summarized in Appendix B, the mitigation in the proposed 

action is extensive and includes avoidance (e.g., time-area 

closures, guidance for vessel strike avoidance, and avoidance 

of sensitive seafloor resources) and impact minimization (e.g., 

Seismic Airgun Survey Protocol and HRG Survey Protocol). 

Compensatory mitigation typically is the lowest priority in the 

mitigation hierarchy. This Programmatic EIS does not include 

any compensatory (offset) mitigation measures, and there is 

no NEPA requirement to do so. However, each individual 

survey will be subject to a NEPA analysis that evaluates 

impacts on a site- and project-specific basis, which would be 

the appropriate place to consider the full hierarchy of 

mitigation actions avoidance, minimization, and possibly 

compensatory mitigation, as necessary.

1074-0047 In setting its mitigation protocol for non-airgun high-resolution 

geophysical (“HRG”) surveys (DEIS at 2-12, B-21 to B-23), the 

DEIS does not consider any alternatives, other than, implicitly, 

whether or not such a protocol should be required at all....But 

this approach ignores recent developments in both impact 

Mitigation measures for powerful lower-frequency MBESs are 

included in Alternatives C through F, depending on the 

operating frequencies of the non-airgun HRG surveys (refer to 

Appendix B, Section 1.3.1).
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-128 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

analysis and mitigation of HRG surveys and thus fails to 

analyze a reasonable range of mitigative alternatives.

First, the DEIS fails to consider additional mitigation aimed at 

mitigating impacts from nonairgun sources, including but not 

necessarily limited to certain specialized multibeam 

echosounders, that the best available science indicates may 

cause large-scale behavioral disruption in some marine 

mammal species. As described further below at § III.G.1, the 

Kongsberg Simrad EM120 multibeam echosounder was 

determined to be the “most plausible and likely behavioral 

trigger” for a mass stranding and mortality of melonheaded 

whales, during an Exxon exploration survey in 2008.77

BOEM prepared this Programmatic EIS using the best 

available data and included reasonable assumptions to 

estimate impacts. BOEM is involved in several ongoing 

programs to improve existing data for marine mammals and 

underwater noise, and future analyses will use the best data 

available at that time. BOEM and NOAA developed the 

alternatives in this Programmatic EIS based on technical 

feasibility, economic viability, and other factors, and consider 

them to be a reasonable range of alternatives for NEPA 

analysis. 

1074-0047

(continued)

The acoustic characteristics of that system, which has an 

output carrier frequency of 12 kHz and a source level of

236-242 dB (RMS), are not dissimilar to those of some naval 

mid-frequency sonar systems; and, according to an expert 

report on the strandings, the signals it produces could easily 

propagate at levels above 120 decibels over a greater than 30 

km radius, notwithstanding the system’s downward orientation. 

BOEM must consider additional mitigation for such devices, 

including but not limited to area closures and required 

employment of less powerful systems except in discrete areas 

where water depth and other factors necessitates their use. 

Second, the DEIS fails to consider mitigation measures 

contained within recent private agreements on HRG surveys in 

the Atlantic. As BOEM is aware, a number of major offshore 

wind developers entered into agreements with environmental 

NGOs, including several signatories to the present comment 

letter, to undertake additional mitigation and monitoring during 

high-resolution geophysical surveys (and during meteorological 

tower installation as well) as part of their development of the 

Rhode Island/ Massachusetts Wind Energy Area and the 

mid-Atlantic Wind Energy Areas running from New York to 

Virginia;78 and several other developers who are not signatories 

to these agreements have engaged in mitigation consistent with 

them. Additional requirements include a time-area closure 

BOEM’s Environmental Studies Program develops, conducts, 

and oversees world-class scientific research, specifically to 

inform policy decisions regarding development of OCS energy 

and mineral resources. Research covers physical 

oceanography, atmospheric sciences, biology, protected 

species, social sciences and economics, submerged cultural 

resources, and environmental fates and effects. BOEM is a 

leading contributor to the growing body of scientific knowledge 

about the Nation’s marine and coastal environment. Currently 

active studies addressing this broad range of topics can be 

found at http://www.boem.gov/GMStudies/. BOEM will 

consider future data on the efficacy of mitigation measures to 

adjust mitigation requirements for individual surveys based on 

the best available information at that time.
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-129

Submission ID Comment Response

requirement; a vessel speed restriction for all ships involved in 

the activity regardless of vessel length, including supply ships 

transiting to the survey site; and sound source validation and 

extended safety zone and monitoring requirements for subbottom profiling. NMFS’ Office of Protected Resources has 

reviewed the measures for the mid-Atlantic agreement and 

acknowledged their reasonableness.79 In the Atlantic, these 

terms were primarily intended to reduce risk to endangered 

right whales by barring activity throughout their peak 

occurrence periods, reducing co-occurrence with the species, 

and by setting additional requirements during other months. A 

similar approach might be taken in the Gulf with Bryde’s 

whales, coastal bottlenose dolphins, and sperm whales—yet, 

as for now, the only area restriction for HRG surveys (implicitly) 

considered in the DEIS is the seasonal exclusion for bottlenose 

dolphins.

Third, the DEIS does not consider relevant methods prescribed 

by the government of California. In 2013, the California State 

Lands Commission revised its general permit program for 

“lowenergy” geophysical surveys to substantially increase 

mitigation and monitoring requirements to protect marine 

wildlife and to require additional environmental review and, 

potentially, mitigation for certain sources.80 These mitigation 

measures include a bar on nighttime operations, except in the 

case of single-beam echosounders under particular 

circumstances; use of the highest frequency band and fewest 

pulse rates to the maximum extent practicable; exclusion of 

activity and other mitigation around pinniped haul-out sites; and 

soft-start before the commencement of each day’s activity and 

after any mitigative shutdowns. BOEM must consider these 

measures as well.

1074-0068 Regardless, it is clear that high-power, lower-frequency 

echosounders and other sonar systems have the potential to 

impact marine mammal behavior, especially of odontocetes, 

over a wide spatial scale—and to a far greater extent than has 

previously been supposed for this category of sound source.124

To address these impacts, BOEM must expand its 

Mitigation measures for powerful lower-frequency MBESs are 

included in Alternatives C through F, depending on the 

operating frequencies of the non-airgun HRG surveys 

(Appendix B, Section 1.3.1).

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives in this 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-130 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

consideration of alternatives and mitigation to include, for 

example, outright restrictions on the use of these systems, 

particularly in areas close to shore; time-area closures; and 

improvements in safety zone monitoring. (See § II.I above.)

Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 

viability, and other factors, and consider them a reasonable 

range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. This Programmatic 

EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory responsibilities 

associated with permitting and authorizing G&G activities 

connected with activities conducted in support of the Oil and 

Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals Programs for

the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This Programmatic EIS would also 

support NOAA’s authorization of the incidental take of marine 

mammals under the MMPA for these activities.

Through the Environmental Studies Program 

(https://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Studies-Planning/), 

BOEM is funding and is planning to fund additional studies 

and workshops to examine the effectiveness and feasibility of 

mitigation measures in the GOM. BOEM’s Environmental 

Studies Program develops, conducts, and oversees worldclass scientific research, specifically to inform policy decisions 

regarding development of OCS energy and mineral resources.

Research covers physical oceanography, atmospheric 

sciences, biology, protected species, social sciences and 

economics, submerged cultural resources, and environmental 

fates and effects. BOEM is a leading contributor to the 

growing body of scientific knowledge about the Nation’s 

marine and coastal environment. Currently active studies 

addressing this broad range of topics can be found at 

http://www.boem.gov/GMStudies/. BOEM will consider future 

data on the efficacy of mitigation measures to adjust mitigation 

requirements for individual surveys based on the best 

available information at that time.

1075-0003 BOEM's environmental analysis should accurately reflect the 

best available science and research and consider the industry's 

operational experience, which indicates that seismic surveys 

have little-to-no impact on marine mammal and wildlife 

populations. Neither the G/G industry's operational experience 

nor the best available science justifies the precautionary 

approach BOEM has proposed in some of the alternatives 

considered in the EIS.

BOEM prepared this Programmatic EIS using the best 

available data and included conservative assumptions to avoid 

underestimating impacts. BOEM is involved in several 

ongoing programs to improve existing data for marine 

mammals and underwater noise, and future site-specific NEPA 

analyses will use the best data available at that time.

Studies have shown that marine mammals react to underwater 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-131

Submission ID Comment Response

noise. Reactions may include physical displacement from or 

avoidance of the area of ensonification and/or altering 

vocalizations. Acute physical injury, other than auditory injury, 

or death of marine mammals is not likely to be a direct result of 

seismic noise. However, disruption of behavioral patterns or 

auditory injury is possible, which may reduce fitness for 

individual animals. Population-level impacts related to 

energetic effects or other impacts of noise are difficult to 

determine. However, BOEM does not assume that lack of 

demonstrated adverse population-level effects from seismic 

surveys means that those effects may not occur.

1075-0004 The geophysical industry implements many mitigation 

measures as standard business practice, including marine 

mammal observers (MMOs), passive acoustic monitoring 

(PAM), soft startups, and exclusion zones — all in an effort to 

avoid any potential impacts on marine mammals. As BOEM 

moves through the PETS process, including consultation with 

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

and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Barry Graham Oil Service, [IC 

encourages an adherence to scientifically valid mitigation 

measures, while recognizing the favorable track record of the 

geophysical industry in the GOM. Mitigation measures for the 

sake of 'precaution' are based on unsubstantiated claims from 

anti-energy development interests and have no backing in U.S. 

statute or regulation.

Through the adaptive management of the Monitoring Plan 

(Chapter 1.2.3.4), BOEM will consider future data on the 

efficacy of mitigation measures to adjust mitigation 

requirements for individual surveys based on the best 

available information at that time.

Through the Environmental Studies Program 

(https://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Studies-Planning/), 

BOEM is funding and is planning to fund additional studies

and workshops to examine the effectiveness and feasibility of 

mitigation measures in the GOM. BOEM’s Environmental 

Studies Program develops, conducts, and oversees worldclass scientific research, specifically to inform policy decisions 

regarding development of OCS energy and mineral resources.

Research covers physical oceanography, atmospheric 

sciences, biology, protected species, social sciences and 

economics, submerged cultural resources, and environmental 

fates and effects. BOEM is a leading contributor to the 

growing body of scientific knowledge about the Nation’s 

marine and coastal environment. Currently active studies 

addressing this broad range of topics are listed at 

http://www.boem.gov/GMStudies/. 

Effective September 30, 2016, BOEM implemented NTL 2016-

BOEM-G02 to address the implementation of seismic survey 

mitigation measures and the PSO Program. This NTL outlines 

the various requirements of operators. While the NTL does 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-132 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

not introduce any new types of mitigation measures, it clarifies 

how seismic survey mitigation measures should be 

implemented, including ramp-up procedures, the use of a 

minimum sound source, airgun testing, and protected species 

observation and reporting. The NTL also updates regulatory 

citations in addition to addressing and clarifying how measures 

identified in the NTL will be implemented to assist BOEM, 

BSEE, and operators in complying with the ESA and MMPA. 

Mitigation measures associated with seismic survey 

operations have been implemented via this NTL to reduce the 

potential for significant impacts to protected species. While 

these mitigation requirements are considered common-sense 

measures, with a growing body of supporting scientific 

evidence (e.g., reductions in marine mammal vocalization for 

several species during acoustic exposure), the efficacy and 

scientific merit of these measures is being evaluated and will 

continue to be evaluated, as noted previously.

1075-0005 The various measures included in Alternatives B-G threaten the 

operational and economic viability of G/G activities in the GOM, 

which will lead to fewer wells being drilled, diminish future 

production and cause negative economic impacts throughout 

the Gulf region.

Chapter 4.13 provides an analysis of the economic impacts 

from each alternative and includes tables showing the 

incremental cost and percent cost change per survey, total 

annual survey incremental cost, and percent reduction in 

efficiency per survey for Alternatives B through F. The 

alternatives identified in this Programmatic EIS are based on 

technical feasibility and economic viability. BOEM, through 

consultation with industry representatives, has tried to base 

the reductions on an attempt to balance environmental 

impacts with economic impacts to achieve the proposed 

action's purpose and need. This information was considered 

by BOEM when determining the Preferred Alternative.

The CEQ regulation at 40 CFR § 1502.14(d) specifies that 

NEPA analyses require the alternatives analysis in the EIS to 

"include the alternative of no action." This analysis provides a 

benchmark, enabling decisionmakers to compare the 

magnitude of environmental effects of the action alternatives. 

It is also an example of a reasonable alternative outside the 

jurisdiction of the agency, which must be analyzed (CEQ 

regulation at 40 CFR § 1502.14(c)). Inclusion of such an 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-133

Submission ID Comment Response

analysis in the EIS is necessary to inform Congress, the 

public, and the President as intended by NEPA (CEQ 

regulation at 40 CFR § 1500.1(a).

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives in this 

Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 

viability, and other factors, and consider them a reasonable 

range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. This Programmatic 

EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory responsibilities 

associated with permitting and authorizing G&G activities in 

connection with activities conducted in support of the Oil and 

Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals Programs for

the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This Programmatic EIS would also 

support NOAA’s authorization of the incidental take of marine 

mammals under the MMPA for these activities.

1075-0009 Continuing to conduct geophysical surveys in the GOM will 

produce known discoveries safely and more efficiently and will 

help uncover new sources of oil and natural gas. This data will 

allow people to make informed decisions about the potential for 

continued job creation and economic growth from offshore 

energy production in the Gulf.

A sensible energy policy that helps ensure access to affordable, 

reliable domestic energy for years to come must include the 

ability to effectively and efficiently explore the Gulf's offshore 

resources. To ensure our long-term energy, economic, and 

national security, geophysical and seismic exploration must 

continue

For the reasons stated above, Alternative A is the only 

alternative that may be consistent with the best available 

science, operational feasibility, and applicable law. Barry 

Graham Oil Service, LLC strongly objects to any of the other 

Alternatives presented in the DPEIS for all of the reasons 

stated above and particularly because BOEM reaches the 

same effects conclusions for Alternative A as it does for all of 

the other Alternatives (except Alternative G). Before the DPEIS 

is issued as a final PEIS, many flaws must be addressed and 

Chapter 4.13 provides an analysis of the economic impacts 

from each alternative and includes tables showing the 

incremental cost and percent cost change per survey, total 

annual survey incremental cost, and percent reduction in 

efficiency per survey for Alternatives B through F. This 

information was considered by BOEM when determining the 

Preferred Alternative.

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives in this 

Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 

viability, and other factors, and consider them a reasonable 

range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. This Programmatic 

EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory responsibilities 

associated with permitting and authorizing G&G activities in 

connection with activities conducted in support of the Oil and 

Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals Programs for

the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This Programmatic EIS would also 

support NOAA’s authorization of the incidental take of marine 

mammals under the MMPA for these activities.
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-134 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

corrected.

1076-0011 In addition, many of the mitigation measures recommended in 

certain alternatives presented in the DPEIS are economically 

and operationally infeasible, will impose serious burdens on 

industry, and are highly unlikely to result in benefits to protected 

species.

Chapter 4.13 provides an analysis of the economic impacts 

from each alternative and includes tables showing the 

incremental cost and percent cost change per survey, total 

annual survey incremental cost, and percent reduction in 

efficiency per survey for Alternatives B through F. The 

alternatives identified in this Programmatic EIS are based on 

technical feasibility and economic viability. BOEM, through 

consultation with industry representatives, has tried to base 

the reductions on an attempt to balance environmental 

impacts with economic impacts to achieve the proposed 

action's purpose and need.

1076-0014 The Associations find Alternative A to be the most reasonable 

because it presents the option that is most consistent with the 

best available science, operational feasibility, and applicable 

law. We strongly object to Alternatives B-G, for the reasons 

stated below.

All of this information will be considered by the decisionmaker 

in determining which alternative is selected in the ROD.

1076-0017 ...some of the alternatives undermine OCSLA’s mandates by 

imposing measures that will render important current and future 

exploration and development activities economically or 

operationally infeasible

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives in this 

Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 

viability, and other factors, and consider them a reasonable 

range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. This Programmatic 

EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory responsibilities 

associated with permitting and authorizing G&G activities in 

connection with activities conducted in support of the Oil and 

Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals Programs for

the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This Programmatic EIS would also 

support NOAA’s authorization of the incidental take of marine 

mammals under the MMPA for these activities.

In addition, Chapter 4.13 provides an analysis of the 

economic impacts from each alternative and includes tables 

showing the incremental cost and percent cost change per 

survey, total annual survey incremental cost, and percent 

reduction in efficiency per survey for Alternatives B through F.

1076-0044 The unwarranted and arbitrary mitigation measures are 

addressed in detail below. Without question, these measures, 

if implemented, will have substantial adverse effects on 

Chapter 4.13 provides an analysis of and tables showing the 

incremental cost and percent cost change per survey, total 

annual survey incremental cost, and percent reduction in 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-135

Submission ID Comment Response

offshore geophysical operations and substantial economic 

impacts. These measures will also result in increased survey 

duration, which, in turn, can increase the potential exposure of 

marine mammals to sound from seismic surveys and the 

potential for interference with other users of the GOM.19

efficiency per survey for Alternatives B through F.

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives in this 

Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 

viability, and other factors, and consider them a reasonable 

range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. This Programmatic 

EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory responsibilities 

associated with permitting and authorizing G&G activities in 

connection with activities conducted in support of the Oil and 

Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals Programs for

the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This Programmatic EIS would also 

support NOAA’s authorization of the incidental take of marine 

mammals under the MMPA for these activities.

1076-0045 The Settlement Agreement restricts operation of airguns within 

federal coastal waters shoreward of the20 meter isobath from 

March 1 to April 30, and the stipulation to extend the Settlement 

Agreement extended the closure from January 1 to April 30 to a 

smaller area within the unusual mortality event (“UME”) 

(Texas/Louisiana border to Franklin County, Florida).21 It is 

unclear to us how BOEM derived the four-month February 1 to 

May 31 restriction used in Alternatives C-F and why it has 

proposed to include all nearshore coastal waters. No 

explanation is provided in the DPEIS.22

Rationale for each alternative is provided in Chapter 2; 

specifically, the rational for the expanded restriction is 

provided in Chapter 2.13. The seasonal restriction in coastal 

waters was designed to protect the coastal and estuarine 

stocks of the common bottlenose dolphin during their peak 

reproductive activity by reducing active acoustic sound 

sources from airguns and to provide protection for loggerhead 

sea turtles during a portion of their mating and nesting/internesting season. Extending the closure period adds protection 

for dolphins and sea turtles during critical time periods.

1076-0046 ...the rationale originally offered by the plaintiff parties to the 

Settlement Agreement for the nearshore restriction was in 

response to coastal bottlenose strandings and mortalities (i.e., 

the Northern GOM UME). However, the UME has since been 

closed. Moreover, none of the strandings or deaths in the UME 

have been attributed to deep penetration seismic survey 

activities. Instead, recent research demonstrates that seismic 

impulses at even higher thresholds fail to induce even 

temporary threshold shifts (“TTS”) in dolphin hearing 

(Finneran., et al. 2015). Accordingly, no relevant scientific 

evidence supports a further restriction of deep penetration 

seismic surveys, let alone suggests that such a restriction 

would result in any meaningful benefit to coastal bottlenose 

dolphin populations.23

As part of the Settlement Agreement (Chapter 1.2.3), BOEM 

is required to analyze these mitigation measures as potential 

COAs for permit applications for deep-penetration seismic 

surveys in this Programmatic EIS.

While none of the strandings or deaths in the UME have been 

attributed to deep-penetration seismic survey activities, the 

event indicates that stocks in the area are stressed, and 

studies have shown that marine mammals react to underwater 

noise. Reactions may include physical displacement from or 

avoidance of the area of ensonification and/or altering 

vocalizations. Acute physical injury, other than auditory injury, 

or death of marine mammals is not likely to be a direct result of 

seismic noise. However, disruption of behavioral patterns or 

auditory injury is possible, which may reduce fitness for 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-136 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

individual animals. Population-level impacts related to 

energetic effects or other impacts of noise are difficult to 

determine. However, BOEM does not assume that lack of 

demonstrated adverse population-level effects from seismic 

surveys means that those effects may not occur. This closure 

provides additional protection to these stocks during their peak 

reproductive activity.

1076-0047 ...another rationale for the nearshore restriction was that 

seismic activity is an additional stressor to an already stressed 

bottlenose dolphin population in the UME, and that such 

additional stress may impact dolphin breeding rates. However, 

there is no evidence that sound from deep penetration seismic 

surveys is a stressor to coastal bottlenose dolphin populations 

or contributes in any way to dolphin late-term pregnancy 

complications or perinatal and postnatal responses that would 

lead to increased calf mortality, or UMEs (Litz et al. 2014; 

Venn-Watson et al. 2015).

As part of the Settlement Agreement (Chapter 1.2.3), BOEM 

is required to analyze these mitigation measures as potential 

COAs for permit applications for deep-penetration seismic 

surveys in this Programmatic EIS.

Studies have shown that marine mammals react to underwater 

noise. Reactions may include physical displacement from or 

avoidance of the area of ensonification and/or altering 

vocalizations. Acute physical injury, other than auditory injury, 

or death of marine mammals is not likely to be a direct result of 

seismic noise. However, disruption of behavioral patterns or 

auditory injury is possible, which may reduce fitness for 

individual animals. Population-level impacts related to 

energetic effects or other impacts of noise are difficult to 

determine. However, BOEM does not assume that lack of 

demonstrated adverse population-level effects from seismic 

surveys means that those effects may not occur. Captive 

bottlenose dolphins have shown increased stress hormones in 

response to seismic water gun noise (Romano et al., 2004).

1076-0048 There are unleased blocks within the area covered by the 

seasonal restriction stated for Alternatives B-F. Because 

existing seismic data in these areas is outdated and inadequate 

to inform decisions regarding future lease sales, such a 

restriction would significantly impede industry’s and BOEM’s 

evaluation of blocks for planned future lease sales. Moreover, 

given the amount of time required to acquire additional seismic 

data, any extension of the existing seasonal exclusion period 

significantly increases the likelihood that an affected deep 

penetration seismic survey cannot be completed within its oneyear permit term, thereby increasing the overall number of 

surveys that will need to be conducted.24

BOEM understands that some of the alternatives would impact 

industry's evaluation of lease blocks. This Programmatic EIS 

evaluates the impacts to industry and the economy in 

Chapter 4.13. In addition, the 2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS 

provides forecasts of the direct, indirect, and induced 

economic impacts of offshore oil and gas activities, which is 

referenced in Chapter 4.13. 

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives in this 

Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 

viability, and other factors, and consider them a reasonable 

range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. This Programmatic 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-137

Submission ID Comment Response

EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory responsibilities 

associated with permitting and authorizing G&G activities 

connected with activities conducted in support of the Oil and 

Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals Programs for

the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This Programmatic EIS would also 

support NOAA’s authorization of the incidental take of marine 

mammals under the MMPA for these activities. BOEM 

believes that it has followed the regulatory standards for 

developing NEPA alternatives, which included to “study, 

develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to 

recommended courses of action in any proposal which 

involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of 

available resources” (Section 102 [42 U.S.C. § 4332]). The 

construction of alternatives followed the simple premise that, in 

order to be a valid alternative, it must fulfill the purpose and 

need for the proposed action and be economically feasible 

and technically viable. The range of alternatives was 

developed based on the underlying purpose and need. 

Alternatives that did not meet the purpose and need were not 

carried forward for further analysis.

Thank you for your comments. All of this information will be 

considered by the decisionmaker in determining which 

alternative is selected in the ROD.

1076-0049 In Alternative E, BOEM proposes to reduce levels of deeppenetration, multi-client seismic activities by either 10% or 25%. 

This measure would be a “Gulfwide strategy designed to 

reduce overall exposures and sound levels,” the stated purpose 

of which is to “reduc[e] protected species cumulative sound 

exposures because a reduced number of surveys would be 

performed.” DPEIS at 2-47. The Associations object to these 

proposed reductions because there is no legal basis for 

imposing them and they are arbitrary.

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives in this 

Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 

viability, and other factors, and consider them a reasonable 

range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. Using expert opinion 

and best professional judgement, BOEM determined that 

10 percent and 25 percent reductions offer a reasonable range 

of reduced activity levels while still allowing BOEM to fulfill the 

purpose of and need for this Programmatic EIS.

This Programmatic EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory 

responsibilities associated with permitting and authorizing 

G&G activities connected with activities conducted in support 

of the Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals 

Programs for the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This Programmatic EIS 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-138 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

would also support NOAA’s authorization of the incidental take 

of marine mammals under the MMPA for these activities. A 

proposed alternative is reasonable only if it fulfills the 

Programmatic EIS’s purpose and need as described in 

Chapter 1.1.2. This Programmatic EIS will enable BOEM and 

NMFS to fulfill statutory responsibilities associated with 

permitting and authorizing G&G activities/the take of marine 

mammals in connection with activities conducted in support of

the Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals 

Programs for the Gulf of Mexico OCS.

All of this information will be considered by the decisionmaker 

in determining which alternative is selected in the ROD.

1076-0051 To the extent the proposed reductions are premised on the 

MMPA, they are also without any legal basis. Under the 

MMPA, NMFS has the authority to grant or deny, or to 

reasonably condition, marine mammal incidental take 

authorizations (“ITAs”). See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. 

Salazar, 695 F.3d 893, 916 (9th Cir. 2012) (MMPA ITAs only 

authorize incidental take, not the underlying activity). 

Accordingly, any mitigation measures premised upon NMFS’s 

MMPA authority may only address the proposed MMPA action 

i.e., authorization of incidental take, not the actual exploration 

activities.

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives in this 

Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 

viability, and other factors, and consider them to be a 

reasonable range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. This 

Programmatic EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory 

responsibilities associated with permitting and authorizing 

G&G activities connected with activities conducted in support 

of the Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals 

Programs for the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This Programmatic EIS 

also would support NOAA’s authorization of the incidental take 

of marine mammals under the MMPA for these activities. 

Federal actions informed by this Programmatic EIS will be 

made by each Federal agency with jurisdiction and legal 

authority for that action, including the potential imposition of 

any COAs or mitigations. Based on the analyses in this 

Programmatic EIS, BOEM and NOAA will separately 

announce their respective decisions and implement them as 

appropriate.

1076-0052 ...the proposed reductions also present practical 

implementation problems. For example, one could perform a 

3D survey with a 4,000 cubic inch array or a 2D survey with 10 

km track spacing and have half or fewer the number of takes in 

the same number of track miles. In this example, would 50,000 

track miles at half the exposure levels be translated into 25,000 

track miles for purposes of calculating the remaining allocations 

Additional text has been added to Chapter 2.7 to provide 

information about how BOEM could implement Alternative E.
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-139

Submission ID Comment Response

available? How will the reductions be fairly apportioned among

the various applicants over the course of a year? Such 

questions are not addressed at all in the DPEIS, further 

highlighting the impracticability of the proposed measure.

1076-0053 In Alternative B, BOEM recommends an expanded 40 km buffer 

zone between concurrent seismic surveys within the area of 

concern (“AOC”) and a 30 km buffer zone between concurrent 

seismic surveys outside of the AOC. No scientific evidence, 

published studies, or other rationales are provided for this 

proposed measure. Indeed, to our knowledge, no buffer zones 

even approaching this size have ever been required as a 

condition of offshore seismic authorizations.25

Moreover, buffer zones have little or no value in the GOM 

where directional migrations have not been documented and 

animals are likely to be moving in a variety of directions as they 

track dynamic features. Additionally, unless the vessels are 

moving parallel to each other at the same speed and direction, 

the static concept of a corridor is not applicable, with the space 

between vessels opening and closing depending on the relative 

speed of the vessels and their direction. Marine mammals are 

unlikely to perceive anything like a corridor when the two sound 

sources are moving dynamically. All that vessel separations 

achieve are to expose the animals to a more prolonged period 

of sound exposure than would otherwise be the case and 

expand the zone that animals might avoid.

We therefore agree with BOEM’s statement that “it is doubtful 

that separation distances would provide the necessary benefits 

to offset potential impacts from sound exposure.” DPEIS at 2-

39. Because there is no support for this proposed measure, it 

should be eliminated entirely from the DPEIS.

BOEM believes that the spatial separation between 

simultaneously operating surveys may be a feasible approach 

to limiting the exposure of animals to the highest sound levels 

from multiple seismic surveys.

As part of the Settlement Agreement (Chapter 1.2.3), BOEM 

is required to analyze these mitigation measures as potential 

COAs for permit applications for deep-penetration seismic 

surveys in this Programmatic EIS, and, therefore, cannot 

eliminate this mitigation measure from evaluation.

1076-0054 All of the alternatives “use a standard exclusion zone radius of 

500 m (1,640 ft) around a sound source.” DPEIS at 2-40. The 

DPEIS explains that exclusion zones “will be dependent upon 

the source levels, array configuration, operational parameters, 

and environmental and oceanographic conditions” and that the 

“actual extent of the acoustic isopleths around the sound 

Seismic mitigation measures in the GOM for protected species 

first appeared in NTL 2002-G07 as a result of an ESA 

Biological Opinion from NMFS on Lease Sale 184 in 2002. 

The NTL modeled seismic mitigations after those implemented 

by the United Kingdom’s statutory conservation agency, the 

JNCC, which identified 500 m (1,640 ft) around an airgun array 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-140 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

source will depend on the source level, source configuration, 

water depth, bottom properties, and sound propagation through 

the immediate environment.” Id. BOEM’s suggested approach 

for exclusion zones will require a substantial modeling effort 

and will result in exclusion zones that are many times greater 

than those that have typically been implemented (with success) 

in the GOM. The expanded exclusion zones are especially 

concerning because they will ultimately be dictated by the 

marine mammal hearing group with the largest modeled radii 

once new group specific acoustic criteria are implemented.26

In addition, exclusion zones should be based on the best 

available information, and if that information demonstrates that 

exclusions zones of less than 500 meters are warranted, then 

there is no basis for arbitrarily requiring a minimum exclusion 

zone of 500 m (if the DPEIS intends for 500 m to be a 

minimum). If a minimum 500 m exclusion zone requirement is 

not applied, the Associations would support the incorporation of 

power-down procedures to mitigate any potential effects. 

Power-down procedures acceptable to the Associations are a 

modified version of the procedures described at 79 Fed. Reg. 

14,780, 14,797 (Mar. 17, 2014) (“Langseth IHA”).27

as the exclusion or mitigation zone. BOEM implemented this 

industry standard in lieu of requiring each operator to provide 

modeling and/or sound source verification for each source 

vessel. The IAGC has supported this 500-m (1,640-ft) industry 

standard exclusion zone in its 2015 “Recommended Mitigation 

Measures for Cetaceans during Geophysical Operations” (

http://www.iagc.org/uploads/4/5/0/7/45074397/2015-02_iagcmitigation_measures_for_cetaceans.pdf).

All seismic airgun surveys in the GOM addressed in this

Programmatic EIS require implementation of the Seismic 

Airgun Survey Protocol per NTL 2016-BOEM-G02 

(Appendix B, Section 1.2.4 and Attachment 1), which 

specifies the use of a 500-m (1,640-ft) exclusion zone. An edit 

was made in Appendix B for clarification.

1076-0055 The DPEIS does not clearly explain whether shutdowns for 

dolphins are required and, if so, under what scenarios. In 

Chapter 2, the DPEIS appears to state that the “Expanded PSO 

Program” applicable to Alternatives B-F includes shutdown 

requirements for whales and manatees and that these 

requirements are further expanded in Alternative D to apply to 

all “marine mammals” except for bow-riding dolphins. However, 

Appendix B suggests that the Expanded PSO Program requires 

shutdowns for all “marine mammals” except that bow-riding 

dolphins are excluded from this requirement only for Alternative 

D. DPEIS Appx. B at B-23, B-24. We assume that Chapter 2 

correctly describes BOEM’s intent and that none of the 

alternatives require shutdowns for dolphins.28 However, to the 

extent BOEM does contemplate the application of shutdown 

requirements to dolphins, or to the extent commenters 

advocate for dolphin shutdown requirements, such measures 

For Alternative D, shutdown is required for all marine 

mammals in the exclusion zone except bow-riding dolphins 

(i.e., bottlenose, Fraser’s, Clymene’s, rough-toothed, striped, 

spinner, Atlantic spotted, pantropical, and Risso’s dolphins).

Clarifying text has been added to the Executive Summary, 

Chapters 2 and 4, and Appendix B to ensure consistency 

regarding when shutdowns are required. 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-141

Submission ID Comment Response

have no support for the following reasons.

1076-0056 ...to the extent the DPEIS contemplates shutdowns for all 

marine mammals except dolphins approaching the vessel to 

bow-ride, implementation of such a measure is impractical. We 

are aware of no mitigation measures applicable to offshore 

exploration activities in which an observer is required to 

subjectively determine the intent of a marine mammal (i.e., the 

intent to bow-ride or to approach a vessel). Determining marine 

mammal intent from great distances is very difficult for 

experienced marine mammal biologists in controlled scientific 

experiments, let alone for observers who will be attempting to 

determine dolphin intent over vast distances in the ocean 

environment. Based on observation reports, PSOs will be 

unable to confidently assess animal behavior or “intentions” 

because they cannot accurately determine species within the 

expanded exclusion zone.33 The result is that observers will 

likely, out of caution, call for shutdowns in almost all instances 

where dolphins are observed within the exclusion zone.

In sum, any shutdown requirement applicable to dolphins in the 

GOM would broadly and substantially impact seismic 

operations without any corresponding environmental benefit 

and without any scientific support. The Associations 

respectfully request that BOEM clarify in its final PEIS that no 

such requirement is included in any of the alternatives.

BOEM agrees that the subjectivity of determining dolphin 

intent has great potential for error and likely depends on the 

PSO’s experience, educational background, and compliance 

training. BOEM also understands that acoustic detections 

have no way of determining behavior. However, BOEM 

believes that highly skilled, professional PSOs that meet the 

standards outlined in NOAA’s Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-OPR-49 (USDOC, NMFS, 2013), combined with PSO 

training on standardized behavior parameters, will adequately 

address the subjectivity of such assessments. BOEM believes 

that allowing professional PSOs some latitude in the 

assessment of dolphin behavior will reduce, not increase, the 

number of shutdowns due to dolphins.

Mitigation measures included in this Programmatic EIS 

(Appendix B, Section 1.2.4) are designed to minimize 

disturbance and potential auditory injuries to marine mammals 

(and sea turtles) during seismic surveys. The elements of 

these mitigation measures are continually evolving, and those 

included in this Programmatic EIS represent best available 

scientific knowledge. All of the elements have limitations that 

may reduce their effectiveness, as discussed in Appendix B, 

Section 1.2.4. 

In addition, through the adaptive management of the 

Monitoring Plan (Chapter 1.2.3.4), BOEM will consider future 

data on the efficacy of mitigation measures to adjust mitigation 

requirements for individual surveys based on the best 

available information at that time.

1076-0057 Under Alternatives B-F, BOEM would require the use of 

Passive Acoustic Monitoring (“PAM”) as part of the Seismic 

Airgun Survey Protocol in certain circumstances. See DPEIS at 

2-43. PAM is one of several monitoring techniques that offers a 

monitoring capability during periods of poor visibility or night 

conditions. PAM complements (rather than replaces) traditional 

visual monitoring. However, towed commercially available 

PAM systems can be highly variable and less robust than other 

Thank you for your comment. All of this information will be 

considered by the decisionmaker in determining which 

alternative is selected in the ROD.

However, PAM has been used effectively as a mitigation tool 

in the GOM since 2012. BOEM will consider the value of PAM 

as a mitigation measure during future site-specific NEPA 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-142 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

in-sea integrated PAM capabilities/equipment. In addition, 

overall performance and capabilities of PAM are dependent on 

factors such as technical specification of equipment, 

operational setting, availability of experienced and trained 

personnel, and the species of marine mammals present in a 

given area. Mandatory use of PAM may substantially increase 

survey cost, require the placement of more personnel on 

vessels (i.e., four dedicated PAM observers onboard), and 

potentially increase entanglement risk due to more gear being 

towed in the water. The Associations therefore urge BOEM to 

make the use of PAM optional in all alternatives, as 

recommended in Alternative A.

analyses, along with any new information available at that 

time.

Chapter 4.13 provides an analysis of and tables showing the 

incremental cost and percent cost change per survey, total 

annual survey incremental cost, and percent reduction in 

efficiency per survey for Alternatives B through F.

The alternatives identified in this Programmatic EIS are based 

on technical feasibility and economic viability. A proposed 

alternative is reasonable only if it will fulfill this Programmatic 

EIS’s purpose and need as described in Chapter 1.1.2.

1076-0058 The DPEIS states that observer qualifications addressed in 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-49, National 

Standards for a Protected Species Observer and Data 

Management Program: A Model Using Geological and 

Geophysical Surveys (Nov. 2013) (“Observer Standards”) “may 

be required for future activities.” DPEIS, Appx. B at B-16. 

Although we appreciate the agencies’ attempt to clarify and 

standardize observer guidelines and requirements, the 

Observer Standards are flawed in a number of respects. It is 

imperative that the agencies consider public input on the 

Observer Standards and make the revisions necessary to 

ensure that the standards are workable, accurate, and 

appropriate before they are required. The standards should 

encourage adaptive technology, remote monitoring, reduction 

of health, safety, and environmental risks, and use of an 

updated reporting form that provides substantive data from 

observations to inform the need (if any) for additional or revised 

mitigation measures. The letter by IAGC, API, and NOIA, dated 

May 2, 2014, addressing the Observer Standards more 

specifically states our concerns with the Observer Standards 

and offers constructive solutions. See Attachment D.

The NOAA issued the Observer Standards in 2013, and they 

remain the best available information to be utilized. 

Incorporation of public comments to these standards is outside 

of the scope of this Programmatic EIS.

As part of the Settlement Agreement (Chapter 1.2.3), BOEM 

is required to analyze in any NEPA document (i.e., EIS or EA) 

for BOEM’s petition for rulemaking under the MMPA, the 

development of a Monitoring Plan to address potential chronic 

and cumulative impacts from seismic surveys on marine 

mammal populations in the GOM. An adaptive monitoring 

plan (“Monitoring Plan”) is currently under development as part 

of the petition to NOAA for ITRs for operators’ G&G activities 

in the GOM (Chapter 1.2.3.4). This plan would allow for 

adaptive management of mitigation measures and would be 

implemented for the life of the MMPA rule.

1076-0059 With respect to potential measures regarding non-duplicative 

surveys and use of the lowest practicable source, the DPEIS 

states:

Thank you for your comment. Text in Chapter 2 has been 

updated to reflect the panel's findings, and the full reports can 

be found in Appendix L. 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-143

Submission ID Comment Response

The goal of these measures is to reduce the overall sound 

source levels in the AOI, which could be effective in achieving 

this goal. Overall reduction in sound input may have wide-scale 

benefits. As noted in Chapter 1, under the terms of the 

Settlement Agreement, BOEM convened two panels to 

determine the feasibility of including refined standards for these 

two requirements; however, the panels’ work on these matters 

is still in process and was not available at the time the analysis 

for this Programmatic EIS was completed.

DPEIS at 2-39. However, this characterization is incorrect 

because the panels’ work on these two issues has concluded 

and this description is not consistent with the panels’ findings. 

The DPEIS should be updated to reflect the panels’ findings. 

Consistent with those findings, the Associations’ position is that 

these measures would have no meaningful beneficial impact.

1076-0061 “Where the action subject to NEPA review is triggered by a 

proposal or application from a private party, it is appropriate to 

give substantial weight to the goals and objectives of that 

private actor.” Citizens’ Committee to Save Our Canyons, 297 

F.3d 1012, 1030 (10th Cir. 2002); see also, e.g., Sylvester v. 

U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 882 F.2d 407, 409 (9th Cir. 1989) 

(explaining that agency has a duty to take into account 

objectives of applicant’s project). An alternative considered in 

an EIS is not reasonable when it renders the applicant’s 

proposed project “impractical,” or not “technologically or 

economically feasible.” Citizens’ Committee to Save Our 

Canyons, 297 F.3d at 1031-32; see also Sylvester, 882 F.2d at 

409 (explaining that the agency must consider whether 

alternative is “economically advantageous” to applicant’s 

objective); Cape May Greene, Inc. v. Warren, 698 F.2d 179, 

187 (3d Cir. 1993) (noting NEPA “requires a balancing between 

environmental costs and economic and technical benefits”). As 

demonstrated below, the various measures included in 

Alternatives B-G threaten the operational and economic viability 

of G&G activities in the GOM, which will lead to fewer wells 

being drilled and diminish future production.

Chapter 4.13 provides an analysis of and tables showing the 

incremental cost and percent cost change per survey, total 

annual survey incremental cost, and percent reduction in 

efficiency per survey for Alternatives B through F.

The alternatives identified in this Programmatic EIS are based 

on technical feasibility and economic viability. A proposed 

alternative is reasonable only if it will fulfill this Programmatic 

EIS’s purpose and need as described in Chapter 1.1.2. 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-144 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

1076-0063 In Alternatives B-F, BOEM notes in multiple places35 that any 

seismic survey not conducted because of operational 

inefficiencies, seasonal shutdown, survey restrictions, or area 

closures could be conducted at a later time or else the vessels 

would move to another area of the GOM. BOEM uses these 

assumptions as partial justification that economic impacts of the 

alternatives will be either minor (Alternative C) or minor to 

moderate (Alternatives B, D, E, F), yet these assumptions are 

flawed. The potential to have surveys done in future time 

periods, as stated in the analysis, does not reduce the negative 

socioeconomic impact of an alternative. With restrictions 

continually in place, surveys originally planned for Year 1 would 

just replace surveys that would have occurred in Year 2, while 

even more Year 2 planned surveys would be pushed to Year 3, 

and so on. Over time, the ripple effect of delayed or forgone 

surveys will reduce overall seismic data collection, adversely 

impacting the industry’s ability to drill new wells and curtailing 

future production. Timing delays large enough to affect drilling 

schedules are more important to potential economic impacts 

than seismic cost increases. BOEM does not provide estimates 

for the number of wells that will not be drilled and how reduced 

drilling will have significant negative impacts on production, 

government revenue, gross domestic product (“GDP”), and 

employment.

In Chapter 4.13, BOEM has considered the potential 

economic impacts from delayed or foregone G&G activity 

resulting from Alternatives B through F and has updated the 

analysis to provide additional information on these potential

effects. The impact conclusions are a synthesis of a variety of 

qualitative and quantitative available scientific information. 

While this analysis required some professional judgement by 

the subject-matter experts, the resulting impact conclusions 

remain credible in light of the available scientific record.

1076-0082 The DPEIS states that BOEM and NMFS are presently 

developing an “adaptive monitoring program” that will be 

implemented for the life of the anticipated MMPA incidental take 

regulations and “will outline high-level monitoring objectives 

focused on understanding how and to what extent G&G 

activities may affect marine mammals in the Gulf of Mexico.” 

DPEIS at 1-13. However, the DPEIS includes very little 

information about the adaptive monitoring plan because, 

according to the DPEIS, “an opportunity for public input on the 

monitoring plan would occur through the process that NMFS 

undertakes in response to BOEM’s petition for rulemaking 

under the MMPA.” DPEIS at 1-14.

The Associations have a strong interest in environmental 

Thank you for your comment. As agreed upon in the revised 

Settlement Agreement in 2015, BOEM has analyzed the 

development of the monitoring plan developed by industry

(Chapter 1.2.3.4).
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-145

Submission ID Comment Response

monitoring--both to better understand the environment in which 

our members work, but also to mitigate potential risks of 

activities to living marine resources. The Associations support 

efforts that improve the quantity and quality of information 

related to determining the nature and magnitude of the potential 

effects of offshore G&G activities on marine mammals. Such 

information assists with developing reasonable and workable 

incidental take MMPA authorizations, including appropriate 

mitigation measures to minimize incidental take, and correctly 

assessing the type and amount of incidental take that occurs in 

the course of G&G operations. In this light, the Associations 

support both ongoing and future research endeavors by 

industry and its partners that help to inform the understanding 

and mitigation of potential effects of G&G activities on marine 

life in the GOM. We also support agency efforts to improve the 

collection and use of the best available science consistent with 

the requirements and limits of the MMPA.

Nonetheless, the Associations have expressed concern on 

multiple occasions that the agencies’ envisioned monitoring 

requirements for the forthcoming MMPA regulations for 

geophysical surveys in the GOM will exceed the authority 

granted to NMFS. We have explained in detail that the MMPA 

does not authorize NMFS to require as a condition of an ITA 

the preparation or development of a large-scale, expansive 

monitoring plan that reaches beyond the time and area in which 

site-specific activities are undertaken or the performance of 

actions related to such a plan. The comments detailing these 

concerns are attached as Attachment F so that they may be 

included in the administrative record supporting the final PEIS. 

The Associations look forward to working collaboratively with 

BOEM and NMFS to complete the preparation of a legally 

compliant and operationally effective monitoring program.

1076-0115 Alternative A is the only alternative that may be consistent with 

the best available science, operational feasibility, and 

applicable law. The Associations strongly object to all of the 

other Alternatives presented in the DPEIS for all of the reasons 

stated above and particularly because BOEM reaches the 

Thank you for your comment. All of this information will be 

considered by the decisionmaker in determining which 

alternative is selected in the ROD.
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-146 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

same effects conclusions for Alternative A as it does for all of 

the other Alternatives (except Alternative G). Before the DPEIS 

is issued as a final PEIS, all of the flaws detailed in this 

comment letter and the associated attachments must be 

addressed and corrected.

1077-0002 Chevron joins the Associations in supporting Alternative A 

described in the DPEIS because it presents the option that is 

most supported by available scientific studies and observations, 

and applicable law....We too urge BOEM to issue a final PEIS 

within court-ordered deadlines, but one that accounts for the 

law and facts, and does not rely on methods that produce 

admittedly “unrealistic” data.

Thank you for your comment. All of this information will be 

considered by the decisionmaker in determining which 

alternative is selected in the ROD.

1077-0007 BOEM also improperly ignores the environmental and safety 

benefits of modern geophysical technology, which has led to 

dramatic improvements in the placement of wells and reduction 

in the numbers of wells that need to be drilled. A reduction in 

the availability of seismic data threatened by many of the 

DPEIS alternatives could increase – not decrease – potential 

environmental and safety risks. Thanks to modern geophysical 

data, Chevron has reduced the number of wells that need to be 

drilled on exploration and development projects and has drilled 

fewer wells in the Gulf as a direct result of improved seismic 

data.

Improvements in 3D and newer 4D seismic technology, for 

example, allow Chevron geoscientists to visualize the subsurface without drilling and to optimize exploration well 

locations and evaluate the prospectivity of lease blocks with 

minimal drilling activity. For development drilling, modern 

seismic imaging enables geoscientists to identify potentially 

hazardous and over-pressurized zones in subsurface 

reservoirs. As a result, Chevron can better position wells to 

avoid hazards, and design the wells for improved safety and 

increased productivity. G&G data allows Chevron to reduce 

substantially the number of wells drilled, install facilities with 

smaller footprints, identify risks, mitigate potential 

consequences and decrease the overall impact on the 

environment. BOEM must acknowledge and evaluate such 

BOEM recognizes the benefits of modern geophysical 

technology and the associated environmental and safety 

benefits in Chapter 2.9.1. Chapter 4.13 provides an analysis 

of the economic impacts from each alternative and includes 

tables showing the incremental cost and percent cost change 

per survey, total annual survey incremental cost, and percent 

reduction in efficiency per survey for Alternatives B through F. 

These factors and others were considered by BOEM's 

decisionmaker when selecting the Preferred Alternative. 

However, this Programmatic EIS is not the decision document 

under NEPA. The decision will be provided in the ROD.
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-147

Submission ID Comment Response

crucial benefits from the availability of geophysical data before 

analyzing alternatives in the DPEIS that would reduce its 

obtainability, either directly or by increasing its cost. BOEM’s 

failure to do so is arbitrary and capricious.

1088-0001 The geophysical industry has successfully coexisted with 

multiple industries, including tourism, and within a thriving 

ecosystem under mitigation measures and practices similar to 

those included in the DPEIS Alternative A for many years. As a 

member of the geophysical industry I generally support 

Alternative A as the preferred course of action. Data 

acquisition through seismic surveys is a proven, 

environmentally sound technology with a track record around 

the globe that extends for decades. Seismic surveys and 

geophysical activities help make offshore energy development 

safer and more efficient. They are essential in the U.S. and 

around the world to locate potential new sources of energy. In 

addition to the oil and natural gas industry, seismic surveys are 

commonly used by the U.S. Geological Survey, the National 

Science Foundation, and the offshore wind industry.

BOEM’s environmental analysis should accurately reflect the 

best available science and research and consider the industry’s 

operational experience, which indicates that seismic surveys 

have little-to-no impact on marine mammal and wildlife 

populations. Neither industry’s operational experience nor the 

best available science justifies the precautionary approach 

BOEM has proposed in some of the alternatives considered in 

the EIS.

Thank you for your comment. All of this information will be 

considered by the decisionmaker in determining which 

alternative is selected in the ROD.

BOEM prepared this Programmatic EIS using the best 

available data and included reasonable assumptions to 

estimate impacts. BOEM is involved in several ongoing 

programs to improve data for marine mammals and 

underwater noise, and future analyses will use the best data 

available at that time. Studies have shown that marine 

mammals react to underwater noise. Reactions may include 

physical displacement from or avoidance of the area of 

ensonification and/or altering vocalizations. Acute physical 

injury, other than auditory injury, or death of marine mammals 

is not likely to be a direct result of seismic noise. However, 

disruption of behavioral patterns or auditory injury is possible, 

which may reduce fitness for individual animals. Populationlevel impacts related to energetic effects or other impacts of 

noise are difficult to determine. However, BOEM does not 

assume that lack of demonstrated adverse population-level 

effects from seismic surveys means that those effects may not 

occur.

1088-0006 The restrictive and arbitrary nature of some of the proposed 

mitigations outlined in the DPEIS alternatives would threaten 

the economic and operational feasibility of performing 

geophysical surveys in the GOM. Specifically, near-shore 

seasonal restrictions included throughout the EIS alternatives 

have no basis in science and should be precluded from the final 

preferred alternative. Further, arbitrary reductions in seismic 

survey activities of 10 – 25% (Alternative E) are a nonstarter, 

without environmental merit and should be removed from any 

final preferred course of action.

Chapter 2 provides rationale supporting each alternative. 

Chapter 4.13 provides an analysis and tabular data that 

outline the incremental cost and percent cost change per 

survey, total annual survey incremental cost, and percent 

reduction in efficiency per survey for Alternatives B through F.

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives in this 

Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 

viability, and other factors, and consider them a reasonable 

range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. Using expert opinion 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-148 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

and best professional judgement, BOEM determined that 10 

percent and 25 percent reductions offer a reasonable range of 

reduced activity levels while still allowing BOEM to fulfill the 

purpose of and need for this Programmatic EIS.

This Programmatic EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory 

responsibilities associated with permitting and authorizing 

G&G activities connected with activities conducted in support 

of the Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals 

Programs for the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This Programmatic EIS 

would also support NOAA’s authorization of the incidental take 

of marine mammals under the MMPA for these activities. A 

proposed alternative is reasonable only if it will fulfill the 

Programmatic EIS’s purpose and need as described in 

Chapter 1.1.2. 

A 10 percent or 25 percent reduction in the level of seismic 

airgun survey activities would minimize the potential for injury 

to marine mammals and sea turtles, reduce the potential for 

Level A harassment of marine mammals, and provide 

additional protection for marine mammals. Studies have 

shown that marine mammals react to underwater noise. 

Reactions may include physical displacement from or 

avoidance of the area of ensonification and/or altering 

vocalizations. Acute physical injury, other than auditory injury, 

or death of marine mammals is not likely to be a direct result of 

seismic noise. However, disruption of behavioral patterns or 

auditory injury is possible, which may reduce fitness for 

individual animals. Population-level impacts related to 

energetic effects or other impacts of noise are difficult to 

determine. However, BOEM does not assume that lack of 

demonstrated adverse population-level effects from seismic 

surveys means that those effects may not occur. Captive 

bottlenose dolphins have shown increased stress hormones in 

response to seismic water gun noise (Romano et al., 2004).

1088-0007 The geophysical industry implements many mitigation 

measures as standard business practice, including marine 

mammal observers (MMOs), passive acoustic monitoring 

Through the Environmental Studies Program 

(https://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Studies-Planning/), 

BOEM is funding and is planning to fund additional studies 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-149

Submission ID Comment Response

(PAM), and exclusion zones – all in an effort to avoid any 

potential impacts on marine mammals. The energy industry 

has invested over $60 million in research on the impacts of 

sound and marine life, including advances in technology that 

may lead to more efficient data acquisition in the future.

As BOEM moves through the PEIS process, including 

consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the IAGC 

encourages an adherence to scientifically valid mitigation 

measures, while recognizing the proven track record of the 

geophysical industry in the GOM. Mitigation measures for the 

sake of ‘precaution’ are based on unsubstantiated claims from 

anti-energy development interests and have no backing in U.S. 

statute or regulation.

and workshops to examine the effectiveness and feasibility of 

mitigation measures in the GOM. BOEM’s Environmental 

Studies Program develops, conducts, and oversees worldclass scientific research, specifically to inform policy decisions 

regarding development of OCS energy and mineral resources.

Research covers physical oceanography, atmospheric 

sciences, biology, protected species, social sciences and 

economics, submerged cultural resources, and environmental 

fates and effects. BOEM is a leading contributor to the 

growing body of scientific knowledge about the Nation’s 

marine and coastal environment. Currently active studies 

addressing this broad range of topics can be found at 

http://www.boem.gov/GMStudies/. 

Effective September 30, 2016, BOEM implemented NTL 2016-

BOEM-G02 to address the implementation of seismic survey 

mitigation measures and the PSO Program. This NTL outlines 

the various requirements of operators. While the NTL does 

not introduce any new types of mitigation measures, it clarifies 

how seismic survey mitigation measures should be 

implemented, including ramp-up procedures, the use of a 

minimum sound source, airgun testing and protected species 

observation and reporting. The NTL also updates regulatory 

citations and addresses and provides clarification on how 

measures identified in the NTL will be implemented to assist 

BOEM, BSEE, and operators in complying with the ESA and 

MMPA. Mitigation measures associated with seismic survey 

operations have been implemented via this NTL to reduce the 

potential for significant impact to protected species. While 

these mitigation requirements are considered common-sense 

measures with a growing body of supporting scientific 

evidence (e.g., reductions in marine mammal vocalization for 

several species during acoustic exposure), the efficacy and 

scientific merit of these measures is being evaluated and will 

continue to be evaluated, as noted previously.

1091-0011 Alternative A is one of the weakest alternatives for protecting 

marine mammals in the Gulf of Mexico, as it includes only 

minimum mitigation standards for marine mammals. While it 

Alternative A reflects the mitigation measures that were in 

place prior to the Settlement Agreement and is being analyzed 

with other alternatives that include additional mitigation 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-150 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

includes ramp-up procedures and exclusion zones, visual 

monitoring by PSOs, and various shutdown requirements, 

many of these commonly employed mitigation measures— 

particularly exclusion zones and ramp-up procedures—remain 

untested in their efficacy for marine mammals (Barlow and 

Gisiner, 2006). Because passive acoustic monitoring is not 

required and only strongly encouraged, as well as there not 

being expanded observer coverage, this alternative affords 

minimal protection to marine mammals. Furthermore, this 

Alternative is one of two Alternatives that does not require, but 

only strongly encourages, some level of PAM.

measures.

Thank you for your comment. All of this information will be 

considered by the decisionmaker in determining which 

alternative is selected in the ROD.

1091-0012 Alternative B offers strong protection for marine mammals in 

the survey zone, particularly through its expanded PSO 

program, PAM requirements, seasonal closures for bottlenose 

dolphins, and new reporting requirements. Like Alternative A, 

however, this alternative does not require PAM monitoring in 

the De Soto Canyon lease block (Appendix B, Table 2-2), which 

is critical for Bryde’s whales, since they are only known to 

occupy the De Soto canyon (Maze-Foley and Mullin, 2006).

Thank you for your comment. All of this information will be 

considered by the decisionmaker in determining which 

alternative is selected in the ROD.

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives in this 

Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 

viability, and other factors, and consider them a reasonable 

range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. This Programmatic 

EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory responsibilities 

associated with permitting and authorizing G&G activities in 

connection with activities conducted in support of the Oil and 

Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals Programs for

the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This Programmatic EIS also would 

support NOAA’s authorization of the incidental take of marine 

mammals under the MMPA for these activities.

1091-0013 Alternative C builds off mitigation measures proposed in 

Alternative A, and is therefore stronger than Alternative A by 

including expanding PSO and PAM requirements. It is also 

stronger than A since this alternative includes PAM in all deep 

penetration surveys in the Mississippi Canyon and De Soto 

Canyon, as the latter will likely be helpful at detecting Bryde’s 

whales. It remains unclear, however, what the overall PAM 

protocol is, and what operators will do once an animal is 

detected. Furthermore, Alternative C adjusts Alternative B’s 

area closures from February 1 to May 31, but it is unclear 

throughout the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement as to whether this closure is also intended for 

The NTL 2016-BOEM-G02 provides basic guidelines 

regarding actions when a marine mammal or sea turtle is 

detected within the exclusion zone. The PAM operators would 

implement the same actions as PSOs when an animal is 

detected, and PAM allows for the start-up of activities during 

times of reduced visibility. The rationale for Alternative C is 

provided in Chapter 2.5.3 and states that "Although there is 

no fixed reproductive season for bottlenose dolphins in the 

GOM, there does appear to be a peak in calf and neonate 

strandings falling within the boundaries of the UME in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico from February to May (now closed and 

determined by NMFS to be largely unrelated to seismic 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-151

Submission ID Comment Response

bottlenose dolphins as in Alternative B, or if it’s intended for 

other protected species.

activities); therefore, the restriction was extended to 

incorporate this timeframe."

1091-0014 Like Alternatives B and C, Alternative D calls for an expanded 

PSO program and shut-downs for detected marine mammals, 

but excludes shut downs for bow-riding dolphins (i.e., 

bottlenose, Fraser’s, Clymene’s, rough-toothed, striped, 

spinner, Atlantic spotted, pantropical, and Risso’s dolphins). 

Bow riding is a behavioral strategy by dolphins to reduce 

energetic costs to conserve energy (Williams et al. 1992), 

though there is variation between species regarding which 

species bow-ride more often than others (Griffin and Griffin, 

2003). Therefore, there are two primary problems with 

excluding bow-riding dolphins: (1) This exception assumes that 

if bow-riding, the dolphin is likely undisturbed from the seismic 

vessel; and (2) That all species bow-ride and respond to 

seismic surveys uniformly. These assumptions are highly 

problematic, as dolphins may bow-ride even if disturbed, if the 

energetic gains from bow-riding outweigh the costs from noise 

exposure. Furthermore, there is no baseline reporting for how 

many and how frequently dolphins bow-ride in the Gulf of 

Mexico, and a certain subset of dolphins observed bow-riding 

during a survey may be less than how many would normally 

bow-ride in a situation with less sound exposure. One study did 

indeed find that common dolphins bow-rode less frequently 

during seismic testing (Goold, et al. 1996). Therefore, should 

Alternative D be chosen for the Gulf of Mexico, PSO coverage 

and shut-downs should be expanded to include bow-riding 

dolphins to avoid prolonged exposure to surveys. Additionally, 

Alternative D does not carry forward restrictions for deep 

penetration surveys in Areas of Concern in the Eastern 

Planning Area; this leaves many deep-diving marine mammals 

highly exposed to harassment, and should be addressed 

should Alternative D be carried forward.

Thank you for your comment. All of this information will be 

considered by the decisionmaker in determining which 

alternative is selected in the ROD.

1091-0015 Alternative E carries forward all mitigation standards proposed 

in Alternative C, as well as two scenarios for a reduction in 

deep-penetration seismic surveys in line miles. These two 

options, E1 and E2, would elicit less acoustic impact to marine 

mammals and harassment to all species, including sea turtles, 

Additional text has been added to Chapter 2.7 to provide 

information about how BOEM could implement Alternative E.

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives in this 

Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-152 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

in the survey zone. We applaud BOEM for exploring ways to 

reduce the amount of energy put into the water; it is unclear, 

however, where the reduction in survey activity would occur 

and how that will be managed. Furthermore, it is unclear as to 

why BOEM chose 10% and 25% reductions in deep-penetration 

seismic surveys in line miles, and they seem like arbitrary 

numbers without considering what the actual minimum survey 

levels would be for G&G companies to collect necessary data. 

A more comprehensive plan specific to E1 and E2 should be 

developed before implementation. Questions remain on the 

mitigation standards carried forward from Alternative C as to 

what the adjusted seasonal area closure is intended to protect, 

as well as a general monitoring and reporting plan for the PAM 

requirements.

viability, and other factors, and consider them to be a 

reasonable range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. This 

Programmatic EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory 

responsibilities associated with permitting and authorizing 

G&G activities in connection with activities conducted in 

support of the Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine 

Minerals Programs for the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This 

Programmatic EIS also would support NOAA authorization of 

the incidental take of marine mammals under the MMPA for 

these activities.

Chapter 4.13 provides an analysis of and tables showing the 

incremental cost and percent cost change per survey, total 

annual survey incremental cost, and percent reduction in 

efficiency per survey for Alternatives B through F. The 

alternatives identified in this Programmatic EIS are based on 

technical feasibility and economic viability. BOEM, through 

consultation with industry representatives, has tried to base 

the reductions on an attempt to balance environmental 

impacts with economic impacts to achieve the proposed 

action's purpose and need.

1091-0016 Alternative F also carries forward mitigation standards in 

Alternative C, plus closure areas and minimum separation from 

the closure areas to ensure sound does not exceed Level B 

harassment thresholds. The closures under this Alternative do 

offer extended protections for marine mammals and other 

protected species, particularly for sperm whales and Bryde’s 

whales. Should BOEM carry forward Alternative F, however, a 

clearer plan as to how it intends to implement and enforce the 

separation distances from the closure areas is needed.

Chapter 2.8.2 states that, “airgun surveys conducted outside 

of the closure areas would be required to remain at a distance 

such that received sound levels at the closed area boundaries 

would not exceed the threshold for Level B harassment 

(currently 160 dB [relative to 1 micropascal [dB re 1 μPa]), as 

determined by field verification of sound levels or sound field 

modeling.” If the mitigation measures included in Alternative F 

were adopted, any new G&G activities permitted and/or 

authorized by BOEM would be required to comply with all 

applicable conditions and mitigation measures, including 

adequately demonstrating they are operating within sound 

level limits. Additional implementation and enforcement 

measures can be included, as necessary, to ensure the 

operations comply with the limitations. BOEM expects that 

through the development of the ITRs, there may be a 

mechanism to implement standardized exclusion zones such 

that received sound levels at the closed-area boundaries 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-153

Submission ID Comment Response

would not exceed the threshold for Level B harassment. 

Regarding implementation, BOEM has the ability to enforce 

the distance from the closure areas through the site-specific 

permit review process and appropriate COAs.

1091-0017 Alternative G would allow previously authorized activity to 

continue with new mitigation standards applied, but would 

forbid new leasing and permitting. While this option provides 

the least possible acoustic impact to marine mammals in the 

Gulf of Mexico, it is unclear how exactly the phase-out would be 

managed. Furthermore, as stated in the PEIS, existing G&G 

surveys would only be required to comply with Alternative A 

standards, which afford minimum protection to marine 

mammals on the scale of proposed Alternatives.

As stated in Chapter 2.9.1, under Alternative G (no new 

activity), BOEM would cease issuing permits for new G&G 

surveys and would not approve G&G surveys proposed under 

exploration or development plans. Any G&G activities 

previously authorized under an existing permit or lease would 

proceed but would not be renewed or reauthorized and, thus, 

eventually would be phased out. Overall, existing approvals 

for deep seismic exploration would drop off quickly and other 

G&G activities would trickle off as permits expire. 

Alternative G would not meet the purpose and need of the 

proposed action, and it would not implement the natural 

resource development provisions of the OCSLA. However, 

the CEQ regulation at 40 CFR § 1502.14(d) specifies that 

NEPA analyses require the alternatives analysis in the EIS to 

"include the alternative of no action." This analysis provides a 

benchmark, enabling decisionmakers to compare the 

magnitude of environmental effects of the action alternatives. 

It is also an example of a reasonable alternative outside the 

jurisdiction of the agency, which must be analyzed (CEQ 

regulation at 40 CFR § 1502.14(c)). Inclusion of such an 

analysis in this Programmatic EIS is necessary to inform 

Congress, the public, and the President as intended by NEPA 

(40 CFR § 1500.1(a)).

1091-0018 The approach of offering an apparent a la carte menu for these 

alternatives seems unnecessary. Instead, we recommend the 

consolidation of Alternatives D, E, and F, with some notable 

additions.

This information was considered by BOEM when determining 

the Preferred Alternative. This Programmatic EIS is not the 

decision document under NEPA. The decision will be 

provided in the ROD. BOEM and NOAA developed the 

alternatives in this Programmatic EIS based on technical 

feasibility, economic viability, and other factors, and consider 

them a reasonable range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. 

This Programmatic EIS will enable BOEM to fulfill statutory 

responsibilities associated with permitting and authorizing 

G&G activities in connection with activities conducted in 

support of Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-154 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

Minerals Programs for the Gulf of Mexico OCS. This 

Programmatic EIS also would support NOAA’s authorization of 

the incidental take of marine mammals under the MMPA for 

these activities.

A proposed alternative is reasonable only if it will fulfill this

Programmatic EIS’s purpose and need as described in 

Chapter 1.1.2. 

1091-0019 Despite what is contained in Appendix L and the results of the 

deliberations by the panel convened by BOEM, we believe the 

conclusions regarding: i) lowest practicable source (LPS); and 

ii) duplicative survey standard (DSS) must be revised and 

included as a preferred option.

At present, (i) lowest practicable source (LPS) and (ii) 

duplicative survey standard (DSS) are part of Alternative B. 

The panel of experts that convened to examine these two 

issues stand by the conclusions reached and documented in 

Appendix L. 

Comments noted. This information was considered by BOEM 

when determining the Preferred Alternative.

1091-0022 Advanced and adaptive mitigation measures should be put forth 

for the De Soto Canyon. The De Soto Canyon is an erosional 

canyon located in pelagic waters off Florida’s panhandle 

(Harbison, 1968). Bryde’s whales in the Gulf of Mexico almost 

exclusively occupy the De Soto Canyon, particularly in the 

northern areas of the canyon (Maze-Foley and Mullin, 2006; 

Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS-SEAMAP) 

Bryde’s Whale Species Profile). All sightings from NOAA’s 

most recent SAR occurred in the De Soto Canyon (NOAA SAR 

2015a), and calls for Bryde’s whales have only been recorded 

in the De Soto Canyon (Sirovic et al. 2013).

BOEM, however, has called for continuous passive acoustic 

monitoring in the De Soto Canyon lease block as a mitigation 

standard only in Alternatives C-F. Given fidelity from Bryde’s 

whales to this location and their small population size, BOEM 

should consider PAM for all alternatives, including adopting a 

general plan for PAM monitoring and reporting as well as 

adaptive management for shut-down procedures when Bryde’s 

whales are detected.

Comments noted. This information was considered by BOEM 

when determining the Preferred Alternative. BOEM and 

NOAA developed the alternatives in this Programmatic EIS 

based on technical feasibility, economic viability, and other 

factors, and consider them a reasonable range of alternatives 

for NEPA analysis. This Programmatic EIS will enable BOEM 

to fulfill statutory responsibilities associated with permitting and 

authorizing G&G activities in connection with activities 

conducted in support of the Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, 

and Marine Minerals Programs for the Gulf of Mexico OCS. 

This Programmatic EIS also would support NOAA 

authorization of the incidental take of marine mammals under 

the MMPA for these activities.

Recently, BOEM, the U.S. Navy, and NOAA contributed to the 

formation of a PAM standards working group under the 

Acoustical Society of America. The working group is 

establishing ANSI standards for PAM hardware, software, and 

operators for seismic mitigation. One of the specific tasks for 

the working group is to establish the PAM plan standards.
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-155

Submission ID Comment Response

The development of a Monitoring Plan has been evaluated 

within this Programmatic EIS (Chapter 1.2.3.4). This plan 

would allow for adaptive management of mitigation measures 

and would be implemented for the life of the MMPA rule.

1091-0023 A plan for PAM implementation, monitoring, and reporting 

needs to be articulated. The use of PAM is encouraged or 

required depending on the Alternative. However, at no point in 

the PEIS is there discussion of how the PAM is to be 

implemented and used. PAM is clearly an important tool, but 

further description of how it is to be implemented is required. 

For example, there is no protocol for how long a survey is 

required to listen for animal activity before a survey can begin 

nor what should be done if an animal is detected. A 

prescriptive protocol is an absolute necessity for several 

reasons: i) cetacean species demonstrate differential 

responses to disturbing acoustic stimuli (e.g., compare Parks et 

al. (2011) with Cerchio et al. (2014) or Miller et al. (2009); ii) a 

given species may demonstrate differential acoustic responses 

depending on the received level (RL), as shown in Blackwell et 

al. (2015). Given the lack of data on some species, e.g., 

Bryde’s whales, it may be difficult to complete a full prescriptive 

protocol, but even with this species we know the frequency 

range to monitor (Sirovic et al., 2014), so at least part of a 

protocol could be applied.

The use of PAM is described in Appendix B, Section 1.3.5.

Recently, BOEM, the U.S. Navy, and NOAA contributed to the 

formation of a PAM standards working group under the 

Acoustical Society of America. The working group is 

establishing ANSI standards for PAM hardware, software, and 

operators for seismic mitigation. One of the specific tasks for 

the working group is to establish the PAM plan standards.

The development of a Monitoring Plan has been evaluated 

within this Programmatic EIS (Chapter 1.2.3.4). This plan 

would allow for adaptive management of mitigation measures 

and would be implemented for the life of the MMPA rule.

Additionally, through the Environmental Studies Program 

(https://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Studies-Planning/), 

BOEM is collecting and synthesizing information about PAM to 

be used in future site-specific NEPA evaluations.

This Programmatic EIS provides a programmatic-level 

evaluation for reasonably foreseeable G&G activities for which 

BOEM has oversight. BOEM will address specifics for PAM 

implementation, monitoring, and reporting for future sitespecific actions in subsequent NEPA evaluations and COAs.

1091-0024 There is no development of ideas around what is to be done 

with the PAM data. These data could be extremely valuable, 

not only for understanding what transpired during an individual 

survey but also, perhaps more importantly, as monitoring data 

to inform future surveys (Nowacek et al., 2013). In summary, 

just merely requiring PAM is not enough; a plan for how to 

implement this tool to protect vulnerable species must be 

developed for this monitoring and mitigation tool.

Recently, BOEM, the U.S. Navy, and NOAA contributed to the 

formation of a PAM standards working group under the 

Acoustical Society of America. The working group is 

establishing ANSI standards for PAM hardware, software, and 

operators for seismic mitigation. One of the specific tasks for 

the working group is to establish the PAM plan standards.

The development of a Monitoring Plan has been evaluated 

within this Programmatic EIS (Chapter 1.2.3.4). This plan 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-156 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

would allow for adaptive management of mitigation measures 

and would be implemented for the life of the MMPA rule.

Additionally, through the Environmental Studies Program 

(https://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Studies-Planning/), 

BOEM is collecting and synthesizing information about PAM to 

be used in future site-specific NEPA evaluations.

1091-0025 Clearly articulate what the purpose of the seasonal restrictions 

are, and why BOEM chose a different window of seasonal 

closures than offered in Alternative B. Seasonal restrictions are 

proposed in some form for Alternatives B-F. It remains largely 

unclear, however, to which species the seasonal restrictions 

apply (except for as stated in Alternative B), and what benefits 

arise from moving the seasonal closures offered in Alternative 

B (January 1 to April 30) to different dates in Alternatives C-F 

(February 1 to May 31). This should be made clear moving 

forward.

Rational behind each alternative is provided in Chapter 2. 

Overall, Chapter 2.13 states that the seasonal restriction in 

coastal waters falling within the boundaries of the UME for 

operation of airguns from January 1 to April 30 in Alternative B 

is a result of the amendment to the Settlement Agreement. In 

Alternatives C through F, the restriction is from February 1 to 

May 31 and was designed to protect the coastal and estuarine 

stocks of the common bottlenose dolphin during their peak 

reproductive activity by reducing active acoustic sound 

sources from airguns. The seasonal restriction in coastal 

waters would also provide protection for loggerhead sea turtles 

during a portion of their mating and nesting/inter-nesting 

season. Other resources, including endangered fish and 

coastal fish species, coastal birds, coastal MPAs, Sargassum, 

commercial and recreational fisheries, archaeological 

resources, and other marine uses would receive the 

associated protection in that area during the restriction period.

1108-0001 The Gulf of Mexico is one of the most energy-rich regions in 

America and an essential support for U.S. energy security, 

employment, and economic output. I urge the BOEM to reject 

any measures in the Draft PEIS on Geological and Geophysical 

activities in the Gulf that would hinder oil and natural gas 

exploration and production in this vital area, especially in regard 

to seismic surveying.

Thank you for your comment. All of this information will be 

considered by the decisionmaker in determining which 

alternative is selected in the ROD.

1129-0003 I support Alternative A and request that BOEM reject any 

regulations that would threaten the continued viability of seismic 

survey use for energy exploration in the Gulf of Mexico.

Thank you for your comment. All of this information will be 

considered by the decisionmaker in determining which 

alternative is selected in the ROD.

1130-0007 Revise the NMFS No Action description in Chapter 2, Section 

2.9.1 as follows for accuracy and consistency. As we stated in 

Thank you for your comment and continuing discussions on 

this language. BOEM believes this issue was addressed 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-157

Submission ID Comment Response

communication on September 2, 2016, following NOAA’s 

review of the pre-final draft PEIS, we request that the No Action 

description be restored to language provided to BOEM for 

inclusion on March 16, 2016. If there is a need for changes to 

this language, we request that BOEM provide justification and 

that any change be coordinated between BOEM’s and NOAA’s 

legal counsel. Reference: Chapter 2, Section 2.9.1, Page 2-

20. 

“The No Action Alternative for NMFS is slightly different. For 

NMFS, denial of MMPA authorizations constitutes the NMFS 

No Action Alternative, which is consistent with NMFS’s statutory 

obligation under the MMPA to grant or deny permit applications 

and to prescribe mitigation, monitoring and reporting with any 

authorizations. Under the NMFS No Action Alternative, there 

are two potential outcome scenarios. One is that the G&G 

activities occur in the absence of an MMPA authorization. In 

this case, (1) the entity conducting the activity would be in 

violation of the MMPA if take of marine mammals occurs (2) 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting would not be prescribed by 

NMFS and/or (3) additional mitigation may not be performed 

voluntarily by the operators. If the G&G activity were conducted 

under a lease or permit issued by BOEM, the operators must 

conform with the mitigation and monitoring measures specified 

in lease stipulations, COAs on permits and plans, NTLs, and 

any other best management practices prescribed for all G&G 

activities. The impacts to the environment associated with this 

scenario would be the same as those analyzed in BOEM 

Alternatives A through F. The second potential outcome of 

NMFS’s No Action Alternative is to assume that G&G activities 

cease or phase out with existing G&G permits. The impacts to 

the environment associated with this scenario are consistent 

with those analyzed in BOEM’s No New Activity Alternative.”

through counsel, and the appropriate considerations were 

included in the Draft Programmatic EIS. However, BOEM is 

including the additional edits requested in this comment in this

Final Programmatic EIS.

1130-0012 Summary of impacts of Alternative F on closure needs editing. 

The overall finding summarized here is that Alternative F 

reduces impacts to sanctuaries from moderate to minor, which 

we agree with. This text here, however, still incorrectly 

summarizes the large literature on the protective roles that can 

Text was added in Chapter 2.13 to emphasize additional 

benefit to non-resident species in closure areas to provide 

sites for biologically important activities.
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-158 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

be played by area-based management: yes, it can protect 

resident species from potential stressors, but protection for 

more mobile species can also be incredibly important if species 

are using the sites for biologically important activities that would 

otherwise have some potential to be impacted (this is correctly 

discussed on 4-57 and several other places in Chapter 4). 

Reference: Chapter 2, Section 2.13, Pages 2-31 to 2-32.

1130-0029 Footnote coding that relates alternative-specific mitigation 

measures to expected benefits to marine mammals and, 

therefore, partially justified the alternative-specific impact 

conclusions is vague and difficult to interpret. These should be 

revised for clarity. Reference: Table 2.10-1. 

BOEM understands that the footnotes associated with 

Table 2.10-1 (now Table 2.13-1) are complex; however, 

BOEM disagrees that they are vague. Nevertheless, to try to 

explain the nuance of species afforded protection from the 

mitigation measures for marine mammals, Table 2.13-2 has 

been added.

1130-0030 The section on Federal Agencies could be deleted entirely (Vol. 

2, Appendix B, Section 2.2). However, if BOEM retains this 

section, NOAA requests the following: delete descriptions 

concerning NOAA in Appendix B, Section 2.2.3, including the 

subsections 2.2.3.1 and 2.2.3.2, Page B-48 through B-51 and 

replace with the description (as provided below). This edit is 

provided to remove inconsistencies, inaccuracies and 

duplication regarding NOAA as an organization, NOAA’s role 

and the statutes NOAA implements and enforces.

“NOAA executes its mission and statutory mandates through 

multiple offices; the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and 

Information Service, National Marine Fisheries Service,

National Ocean Service, National Weather Service, Office of 

Marine & Aviation Operations, and the Office of Oceanic & 

Atmospheric Research. Each of these offices represent the 

operating branches of NOAA and are responsible for managing 

the delivery of products and services to meet the needs of the 

public, various federal and state agencies, and other 

stakeholders. NMFS and NOS’s ONMS are the primary offices 

within NOAA that participated in the development of this 

Programmatic EIS because of their expertise and their statutory 

responsibilities to protect, conserve and recover marine 

mammals and threatened and endangered species and to 

conserve and manage fisheries and national marine 

Text in Appendix B, Section 2.2.3 was revised as per the 

comment in relation to descriptions of NOAA.
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-159

Submission ID Comment Response

sanctuaries. Subsequently, the early participation of these 

NOAA offices during the preparation of this Programmatic EIS 

aided BOEM’s analysis of potential impacts to various protected 

resources within the GOM, including EFH and NMS.”

1130-0039 Revise the description under the NMSA to better reflect that No 

Activity Zones are regulated by BOEM and not 

FGBNMS/ONMS. Reference: Appendix B, Pages B-40 to 

B-41. 

“Pursuant to a Presidential directive, national marine 

sanctuaries designated as of July 14, 2008, are withdrawn from 

new oil/gas leases. The FGBNMS regulations prohibit 

exploration for developing or production of oil and gas in the 

sanctuary except outside “no-activity zones”. FGBNMS allows 

exploration for developing and production of oil and gas outside 

of BOEM’s “no-activity zones.” The Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) regulations prohibit the exploration 

for hydrocarbons within the sanctuary. In addition, if G&G 

activities include the potential for discharges or bottom 

disturbance within the sites, permits from the sanctuary may be 

required.”

Changes have been made to Appendix B, Section 2.1.12 to 

reflect this information.

1130-0040 Replace the following: “The NMFS consults with ONMS when 

proposed G&G activities require an MMPA authorization when 

takes of marine mammals would occur within a sanctuary. As 

appropriate, the NMFS will forward a copy of the MMPA 

incidental take application to ONMS and will inform applicants 

of BOEM’s responsibility to consult and the applicant’s 

responsibility to obtain any necessary permits from ONMS.”

“The NMFS consults with ONMS when their authorization of 

take of marine mammals, such as associated with G&G survey 

activity, would include takes of marine mammals within the 

boundaries of a national marine sanctuary. NMFS determines 

its need to consult with ONMS upon receipt of MMPA 

authorization applications. Although the determination and 

responsibility to consult under NMSA 304(d) resides with the 

federal permitting/authorizing agencies (NOAA and BOEM), 

applicants may also be required to acquire permits directly from 

Changes have been made in Appendix B, Section 2.1.12 as 

requested.
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-160 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

ONMS for activities that are prohibited within the sanctuary (see 

description above).” Reference: Appendix B, Page B-41.

1130-0041 Revise the description under the NMSA to better reflect the 

Section 304(d) consultation differences with BOEM and NMFS.

“BOEM and/or BSEE will consult with ONMS under Section 

304(d) when they receive an application that indicates a G&G 

activity may occur within or near the Flower Garden Banks of 

Florida Keys sanctuaries. In addition, NMFS consults with 

ONMS when an authorization would include takes of marine 

mammals within the boundaries of a National Marine 

Sanctuary. NMFS determines its need to consult with ONMS 

upon receipt of incidental take authorization applications. 

Although the determination and responsibility to consult under 

Section 304(d) resides with the federal agencies (i.e., NOAA 

and BOEM), applicants may also be required to acquire permits 

directly from ONMS for activities that are prohibited within the 

sanctuary (see description above).” Reference: Appendix B, 

Page B-41.

BOEM and BSEE are committed to ensuring that their 

activities and authorizations comply with applicable law, 

including any consultation requirements. BOEM has included 

your proffered language (with minor modification) in this Final 

Programmatic EIS.

1130-0043 Alternative F: Swap out the area for FGB used to design the 

FGB area-based closure in Alternative F to represent EITHER 

the current boundaries of the site identified by NOAA’s 

preferred alternative under expansion proposals (buffered by 

the extent of the assumed 160-dB rms isopleth). The current 

closure (e.g., Figure 6.2.1) is based on one of the Alternatives 

in the FGBNMS DEIS (Alternative 2), but not the Preferred 

Alternative (Alternative 3) that NOAA moved forward with.

Figure 2.8-1 has been revised to reflect the existing FGB 

boundaries.

1130-0046 Remove references to “directed take” in Appendix B, Section 

2.1.1, Page B-29 and elsewhere

Changes have been made in several locations in Appendix B, 

including Section 2.1.1.

1130-0058 Ensure the summary description of the alternatives in the 

Executive Summary is consistent with the descriptions in Vol. 1, 

Chapter 2.

Thank you for the comment. Edits have been made in the 

Executive Summary, Chapters 2 and 4, and Appendix B for 

consistency in the description of the alternatives.

1130-0059 It is unclear what the references to 15 CFR 922 in Vol. 1, 

Chapter 2, Section 2.2, Page 2-4 and Chapter 4, Section 

4.7.2.1.1, Page 4-270 are intended as, but it appears to be 

incorrect as the regulations do not constitute a guidance 

document.

Text has been revised to correct the terminology from 

“guidance” to “regulation.” 
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-161

Submission ID Comment Response

1130-0064 It is unclear why descriptions of potential benefit of the 

proposed seasonal coastal restriction on geophysical survey 

effort using airguns reference coastal stocks of “whale species.” 

There are no coastal stocks of whale species, and whale 

species would not be expected to benefit from the seasonal 

coastal restriction. Is this reference intended to refer to the 

seasonal coastal restriction or more broadly to the suite of 

mitigation measures contained in Alternative B? Reference: 

Executive Summary, pg xxi.

Text has been revised in the Executive Summary to clarify 

that the list of species is not considered coastal and is afforded 

protection through the suite of mitigation measures in 

Alternative B.

1130-0065 Alternative descriptions in the Executive Summary are vague 

and misleading with reference to mitigation measures that are 

new for a given alternative vs. those that are carried forward 

from prior alternatives (and would therefore not offer additional 

benefit when compared with prior alternatives.

The Executive Summary's purpose is to be a high-level 

summary of this Programmatic EIS and not a detailed recount 

of what appears within the body of this Programmatic EIS. 

The various alternatives are complex and contain various 

nuances and some repetition; diving into such detail in the 

Executive Summary is counter to its purpose. The 

Executive Summary provides a basic description of each 

alternative, connections where alternatives are similar, and a 

brief sentence indicating the primary differentiation of each 

alternative. Chapter 2 provides a detailed explanation of each 

alternative.

1130-0067 In our reading of the alternatives, the non-airgun survey 

protocol for high-resolution geophysical (HRG) survey activity is 

introduced with Alternative C. If this is correct, why does the 

description of Alternative D read as though the HRG survey 

protocol provides additional protection for all marine mammals? 

Reference: Executive Summary, pg xxii.

Thank you for the comment. Text within the Executive 

Summary has been edited to clarify the rationale behind the 

mitigation measures under Alternative D.

1130-0068 In what way would Alternative D lead to changes in timing for 

airgun surveys? Reference: Executive Summary, pg xxii

Alternative D contains a coastal waters' seasonal restriction 

from February 1 to May 31, expanded from Alternative B 

(Chapter 2, Figure 2.3-1) which could alter the timing for 

airgun surveys in coastal waters.

1130-0071 BOEM should provide additional discussion explaining how the 

500-m exclusion zone relates to sound isopleths or should 

remove statements implying that this proposed zone is 

reflective of some quantitative understanding of a notional 

sound field. Reference: Chapter 2, Section 2.14.4, pg 2-40, 1st

paragraph.

Text has been revised in Chapter 2.14.4 to explain the 500-m 

(1,640-ft) exclusion zone.
Table M-6. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-162 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

1130-0072 Shutdown mitigation measures can minimize the degree of TTS 

or PTS experienced or can minimize the severity of behavioral 

disruption. However, it is unclear what BOEM means in saying 

that shutdown can minimize impacts to “negligible levels.” This 

statement is unclear and unfounded, and should be removed. 

Reference: Chapter 2, Section 2.14.7, pg 2-46, 2nd paragraph.

Text has been revised in Chapter 2.14.7 to reflect a reduction 

in impacts.

1130-0073 Does the analysis of potential lost productivity under Alternative 

D remove those dolphins that were “bowriding” and would 

therefore have not triggered the shutdown requirement from the 

overall number of incidents of dolphins observed within the 

500-m exclusion zone? If not, this assessment is invalid. 

Reference: Chapter 2, Section 2.14.7, pg 2-47. 

Edits have been made in Chapters 2.11.1 and 2.14.7 to clarify 

this analysis. Data from Barkaszi et al. (2012) were analyzed 

to determine that based on the recorded information within the 

datasheets, a 25 percent to 30 percent increase in downtime 

would result for Alternative D. The data were analyzed for 

dolphin sightings as well as dolphin behavior; however, there 

are limitations to the data set for the following reasons: (1)

while behavior is a required entry for sightings, the data set 

clearly indicates that behavior was not always recorded (15% 

of all dolphin records in the data set had no behavior 

recorded); and (2) consistency in the records is highly variable 

because standardized behaviors are not a condition for data 

recording. For example, behaviors such as swimming, 

porpoising, and jumping often were recorded for dolphin 

sightings within the 500-m (1,640-ft) exclusion zone and could 

indicate bow-riding behavior. Therefore, while these data 

predict an increase in shutdowns, an accurate estimation of 

the number of additional shutdowns is difficult to determine; 

however, based on the best available data, it is estimated to 

be 25 percent to 30 percent for Alternative D.
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-163

M.4.4 Accidental Fuel Spills

Comments spoke broadly to the general risk that G&G activities pose for accidental spills. 

Additional comments expressed concern that accidental spills are unreported or underreported 

because BOEM does not have direct oversight of spill reporting. Detailed responses to specific 

comments are provided in Table M-7. 
 

M-164 Responses to Public Comments

Table M-7. Accidental Fuel Spills Detailed Comment Responses

Submission ID Comment Response

Accidental Fuel Spills

1071-0009 A review of the document provided suggests that the data 

collection operations discussed present the potential to impact 

the integrity of the natural resources of Florida. The potential 

direct impacts of data collection operations which are not 

intended to disturb the seabed would appear to be negligible. 

Those commonly used methods that do disturb the seabed and 

approximately the first 20 feet of sub-seabed sediments; bottom 

sampling (e.g., gravity and piston coring and vibracoring) would 

in our experience also have negligible impact on those 

sediments. The drilling of deep stratigraphic test wells for the 

purposes of data collection preliminary to either oil and gas 

exploration or carbon sequestration, the drilling of shallow 

borings preliminary to the placement of seabed supported 

structures and the placement of foundations into the seabed to 

facilitate oceanographic and meteorological data collection 

installations present various risks. The risks associated with 

those operations consist of, but are not necessarily limited to the 

uncontrolled release of hydrocarbons from deep accumulations 

of traditional hydrocarbon resources. Deep stratigraphic tests 

are typically drilled at sites which have little or no potential of 

encountering commercial accumulations of oil or gas. Thus the 

risk of uncontrolled releases of hydrocarbons as a result of such 

operations is presumed to be negligible.

Thank you for your comment.

1071-0011 It is suggested that the PEIS discuss and quantify, in detail, the 

potential risk the data collection methods it proposes to be 

allowed present for the uncontrolled release of hydrocarbons 

from deep accumulations of traditional hydrocarbon resources.

This Programmatic EIS provides a programmatic-level 

evaluation for reasonably foreseeable G&G activities. BOEM 

will address impacts of future site-specific actions in 

subsequent NEPA evaluations (40 CFR § 1502.20) using a 

tiered process based on this programmatic evaluation. The 

site-specific NEPA and environmental analyses will examine 

impacts from surveying/sampling and the specific equipment 

planned to be deployed, and they would include mitigation 

measures to control risks from uncontrolled or accidental

releases.
Table M-7. Accidental Fuel Spills Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-165

Submission ID Comment Response

1121-0003 Before more leasing is done, old problems must be rectified. 

There are roughly over 2000 spills in the Gulf of Mexico every 

year, from rustbucket rigs run by Texas Petroleum Institute to 

high-tech hazards like Shell's 'cost-effective' Glider pipeline. 

Taylor Energy has been leaking for over 12 years, with no end 

in sight. Many spills are unreported, and only 70% of spill 

reports have associated areas or volumes. Although this is a 

minimal volume, the volume is easily over 1 million gallons per 

year.

This Programmatic EIS was developed to analyze potential 

impacts from G&G activities within the AOI in BOEM’s three 

Program Areas (i.e., Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and 

Marine Minerals). This Programmatic EIS does not address 

topics beyond the stated proposed action, purpose and need, 

and alternatives (Chapters 1.1 and 2). Therefore, this 

Programmatic EIS does not address out-of-scope topics such 

as oil spills from other sources. This Programmatic EIS 

addresses potential accidental fuel spills from G&G survey 

vessels for each resource (Chapter 4), and all G&G vessels 

must comply with USCG requirements related to prevention 

and control of oil spills.

1121-0004 BOEM must record every release spill in the Gulf, and not rely 

on industry to self report. Self reporting is non reporting and 

underreporting. BOEM cannot assess the environmental impact 

of new leasing when it doesn't even know how many millions of 

gallons of oil is being spilled into the Gulf yearly.

This Programmatic EIS was developed to analyze potential 

impacts from G&G activities within the AOI within BOEM’s 

three Program Areas (i.e., Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, 

and Marine Minerals). This Programmatic EIS does not 

address topics beyond the stated proposed action, purpose 

and need, and alternatives (Chapters 1.1 and 2).
M-166 Responses to Public Comments

M.4.5 Active Acoustic Sound Sources

Several commenters identified minor edits required for Chapter 3 and Table 3.4-3. The 

comments and responses are provided in Table M-8. 

Table M-8. Active Acoustic Sound Sources’ Detailed Comment Responses

Submission ID Comment Response

Active Acoustic Sound Sources

1063-0016 Chapter 3 Page 3-4 3.2.1. Last sentence of 

this section states all G&G survey types are 

subject to the same type of review. This is 

false for some ancillary activities as per NTL 

2009-G34 when some do not require BOEM 

notice nor review. 

The sentence has been removed from 

this Programmatic EIS.

1063-0017 Page 3-38 3.4.1.2. First paragraph, last 

sentence. Suggest changing from 

"Programmatic Environmental Assessment" 

for decommissioning activities to 

"programmatic NEPA document".

The text has been revised based on this 

comment’s suggestion.

1063-0031 Vol. II Tables-30 Table 3.4-3. The Rigs-toReef row in the table is not accurate. Not able 

to verify accuracy of the remaining table items. 

Revised Rigs-to-Reef data:

[revise per table in comment letter;]

Changes have been made to the "rigs-toreefs" row of Table 3.4-3 based on 

updated data provided on BOEM’s 

website (referenced in the table).

M.4.6 Marine Mammals

Comments on this Programmatic EIS regarding marine mammals focused on several 

general topics, including acoustic propagation modeling and acoustic exposure modeling; analysis of 

potential impacts to marine mammals (on the species level and collectively as a resource), including 

impact mitigation measures and their effectiveness; analysis of project alternatives and their relevant 

benefits to marine mammals; and failure to integrate impacts from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill 

and cumulative impacts of sound on marine mammals. Many of the topics commented on for marine 

mammals are addressed in other chapters also.

Many comments raised issues related to acoustic propagation and exposure modeling, 

including model inputs such as sound source characteristics, spatial and temporal aspects of 

projected survey activities during the 10-year period of this Programmatic EIS, and species density 

data used in the exposure modeling. Many comments claimed that modeling represented a 

worst-case scenario, and marine mammal density estimates were not based on best available 

science. Comments pointed out that NMFS’ Acoustic Guidance (USDOC, NMFS, 2016) was not 

integrated into this Programmatic EIS, and many comments took issue with the fact that the effects 

of proposed mitigation measures were not modeled. Lastly, comments indicated that terminology 

used in connection with various acoustic exposures was confusing and required clarification.
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-167

Several comments addressed the analysis of potential impacts to marine mammals, 

contending that the justification for the impact determinations was inconsistent, arbitrary, or 

capricious; that the impact determinations were not supported by best available science; that there is 

no evidence that sound is harmful to marine mammals; and that there have been no seismic-related 

mortalities to support the inclusion of the mitigation measures proposed in this Programmatic EIS. 

Comments were received stating that the biological significance of impacts to marine mammals were 

not adequately assessed in this Programmatic EIS. Additionally, comments asserted that this

Programmatic EIS failed to adequately incorporate Appendices D and K into the analysis.

Many comments were based on the failure to show benefits of the various alternatives to 

marine mammals, at the species level and collectively as a resource, or that mitigation measures 

were overly burdensome to industry. Acoustic exposure estimates were calculated for activities 

associated with Alternative A only; the same level of quantitative analysis was not performed for 

other project alternatives. Consequently, the effectiveness of mitigation measures in various 

alternatives was not clearly communicated. Detailed responses to specific comments are provided 

in Table M-9. 
M-168 Responses to Public Comments

Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses

Submission ID Comment Response

Marine Mammals

0006-0001 The US Government should not be allowing the continued 

assault of whales and all other sea life with the loss of hearing, 

concussions and loss of communications and navigational 

abilities all for the benefit of the oil and gas industry. The US 

should stop these lassez faire policies of leasing tracts to an 

industry that is endangering our climate and our very existence. 

It is past time for the US Government to tune into 21st Century 

climate reality and change to a policy of no more fossil fuel 

usage and maximization of energy conservation and renewable 

energy generation.

BOEM is responsible for stewardship of the Nation’s OCS 

energy and mineral resources, as well as protecting the 

environment that the development of those resources may 

impact. These resources include oil and gas, marine minerals, 

and renewable energy. The OCSLA, as amended, mandates 

the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to manage the 

exploration of OCS oil, gas, and marine minerals (e.g., sand 

and gravel) and the siting of renewable energy facilities. The 

OCSLA directs DOI to ensure that G&G data are obtained in a 

technically safe and environmentally sound manner.

The EPAct of 2005, Public Law (P.L.) 109 58, added Section 

8(p)(1)(C) to the OCSLA, which grants the Secretary the 

authority to issue leases, easements, or rights-of-way on the 

OCS for the purpose of renewable energy development 

(43 U.S.C. § 1337(p)(1)(C)). The Secretary delegated this 

authority to the former MMS, now BOEM.

The NEPA of 1969 (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347) is the foundation 

of environmental policymaking in the United States. The intent 

of the NEPA process is to help public officials make decisions 

based on an understanding of environmental consequences 

and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the 

environment. BOEM produces NEPA documents, such as this 

Programmatic EIS, for each of the major stages of energy 

development planning.

Oil and gas leasing in the AOI is not part of the proposed 

action, and this NEPA document neither analyzes nor 

authorizes an OCS lease sale. Those activities and the 

impacts that may result from them are outside of the scope of 

this Programmatic EIS. This Programmatic EIS is limited in 

scope to the stated proposed action, purpose and need, and 

reasonable range of alternatives (Chapters 1.1.2 and 2).
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-169

Submission ID Comment Response

Nevertheless, as part of its mission, BOEM does consider 

these activities and issues in other NEPA documents such as 

the Five-Year Program and Five-Year Program EIS. As part of 

that analysis, BOEM considers the effects of GHG emissions 

in the Five-Year Program and Five-Year Program EIS. 

Chapter 4.2 of the Five-Year Program EIS considers climate 

change and the baseline environment in the areas proposed 

for oil and gas leasing. In addition, Wolvovsky and Anderson 

(2016) assess the potential lifecycle GHG emissions and 

social cost of carbon under the Five-Year Program. The GOM 

lease sale-stage NEPA analyses will further specify impacts of 

GHG emissions related to a single proposed lease sale. 

BOEM considers many facets of the potential effects of 

climate change in its decisionmaking.

0006-0005 "For years we have raised concerns that the sound from oil and 

gas surveys was injuring the marine mammals of the Gulf," said 

Cynthia Sarthou, executive director at the Gulf Restoration 

Network. "Protection of mammals in the Gulf is even more 

important now, as many are still recovering from exposure to oil 

and dispersant from the BP disaster."

The authorization of G&G activities under the Preferred 

Alternative includes the implementation of a suite of impact 

mitigation measures to ensure that the proposed G&G 

activities comply with existing laws and regulations 

(Appendix B). The mitigation measures include protocols to 

reduce and avoid potential impacts to a variety of biological 

resources, with an emphasis on reducing potential acoustic 

impacts to marine mammals. The impact analysis in 

Chapter 4.2 addresses potential impacts on marine mammals. 

Estimates of site-specific potential impacts associated with 

each proposed survey would be evaluated through the 

subsequent NEPA evaluation process performed for each 

survey. In every case, G&G survey contractors will be 

required to abide by all mitigation requirements stated in the 

Preferred Alternative selected from this Programmatic EIS, in 

addition to the subsequent NEPA analysis and those included 

in an issued MMPA Incidental Take Authorization or ESA 

Incidental Take Statement.

0899-0003 For decades, BOEM, NMFS, academics and NGOs have looked 

extensively for actual harm caused by G&G in the GOM. They 

have found none. This extensive and endless study is a waste 

of time, energy and resources given the absence of any 

observed harm. The PEIS does not point to a single marine 

Thank you for your comment. BOEM’s subject-matter experts 

conducted extensive literature reviews and developed model 

runs using the best available scientific information in the 

development of this Programmatic EIS. This necessarily 

involved subject-matter experts using their best professional 
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-170 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

mammal that has actually been harmed by Oil and Gas G&G in 

the GOM.22

BOEM correctly stated with regard to GOM G&G: “NTL 

2012-JOINT-G02, ‘Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation 

Measures and Protected Species Observer Program,’ minimizes 

the potential of harm from seismic operations to marine 

mammals. These mitigations include onboard observers, airgun 

shut-downs for whales in the exclusion zone, ramp-up 

procedures, and the use of a minimum sound source. 

Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts to marine 

mammals would be expected as a result of the proposed 

exploration activities when added to the impacts of past, 

present, or reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development in 

the area, as well as other ongoing activities in the area. Within 

the [GOM] CPA, which is directly adjacent to the EPA, there is a 

long-standing and well-developed OCS Program (more than 

50 years); there are no data to suggest that activities from the 

preexisting OCS Program are significantly impacting marine 

mammal populations.”23

BOEM also correctly stated: “As of May 2012, there are 

4,377 active leases in the CPA. Within the CPA, there is a 

long-standing and well-developed OCS Program (more than 

50 years); there are no data to suggest that routine activities 

from the preexisting OCS Program are significantly impacting 

marine mammal populations.”24

BOEM’s Science Officer recently emphasized: “To date, there 

has been no documented scientific evidence of noise from air 

guns used in geological and geophysical (G & G) seismic 

activities adversely affecting marine mammal populations or 

coastal communities.”25

NMFS has repeatedly explained that “there is no evidence that 

serious injury, death, or stranding by marine mammals can 

occur from exposure to [oil and gas] airgun pulses, even in the 

case of large airgun arrays.26

judgment to determine the most appropriate and pertinent 

studies and information that informed the impacts analyses for 

this Programmatic EIS, including information that is either 

directly relevant to the Gulf of Mexico or is analogous to the 

activities, geography, or species of the GOM.
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-171

Submission ID Comment Response

The PEIS suggests that Oil and Gas G&G sonar may have been 

an “initial behavioral trigger” to the 2008 standing of melon-

headed whales in Madagascar.27 This suggestion is based on a 

Report “facilitated” by the International Whaling Commission. 

This IWC Report is incorrect for the following reasons.

The IWC report was published several years after the 

strandings.28 The Report exonerates nearby use of seismic 

airguns for oil and gas exploration as a possible cause of these 

strandings. However, the Report does implicate nearby use of a 

multi-beam echosounder system (MBES) for oil and gas 

exploration as a possible contributing cause.

The IWC Report’s conclusion about seismic is clearly correct 

because no seismic airguns were used in the area before the 

strandings. Moreover, there is no evidence that seismic airguns 

can cause strandings.

The Report’s insinuations about MBES are incorrect for the 

following and other reasons:

1) The Report’s time-line for the strandings has errors and is 

inconsistent with the best available evidence;

2) The best available evidence (e.g., satellite images of 

stranded whales on May 20) indicates that the strandings began 

before MBES began on May 29;

3) The Report’s conclusions are inconsistent with necropsy 

results, which show no sound-induced damage; 

4) The Report’s conclusions are inconsistent with the absence 

of any other strandings from MBES used in Madagascar or 

anywhere else;

5) There is no evidence supporting the Report’s speculation as 
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-172 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

to why previous MBES use in the area did not cause strandings; 

and

6) Onshore surface currents that force downwelling conditions in 

the area have previously been associated with strandings in 

Madagascar, and are a much more plausible cause of these 

strandings.

These facts are discussed in more detail in an online CRE 

publication, which is incorporated by reference as if fully set 

forth herein.29

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Oil and gas G&G 

under current and longstanding regulation does not harm marine 

mammals or any other organisms in the GOM. BOEM should 

delete the PEIS' discussion of the Madagascar melon-headed 

whale stranding. BOEM should include in the PEIS the abovequoted BOEM and NMFS statements about no harm.

1001-0001 I'm writing to express my concern that the entire Gulf of Mexico 

now is open for additional oil and gas surveys that can injure

and harass marine mammals.

According to the agency's Draft Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement, continuing the business-as-usual seismic 

surveys will expose the Gulf's struggling marine mammal 

population to harmful levels of noise no less than 31.9 million 

times over the next decade.

Please note that a significant area of the GOM is closed to all 

proposed G&G activities during the 10-year time period of this

Programmatic EIS. This includes most of the EPA and, 

depending on the selected program alternative, additional area 

closures and time-area closures that are specifically designed 

to protect marine mammal species. Please also note that the 

proposed G&G activities will implement impact mitigation 

measures that meet or exceed worldwide industry standards. 

Exposure estimates presented in this Programmatic EIS do 

not consider the effects of these mitigation measures and 

therefore overestimate potential behavioral disturbances or 

auditory injuries associated with proposed G&G activities.

1062-0002 It is unacceptable for the Bureau to allow seismic surveys to 

injure and harass marine mammals up to 31.9 million times, as 

predicted. This includes 80 percent of the Gulf’s endangered 

sperm whale population, estimated at 763 animals. Sperm 

whales will experience as many as 760,000 harassing 

exposures to airgun blasting over the next decade. The seismic 

blasting would also cause as many as 588 injuries to the Gulf’s 

Thank you for your comment. BOEM conducted a robust 

effects analysis that considered resources (e.g., marine 

mammals, fisheries, fish habitat, recreational fishing, tourism, 

and economics) within the AOI. Chapter 4 presents the 

effects analysis and conclusions for all of the resources 

considered. BOEM analyzed a suite of proposed mitigation 

measures to reduce the effects of proposed G&G activities. 
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-173

Submission ID Comment Response

Bryde’s whales — of which only 33 individuals remain — or 

about 17 times for each member of this imperiled population and 

disrupt their vital behavior thousands of times.

Marine mammals have already suffered from inadequate 

regulation of offshore oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico.

For decades, seismic surveys have harmed marine mammals in 

violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered 

Species Act. The Gulf’s Bryde’s whales — one of the most 

endangered populations of whales on the planet — may already 

have lost much of their canyon habitat due to seismic blasting. 

In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill fouled the Mississippi 

Canyon, a nursery for sperm whales and the heart of their 

habitat. And the region is still reeling from the spill. For 

example, bottlenose dolphins have suffered a five-year die-off, 

with severe lung damage and numerous stillbirths in the spill 

zone. These populations cannot survive business as usual. We 

urge the Bureau to be a good steward of the Gulf of Mexico and 

to protect marine mammals from unrestrained seismic oil 

exploration.

Chapter 2 describes the proposed alternatives and mitigation 

measures in detail.

BOEM developed the proposed mitigations and alternatives in 

close coordination with NMFS using the best available data. 

Chapter 2 outlines the alternatives and mitigation measures to 

the proposed action. All of this information will be considered 

by the decisionmaker in determining which alternative is 

selected in the ROD.

BOEM and NOAA are working together to meet statutory 

obligations (e.g., NEPA, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and 

Endangered Species Act) to manage G&G activities and their 

potential impacts to marine resources, including marine 

mammals, in the GOM.

All of this information will be considered by BOEM in 

determining which alternative is selected in the ROD.

1063-0001 In some cases Tursiops Truncatus is referred to as "Bottlenose 

Dolphin" and in other cases the same species is referred to as 

"Common Bottlenose Dolphin" - suggest using "Common 

Bottlenose Dolphin" - as per the NMFS Stock Assessment 

Reports for the GOM.

Thank you for your comment. All references to the common 

name of Tursiops truncatus in this Programmatic EIS have 

been modified to “common bottlenose dolphin.” 

1063-0002 Impact conclusions for marine mammals - it states "there are 

21 species of marine mammals"...should be changed to "22" - 

(21 cetaceans and 1 Sirenian.)

Thank you for your comment. The correction has been made 

to this Programmatic EIS.

1063-0003 Page XX1 of the Executive Summary.

Alternative B - There are no coastal stocks of "whale species" - 

as mentioned in the first sentence on that page.

Thank you for your comment. Changes have been made to

clarify the Executive Summary. 

1063-0005 The last paragraph on this page [page XXI] regarding 

entanglement and sea turtles should also be present in the 

marine mammal section, particular since there has been a lethal 

take of an Atlantic spotted dolphin in tethered nodal gear.

Thank you for your comment. This information has been 

added to page xxi of the Executive Summary and to 

Chapter 4.2.2.1.9. 

1063-0006 Page XXV - Alternatives C through F - It's unclear why Thank you for your comment. Changes have been made to 
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-174 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

discussion of marine mammals is in these Alts since these 

should be discussing impact conclusions for sea turtles. 

Suggest removing.

the Executive Summary to include this statement.

1063-0018 Chapter 4 Page 4-23 - First paragraph - Bryde's whales - NMFS 

is conducting a status review, this should be clearly stated. 

Suggest citing the 90-day finding document in the Federal 

register. http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_resources/

listing_petitions/documents/80fr18343.pdf

Thank you for your comment. Text has been added to this 

Programmatic EIS to reflect the current status.

1063-0019 Page 4-29 - second paragraph references "draft" NOAA 

guidance...change to final.

Thank you for your comment. Changes have been made 

throughout this Programmatic EIS.

1063-0020 Page 4-32/33 - 3rd paragraph - should be updated to reflect final 

NOAA acoustic thresholds. Throughout the "auditory injuries" 

section the reference to draft thresholds should be replaced with 

information from the final.

Thank you for your comment. Updates have been made to 

reflect the final guidance from NMFS.

1063-0021 Page 4-44 - Update Exposure Acoustic Criteria section - see 

earlier comments.

Thank you for your comment. Pages 4-44 and 4-45 have 

been updated to reflect NMFS’ final acoustic guidance.

1063-0022 Page 4-51 - Deep Penetration Seismic airgun surveys - Level A 

- First Paragraph - don't think VSPs are supposed to be included 

here.

The VSP surveys are included in the 2D seismic scenario for 

the exposure estimate modeling. Estimates of VSPs in this 

scenario are provided in Table 3.2-1.

1063-0023 Page 4-29 - Drilling Noise - there really is not much analyses 

and substantive mention of noise and DPS vessels. This should 

likely be expanded. https://www.gpo.fdsys.pkg/FR-2016-10-14/

pdf/2016-24850.pdf?utm_campaign=subscription%20mailing

%20list&utm_source=federalregister.gov&utm_medium=email

Thank you for your comment. Additional text and references 

have been added to Chapters 4.2.2.1.4 and 4.2.2.1.5. 

1063-0024 Page 4-79 - Last sentence of second paragraph is repeated 

twice.

Thank you for your comment. The redundant sentence has 

been removed from this Programmatic EIS.

1063-0025 Page 4-89 - First paragraph states UME began Feb 1, 

2010...NMFS website and previously in the document it is stated 

as March 1, 2010. 

The NOAA website (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/

mmume/cetacean_gulfofmexico.htm) states that the UME 

began in February 2010, as shown below:

"Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (as 

amended), an UME has been declared for dolphins and 

whales (cetaceans) in the northern Gulf of Mexico 

(Texas/Louisiana border through Franklin County, FL) from 

February 2010 through the present.”
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-175

Submission ID Comment Response

"The temporal and spatial boundaries have been redefined to 

include the following:

All cetaceans stranded in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana 

from March 2010-July 2014 and all cetaceans other than 

bottlenose dolphins stranded in the Florida Panhandle 

(Franklin County through Escambia County) from March 2010-

July 2014. These boundaries could be adjusted in the future 

based upon the availability of new results or analyses."

This Programmatic EIS has been checked for consistency with 

these dates.

1067-0001 After permitting seismic airgun surveys to harass and injure 

marine wildlife in the Gulf of Mexico for decades without 

analyzing the impacts, the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management has taken the important first step of finally 

analyzing the harm caused by these airgun blasts. The results 

are staggering: According to the agency's Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement issued in September 2016, 

continuing the business-as usual permitting of this activity will 

expose the Gulf's struggling marine mammal population to 

harmful levels of noise 31.9 million times over the next decade. 

This includes more than 4.3 million exposures loud enough to 

cause permanent hearing loss or other physical injury, including 

as many as 588 injuries to the 33 remaining Gulf's Bryde's 

whales. That's about 17 instances of injury for each member of 

this imperiled population. The agency's analysis also admits 

that the Gulf's small, endangered population of fewer than 

800 sperm whales will experience 760,000 harassing exposures 

to airgun blasting in that same time period.

Thank you for your comment. BOEM conducted a robust 

effects analysis that considered resources (e.g., marine 

mammals, fisheries, fish habitat, recreational fishing, tourism, 

and economics) within the AOI. Chapter 4 presents the 

effects analysis and conclusions for all of the resources 

considered. BOEM analyzed a suite of proposed mitigation 

measures to reduce the effects of proposed G&G activities. 

Chapter 2 describes the proposed alternatives and mitigation 

measures in detail.

BOEM developed the proposed mitigations and alternatives in 

close coordination with NMFS using the best available data. 

Chapter 2 outlines the alternatives and mitigation measures to 

the proposed action. All of this information will be considered 

by the decisionmaker in determining which alternative is 

selected in the ROD.

BOEM and NOAA are working together to meet statutory 

obligations (e.g., NEPA, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and 

Endangered Species Act) to manage G&G activities and their 

potential impacts to marine resources, including marine 

mammals, in the GOM.

All of this information will be considered by the BOEM in 

determining which alternative is selected in the ROD.
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-176 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

1074-0001 As you know, our organizations are profoundly concerned about 

the impact of industry’s high-intensity seismic exploration activity 

on the Gulf’s marine mammals. Increasingly, the available 

science indicates that seismic airguns disrupt whale behavior 

and impair their communication, often on a vast scale; that they 

harm a diverse range of other marine mammals in multiple 

ways; and that they significantly impact fish and fisheries, with 

unknown but potentially substantial effects on both coastal 

communities and marine mammal populations.

Thank you for your comment. This Programmatic EIS, as well 

as previous BOEM/MMS National Environmental Policy Act

documents, has been produced using the best available 

information on the spatial and temporal distributions and 

densities of GOM resources that may be sensitive to acoustic 

impacts, as well as methods for the analysis of potential 

impacts to these resources. This EIS is programmatic and 

covers a period of 10 years. Subsequent, site-specific impact 

assessment documents, based on specific survey activities 

within a discrete area or areas over a specified timeframe, will 

address potential impacts to these resources.

1074-0020 The DEIS does little to meaningfully assess the biological 

consequences of G&G activities in the Gulf. The agencies 

estimate marine mammal exposures at Appendix D and loss of 

communication and listening space at Appendix K, but say little 

about what the extensive cumulative, chronic impacts they 

describe mean for the fitness of marine mammals and marine 

mammal populations. It makes no sense for the agencies to 

perform that quantitative analysis and then to simply disregard 

it, providing instead a set of summary conclusions, purportedly 

about environmental significance, that do not take into account 

the degree to which vulnerable species are exposed. There is 

no dispute that repeated disruptions of behaviors, loss of 

communication space, and chronic stress can adversely affect 

vital rates of individuals and wildlife populations over time. For 

these profoundly vulnerable waters, the agencies must do a 

better job of assessing the potential environmental cost.

An assessment of the potential for fitness-level consequences 

at both the individual and population level was included in the 

Draft Programmatic EIS, beginning on page 4-54. This 

chapter has been expanded in this Final Programmatic EIS to 

include quantitative analysis results from Appendix D and an 

expanded integrated discussion of the chronic impacts 

analysis of Appendix K. 

There is extensive interest in forecasting how short-term 

behavioral responses by individual animals may aggregate 

and result in population-level consequences. The concept 

was introduced by the National Research Council (2005) as 

Population Consequences of Acoustic Disturbance; however, 

given the lack of data on acoustic responses, research studies 

have generalized the issue to look at environmental and 

anthropogenic stressors in general and renamed the concept 

Population Consequences of Disturbance. New et al. (2014) 

presented a modified conceptual framework to help forecast 

long-term impacts. The idea is that a series of transfer 

functions connect increasingly broader impacts from the initial 

disturbance to effects on individual health, individual vital 

rates, and finally population dynamics. The concept has been 

demonstrated with a few species for which there are extensive 

data from tagged or photo-identified animals so that effects on 

individuals can be quantified. Northern elephant seals (Aoki 

et al., 2011; Adachi et al., 2014) were the first study species 

where the data from time-depth recorders were able to be 
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-177

Submission ID Comment Response

linked to an individual animal’s body fat condition, which 

provided insight into foraging success and ultimately individual 

health and vital rates (Robinson et al., 2010). Rolland et al. 

(2016) used photographic data of North Atlantic right whales to 

evaluate individual health and link it to demographic groups 

and population status. Additional studies exploring population 

consequences are ongoing, but a common theme is that 

extensive data documenting individual health and population

vital rates is necessary for such analyses. These are the gold 

standards for future studies, but, at present, studies within the 

Gulf of Mexico have not occurred in sufficient detail for such 

analyses.

1074-0031 The significance criteria used by the DEIS to evaluate the 

relative impacts of each alternative (see DEIS at 2-29, 4-26 to 

4-27) are flawed in their conception and inconsistently and 

arbitrarily applied. For example:

‒ The significance standards for marine mammal impacts, 

articulated at 4-26 to 4-27, are inconsistent with the MMPA’s 

impact standards, as, for example, in including only injury and 

mortality, and not behavioral disturbance, as factors in 

determining whether an impact is “severe,” even though it is 

widely understood that behavioral disturbance can induce 

adverse population-level effects.45 This definition is applied by 

the DEIS to assert, for example, that airgun surveys would have 

only “moderate” rather than “severe” impacts on marine 

mammals despite what it admits would be “extensive,” repeated 

exposures. DEIS at 4-59 to 4-60.

‒ The standards incorporate “detectability” as a factor in 

determining environmental significance (DEIS at 2-29), 

notwithstanding the difficulty of observing certain impacts, such 

as chronic stress, subtle but significant disruptions in biologically 

vital activities, and acoustic masking; and notwithstanding the 

lack of baseline data on abundance and trends in Gulf marine 

mammal populations (and the populations of many other taxa).

‒ Aside from Appendices D and K, which it does not incorporate 

Thank you for your response. Please note that each impact 

level includes the effects of behavioral disturbance (e.g., 

Attention was given to assigning impact levels for each IPF 

even when impacts were largely limited to behavioral 

disturbances and when factoring in the duration and severity 

of potential impacts to the resource.

With respect to detectability of responses and impacts and

while it is true that an effect may be occurring that is not 

immediately detectable or that cannot be directly linked to 

these proposed activities, a cause-and-effect relationship that 

included detectable elements was assumed.

BOEM conducted a robust effects analysis that considered 

resources (e.g., marine mammals, fisheries, fish habitat, 

recreational fishing, tourism, and economics) within the AOI. 

Chapter 4 presents the effects analysis and conclusions for all 

of the resources considered. BOEM analyzed a suite of 

proposed mitigation measures to reduce the effects of 

proposed G&G activities. Chapter 2 describes the proposed 

alternatives and mitigation measures in detail. 

An assessment of the potential for fitness-level consequences 

at both the individual and population level was included in the 

Draft Programmatic EIS, beginning on page 4-54. This 

chapter has been expanded in this Final Programmatic EIS to 
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-178 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

into the body of the DEIS (see § III.D.1 below), the agency does 

not provide any quantitative analysis or, for that matter, any 

meaningful qualitative analysis, in determining the relative 

environmental impact of alternatives. As a start, BOEM should 

incorporate these analyses into the body of the EIS. Nor, as 

noted at §§ III.B and C below, does the agency use any of the

available methods or proxies for determining impacts on vital 

rates from repeated disturbance (as did Wood et al. (2012), 

which the DEIS otherwise uses to generate take estimates).

include quantitative analysis results from Appendix D and an 

expanded integrated discussion of the chronic impacts 

analysis of Appendix K. 

1074-0031

(continued)

‒ Impacts, including acoustic impacts, from G&G activities are 

excluded from BOEM’s cumulative impacts analysis (e.g., DEIS 

at 4-77), meaning that the impacts from these activities are not 

aggregated with those from other actions, contrary to NEPA. 

40 C.F.R. § 1508.7 (defining “cumulative impact” as resulting 

“from the incremental impact of the action when added to other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions”).

Potential impacts from G&G activities are included in the 

cumulative analysis; their potential effects are added to other 

Federal and non-Federal actions within the northern Gulf of 

Mexico OCS and are analyzed in a revised cumulative 

analysis sections in this Final Programmatic EIS. 

1074-0032 Compounding the problem is the DEIS’ use of absurd rationales, 

in some sections but not others, to deny the existence of any 

benefit from certain alternatives. For example, BOEM suggests 

that area closures have no substantial benefit because species 

that tend to occur within those areas sometimes travel outside 

them and because, in some cases, such closures benefit certain 

target species only seasonally (DEIS at 2-32)—hardly 

justifications for the idea that area closures have no benefit. 

Indeed, the DEIS frequently seems at odds with itself, 

reasonably finding environmental benefit in its alternatives in 

some sections of the document while apparently denying it in 

others, often on the grounds that they would not alter the DEIS’ 

problematic “impact levels.” See, e.g., DEIS at 4-109 to 4-110 

(denying any benefit from activity reductions of 10% or 25%, 

except in mitigating risk of auditory injury).

Benefits of time/area closures to mobile resources such as 

marine mammals and sea turtles were not ignored in the 

analysis of potential impacts from proposed activities. The 

analysis procedure allowed one impact rating (or a reasonable 

range in some cases) from an IPF for ALL marine mammals in 

the AOI over a 10-year period. Many animals that may occur 

within the closure areas would indeed benefit seasonally from 

these mitigation methods, as stated in Chapters 4.2.3.1.1, 

4.2.4.1.1, and 4.2.7.1.1. In addition, Table 2.13-2 has been 

added to help illustrate the species groups that are afforded 

protection for each alternative. The overall Programmatic EIS 

impact analysis did not include a rating scale for impacts that 

relied on a percentage of the total number of individuals 

affected by species or stock. It is expected that this level of 

detail would accompany analyses of potential impacts for 

future site-specific EAs and permit application evaluations.

1074-0064 The DEIS, as noted, does not appear to provide any meaningful 

analysis of the aggregate impact of its proposed activities on 

marine mammal vital rates. The closest it comes is a brief 

discussion of energetic cost in relation to increased or 

intensified vocalization; but there it incorrectly assumes, in 

contradiction of the best available science, that received levels 

BOEM acknowledges that studies have been conducted to 

evaluate PCoD, such as New et al. (2013), which is a very 

data-heavy analysis approach for understanding how 

individual impacts may result in population-level 

consequences. While it would be ideal to conduct such an 

analysis for sperm whales or other species in the Gulf of 
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-179

Submission ID Comment Response

must exceed 160 dB for these effects to occur, and it does not 

aggregate impacts across exposure events, although it 

acknowledges that such impacts would accumulate. DEIS at 

4-56 to 4-57. BOEM’s analysis is plainly insufficient, as a brief 

consideration of sperm whales indicates.

...In short, we already have tools to model the aggregate effects 

of behavioral disruption on marine mammal populations. Insofar 

as BOEM may claim, incorrectly, that such tools are not 

available, the agency has made no effort to provide substitutes, 

such as expert solicitation. As it stands, the evidence does not 

by any means support BOEM’s summary assertion, in the DEIS, 

that Gulf marine mammals are not suffering adverse populationlevel effects from G&G activities.

Mexico, there are no data available to inform the "health" step 

of the PCoD model and very limited data to support such an 

analysis. BOEM has used the best available data to infer 

fitness level consequences in Chapter 4.2. 

1074-0069 (2) Potential impacts of sources with peak output greater than 

200 kHz

Two recent papers document the significant frequency “leakage” 

that can occur in some geophysical sound sources, particularly 

sources used in high-resolution surveys, such as echosounders, 

that combine high source levels with rapid rise times. The 

leakage is so significant that tested sources with peak 

frequencies at and above 200 kHz, well beyond the range of 

marine mammal hearing, produced substantial noise within 

marine mammal hearing ranges in much lower bands.125

For example, a BioSonics sonar system produces 165 dB (SPL) 

in the 1/3-octave band centered at 20 kHz, and comparable 

levels of sound across much of the frequency spectrum below 

100 kHz. While these source levels are appreciably lower, at 

relevant frequencies, than those generated by sub-bottom 

profilers and other lower-frequency systems, their amplitude is 

sufficient to induce behavioral effects and contradicts the 

assumptions made in the DEIS, in its modeling of representative 

low-energy sources, particularly of (see DEIS at D-154).

Furthermore, the short rise times that these sources exhibit are 

BOEM thanks you for this comment and is already aware of 

and has considered the issue of harmonics and, in this case, 

sub-harmonics in its analysis. Also, the data that you cite are 

consistent with previously observed occurrences of 

sub-harmonics. Essentially, the first sub-harmonic's source 

level (i.e., if the primary frequency is 200 kHz, the first 

sub-harmonic is 200/2 or 100 kHz, the second is 200/3 or 

66.7 kHz, etc.) is at least 20-30 less than the primary 

frequencies source level, with each subsequent subharmonics’ source level decreasing rapidly from there. These 

sub-harmonics are typically so reduced in source level that, for 

most side-scan and multi-beam sonar systems, they are not 

strong enough to produce potential Level A impacts beyond a 

meter or so from the source, and even potential Level B 

impacts only occur within tens of meters from the source. 

Additionally, for the impacts to occur, the animal must be 

within this range and within the very narrow beams produced 

by the systems (for these sub-harmonic frequencies). Finally, 

recent sound source verification testing of these and many 

other high-resolution survey sonar system conducted by the 

Naval Undersea Warfare Center for BOEM (refer to Crocker 

and Fratantonio, 2016) did not observe sub-harmonics in any 

of the systems tested under controlled conditions under many 

different modes (of operations). It is known that they can 
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-180 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

correlated across mammalian species with startle response, 

raising concerns about sensitization. In a 2011 study, 

researchers demonstrated that sounds eliciting an acoustic 

startle response in captive grey seals were associated with 

“rapid and pronounced” sensitization, taking hold after only 

about 3 playbacks, whereas sounds that failed to induce a 

startle response did not sensitize the animals.126 The startled 

seals then displayed sustained spatial avoidance, rapid flight 

responses, and “clear signs of fear conditioning,” and, once 

sensitized, even avoided food that was proximate to the sound 

source. According to the authors, sounds with short rise times 

thus have “the potential to cause severe effects on long-term 

behavior, individual fitness and longevity of individuals in wild 

animal populations.” In one of the more recent studies, the 

BioSonics sonar system discussed above produced a strong 

behavioral response in the same species, leading the 

researchers to conclude that it could produce startle responses, 

and therefore potentially sensitization, as well. The EIS should 

consider the effects of short rise time from these (and other) 

sources [sources with peak output greater than 200 kHz].

occur during actual operations, but this is believed to often be

due to either "dirty" power system, actual physical mounting 

issues or use of an aged/damaged sonar system. Therefore, 

they do not occur for all systems. The overall result of these 

considerations is that there is an exceedingly small chance for 

sub-harmonics to add to the Level A or Level B impacts from 

typical HRG surveys, where other sonar systems are often 

operating simultaneously in an animal’s hearing range and 

with the vessel producing noise also.

1076-0009 A fundamental flaw with the DPEIS is its establishment of an 

unrealistic scenario in which G&G activities are projected to 

result in supposed effects to marine mammals that BOEM 

admits are unrealistic overestimates of impact. The supposed 

adverse effects of this worst case hypothetical scenario are then 

addressed in the DPEIS with burdensome and unsupported 

mitigation measures. This approach is contrary to both the best 

available scientific information and applicable law.

Thank you for your comment. The scenario presented in this 

Programmatic EIS was based on the best available 

information derived from BOEM's consultations with industry, 

as well as historical permit application information for data on 

representative equipment specifications and projected survey 

activities (including expectations for level of effort relative to 

both location and time).

Text was revised in Chapter 1.2.5 to summarize material on 

the model that is included in more detail in Appendix D. The 

term “worst case” was erroneously used and was replaced 

with language that more accurately reflected the work that was 

done.

1076-0010 For over 40 years, the federal government and academic 

scientists have studied the potential impacts of G&G activities 

on marine mammals, and have concluded that any such 

potential impacts are insignificant. Indeed, this conclusion has 

been publicly reaffirmed by BOEM (see Section III.B.3 infra) and 

Thank you for your comment. BOEM conducted a robust 

effects analysis that considered resources (e.g., marine 

mammals, fisheries, fish habitat, recreational fishing, tourism, 

and economics) within the AOI. Chapter 4 presents the 

effects analysis and conclusions for all of the resources 
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-181

Submission ID Comment Response

the DPEIS fails to present any evidence to counter this wellsupported and longstanding conclusion. The DPEIS’s 

suggestion that such impacts are “moderate” (as opposed to 

insignificant) is not supported by the best available science and 

is made possible only by application of overly conservative 

estimates that BOEM admits do not accurately reflect the actual 

anticipated impacts.

considered. BOEM analyzed a suite of proposed mitigation 

measures to reduce the effects of proposed G&G activities. 

Chapter 2 describes the proposed alternatives and mitigation 

measures in detail.

BOEM prepared this Programmatic EIS using the best 

available data and included conservative assumptions to avoid 

underestimating potential impacts. BOEM will also conduct

future site-specific NEPA analyses for G&G permits using the 

best data available at that time.

1076-0019 The DPEIS concludes—for each alternative—that the effects of 

sound from project related seismic surveys on marine mammals 

are “expected to be moderate, as potential exposures of marine 

mammals are expected to be extensive (potentially affecting 

large numbers of individuals within areas of the AOI)....” DPEIS 

at 4-60. The Associations strongly disagree with this conclusion 

because it has no support in fact, science, or law. Specifically, 

as set forth below, this conclusion is erroneous because it (i) is 

derived from an unlawful “worst case analysis” that BOEM 

admits is not realistic; (ii) ignores the effects of mitigation 

measures; (iii) relies on biased and flawed technical 

assumptions and modeling; and (iv) does not consider all of the 

best available information, including a wealth of data 

demonstrating that seismic activities have had no detectable 

adverse impacts on marine mammal populations.

The analysis of potential impacts for Alternative A was based 

on the results generated from a modeling study 

(Appendices D and N). The models incorporated

representative sound source arrays and projected survey 

scenarios (both based on the best available information 

obtained from industry and historical permit application data), 

physical and geological oceanographic parameters at several 

locations within the AOI (during different seasons) derived 

from scientific literature, current marine mammal distribution 

and density data (during different seasons), and information 

on known behavioral patterns of each species. Additional 

discussion on the modeling effort was added to Chapters 

1.2.5 and 1.2.6. For further details, refer to Appendices D 

and N. 

The impact analyses and conclusions, derived in past from 

these modeling efforts, can be found in Chapter 4.2.2.

1076-0036 ...DPEIS’s analysis of marine mammal impacts is, at best, 

“highly speculative” because it is based on scenarios and 

assumptions that, by BOEM’s admission, are not accurate and 

will not occur. For these additional reasons, the analysis of the 

effects of seismic activities in the DPEIS is arbitrary and violates 

NEPA.

Thank you for your comment. Scenarios used in this 

Programmatic EIS were based on information derived from 

industry. This included specifications for various sound 

sources as well as spatial and temporal projections for 

offshore survey activities during the 10-year period of this 

Programmatic EIS. BOEM and NOAA consulted and 

developed the alternatives together, and NOAA added 

additional alternatives after the completion of the preliminary 

Draft Programmatic EIS. Acoustic exposure to marine 

mammals associated with Alternative A was based on an 

extensive modeling study (Appendix D) that utilized 
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-182 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

equipment specifications and survey projections provided by 

industry to BOEM, sound propagation modeling in 

representative locations within the AOI, and species-specific 

animat modeling methods utilizing acoustic criteria approved 

by NOAA at the time that this Programmatic EIS was 

prepared. The animat modeling and acoustic exposure 

estimations did not factor effects from mitigation methods and 

aversions; therefore, as noted by BOEM, exposure estimates 

presented in the study and this Programmatic EIS are 

conservative but reasonable.

They are based on projected temporal and spatial levels of 

industry activity, realistic sound source characteristics, surveybased marine mammal density estimates, and state-of-the-art 

acoustic propagation and exposure modeling. Current 

scientific knowledge regarding the impacts of acoustic 

exposure and the recognized data gaps regarding acoustic 

effects on marine mammals were employed to derive wellfounded impact determinations.

1076-0037 ...there is a wealth of available information that actually informs 

the analysis of the reasonably foreseeable effects caused by 

seismic activities. These data are either minimized or not 

addressed at all in the DPEIS. BOEM must consider this 

available information to assess the biological significance of the 

exposure estimates. Without any assessment of biological 

significance, the exposure estimates are entirely uninformative 

and misleading.

BOEM prepared this Programmatic EIS using the best 

available data and included reasonable assumptions to 

estimate potential impacts. BOEM is involved in several 

ongoing programs to improve existing data for marine 

mammals and underwater noise, and future analyses will use 

the best data available at that time.

1076-0038 BOEM goes to great lengths to assert, correctly, that exposures 

are not necessarily incidental takes. See, e.g., DPEIS at 1-15. 

In the same paragraph, however, BOEM contradicts itself by 

stating, without support, that it expects that the “majority of 

exposures” are likely to result in takes. Id. at 1-15, 1-16. BOEM 

makes no effort to quantify or otherwise qualitatively address the 

significance of exposures. As a result, exposures become a de 

facto surrogate for “takes.” See DPEIS, Appx. D at D-310-320.

There has been some confusion in this Programmatic EIS 

regarding terminology using exposure versus take. Refer to 

the revised text in Chapter 1.2.5. 

1076-0039 ...The history of formal assessments of offshore seismic 

activities demonstrates that levels of actual incidental take are 

far smaller than even the most balanced pre-operation 

Studies have shown that marine mammals react to underwater 

noise. Reactions may include physical displacement from or 

avoidance of the area of ensonification and/or altering their 
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-183

Submission ID Comment Response

estimates of incidental take.12 Indeed, more than four decades 

of worldwide seismic surveying and scientific research indicate 

that the risk of physical injury to marine life from seismic survey 

activities is extremely low. Currently, there is no scientific 

evidence demonstrating any biologically significant negative 

impacts to marine life from seismic surveying. As stated by 

BOEM:

To date, there has been no documented scientific evidence of 

noise from air guns used in geological and geophysical (G&G) 

seismic activities adversely affecting marine animal populations 

or coastal communities. This technology has been used for 

more than 30 years around the world. It is still used in U.S. 

waters off of the Gulf of Mexico with no known detrimental 

impact to marine animal populations or to commercial fishing.

vocalizations. This Programmatic EIS acknowledges that 

acute physical injury other than auditory, or death of marine 

mammals is not likely to be a direct result of seismic noise. It 

does, however, acknowledge that disruption of behavioral 

patterns or auditory injury are possible, which may reduce 

fitness for individual animals. Population-level impacts related 

to energetic effects or other impacts of noise are difficult to 

determine. BOEM, however, does not assume that lack of 

demonstrated adverse population-level effects from seismic 

surveys means that those effects may not occur.

1076-0040 ...the DPEIS fails to evaluate the accumulated observational 

data collected by Protected Species Observers (“PSOs”) on 

survey vessels in the GOM as part of the DPEIS’s effects 

analysis. This information is relevant to the assessment of 

marine mammal effects by seismic vessels operating in the 

GOM. Not surprisingly, the PSO data indicate a negligible level 

of effects that undermines the results of the exposure modeling 

presented in Appendix D. For example, the DPEIS implausibly 

concludes that many thousands of marine mammals will 

experience incidental take as a result of seismic activities. 

These estimates would result in tens of thousands of shutdown 

events per year. However, based on actual monitoring data, as 

reported in relatively recent environmental assessments, an 

average of only 55 shutdowns per year occur in the GOM with 

operations conducted under the Standard Mitigation Measures. 

See also Barkaszi et al. (2012) (reporting a total of 

144 shutdowns from 2002 to 2008, or 24 per year); 

Attachment B.14

There has been some confusion in this Programmatic EIS 

regarding terminology using exposure versus take. Refer to 

the revised text in Chapter 1.2.5. 

1076-0040

(continued)

The PSO data must be fully disclosed and evaluated in the 

DPEIS and the effects analysis must be substantially revised to 

account for the available PSO data. See Gas Appliance Mfrs. 

Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1041, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (“Since the 

accuracy of any computer model hinges on whether the 

Mitigation measures included in this Programmatic EIS 

(Appendix B, Section 1.2.4) are designed to minimize 

disturbance and potential auditory injuries to marine mammals 

(and sea turtles) during seismic surveys. The elements of 

these mitigation measures are continually evolving, and those 
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-184 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

underlying assumptions reflect reality . . . [t]he agency’s burden 

[to demonstrate the reasonableness of a model] becomes 

heavier when a method of prediction is being relied on to 

overcome adverse actual test data.” (quotations and alteration 

omitted).

included in this Programmatic EIS represent the best available 

scientific knowledge. All of the elements have limitations that 

may reduce their effectiveness, as discussed in Appendix B, 

Section 1.2.4. For example, PSO data do not include 

accurate enumerations of all animals that may be within the 

exclusion zone either before or during surveys. Animals that 

may enter the exclusion zone may remain submerged or may 

not be detected due to limiting environmental conditions. 

Similarly, visual monitoring takes place only during daylight 

hours. Therefore, numbers of animals sighted and recorded in 

these reports are likely underestimated.

While PSO data were not included in the noise exposure 

modeling exercise for the reasons noted above, PSO 

sightings’ data were addressed throughout the alternatives 

analysis (e.g., refer to Chapters 2.11.1 and 2.14.7) and as a 

component of the summaries of marine mammal sightings and 

behavioral observations during seismic surveys (e.g., refer to 

Chapter 4.2.2.1).

1076-0041 Aside from being scientifically and legally indefensible, BOEM’s 

conclusion is not supported by the best available information, 

which demonstrates that no “long-lasting” or “severe” impacts to 

marine mammal populations from seismic activities have 

occurred in the GOM. Indeed, BOEM’s conclusion is not even 

supported by its own statements. See DPEIS at 4-59 (“the best 

available information, while providing evidence for concern and 

a basis for continuing research, does not, at this time, provide 

grounds to conclude that [seismic] surveys would disrupt 

behavioral patterns with more than negligible population-level 

impacts” (emphases added)). To make matters worse, the 

unrealistic scenario presented in the DPEIS is evaluated in a 

vacuum, with no meaningful consideration of the effectiveness 

of the mitigation measures that are expressly included in the 

proposed action. Insofar as we are aware, no seismic activities 

in the United States OCS have caused impacts amounting to 

anything more than temporary changes in behavior, without any 

known injury, mortality, or other biologically significant 

consequence to any marine mammal species or stocks.15

The analysis of potential impacts for Alternative A was based 

on the results generated from a modeling study 

(Appendices D and N). The models incorporated 

representative sound source arrays and projected survey 

scenarios (both based on the best available information 

obtained from industry and historical permit application data), 

physical and geological oceanographic parameters at several 

locations within the AOI (during different seasons) derived 

from scientific literature, current marine mammal distribution 

and density data (during different seasons), and information 

on known behavioral patterns of each species. Additional 

discussion on the modeling effort was added to Chapters 

1.2.5 and 1.2.6. For further details, refer to Appendices D 

and N. 
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-185

Submission ID Comment Response

1076-0042 The DPEIS’s finding that seismic activities will cause “moderate” 

impacts to marine mammals has no factual or scientific support, 

is contrary to the best available information, and violates NEPA.

Impact ratings used in this Programmatic EIS were designed 

to address impact probability, severity, and duration to local 

populations rather than to individual animals. The definitions 

of each impact level were purposely broad to avoid exceptions 

to single impact ratings due to the complexities of programrelated IPFs to resources that occur within the AOI and over 

the 10-year period of this Programmatic EIS. Potential 

impacts to species listed as endangered or threatened by the 

ESA and marine mammal stocks listed as strategic by the 

NMFS were given greater "weight" than impacts to non-listed 

species and non-strategic marine mammal stocks. "Moderate" 

impacts were defined within this Programmatic EIS as those 

that are detectable, short-term, extensive, and severe; or 

impacts that are detectable, short-term or long-lasting, 

localized, and severe; or impacts that are detectable, longlasting, extensive or localized, but less than severe.

From the analysis of impacts (Chapter 4), estimates of 

potential injurious and non-injurious auditory exposures to 

individual species are addressed in Chapter 4.2.2.2 and are 

based on the results of an extensive modeling study 

(Appendix D). This modeling effort utilized the best available 

information and current accepted standards for auditory 

thresholds for both injurious and non-injurious (behavioral) 

thresholds as well as the best available information on 

regional (and seasonal) densities of marine mammal species. 

From these results, potential impacts to marine mammals from 

deep-penetration seismic airgun surveys were predicted to 

result in extensive (i.e., affecting large numbers of individuals), 

short-term but not severe impacts. These potential impacts 

would consist of largely behavioral responses and temporary 

auditory impairment (TTS onset), with limited physical injury 

expected.

In summary, potential impacts to marine mammals from G&G 

activities have been based on projected temporal and spatial 

levels of industry activity, realistic sound source 

characteristics, survey-based marine mammal density 
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-186 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

estimates, and state-of-the-art acoustic propagation and 

exposure modeling. Current scientific knowledge regarding 

the impacts of acoustic exposure and the recognized data 

gaps regarding acoustic effects on marine mammals were 

employed to derive well-founded impact determinations.

1076-0043 The record demonstrates that the Standard Mitigation 

Measures, as applied to offshore operations in the GOM, are 

already more than adequate to protect marine mammals, sea 

turtles, and fish species in a manner consistent with federal 

laws.18 Despite this record, the DPEIS recommends certain 

mitigation measures that have never been required for offshore 

exploratory operations in the United States, and that are more 

stringent (and less supported) than the measures that have 

already been successfully implemented. Many of the 

unprecedented measures recommended in the DPEIS are a 

direct result of BOEM’s flawed impact assessments. As 

described above, the DPEIS creates a hypothetical worst case 

scenario for marine mammal impacts, determines that the 

projected adverse effects in that scenario will be substantial, 

and then recommends mitigation measures to address those 

supposed effects. However, because the adverse effects 

identified in the DPEIS are inaccurate and unrealistic, some of 

the mitigation measures intended to address those effects are 

similarly flawed and without support.

As part of the Settlement Agreement (Chapter 1.2.3), BOEM 

is required to analyze these mitigation measures as potential 

COAs for permit applications for deep-penetration seismic 

surveys in this Programmatic EIS. Through the Monitoring 

Plan (Chapter 1.2.3.4), BOEM will consider future data on the 

efficacy of mitigation measures to adjust mitigation 

requirements for individual surveys based on the best 

available information at that time. Through the Environmental 

Studies Program (https://www.boem.gov/EnvironmentalStudies-Planning/), BOEM is currently funding and is planning 

to fund additional studies and workshops to examine the 

effectiveness and feasibility of mitigation measures in the 

GOM.

1076-0043

(continued)

The record demonstrates that the Standard Mitigation 

Measures, as applied to offshore operations in the GOM, are 

already more than adequate to protect marine mammals, sea 

turtles, and fish species in a manner consistent with federal 

laws.18 Despite this record, the DPEIS recommends certain 

mitigation measures that have never been required for offshore 

exploratory operations in the United States, and that are more 

stringent (and less supported) than the measures that have 

already been successfully implemented. Many of the 

unprecedented measures recommended in the DPEIS are a 

direct result of BOEM’s flawed impact assessments. As 

described above, the DPEIS creates a hypothetical worst case 

scenario for marine mammal impacts, determines that the 

projected adverse effects in that scenario will be substantial, 

BOEM recognizes the conservative nature of the impact 

assessment and is fully cognizant of NEPA requirements, 

particularly in terms of the precautionary principle. For 

example, potential impacts to marine mammals from G&G 

activities have been based on projected temporal and spatial 

levels of industry activity, realistic sound source 

characteristics, survey-based marine mammal density 

estimates, and state-of-the-art acoustic propagation and 

exposure modeling. Current scientific knowledge regarding 

the impacts of acoustic exposure and recognized data gaps 

regarding acoustic effects on marine mammals were 

employed to derive well-founded impact determinations. 

Impact determinations are necessarily conservative, as they 

do not account for seismic survey mitigation measures (e.g., 
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-187

Submission ID Comment Response

and then recommends mitigation measures to address those 

supposed effects. However, because the adverse effects 

identified in the DPEIS are inaccurate and unrealistic, some of 

the mitigation measures intended to address those effects are 

similarly flawed and without support.

NTL 2016-G02) or potential aversion behaviors. Despite the 

growing scientific knowledge regarding the impacts of acoustic 

exposure to marine mammals and other groups, additional 

mitigation measures under select circumstances are offered in 

keeping with the spirit of the precautionary principle.

1076-0092 Saying habitat avoidance is an extreme case and including it 

alongside “death” is not appropriate and misleading. Neither 

long-term nor permanent habitat avoidance has been observed 

in conjunction with seismic surveys. No mortalities have ever 

been confirmed, despite extensive effort to detect such effects. 

It is unreasonable and not consistent with best available 

information to infer these effects are possible just because they 

are imaginable. Contrast with sonar sound, in which association 

with strandings and mortalities are well-documented. Just 

because one sound source might have an effect does not mean 

that other very different sources, used in very different contexts, 

might have the same effect, especially when the sources in 

question have been in widespread use for over 50 years.

The comment has taken the statement out of context. The 

entire sentence reads as follows: "Noise, either natural or 

anthropogenic, can adversely affect marine life in various 

ways—inducing alteration of behavior, reduction of 

communication ranges or orientation capability, temporary or 

permanent damage to the auditory or other systems; and/or, in 

extreme cases, habitat avoidance or even death (e.g., 

Richardson et al., 1995; NRC, 2003, 2005; Nowacek et al., 

2007; Southall et al., 2007)." Therefore, it was not a specific 

statement about the potential effects from seismic surveys but 

of the range of effects that have been documented from noise.

1076-0095 The potential for a single mortality from a vessel strike causing a 

jump from nominal to moderate impact is inconsistent with 

arguments made on the previous pages that changes in impacts 

to a single species/stock are insufficient to warrant a change in 

the significance level when considering all species across 

10 years.

At the Programmatic EIS level, a rating jump such as this 

would pertain to the potential mortality of a listed species 

(sperm whale) or other species of concern (such as beaked 

whales and Bryde's whale) with low PBR ratings (e.g., sperm 

whale PBR = 1.1, Cuvier's and Blainville's beaked whale 

PBR = 0.8, and Bryde's whale PBR = 0.03). Within this 

Programmatic EIS, each rating by IPF was an integrated 

assessment of the effects of the IPF to all species within the 

AOI over a 10-year period. However, an impact that resulted 

in a likely mortality of an individual or individuals of an 

endangered species or species of concern increased the 

severity of this impact to marine mammals as a whole.

Subsequent NEPA evaluations will be done at the site-specific 

level to determine the potential impacts from each individual 

survey and the cumulative activities occurring at that time.

1076-0096 Why would impacts reach the level of moderate for Marine 

Mammals inside MPAs when MPAs represent a pretty small 

area inside the AOI? Some might argue that MPAs contain 

unusual densities of species of concern or contain critical 

Impact ratings to marine mammals and other highly mobile 

species addressed within the MPA section mirror those used 

in Chapter 4.2.2.1 and do not refer to subsets of individuals 

that may be within the MPAs. As noted, there is no 
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-188 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

habitat, but neither of these assertions are supported by the 

best available data (e.g. Duke density maps or what data we 

have from tags and surveys concerning breeding, foraging and 

other vital activities).

information that quantifies the densities of marine mammals or 

sea turtles by species or as a group within MPAs; therefore, a 

determination of impact was drawn from the overall analysis 

for the AOI.

1076-0098 The analysis of fitness level consequences in this section 

involves comparing the number of total animals in a hypothetical 

7,000 km2 survey area to the number animals that would be 

within the acoustic threshold distance at any one time. This 

seems to have been done to compensate for the fact that 

exposure modeling was conducted for a 24hr period and 

discusses the probability of an animal experiencing multiple 

exposures to Level A acoustic energy, but the logic behind this 

approach is not at all clear. This should be more fully explained.

Thank you for your comment. Edits have been made to the 

“Fitness Level Consequences” section of Chapter 4.2.2.1.2 to 

clarify the discussion and expand the quantitative analyses 

with results from Appendix D. 

1076-0099 The argument made here that seems to be predicated on fitness 

level consequences coming from multiple exposures of the 

same individual above Level A criteria is not clear. There is not 

support for the final sentence and there is not an initial logical 

argument made for how multiple exposures and not a single 

exposure would lead to fitness level consequences or why the 

traditional density x area calculation was used for this 

assessment rather than the results of exposure modeling.

Clarifying language has been added to the “Fitness Level 

Consequences” text in Chapter 4.2.2.1.2. Because BOEM 

cannot discount the possibility of fitness-level consequences 

from multiple exposures, we acknowledged the possibility in 

this Programmatic EIS (Chapter 4.2.2.1.2). However, as 

discussed in this Programmatic EIS, multiple exposures at that 

level remain unlikely.

1076-0100 No support for this is provided in the document and, to our 

knowledge, none exists in the scientific literature.

Change have been made in Chapter 4.2.2.1.2. Text was 

added stating that minimum multiple deep-penetration seismic 

survey spacing requirements will ensure that marine mammals 

will have areas of refuge from ongoing survey noise and that 

the prescribed minimum separation distances will ensure that 

there will be areas for avoidance where sound levels will not 

meet the threshold of harassment.

1088-0004 The DPEIS relies upon the unilateral adoption of an untested 

process for generating marine mammal population statistics,

early application of the process indicates overestimation of 

some marine mammal species. I encourage BOEM to calibrate 

population estimates through comparison to Stock Assessment 

Reports (SARs) and other peer reviewed scientific sources.

The Duke density model (Roberts et al. [2016]) is peer 

reviewed and is the latest and best available science. 

Chapter 1.2.5 was revised to include more information on the 

density and abundance model inputs used for the modeling 

effort for this Programmatic EIS.

1088-0005 There is no evidence that sound produced by exploring for oil 

and gas with seismic sources has resulted in any injury to 

marine mammals or negatively impacted marine mammal 

Thank you for your comment. BOEM conducted a robust 

effects analysis that considered resources (e.g., marine 

mammals, fisheries, fish habitat, recreational fishing, tourism, 
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-189

Submission ID Comment Response

populations in the GOM. In fact, marine life, commercial fishing 

and seafood production have thrived in the GOM for decades 

alongside geophysical surveys

economics, and space use) within the AOI. Chapter 4

presents the effects analysis and conclusions for all of the 

resources considered. BOEM analyzed a suite of proposed 

mitigation measures to reduce the effects of proposed G&G 

activities. Chapter 2 describes the proposed alternatives and 

mitigation measures in detail.

BOEM prepared this Programmatic EIS using the best 

available data from the subject-matter experts and included 

conservative assumptions to avoid underestimating potential 

impacts.

1091-0002 Given both the proposed leasing area for seismic surveys in the 

Gulf of Mexico and sperm whale’s wide-ranging habitat in the 

Gulf of Mexico, there will be spatial overlap between these 

odontocetes and seismic surveys. The study most relevant to 

this subject is the Miller et al. (2009) study in Deep Sea 

Research I: Oceanographic Research Papers. Here, the 

authors found that none of eight tagged sperm whales exhibited 

horizontal avoidance to seismic vessels at distances of 

1-13 kilometers and maximum received levels of 152-162 dB 

peak-peak re 1 μPa. The authors note this could be from the 

whales not being affected by this sound, having become 

habituated to this type of sound source in the Gulf of Mexico, or 

because the benefits of remaining in the area were less costly 

than swimming away (Miller et al., 2009). Alternately, the 

authors noted that for seven of the eight tagged whales, they 

continued with foraging behavior uninterrupted throughout 

exposure, though at apparently diminishing rates, while the 

whale closest to the sound source exhibited an unusually long 

resting period and delayed its foraging dive (Miller et al., 2009). 

The study sample, however, was small (n=8), and the authors 

note that more research is needed on the subject (Miller et al., 

2009). Thus, this study cannot be interpreted as being fully 

representative for sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico.

Thank you for your comment. The referenced manuscript and 

prior BOEM synthesis report (Jochens et al., 2008) indicate 

that the Sperm Whale Seismic Study (SWSS) greatly 

advanced our knowledge of the sperm whale population in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico, though it stressed the need to better 

understand their behavioral response to anthropogenic noise 

in the region and its biological significance to the population. 

This study does represent the best available data and begins 

to provide insight into potential effects.

1091-0003 Additionally, given sperm whales' reliance on vocalization 

(codas) in both their social structure and for their use of clicks 

and buzzes for foraging, there is potential for seismic surveys to 

mask sperm whale key behavior. Masking in odontocetes is 

The potential for masking to occur is addressed in 

Chapter 4.2.2.1. To particularly address the potential for 

masking of sperm whales, frequencies of sperm whale 

vocalizations are predominantly in the 5- to 25-kHz range, 
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-190 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

less understood than in baleen whales, but there is evidence of 

temporary masking in beluga whales from exposure to a single 

seismic airgun source (Finneran et al., 2002).

though some energy is found at frequencies lower than 

100 Hz. In contrast, the majority of energy from seismic 

surveys occurs at less than 1 kHz, resulting in little frequency 

overlap and limited potential for masking

1091-0008 In addition to risks from masking, the current injury and 

behavioral impact exposure listed in Table F-11 in Volume II in 

the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

estimates that 81238.9 sperm whales will be exposed to Level A 

Harassment, and 680502.4 will be exposed to Level B 

harassment over the next decade from all cumulated exposures. 

Using NOAA’s 2015 abundance estimate, this means sperm 

whales will be exposed to injury producing sound levels 

106.47 times each using NOAA’s abundance estimate (NOAA, 

2015b) or 38.18 times each using CetMap’s estimates over the 

next 10 years.

Such levels of exposure carry considerable risk to disrupting 

social structure, communication, foraging patterns, and other 

behavior of a species that is particularly slow-growing and at risk 

of many threats; this cannot be considered negligible impact. 

Furthermore, the cumulative exposure thresholds in the recently 

released NOAA exposure guidelines are likely to be violated by 

such numerous Level A exposures. As in the letter from 

75 scientists to President Obama in 2015 regarding seismic 

testing in the Atlantic (Clark, et al., 2015), this activity as 

proposed poses long-lasting, widespread and potentially harmful 

exposure to marine mammals in the Gulf of Mexico.

Thank you for your comment. This Programmatic EIS was 

developed to analyze the potential impacts of G&G activities 

associated with BOEM’s three Program Areas (i.e., Oil and 

Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals) within the AOI. 

The potential beneficial and adverse impacts to resources 

from Alternatives A through G are analyzed in Chapter 4. 

These analyses were developed by the subject-matter experts 

using the best available data. All of this information will be 

considered by the decisionmaker in determining which 

alternative is selected in the ROD.

1091-0010 Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s whales are of high conservation concern 

from small population size, little genetic diversity, and life history 

traits, and the proposed activity puts them at further risk.... 

Bryde’s whales show a spatial affinity for the De Soto Canyon 

off Florida’s western panhandle at depths from 100 to 1000 

meters (Maze-Foley and Mullin, 2006). While the acoustic 

modeling included with the PEIS (Appendix K) indicates that this 

may be a relatively quiet area due to the location of surveys and 

the bathymetry of this area, it is quite possible that the Bryde’s 

whale distribution historically included areas west of the De Soto 

Canyon (Rosel and Wilcox, 2014). Therefore, the industrial 

Thank you for your comment. BOEM conducted a robust 

effects analysis that considered resources (e.g., marine 

mammals, fisheries, fish habitat, recreational fishing, tourism, 

and economics) within the AOI. Chapter 4 presents the 

effects analysis and conclusions for all of the resources 

considered. BOEM analyzed a suite of proposed mitigation 

measures to reduce the effects of proposed G&G activities. 

Chapter 2 describes the proposed alternatives and mitigation 

measures in detail.

BOEM developed the proposed mitigations and alternatives in 
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-191

Submission ID Comment Response

activity of the past 20-plus years may well have driven these 

animals to inhabit a relatively small portion of their former range. 

The small population size and low genetic diversity of Bryde’s 

whales in the Gulf of Mexico makes them one of significant 

conservation concern (Rosel and Wilcox, 2014), and at the time 

ofwriting, NMFS is pending review of a petition to list the Gulf of 

Mexico Bryde’s whale as a distinct population segment listed as 

endangered under the Endangered Species Act (NRDC, 2014). 

Furthermore, though little information is known on Bryde’s whale 

life history, Bryde’s whales are slow growing and slow to 

reproduce, pregnancy lasts for roughly one year, and they are 

assumed to reach sexual maturity from 8-13 years of age for 

females, though this varies by location (Best, 1977)... Given the 

Sirovic et al. (2014) findings, as well as Bryde’s whales 

extremely low density estimates and narrow geographic range in 

the De Soto Canyon, any seismic testing in or near the De Soto 

Canyon carries risk, and extreme precaution, perhaps in the 

form of additional mitigation measures, should be applied in 

working with Bryde’s whales.

Table F-11 in Volume II in the Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement estimates that 588.8 Bryde’s 

whales will be injured over the course of the next decade from 

all geological and geophysical activities in the Gulf of Mexico 

under Level A sound exposure levels, and 6,487 will be exposed 

to Level B harassment. Using population density outlined in the 

SAR, this means an individual Bryde’s whale could be injured 

17 times (NOAA, 2015a) or 13.38 times under CetMap 

estimates. Under Level B exposure, BOEM estimates that 

Bryde’s whales will experience behavioral disruption 6,487 

times, or roughly 196.58 times per individual under NOAA 

abundance estimates and 147.43 times for the CetMap 

estimates. Such levels of exposure over prolonged periods 

could simply decimate this extremely small, slow-growing, and 

late to mature cetacean.

close coordination with NMFS using the best available science 

(including impacts to Bryde’s whale; Chapter 4.2 and 

Appendices K and N). All of this information will be 

considered by the decisionmaker in determining which 

alternative is selected in the ROD.

BOEM and NOAA are working together to meet statutory 

obligations (e.g., NEPA, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and 

Endangered Species Act) to manage G&G activities and their 

potential impacts to marine resources, including marine 

mammals, in the GOM.

1095-0001 I urge the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to withdraw 

your proposal to allow acoustic exploration for oil and gas 

across yet more of the Gulf of Mexico, this acoustic assault on 

Thank you for your comment. This Programmatic EIS, as well 

as previous Bureau of Ocean Energy Management G&G EISs, 

uses the NEPA process to identify and assess reasonable 
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-192 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

the marine environment would have devastating impacts on 

marine mammals and other inhabitants of the Gulf ecosystems, 

as well as inflict horrendous and heinous suffering on individual 

animals.

alternatives to a proposed action that avoids or mitigates 

adverse effects of a given action upon the quality of the 

environment. The DOI regulations to implement NEPA can be 

found in 43 CFR part 46 (Federal Register, 2008). It is 

recognized and clearly stated in this Programmatic EIS that 

G&G activities in OCS waters may impact marine animals 

within discrete areas and over periods of time. This 

Programmatic EIS documents IPFs associated with proposed 

activities and, within numerous program alternative scenarios 

using the best available science, estimates potential effects to 

resources from these factors over a 10-year period. Protective 

measures and mitigation designed to minimize or eliminate 

impacts to resources meet or exceed requirements specified 

in the OCSLA (Appendix B). These mitigation measures 

represent standard procedures, worldwide, for G&G activities. 

BOEM will continue to develop studies to address questions or 

concerns regarding operational technologies and impact 

mitigation to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to resources 

from these activities.

1095-0003 Scientific studies have shown that the airgun devices used by 

industry produce the loudest aquatic sound waves besides 

outright explosives, and can cripple the hearing and 

echolocation organs of marine mammals, even across distant 

swaths of the ocean. The BOEM itself estimate that this 

invasive, violent form of “exploration” would cause 31.9 million 

incidents of injury, harassment, disruption, or outright death. Of 

these, an estimated 588 would been incurred by the extremely 

tenuous Gulf population of Bryde’s Whales, or an average of 

17 incidents of injury for each individual whale. A similarly 

overwhelming assault of 760,000 assaults upon a mere 

800 remaining Sperm Whales would occur, by your agency’s 

own analysis. These are demographically overwhelming losses 

that the already imperiled populations of marine mammals 

cannot sustain, in light of all the other threats to the Gulf of 

Mexico. Such an overwhelming assault breaches all familiar 

notions of reasonable balance among competing interests, 

proportionality of sacrifices, or sanity in our moral regard for 

extremely intelligent fellow mammals whose habitation and 

Thank you for your comment. Please understand that the 

marine mammal auditory exposure estimates presented in this 

Programmatic EIS do not necessarily represent "incidents of 

injury, harassment, disruption, or (especially) outright death." 

The numbers of Level A and Level B exposures presented in 

these tables have been generated from the results of an 

extensive modeling study that factored in representative sound 

source arrays used in numerous surveys projected throughout 

most of the AOI for a period of 10 years. What is important to 

note is that the modeling effort did not consider the effects of 

mitigation measures that are specified in this Programmatic 

EIS (Appendix B), the latter of which meet or exceed 

worldwide industry standards. Also, animat modeling did not 

include aversion effects (i.e., animals may move away from 

the approaching sound source). Thus, these exposure values 

are conservative but reasonable estimates. No mortalities of 

marine mammals from exposure to seismic airgun surveys 

have been reported, and the direct impact of any actual 

Level A harassment (Chapter 4.2.2.1.2) to marine mammals 
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-193

Submission ID Comment Response

rights greatly precede humans in the Earth’s chronology. within the AOI from deep-penetration seismic airgun activities 

would only include hearing (auditory) injury onset, specifically 

the onset of PTS impairment to individual or small groups of 

whales and dolphins over the 10-year period. The PTS onset 

injury is likely to be measured in a few dB loss in hearing 

sensitivity, not profound loss, because most predicted 

incidents of auditory injury would occur at greater distances 

rather than at closer range to the source. The effects of 

hearing (auditory) injury to marine mammals could cause 

some reduction in communication and foraging ability. Level B 

harassment may include temporary hearing impairment (TTS) 

and behavioral harassment. Studies have demonstrated 

disturbance of activities or avoidance or temporary 

displacement from seismic surveyed areas; estimates of 

potential exposure suggest that large numbers of individual 

cetaceans could experience non-injurious impacts from 

seismic airgun surveys during the project period.

Seismic airgun surveys would occur in open ocean areas 

following standard survey lines where highly mobile whales 

and dolphins are able to move freely to avoid the acoustic 

footprint of the relatively slow-moving sound source, thus 

potentially avoiding exposure to injurious sound levels. 

Because these surveys will occur within the open GOM, there 

are no physical features that would restrict the movement of 

animals and it is not likely that a survey vessel would entrap 

animals between a sound source and shore.

1095-0007 The BOEM must also heed the cruelty, inhumanity, and 

barbarism inherent in subjecting marine mammals to these 

airgun devices. As best science can tell, whales, dolphins, and 

porpoises are extremely intelligent, sentient beings with a range 

of sensory faculties exceeding those of humans in the 

apprehension of their aquatic domain. It is extremely likely that 

the experience of an airgun detonation in the vicinity of a whale 

whose echolocation tissues are attuned to very slight waves is 

horrendously painful and traumatic, as well as crippling to that 

animal’s survival. This makes the exploration deeply immoral 

with respect to individual animals, as well as biologically 

Thank you for your comment.
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-194 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

destructive to the species and marine ecosystem. It is not within 

the set of morally rational or sane policies to unleash this 

acoustic assault on the inhabitants of the Gulf of Mexico to 

acquire a substance that our civilization must relinquish for its 

own survival as well.

1108-0002 Seismic surveys have been safely used for decades to 

accurately assess energy reserves in the Gulf of Mexico. 

BOEM has clearly stated there is no scientific evidence in the 

past of seismic activities causing damage to marine ecosystems 

or coastal communities

Thank you for your comment. The statement "BOEM has 

clearly stated there is no scientific evidence in the past of 

seismic activities causing damage to marine ecosystems or 

coastal communities" is not entirely accurate. It has been 

stated in past BOEM impact assessment documents, as well 

as this current Programmatic EIS, that these activities can and 

may impact marine ecosystems, referencing those 

constituents of these ecosystems that are sensitive to sound 

(e.g., marine mammals, sea turtles, and fishes). It is important 

to note that the documents state that sound-related impacts 

will not result in mortalities or life-threatening injuries; rather, 

these impacts may range from some injuries (PTS), TTS 

onset, and behavioral harassment (responses). These 

potential impacts may affect several individuals over the 

course of this Programmatic EIS (10 years) or during the 

course of a site-specific activity, but they are not expected to 

occur at the population level.

1121-0002 We are seeing the collapse of the Gulf Ecosystem in the wake 

of the BP disaster. It will take a minimal of 40 years for the 

bottlenose dolphin population to recover. Just this year, a 

juvenile sperm whale washed ashore in Louisiana. The loss of 

these large and dominant predators is a sign that the whole 

system is in a state of collapse.

Thank you for your comment. Please be advised that the 

cetacean UME in the northern Gulf of Mexico is now closed 

(http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/cetacean_gulfof

mexico.htm). Per NOAA, the evidence to date supports the 

premise that exposure to Deepwater Horizon petroleum 

products was the most likely explanation for the adrenal and 

lung disease in dolphins, which has contributed to increased 

deaths of dolphins living within the oil-spill footprint and 

increased fetal loss. However, NOAA also notes that other 

causes, such as infections with Brucella bacteria, may have 

contributed to these mortalities. The number of dolphin 

mortalities in the area decreased after the peak from March 

2010 to July 2014. The cause of the recent sperm whale 

stranding has not been determined; it is not warranted at this 

time to conclude that sperm whale strandings were a result of 

the spill. No other indicators of large predator loss within the 
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-195

Submission ID Comment Response

GOM have been published, further suggesting that an 

ecosystem collapse in the northern GOM has not occurred nor 

is expected to occur.

1127-0002 We strive to conduct our activities in an environmentally 

responsible way, and new technologies are continuously 

improving our ability to efficiently produce oil and natural gas, 

while minimizing environmental impacts. As you know, seismic 

surveying is an essential step in locating offshore energy 

reserves. Improved data analysis enables us to locate and 

develop oil and gas more efficiently. Seismic surveying has 

taken place for decades, and as BOEM itself has concluded, 

there is no evidence that surveying noise harms marine animals 

or commercial fisheries. 

Thank you for your comment. High-energy seismic survey 

activities generate sound at levels that may injure and disturb 

some marine organisms, such as marine mammals, sea

turtles, and fishes. With respect to marine mammals and sea 

turtles, operational mitigation measures are used prior to and 

during surveys to minimize potential injurious impacts to these 

resources. The actual effectiveness of these measures is not 

known, and studies suggest or show that the methods may not 

be 100% effective. Seismic surveys do disturb marine life, 

and the effects of these disturbances may negatively impact 

individuals or groups of animals.

1129-0002 According to BOEM's chief environmental officer, Dr. William 

Brown, seismic surveys are frequently used in the Gulf of 

Mexico with no known detrimental impact to marine animal 

populations or to commercial fishing.

It is critically important to understand that BOEM's conclusion 

in their August 2014 Science Note referenced in your 

comment refers to impacts on marine mammal and sea turtle 

population sustainability rather than effects on individual 

animals. Studies have shown that marine mammals may and 

do react to sound through physical displacement from or 

avoidance of the area of ensonification and/or by altering their 

vocalizations. This Programmatic EIS acknowledges that 

significant acute physical injury to or death of marine 

mammals is not likely to be a direct result of seismic noise. It 

does, however, acknowledge that sublethal injurious effects 

are possible and may, over time, result in the eventual death 

of the individual(s) from these physical injuries and/or loss of 

hearing with (as in the case of marine mammals) the resultant 

inability to forage and communicate with conspecifics. 

Another prominent concern is whether anthropogenic sounds 

such as those generated during seismic survey activities may 

"mask" communications between some marine mammals. 

Depressed survival rates related to energetic effects or other 

impacts of noise are difficult to determine. BOEM, however, 

does not assume that lack of evidence for adverse populationlevel effects of seismic surveys means that those effects may 

not occur.
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-196 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

1130-0015 Consistency: Chapter 4 states that “closures that are part of 

some alternatives would reduce potential for masking in these 

areas (pg 4-36).” This is true, but how does that relate to the 

finding of little implications for non-marine mammal IPFs 

associated with the closure in FGB?

Thank you for your comment. Text has been added to 

Chapter 4.3.7.1.1 (sea turtles) stating that this mitigation 

measure would provide an ancillary benefit to individual turtles 

within the closure areas as effects on turtle hearing and 

behavior (addressed in detail in Appendices E and I) will be 

reduced following a reduction in active acoustic sound sources 

(e.g., seismic airgun and electromechanical sounds) and 

vessel and equipment noise. Text has been added to 

Chapter 4.5.7.1.1 stating that direct auditory injuries and 

masking protection from auditory seismic activities would be 

provided to benthic organisms within closure areas. The 

Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary and auditory 

impact examples were added to Chapters 4.7.7.1.

1130-0018 NOAA reiterates its concern that the effects of the Deepwater 

Horizon (DWH) oil spill are not adequately integrated into the 

environmental baseline such that a clear statement is made 

about the extent to which the damages incurred by living marine 

resources in the GOM have impacted those resources’ 

resilience to the impacts of the PEIS proposed action. 

Meaningful discussion of oil spill damages is limited to summary 

information provided in Appendix E, which BOEM states was 

“indirectly considered.” If BOEM has performed any explicit 

analysis of this information in its assessment of the 

environmental baseline, we can find no evidence of it. 

Reasonably available information regarding the effects of the 

spill, with particular reference to marine mammals, indicates that 

marine mammal stocks in the GOM were strongly impacted by 

the DWH incident. This information must be considered in light 

of the proposed action, e.g., that this shifted baseline has 

implications for both the susceptibility of impacted individuals to 

additional stressors, as well as the degree of impact that said 

stocks can likely sustain. If DWH caused population declines 

and/or reduced reproductive success that is likely to lead to 

future population declines for certain stocks of marine 

mammals, it seems likely that those stocks are able to sustain a 

lower level of impacts due to the proposed action while 

remaining at a given impact severity rating.

Thank you for your comment. Additional text has been added 

in Chapter 4.2.1 to augment the description of the Deepwater 

Horizon spill and effects on cetaceans, particularly coastal 

populations and stocks of common bottlenose dolphins. 
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-197

Submission ID Comment Response

If BOEM believes that the DWH impacts will not be exacerbated 

by the additional impacts associated with the proposed action, it 

should explicitly state why this is the case. When the available 

information, as summarized in Appendix E, states that there are 

negative population trends, increases in mortality, and 

decreases in reproductive success, and that there are going to 

impacts are going to result in even further reductions in survival, 

reproductive success, and population size.

BOEM must make a clear statement about this shifted baseline 

and the expected degree to which living marine resources (both 

individuals and stocks) are able to sustain impacts due to the 

proposed action, as to do otherwise is likely to result in an 

inaccurate depiction of the likely impacts of the proposed action 

and alternatives thereof. Reference: Chapter 4; Appendix E.

1130-0025 Discussion of the Alternative F area closures found in Chapter 2 

appears to mistakenly state that the closures do not change the 

overall level of impacts from deep-penetration seismic airgun 

surveys from the conclusions for Alternative A. However, 

Table 2.10-1 and Chapter 4, Section 4.2.7 correctly show that 

the deep-penetration airgun impacts associated with 

Alternative F for marine mammals would be reduced from 

Moderate to Minor. Perhaps this statement relates to IPFs and 

resources more broadly and is not in error; however the 

associated discussion relating to marine mammals misses the 

point with regard to the benefit of the measure to the resource. 

Although marine mammals do occur outside the closure areas 

and would be exposed to effects from seismic airguns, the 

closure areas are delineated specifically to protect areas of 

greatest importance to marine mammals. Therefore, while the 

overall exposures may not be significantly reduced due to 

introduction of the closure areas, the biological significance of 

those exposures is reasonably expected to be less due to the 

avoidance of important places for marine mammals. Reference: 

Chapter 2, Section 2.13, pg 2-31 and 2-32.

Thank you for your comment. The text has been revised in 

Chapter 2.13 to indicate the change in impact rating to marine 

mammals associated with Alternative F.

1130-0026 NOAA does not believe that direct acute mortality of marine 

mammals would be likely to occur due to the proposed action, 

regardless of mitigation. There is no information to suggest that 

Thank you for your comment. The text in Chapters 2.13, 4, 

and 5 has been revised.
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-198 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

direct acute mortality could realistically result from use of the 

active acoustic sources considered in the PEIS. Therefore, it is 

inappropriate to suggest that avoidance of mortality is 

contingent upon implementation of mitigation. Reference: 

Chapter 2, Section 2.13, pg 2-33; Chapter 4, pg 4-30; 

Chapter 5, pg 5-3.

1130-0027 Seismic airgun survey protocols are not designed for reduction 

of potential Level B exposures; they are designed for reduction 

of potential exposures at close range to the source vessel. 

Such exposures could result in Level A or Level B harassment, 

but avoidance of close-range exposures does not necessarily 

lead to a reduction in exposures overall. BOEM should remove 

statements to this effect or better explain how survey protocols 

might reduce overall exposure levels. Reference: Chapter 4, 

pg 4-59, 3rd paragraph.

Thank you for your comment. The text in Chapter 4.2.2 has 

been revised, removing references to reduced Level B 

exposures from seismic airgun survey protocols.

1130-0028 BOEM provides overall impact ratings but apparently also subratings. For example, the effects of seismic airgun noise are 

declared moderate overall for Alternative A, but a separate 

finding of minor effects is given in the same discussion specific 

to the “likelihood of fitness effects to individuals.” How should 

these subsidiary conclusions be interpreted? Reference: 

Chapter 4, pg 4-60.

Thank you for your comment. The text has been revised in 

Chapter 4.2.2.1.2 to discuss the likelihood of fitness-level 

effects in such a way as to clarify that a separate impact 

sub-rating for fitness level effects was not intended.

1130-0044 Biologically Important Areas are referenced in a way that implies 

they are a regulatory designation enforced by some entity, 

which is incorrect. This description would be improved and 

clarified through addition of a sentence such as “Having a BIA 

means awareness to managers and mariners that the area is 

important to that species.” or a direct quote such as: “The 

delineation of BIAs does not have direct or immediate regulatory 

consequences. Rather, the BIA assessment is intended to 

provide the best available science to help inform regulatory and 

management decisions under existing authorities about some, 

though not all, important cetacean areas in order to minimize the 

impacts of anthropogenic activities on cetaceans and to achieve 

conservation and protection goals. In addition, the BIAs and 

associated information may be used to identify information gaps 

and prioritize future research and modeling efforts to better 

understand cetaceans, their habitat, and ecosystems.” 

Thank you for your comment. Edits have been made to 

Chapter 4.2.1 to address this comment, including a definition 

of BIAs and supportive text, along with references.
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-199

Submission ID Comment Response

(Reference: VanParijs et al., 2015; Aquatic Mammals 2015, 

41(1), 1, DOI 10.1578/AM.41.1.2015.1) Reference: Chapter 4, 

Section 4.2.1, Page 4-21.

1130-0053 Tables 4.2-3 and 4.2-4 to be updated per NMFS’s August 2016 

acoustic guidance.

Thank you for your comment. Tables 4.2-3 and 4.2-4 have 

been updated to include the 2016 acoustic guidance.

1130-0054 Certain HRG sources such as echosounders and side-scan 

sonars are not appropriately categorized as impulsive sources. 

These non-impulsive sources are distinguished as intermittent 

sources, as compared with the non-impulsive (continuous) 

sources such as vessel and drilling noise. Discussion should be 

revised as necessary. Reference: Chapter 4, Section 4.2.2.1.1, 

pg 4-28.

Thank you for your comment. Text has been revised in 

Chapter 4.2.2.1.1 to better differentiate sound sources by 

type.

1130-0055 Reference to historical auditory injury criteria as “current” should 

be removed. Reference: Chapter 4, pg 4-32, 3rd paragraph, 

4-33, 2nd paragraph.

Thank you for your comment. Edits have been made in 

Chapter 4.2. 

1130-0056 Decimal place errors in several square mile conversions. 

Reference: Chapter 4, pg 4-55, 2nd paragraph.

Thank you for your comment. The square mile conversions in 

Chapter 4.2.2.1.2 have been edited.

1130-0057 Errors referencing estuarine bottlenose dolphin stocks and 

associated BIAs. There are 32 estuarine bottlenose dolphin 

stocks, but only 11 currently identified BIAs for small and 

resident populations (although with further study additional BIAs 

may be identified). Reference: Chapter 4, Section 4.2.3.1.1, 

1st paragraph.

Thank you for your comment. The number of estuarine 

bottlenose stocks has been corrected in the document.

1130-0066 In our reading of the alternatives, the shutdown requirements in 

Alternative C are the same as those in Alternative A, with the 

addition of requiring a shutdown provision for manatees and 

expansion into shallow waters in the WPA/CPA. If this is correct, 

please explain how Alternative C offers “additional mitigation 

protection” to all marine mammals, with particular reference to 

“additional protection (shutdown)” for whale species. It is 

unlikely that the depth expansion (to waters <200 m) would offer 

additional protection for sperm whales, Kogia spp., or beaked 

whales, as these species are unlikely to be found in shallow 

waters. In addition, this passage seems to describe the 

protected species observer airgun survey protocols as though 

they are new to Alternative C, when in fact they are simply 

carried forward from Alternative A. Reference: Executive 

Thank you for your comment. Alternative B introduces the 

expansion of PSO procedures into all water depths, along with 

shut downs for manatees and selected whale species. These 

measures are also discussed in association with Alternative C. 

Text in Chapters 4.2.3.1.2 (Alternative B) and 4.2.4.1.2

(Alternative C) was revised to clarify details regarding the 

effectiveness of expanded PSO procedures based on the 

procedure limitations and the distributions of these specified 

resources. Text in the Executive Summary was also revised 

to address concerns in this comment.
Table M-9. Marine Mammals’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-200 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

Summary, pg xxi; Chapter 4, Section 4.2.3.1.2.

1130-0074 NOAA does not believe that an assumption that predicted effort 

would remain constant if target areas are closed to survey effort 

is realistic or reasonable. Therefore, as BOEM acknowledges 

on page 4-115, the existing analysis likely underestimates the 

potential benefit of closure areas. Reference: Chapter 4, 

Section 4.2.4.1.1; Section 4.2.7.1.1, “Quantitative Assessment 

of Alternative F.” 

Thank you for your comment. BOEM believes that the 

assumption that the predicted effort would remain constant is 

reasonable at the programmatic level and within the 10-year 

timeframe of this Programmatic EIS. While BOEM 

acknowledges the recent reduced level of exploration G&G 

activities and the corresponding decrease in permit 

applications, BOEM assumes that future levels will return to 

previous historic levels within the next 10 years. BOEM must, 

therefore, be prudent and conservatively consider the full 

range of potential impacts. As such, the scenarios contain 

projections based on the analysis of recent historic activity 

levels and trends made by BOEM’s subject-matter experts, 

who also considered Industry-projected activity levels in their 

estimates.
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-201

M.4.7 Sea Turtles

Comments regarding sea turtles identified areas where clarifying text with supporting 

literature should be included and also provided suggestions for updated literature and regulations. 

One comment expressed that the impact analysis did not sufficiently assess sea turtle hearing 

thresholds relative to the proposed action. Detailed responses to specific comments are provided in 

Table M-10. 
 

M-202 Responses to Public Comments

Table M-10. Sea Turtles’ Detailed Comment Responses

Submission ID Comment Response

Sea Turtles

1063-0004 Page XXIV - The paragraph regarding vessel strikes and sea turtles 

notes "most vessel strikes of sea turtles occur in coastal areas by 

high speed (recreational) vessel traffic." Is there a citation for this? 

And how do you distinguish high speed recreational traffic from high 

speed traffic supporting the offshore industry (e.g. offshore supply 

vessels)?

Paragraph 5, page xxiv, of the Executive Summary has been 

modified. Citations for subject matter may be found in 

Chapter 4.3.2.1.4. 

1063-0027 Page 4-124 - First paragraph, last sentence. NMFS has published 

the final rule for green turtles. https://federalregister.gov/documents/

2016/04/06/2016-07587/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife-andplants-final-rule-to-list-eleven-distinct-population-segments

The last paragraph notes no recent nesting info and is direct conflict 

with the data presented in previous paragraph. 

Thank you for your comment. Changes have been made to this 

Programmatic EIS updating the status on the final rule for green 

turtles, and the sentence in the last paragraph was removed.

1076-0080 The DPEIS adequately reviews the literature regarding sea turtle 

hearing and accurately assesses what is known about the 

frequency range of turtle hearing based on the best available 

science. However, the DPEIS’s sea turtle effects analysis 

(Section 4.3) fails to sufficiently address sea turtle hearing 

thresholds at best sensitivity as reported in the scientific literature. 

These values, which range from 93 to 117 dB at the most sensitive 

frequencies, are reported in Appendix E but there is no discussion 

of the meaning of those values. Although the data on sea turtle 

hearing “are too limited to be definitive because of the low numbers 

of individuals tested,” the best available science demonstrates that 

sea turtle hearing is substantially less sensitive than marine 

mammal and fish hearing. By comparison, peak sensitivity 

thresholds of approximately 30 or 40 dB are the most sensitive 

frequencies in some odontocetes, and peak sensitivity thresholds of 

approximately 50 dB are most sensitive frequencies observed in 

some fish species. See Popper et al. (2014) at 9 (see audiograms).

The DPEIS should include a more detailed assessment of sea turtle 

hearing thresholds at best sensitivity as part of the effects analysis.

Text has been added to Chapters 4.3.2.1.1 and 4.3.2.1.2, 

pointing out hearing thresholds at their most sensitive frequencies 

and that hearing sensitivities in sea turtles is substantially less 

than that of marine mammals and fishes. More information can 

be found in Appendices E and I. 

1076-0101 The final rule was published April 6, 2016 (81 FR 20058). The 

North Atlantic DPS is listed as threatened. Critical habitat is not 

determinable at this time but will be proposed in a future 

rulemaking.

Thank you for your comment. Appropriate changes have been 

made in this Programmatic EIS (page 4-124 and Table 4.3-1) to 

reflect this updated information.
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-203

M.4.8 Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat

Several comments disagreed with the impact determinations, including opinions that the 

determinations were too low or too high for seismic survey impacts on fisheries. One comment 

stated that there had been a decline in fish catch rates subsequent to seismic survey operations. 

Another comment recommended including a more thorough characterization of State regulatory 

authority and jurisdiction throughout this Programmatic EIS.

Other comments requested corrections to this Programmatic EIS, such as changing the 

listing of the Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) from an endangered species to a listed 

species and expanding the distribution of the smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata). One comment 

expressed concern that this Programmatic EIS lacked sufficient consideration for seismic impacts on 

fish behavior and fisheries with the support of recent publications. Clarification to this Programmatic 

EIS was requested regarding whether fish morality due to decompression injuries was likely in 

individuals close to the seismic surveying sources. Further discussion regarding impacts to 

habituation in NMSs was requested by a comment. Detailed responses to specific comments are 

provided in Table M-11. 
M-204 Responses to Public Comments

Table M-11. Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat’s Detailed Comment Responses

Submission ID Comment Response

Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat

1067-0003 And it's not just whales and dolphins that are impacted by these 

airgun blasts--fish populations are also affected. Catch rates of 

many species have been reported to decline over wide areas for 

weeks after seismic surveys are conducted.

Impact from noise on marine mammals, fish, EFH, and 

commercial fisheries are different. The potential impacts to 

marine mammals are analyzed and addressed throughout 

Chapter 4.2. Refer to Chapters 4.4.2.1.2 and 4.9.2.1 for 

information regarding potential impacts of seismic surveys on 

fish and commercial fisheries. While it is possible for fish to 

experience TTS, masking, and behavioral impacts, the effects 

are not likely to include mortality or permanent barotrauma. 

Refer to Appendix J for a thorough review of the physics of 

underwater sound, mechanics of fish hearing, sources of 

anthropogenic sound and sound metrics, mechanisms of injury 

to fish from exposure to anthropogenic sound, and criteria for 

the protection of fish from exposure to injurious levels of G&G 

survey sounds. Potential impacts from noise are not expected 

to have long-term effects of fish (Chapter 4.4.2.1). The 

potential effects of noise on fish catchability is analyzed and 

addressed in Chapter 4.9.2.1. Available studies indicate that

these impacts are short term and that catch rates return to 

normal within several days following sound cessation.

1071-0004 The FWC recommends that State regulatory authority as it 

pertains to both non-listed and ESA-listed fisheries resources 

within or without the waters of the State within the AOI, should 

be appropriately characterized wherever these discussions 

occur throughout the DPEIS.

At the programmatic level, the Federal authorities managing 

fish species are listed in this Programmatic EIS. The text 

related to the affected environment (Chapter 4.4.1 and 

Appendix E, Section 4) is a broad overview of the regulatory 

framework and regulating bodies that will be consulted during 

site-specific NEPA analysis. This Programmatic EIS also 

provides a broad overview of MPAs in Chapter 4.7, where 

fishery activities are prohibited and controlled, including those 

that are managed by FWC.

1071-0006 Both Volume 1, Section 4.4, and Volume 3, Appendix E, 

Section 4, of the DPEIS incorrectly identify Gulf sturgeon as an 

ESA-Endangered species. Gulf sturgeon is an ESA-Threatened 

species, and we recommend correcting this misidentification 

wherever it occurs throughout the DPEIS.

The text in Chapter 4.4 and Appendix E, Section 4 has been 

edited to reflect that the Gulf sturgeon are a threatened 

species.

1071-0007 Additionally, the DPEIS characterization of smalltooth sawfish 

distribution in the AOI is much more limited than what is 

The text in Chapter 4.4.1 was modified to reflect the 

smalltooth sawfish distribution. BOEM also added the 
Table M-11. Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat’s Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-205

Submission ID Comment Response

presently known to exist from current data. Waters et al. (2014) 

characterizes the distribution of smalltooth sawfish as follows:

Early faunal surveys indicated healthy populations of sawfishes 

across the western Atlantic in areas such as Brazil, Nicaragua, 

and the USA (Evermann and Bean, 1898; Thorson, 1982; Faria 

et al., 2013), although most of these populations had declined 

by the mid-1980s (Faria et al., 2013). In the USA, P. pectinata

are the only resident sawfish species currently reported (NMFS, 

2009). Pristis pectinata were historically commonly encountered 

from North Carolina to Texas (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953), 

however, more recently they have been observed primarily in 

south and south-west Florida marine and estuarine waters from 

Charlotte Harbor to the Dry Tortugas (Seitz and Poulakis, 2002; 

Poulakis and Seitz, 2004; Wiley and Simpfendorfer, 2010).

Enclosed are two maps of smalltooth sawfish encounters; one 

map covers the Gulf of Mexico (i.e., AOI) and the other map is 

specific to Florida (International Sawfish Encounter Database 

[ISED] unpublished data). FWC staff recommends that the 

DPEIS be amended to appropriately reflect distribution of 

smalltooth sawfish in the AOI.

references Wiley and Simpfendorfer (2010) and Waters et al. 

(2014). While smalltooth sawfish have been spotted in U.S. 

coastal waters in the GOM, most of the species’ distribution is 

limited to waters of southwest Florida and Florida Bay 

(Simpfendorfer and Wiley, 2005; USDOC, NMFS, 2009). The 

text in the “Affected Environment” section (Chapter 4.4.1 and 

Appendix E, Section 4) is a broad overview of the distribution 

of smalltooth sawfish in the GOM.

1074-0067 The activities considered in the DEIS have potential to 

detrimentally affect multiple fish species, harm vital fish habitat, 

and conflict with multiple fisheries.

As an initial matter, the DEIS’s consideration of impacts does 

not give adequate weight to the effects of repeated seismic 

testing and other activities on the behavior of fish and 

invertebrates. For instance, the DEIS dismisses temporary 

hearing loss in fish as a minor effect without considering 

whether the hearing loss may be permanent or whether even a 

temporary loss of hearing renders the fish vulnerable to 

predation, unable to locate food, or unable to locate a mate. In 

addition, sublethal disturbance that causes fish to avoid key 

feeding or spawning areas could have a detrimental effect on 

the population of the species itself, yet the DEIS gives virtually 

no consideration to what effect disrupted feeding may have. 

BOEM prepared this Programmatic EIS using the best 

available data from the subject-matter experts and included 

conservative assumptions to avoid underestimating potential 

impacts. The most likely injuries and effects on behavior are 

analyzed and addressed, in detail, in Chapters 4.4.2.1.1 

through 4.4.2.1.3. 

While masking and TTS are possible, the impact on predatorprey or foraging interactions from masking and TTS caused by 

seismic sound has not been tested. Behavioral responses to 

noise include startle reactions, changes in water column 

distribution, lateral movement, avoidance of an ensonified 

area, changes in schooling behavior, and changes in 

predator-prey interactions, foraging, reproductive, and 

intraspecific behaviors (Chapters 4.4.2.1.1 through 

4.4.2.1.3). How the observed behavioral changes will impact 
Table M-11. Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat’s Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-206 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

Nor does the DEIS consider the impacts that masking, silencing 

of fish vocalizations, and the effects of chronic stress may have 

on fish breeding success.

In the case of coastal pelagic species, also known as forage 

species, the action’s adverse effects could ripple through the 

food chain. Forage species are often very sensitive to sound 

and tend to avoid the sort of noise generated by G&G activities. 

These species comprise an important part of the diets of many 

predatory fish, including tuna. Changes in aggregation behavior 

or movements of forage species could reduce the available food 

for predatory species, reducing their fitness and numbers and 

potentially causing them to shift their own movement patterns in 

response. Any such effects on predatory fish species would 

likely adversely affect the commercial and recreational fisheries 

that depend on them. Nor does the DEIS adequately assess 

the impact of G&G activities on invertebrates, such as 

cephalopods like squid and octopus, even as it acknowledges 

an increasing number of studies demonstrating that seismic and 

other low-frequency sound sources can disrupt, injure, and kill 

these taxa (see DEIS at D-209 to D-211).

life-sustaining functions (e.g., predator avoidance, feeding, 

spawning, and communication) is not well understood. These 

impacts would be temporary because fish resume normal 

behavior upon cessation of sound and are capable of 

regenerating damaged tissues.

This Programmatic EIS acknowledges, to the extent possible 

with available scientific data, the impact of active acoustic 

sound sources on invertebrates (Chapter 4.5.2.1.1). 

However, vessel noise was eliminated from detailed analysis 

due to limited anticipated impacts associated with G&G 

activities (Table 4.1-2). Research on these topics has 

produced inconclusive results and conclusions. The best 

available information was used for analysis.

1074-0067

(continued)

Indeed, airgun surveys are known to significantly affect the 

distribution of some fish species, which can impact commercial 

and recreational fisheries and could also displace or reduce 

foraging success of marine mammals that rely on them for prey. 

Indeed, as one study has noted, fishermen in various parts of 

the world have complained for years about declines in their 

catch rates during oil and gas airgun surveys, and in some 

areas have sought industry compensation for their losses.120 As 

noted at § I.B above, airguns have been shown experimentally 

to depress catch rates of various commercial fish, including cod, 

haddock, pollock, and rockfish, often over large areas of ocean, 

and has been reported to reduce catch rates of other 

commercial and recreational fish, including tuna. Yet the DEIS, 

while acknowledging that displacement can increase the risk of 

predation, disrupt fish spawning and reproduction, alter 

migration routes, and impact feeding, appears to assume 

without support that effects on both fish and fisheries would be 

Predicting the effect of seismic airgun surveys on fishing is not 

possible because there is a lack of information on the effects 

of anthropogenic sounds on the distribution of fishes and their 

capture rates by different fishing gears (Hawkins et al., 2014). 

BOEM classified the impacts to fish (including commercial 

species) and EFH from noise as minor because the impacts 

are not likely to be extensive or severe, but they are 

measurable. As detailed in Chapter 4.9.2.1, studies indicate 

there are temporary changes in fish behavior and distribution 

that could influence commercial landings; however, the

impacts may be temporary and undetectable. However, a 

minor impact to commercial fish species would cause a minor 

impact to the fishery.

BOEM has read and added the relevant scientific literature 

suggested in the comment (i.e., Nedelec et al., 2015; Simpson 

et al., 2015, 2016). Addition of new literature did not change 
Table M-11. Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat’s Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-207

Submission ID Comment Response

nominal or minor. See DEIS at D-171 to D-203.

In short, research on the impacts of noise on fish and 

invertebrates has expanded significantly over the past five 

years, with numerous papers published and in preparation, and 

increased attention paid by NMFS to management of acoustic 

impacts on these non-marine mammal taxa, as reflected in 

NOAA’s Ocean Noise Strategy Roadmap.121 The DEIS fails to 

properly assess potential seismic survey impacts on fish and 

invertebrates, on the Gulf ecosystem, and on human fisheries in 

light of these studies, or to consider measures, such as timearea closures in spawning areas, to mitigate these impacts. 

BOEM must improve its analysis.

the impact level for fish, EFH, and commercial fisheries.

1076-0081 Seismic survey activities do not result in any significant adverse 

effects to fish populations or to fisheries. Marine seismic 

surveys have been conducted since the 1950s and experience 

demonstrates that fisheries and seismic activities can and do 

coexist. There has been no observation of direct physical injury 

or death to free-ranging fish caused by seismic survey activity, 

and there is no conclusive evidence showing long-term or 

permanent displacement of fish. Any impacts to fish from 

seismic surveys are short term, localized, and not expected to 

lead to significant impacts on a population scale.38

Seismic source vessels move along a survey tract in the water 

creating a line of seismic impulses. As the seismic source 

vessel is in motion, each signal is short in duration, local, and 

transient. There is no conclusive evidence showing long-term or 

permanent displacement of fish.39 Similar seismic surveys 

conducted for research in the Atlantic OCS did not result in any 

detectable effects on commercial or recreational fish catch, 

based on a review of NMFS’s data from months surveys were 

conducted, which noted that “there was absolutely no evidence 

of harm to marine species” (including fish).40 Additionally, in the 

GOM, where G&G activities have routinely occurred for over 

40 years, seafood harvested from the OCS is worth 

approximately $980 million annually and the fishing industry 

directly supports in excess of 120,000 jobs, suggesting that 

Chapter 4.4.2.1.1 analyzes the potential effects of noise on 

fishes and documents research related to this subject. 

Impacts are not expected to include mortality or permanent 

displacement of fish. However, effects of noise on fish may 

include damage to the sensory cells lining the auditory system, 

alarm and avoidance responses, and barotrauma injuries. 

These impacts would be temporary because fish resume 

normal behavior upon cessation of sound and are capable of 

regenerating damaged tissues.

BOEM classified the impacts to fish (including commercial 

species) and EFH from noise as minor because the impacts 

are not likely to be extensive or severe, but they are 

measurable. As detailed in this Programmatic EIS, studies 

indicate that there are temporary changes in fish behavior and 

distribution that could influence commercial landings; however, 

the impacts may be temporary and undetectable. A minor 

impact to commercial fish species would cause a minor impact 

to the fishery also. BOEM considered the impacts from 

stand-off distances and determined these to be minor as well 

(Chapter 4.9.2.1).

Several articles mentioned in the footnotes of this comment 

are already discussed in this Programmatic EIS (e.g., Saetre 

and Ona, 1996; Hassel et al., 2004; Peña et al., 2013), and 
Table M-11. Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat’s Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-208 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

G&G activities can occur without negatively impacting 

commercial fisheries.

Finally, seismic and other geophysical surveys also do not result 

in closing areas to commercial or recreational fishing. During 

surveys, the survey crews work diligently to maintain a vessel 

exclusion zone around the survey vessel and its towed streamer 

arrays to avoid any interruption of fishing operations, including 

the setting of fishing gear. As with all multiple uses of offshore 

waters, there must be a certain level of coordination by all 

parties. At sea, coordination is regulated by the U.S. Coast 

Guard under the International Regulations for Preventing 

Collisions at Sea, requiring a Local Notice to Mariners specifying 

survey dates and locations.

For these reasons, the effects of seismic activities on fish and 

fish resources are most accurately described as “nominal” (to 

use the DPEIS’s impact categorization values). We therefore 

object to the mischaracterization of impacts to commercial 

fisheries as “minor.” See DPEIS at 2-35.

BOEM acknowledges and has read the remaining literature 

cited in the comment. BOEM’s assessment of potential 

impacts is based on all available scientific literature, 

theoretical approaches, and research methods. This

Programmatic EIS thoroughly examined the existing credible 

scientific evidence relevant to evaluating potential impacts of 

G&G proposed activities on fish, EFH, and commercial 

fisheries when making final impacts determinations.

1130-0017 NOAA does not agree that impacts to EFH can be considered 

“nominal” because the “small” area of impact is compared to the 

“large” overall area of interest. The seafloor disturbance section 

correctly identifies G&G activities which could cause direct 

physical damage to hard bottom and coral habitats. However, 

the conclusion is impacts to EFH are “nominal” because “The 

projected area of seafloor disturbance from G&G activities is an 

extremely small percentage of the planning areas”; NOAA 

considers this type of effect analysis to be arbitrary. Reference: 

Executive Summary, Page xxviii; Section 4.4.2.1.5 and 

Table 2.10-1.

Text edits emphasizing the impacts to the overall biological 

value of the AOI and not just in reference to the AOI and 

impact areas have been made in Chapter 4.4.2.1.5 and 

Executive Summary. 

1130-0042 Revise language regarding impact assessments to National 

Marine Sanctuaries:

a. Habituation is now discussed much more carefully in 

Chapter 4, but there are still places (e.g., 4-191) where it is used 

as synonym for animals being “familiar with” a sound, which is 

Text changes that discuss "habituation" have been made in 

Chapter 4.4. 
Table M-11. Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat’s Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-209

Submission ID Comment Response

not correct—please incorporate the following reference to 

improve habituation discussion: Bejder L, Samuels A, 

Whitehead H, Finn H, Allen S (2009) Impact assessment 

research: use and misuse of habituation, sensitisation and 

tolerance in describing wildlife responses to anthropogenic 

stimuli. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 395:177-185.

1130-0062 Alternative A for fisheries resources and EFH states mortality is 

not likely but Appendix J states that mortality is possible when 

close to source by decompression injury, especially for fish with 

swim bladders. May consider revising the term “not likely” or 

reconsider impact conclusions.

Text was modified in order to eliminate any conflict between 

Chapter 4.4 and Appendix J. 
M-210 Responses to Public Comments

M.4.9 Benthic Communities

A comment provided corrections to statements and figures concerning the number of artificial 

reef sites, including Rigs-to-Reef sites, and the managing authorities. Another comment requested 

additional language be added to state that closure areas associated with Alternative F that were

designed to protect marine mammals also provide protections for specialized habitats that support 

fish and other managed and listed species. Detailed responses to specific comments are provided 

in Table M-12. 
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-211

Table M-12. Benthic Communities’ Detailed Comment Responses

Submission ID Comment Response

Benthic Communities

1063-0029 Page 4-206 & 4-207 4.5.1.2.5 Artificial Reefs. "As of 2013, there 

are >500 sites that have been approved by BSEE as artificial reef 

sites on the OCS (USDOI, BSEE, 2013) (Figure 4.5-3)." - This 

statement in the document is not accurate and the references figure 

does not correspond with the statement. Figure 4.5-3 represents 

artificial reefs and/or artificial reef structures managed by one of the 

five Gulf States. The figure is appropriate for the first sentence of 

the paragraph, but not the later statement quoted above.

New wording/rationale for change:

As of 2013, there were >500 platform structure removals that had 

been approved by BSEE for Rigs-to-Reef conversion on the OCS. 

Towing the jacket structures to an established State artificial reef for 

deployment accounted for sixty-five present of the approvals. The 

remaining thirty-five percent were for partial removal or toppling the 

jacket in place within a newly permitted State artificial reef.

As of 2016, there are just over 500 Rigs-to-Reef structures 

deployed in 142 established artificial reefs. A majority of the 

Rigs-to-Reef structures have bene deployed within artificial reef 

sites managed by Louisiana and Texas. A total of 19 Rigs-to-Reef 

structures have been reefed within the Mississippi, Alabama, and 

Florida artificial reefs.

Thank you for your comment. Suggested text has been inserted 

and has replaced the existing sentence in Chapter 4.5.1.2.5

(“Artificial Reefs”). 

1130-0016 Under impacts to fish and benthic communities, the PEIS asserts 

that closures in Alternative F are designed to protect marine 

mammals, which FGB was already described as an exception to—

need to clarify this here and call out that in evaluating implications 

of Alternative F on fish resources, this is the one case in which an 

area specified for closure relates to providing protection for 

specialized habitats that support fish, including managed species, 

and turtles, including listed species. Reference: Chapter 4, 

Section 4.4.7.1.1, Page 4-201; Section 4.5.7.1.1, Page 4-224.

Thank you for your comment. Added text in Chapters 4.4.7.1.1 

and 4.5.7.1.1 to clarify the closure protection for the FGBNMS.
M-212 Responses to Public Comments

M.4.10 Marine Protected Areas

Comments requested clarification and corrections regarding what general protective 

measures are included in Marine Protection Areas (MPAs) compared to the more restrictive 

protective measures applied to only select MPAs such as the Flower Garden Banks National Marine 

Sanctuary (FGBNMS) and Coral Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs).

Several comments requested corrections or additions to text such as additional brine seep 

locations; expanding the list of species that could be present in the FGBNMS, including specific 

species details of deep coral assemblages; expanding BOEM’s permitting procedures within MPAs; 

and clarifying activity restrictions and limitations within and outside of No Activity Zones.

Clarification was requested for terminology and intent for topics that included deepwater 

MPAs and restricted MPA activities. 

Several comments had specific concerns regarding the FGBNMS, such as cumulative noise 

impact determinations getting diluted when included with the other MPAs considered in this

Programmatic EIS. Additional FGBNMS concerns included species-specific impact evaluations such 

as consideration of significant biological activities the MPAs may provide for transient species, and 

providing additional details on activity restrictions, evaluations, and authorization procedures. 

Detailed responses to specific comments are provided in Table M-13. 
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-213

Table M-13. Marine Protected Areas’ Detailed Comment Responses

Submission ID Comment Response

Marine Protected Areas

1063-0030 Page 4-263, top. HAPCs near FGB are described. Only 

5 of 10 HAPCs in the area are listed, but not clarifies as a 

partial list. Not all HAPCs are protected from anchoring 

by fishing vessels. Only the few that are designated as 

"Coral HAPCs" have that rule, i.e., EFG, WFG, Stetson, 

and McGrail. 

Chapter 4.7.1.1, “Offshore Marine Protected Areas, National Marine 

Sanctuaries,” has been amended to accurately describe designated 

HAPC restrictions and limitations, including Coral HAPCs.

1063-0035 Appendix E

Page E-114. The brine seep at the EFGB is not the only 

(one in the northern GOM. FGBNMS ROV work a few 

years ago found some at the base of at least one other 

shelf-edge bank, I think it was Rankin. There are many 

brine seeps in deep water along the base on the Florida 

Escarpment (off the shelf).

Page E-114, bottom. Same list of 5 HAPCs, leaving out 

many in between. The statement, "All HAPCs have 

protective measures..." is not correct. Most are just 

management tools to require special attention to the 

habitats.

Page E-115. Probably should add boundary expansion 

numbers from the FGB Expansion DEIS. Advisory Council 

recommendation from 2008 is correct = 280 sq mi. 

Maximum, alternative 5 in the current DEIS = 935 sq mi.

Page E-117. McGrail does not have the shallowest crest 

among shelf-edge banks (excusing FGB). Its shallowest 

crest is 144 ft deep. I've been scuba diving on Bright at 

112 ft and on Geyer at 121 ft. Bright used to have 

significant areas or coral but that is gone now, probably 

due to treasure salvage activity and their use of 

explosives there.

(a) Amended text accordingly: “The East FGB is also home to one of 

the GOM continental shelf waters oceanic brine seeps.”

(b) Removed text about HAPCs and protective measures, and added 

other general text about HAPCs designations: “HAPCs are 

considered high priority areas for conservation, management, or 

research because they are rare, sensitive, stressed by development, 

or important to ecosystem function. The HAPC designation does not 

necessarily mean additional protections or restrictions upon an area, 

but they help to prioritize and focus conservation efforts.”

(c) The FGB Expansion EIS is not finalized; therefore, BOEM will not 

include this proposed expansion alternative. If/when the FGB 

Expansion EIS is finalized, it will be utilized during site-specific EA 

evaluations.

(d) Although BOEM respects your personal observations, the text is a 

direct quote from NOAA’s website at http://flowergarden.noaa.gov/

about/mcgrailbank.html. 

1076-0083 The DPEIS’s discussion of Marine Protected Areas 

(“MPAs”) is unclear and confusing. We have noticed that 

(a) Deepwater habitat designations are described in Chapter 4.7.1

under the FGBNMS section as being deeper than 70 m (230 ft); that 
Table M-13. Marine Protected Areas’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-214 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

BOEM tends to conflate various legally designated and 

non-legally designated terms, such as “Biologically 

Important Areas,” Environmental Important Areas. For 

example, “Deepwater MPA” appears to be a new 

construct because Deepwater MPAs are not, to our 

knowledge, formally designated regions. The DPEIS 

describes “Coastal MPAs” as consisting of national parks, 

national wildlife refuges, national estuarine research 

reserves, and State-designated MPAs (DPEIS at xxxv), 

but “Offshore MPAs” (a new term) are described as 

consisting of national marine sanctuaries (NMSs), 

Deepwater MPAs, and fishery management areas, with 

no further explanation of what defines a Deepwater MPA.

Of the Offshore MPAs listed, it appears that the brine pool 

and chemosynthetic MPA sites (e.g., Green Canyon 

[“GC”] 233 Brine Pool, GC 234 Chemo Community, and 

Bush Hill Chemo Community) are deeper than 1,000 feet, 

but many of the coral and hardbottom sites listed are no 

deeper than 1,000 feet.41 In addition, Section 2.8-1 of the 

DPEIS (page 2-16) describes four “deepwater areas” for 

closure (the Central Planning Area (“CPA”) Closure Area, 

the Eastern Planning Area, the Dry Tortugas Closure 

Area, and the Flower Gardens Closure Area).42 BOEM 

should more clearly characterize these areas and explain 

their significance to the DPEIS’s analysis of seismic 

activities. In particular, closure of the CPA will lead to a 

significant loss of economic opportunities as many 

leaseholders in this area will be unable to fulfill lease 

commitments.

would include the coral and hard bottom sites referenced in the 

comment in waters deeper than 70 m (230 ft). The term “deepwater” 

is used by NOAA to distinguish the deeper FGBNMS habitats and is 

used in this Programmatic EIS for depths >70 m (230 ft).

(b) For Alternative F closure area comments, the CPA, EPA, Dry 

Tortugas, and Flower Gardens Closure Areas are shown in 

Figure 2.8-1 of this Programmatic EIS. Chapter 2.8.3 provides 

rationale for the closure areas; in short, selection of the closure areas 

was based on densities of target species relative to other areas of the 

AOI, as well as biological importance to certain species, including the 

endangered sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) and Bryde’s 

whale (Balaenoptera edeni) (LaBrecque et al., 2015). Chapter 4.13

provides an analysis of and tables showing the incremental cost and 

percent cost change per survey, the total annual survey incremental 

cost, and the percent reduction in efficiency per survey for 

Alternatives B through F that were used to determine the 

socioeconomic impact of related mitigation measures. As stated in 

Chapter 2.8.2, the additional closure areas included in Alternative F, 

if implemented by BOEM, would only apply to new permitted or 

authorized G&G activities and would need to be included in the 

potential lease holder’s decision evaluation. Existing lease holders 

would continue to operate subject to the terms and conditions of the 

existing permit or authorization.

1076-0084 The DPEIS also suggests, without supporting explanation, 

that MPAs may be used to restrict activities. See, e.g., 

DPDEIS at 4-261 (“All sites listed are afforded some 

degree of protection based on their associated 

management plans.”); id. at 3-29 (“All authorizations for 

G&G surveys proposed within or near these [specific 

benthic locations and MPA] areas would be subject to the 

review noted previously to facilitate avoidance.”); id. at 

4-269 (“While seismic surveys employing airgun arrays 

Each listed MPA has a unique approved Management Plan that 

details the conditions the MPA has in order to protect specifically 

identified resources associated with that MPA. Activities planned 

within the boundaries and/or any designated buffer zones are subject 

to the conditions outlined in the MPA’s Management Plan, which 

could include activity review against those plans. Activity restrictions 

or prohibitions would be applied based on the protected resource and 

the proposed activity as outlined in each MPA’s Management Plan. 

The proposed activity reviews will be conducted by the entity that 
Table M-13. Marine Protected Areas’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-215

Submission ID Comment Response

and hydrophone streamers are not currently precluded 

from conducting surveys over deepwater MPAs, other 

G&G activities may not be allowed in designated No 

Activity Zones.”). Although it is appropriate under NEPA 

to describe these areas as parts of the existing 

environment that have ecological significance, if BOEM 

and/or NMFS intends to use these areas as a basis for 

implementing additional restrictions on activities, then that 

intention must be disclosed and clearly explained, and the 

supporting legal authority must be identified.43

manages the MPA in relation to the existing Management Plan. Any 

additions or modifications to the MPA Management Plan would go 

through the Management Plan development and amendment process, 

which includes government and public reviews and input. This 

information is included in this Programmatic EIS as information 

regarding existing environment only.

1130-0009 Cumulative impacts, and noise impacts, to Flower Garden 

Banks National Marine Sanctuary (FGB): Ultimately, the 

issue is that the document makes a finding of “nominal to 

minor” cumulative impact of noise for FGB, but then 

presents results later in the same chapter that predict high 

cumulative noise levels. A large part of the problem is the 

lack of reconciling those results. However, another part of 

the problem is likely the dilution of results for FGB 

specifically in a larger category of “offshore MPAs”—we 

don’t have model results relevant to all the sites in that 

category, but we do for FGB, and FGB is special for 

several reasons that the document emphasizes. While we 

recognize that this document has to find a balance 

between analysis of specific regional features and its 

programmatic region-wide nature, FGB is the only NMS in 

the Area of Interest (AOI) and it now is the only Marine 

Protected Area (MPA) related directly to Alternative F and 

the modeling in CCE (for very specific reasons, of course, 

that relate to, as correctly stated in the document, NOAA’s 

heightened concern for this site and our role as a 

cooperating agency on the PEIS). Reference: Chapter 4, 

Section 4.7. 

Text has been added and revised in Chapters 4.4.7.1.1, 4.5.7.1.1, 

and 4.7.7.1 to address the concerns regarding protection of additional 

resources in MPAs from noise and the closure areas associated with 

Alternative F, specifically the FGBNMS.

Cumulative noise levels are not expected to be high in MPAs from the 

impact evaluations in Chapter 4.7, with nominal to minor impacts 

expected.

Additional mitigation measures in Alternative F will reduce the 

potential direct impacts to resources within MPAs that may occur in 

four closure areas, including the Flower Gardens Closure Area, and 

the secondary impacts to resources within and near the closure 

areas. However, at the programmatic level, impact ratings were 

designed to address impact probability, severity, and duration to 

resource categories as a whole, rather than to individual components 

of a resource. The definitions of each impact level were purposely 

broad to avoid exceptions to a single impact rating due to the 

complexities of program-related IPFs to resources that occur within 

the AOI and over the 10-year period of this Programmatic EIS. This 

level of detail is expected to accompany analyses of impacts for future 

site-specific EAs and permit application evaluations.

1130-0010 Summary finding of noise impacts: Need to reconcile this 

with finding of CCE section (Section 4.14) which shows 

prediction of long term cumulative noise impact to the site 

to be amongst highest in region. The impacts discussed 

here again are species by species. We can assess the 

impacts discussed in the CCE analysis species by 

Appendix K, which has been discussed in Chapter 4.2, estimates 

the chronic and cumulative effects on marine mammals and 

specifically on the Bryde’s whale communication area. These 

estimates are based on airgun surveys, other OCS activity, and 

ambient noise.
Table M-13. Marine Protected Areas’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-216 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

species as well, but the suggestion that the acoustic 

quality of the site, overall, has the potential to be affected 

more strongly than most other sites evaluated in the GOM 

needs to be discussed here for it to make any sense in 

the same document (much less Chapter). Reference: 

Chapter 4, Section 4.7.2.1.1, “Conclusion” on Page 4-271.

1130-0011 Noise impacts to turtles and fish in FGB are considered 

nominal to minor based on the transience of these 

species and the source/surveys; however, as mentioned 

in the document, localized areas can have profound 

protective value if they contain resident populations or 

contain predictable, temporally restricted high densities 

engaged in biologically-important behaviors (e.g., feeding, 

spawning, protection of juveniles), even if these 

populations utilize a broader range over their entire life 

histories. This is documented (and should be more 

clearly stated in descriptions, see above) for several fish 

and turtle populations in the FGB, and it needs to be more 

clearly related to impact assessment at this site, for which 

that information is better understood. Again, it may be 

that information for the other offshore MPAs in this 

category is less rich but that should not dilute the finding 

for the FGB. The potential for loss of listening ability over 

time due to higher average noise levels in the planning 

area waters surrounding this site should be considered 

relative to enhanced biological value of the habitat within 

its boundaries for particular stocks, even if they are wider 

ranging during other portions of their life histories (as well 

as related to species that are resident within sanctuary 

waters). Reference: Chapter 4, Section 4.7.

The impact determination for sea turtles and fish recognized that 

seismic activities could disrupt normal activities, inflict physiological 

damage, impact behavioral responses, mask biological sounds, cause 

hearing loss, and result in mortality. These effects to sea turtles and 

fish are analyzed in Chapters 4.3.2.2 and 4.4.2.1, respectively. 

Evaluation of these resources in the context of MPAs resulted in a 

nominal to minor determination due to the mobile nature of seismic 

airgun surveys, the temporary surveying of small seafloor areas, and 

the propensity of animals to move away from noise affecting them. At 

this Programmatic EIS level, all MPAs were included in the analysis.

This Programmatic EIS provides a programmatic-level evaluation, and 

BOEM will address impacts of future site-specific actions that would 

include any activities in or adjacent to the FGB in subsequent NEPA 

evaluations (40 CFR § 1502.20) using a tiered process based on this 

programmatic evaluation.

1130-0014 Finding of impact to all MPAs continues to conflate those 

that are specifically part of Alternative F with all other 

MPA types in the region. This removes any possibility of 

looking at the impacts of the actual designed alternative 

on the MPAs that the Alternative affects. Reference: 

Executive Summary; Chapter 2, Section 2.13, Page 2-35 

(MPA bullet); Chapter 4, Section 4.7.7.3, Page 4-288. 

The closure areas included in Alternative F include the Flower 

Gardens Closure Area with the intended purpose of reducing impacts 

within the FGBNMS, as well as for individual resources located in the 

NMS. By design, direct impact reductions will be greatest in the 

closure areas. Chapter 4 evaluates potential impacts within specific 

areas but, due to the programmatic level of this Programmatic EIS, 

has to address the overall impact probability, severity, and duration to 

resource categories within the entire AOI resulting in a programmatic-
Table M-13. Marine Protected Areas’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-217

Submission ID Comment Response

level impact determination. More details will accompany analyses 

associated with future site-specific EAs and permit application 

evaluations tiered off of the program-level evaluations included in this 

Programmatic EIS. 

1130-0031 Revise descriptions about FGB resources and ONMS 

authorities and process (as provided below): Reference: 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E. 

a. Please augment both the shorter description in Vol. I 

and the more expanded description in Vol. II, Appendix E 

to more accurately include references to FGB resident 

species and/or species with high densities during 

biologically important time periods. Reference: 

Chapter 4, Section 4.7.1.1; Appendix E, Section 3.1 and 

Section 7.1.2. 

i. EDIT the statement that hawksbill, leatherback, and 

loggerhead turtles “inhabit” FGBNMS waters to more 

clearly discuss the relevancy of the site to these species. 

Reference: Chapter 4, Section 4.7.1.1, Page 4-263. 

“The Flower Garden Banks are home to resident subadult 

loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) and also 

hawksbill sea turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata). Manta 

rays (Manta sp.) are present within the sanctuary year 

round, and seasonally, schooling scalloped hammerheads 

(Sphyrna lewini) and spotted eagle rays (Aetobatus 

narinari) are present in large numbers during the winter 

months. Other occasional charismatic megafauna visitors 

include whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) and several 

different species of Mobulid rays.

Additional text has been added in Chapter 4.7.1.1 to provide a more 

thorough description of the FGB.

1130-0032 EDIT Section 3.1.3:

• Loggerhead Sea Turtle: Subadult loggerhead sea 

turtles are known to reside at FGBNMS, resting at 

night on the shallow caps of the coral reefs and 

coral communities, and foraging in the vicinity of 

Changes have been made in Appendix E, Sections 3.1.3 and 3.3.1, 

as requested.
Table M-13. Marine Protected Areas’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-218 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

the banks during the day (Hickerson, 2000). 

Reference: Hickerson, E.L. Assessing and 

tracking resident, immature loggerheads (Caretta 

caretta) in and around the Flower Garden Banks, 

northwest Gulf of Mexico. M.S. Thesis. Texas 

A&M University, College Station, Texas. 

December 2000.

• Hawksbill Sea Turtle: Resident and transiting sea 

turtles have been documented utilizing the shallow 

coral caps and coral communities at the FGBNMS.

1130-0033 Please change the description found at Chapter 4, 

Section 4.7.1.1, Page 4-264 to better reflect the 

suggested text in bold: “In deeper regions, Federal 

fishery management areas include McGrail Bank, 

designated as a coral HAPC, where deeper reef habitat 

includes extensive coralline algae and deep coral 

assemblages harboring unique hermatypic coral areas 

dominated by blushing star coral, Stephanocoenia 

intersepta (Schmahl and Hickerson 2006).” Reference: 

Schmahl, G.P., and E.L. Hickerson. 2006. McGrail Bank, 

a deep tropical coral reef community in the northwestern 

Gulf of Mexico. Proceedings of the 10th International 

Coral Reef Symposium, 1124-1130. Japanese Coral 

Reef Society, Tokyo, Japan.

Changes have been made in Chapter 4.7.1.1 to better reflect the 

suggestion.

1130-0034 Please clarify that exploration or development activities 

that disturb the submerged lands or bottom of the 

sanctuary outside a No Activity Zone are not allowed 

without an ONMS permit. Please also reconcile what 

appear to be contradictory statements regarding whether 

BOEM would itself issue permits to entities proposing 

bottom disturbing work inside the sanctuary, whether 

inside the No Activity Zone or otherwise. Reference: 

Chapter 4, Sections 4.7.2.1.1 and 4.7.2.1.4.

Changes have been made in Chapters 4.7.2.1.1 and 4.7.2.1.4 to add 

this information.

1130-0035 EDIT on page 4-269 as follows (new text is indicated in 

bold font): “BOEM will not issue permits for bottomdisturbing activities where prohibited. However, the G&G 

permittees for those permits that BOEM does issue are 

Changes have been made in Chapter 4.7.2.1.1.
Table M-13. Marine Protected Areas’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-219

Submission ID Comment Response

required to consult with the receive permits from the 

FGB(N)MS prior to the start of operations. The Permittee 

conditions will include must removal of all mooring buoys 

before and replace them immediately after operations. In 

addition, the permittee must announce the time that the 

mooring buoys will not be available in a Notice to 

Mariners.....Permits are required for any action that 

includes activities otherwise prohibited by sanctuary 

regulations.”

“As discussed in Appendix B, the ONMS and BOEM will 

initiate consultation with ONMS under Section 304(d) of 

the NMSA. The NMSA and ONMS’ regulations have a 

broad definition of the terms “sanctuary resource” and 

“injury”; “sanctuary resources” are living and non-living 

attributes of the sanctuary and “injury” includes disruption 

of ecological processes inclusive of physical, 

physiological, and behavioral modifications. Therefore, 

sound producing activities (such as seismic surveys) 

proposed in or near the boundaries of an NMS would 

require BOEM to initiate consultation with ONMS in order 

to would initiate consultation between ONMS and BOEM 

to consider additional mitigation measures, if any, that are 

recommended to reduce or eliminate injury to sanctuary 

resources. Measures such as setback distances will be 

determined prior to any sound-producing surveys by 

BOEM and in consultation with ONMS pursuant to Section 

304(d) of the NMSA.”

1130-0036 EDIT on page 4-274 as follows (new text is indicated in 

bold font): “Seafloor-disturbing activities proposed within 

FGBNMS but outside No Activity Zones, or outside the 

FGBNMS but near its boundaries, may be assigned a 

setback distance as condition of a BOEM-issued 

permit/COA to be determined at the time the action is 

under review by BOEM and in coordination with the 

ONMS. Further, if BOEM finds that injury to sanctuary 

resources are likely to occur as a result of permitted 

discharges with or near the FGBNMS, BOEM will consult 

The text on page4-274 has been revised.
Table M-13. Marine Protected Areas’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-220 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

with ONMS under NMSA Section 304(d). Sanctuary 

consultation would result in ONMS providing 

recommended alternatives to BOEM to reduce or 

eliminate such impacts.”

1130-0037 Please reconcile statements that “Seafloor-disturbing 

activities proposed within the boundaries of FGBNMS 

would not be permitted within a No Activity Zone.” and 

“Seafloor-disturbing activities proposed within FGBNMS 

but outside No Activity Zones, or outside the FGBNMS but 

near its boundaries, may be assigned a setback distance 

as condition of a permit/COA to be determined at the time 

the action is under review by BOEM and in coordination 

with the ONMS.” with Table 2-2 summary which states 

that BOEM would not authorize any seafloor disturbance 

in FGBNMS, which is not limited to No Activity Zones, and 

would design setbacks for nearby activities. Reference: 

Chapter 4, Section 4.7.2.1.4, Page 4-275 and Table 2-2.

Information in Table 2.2-2 has been edited to resolve the conflict with 

Chapter 4. 
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-221

M.4.11 Sargassum and Associated Communities

A single comment requested that information included in Chapter 4.8 be included in the 

Executive Summary relative to Sargassum habitat being designated as critical habitat for 

loggerhead sea turtles. The comment and response are provided in Table M-14. 

Table M-14. Sargassum and Associated Communities’ Detailed Comment Responses

Submission ID Comment Response

Sargassum and Associated Communities

1063-0007 Page XXXVIII - Impact conclusions for 

Sargassum - There should be some 

acknowledgement that this community is 

considered critical habitat for loggerhead sea 

turtles for much of the GOM.

Text has been added to the Executive 

Summary of this Programmatic EIS.

M.4.12 Archaeological Resources

Some comments were concerned that impacts from seafloor disturbance and entanglement 

from bottom-founded equipment were not adequately covered in this Programmatic EIS. However, 

other comments concurred with this Programmatic EIS evaluation of impacts to archaeological 

resources. Detailed responses to specific comments are provided in Table M-15. 
M-222 Responses to Public Comments

Table M-15. Archaeological Resources’ Detailed Comment Responses

Submission ID Comment Response

Archaeological Resources

1063-0032 4.11.2.1.1 Seafloor Disturbance and Entanglement

Page 4-355 Deployment of OBCs and OBNs may cause 

irreversible damage without seafloor survey coverage.

"The placement of heavy objects (i.e., anchors and tethered 

nodes with sound dampeners), in conjunction with OBC and 

OBN surveys on the seafloor, have the potential to severely 

impact an archaeological site should they come into direct 

contact with a resource. The OBCs are deployed from a surface 

vessel onto the seafloor. While the cable itself is light and 

flexible, the acoustic node assembly and sound dampeners can 

weigh up to approximately 400 lb (181 kg). The 'blind' method 

of laying down and peeling up the cable from the seafloor could 

cause the cable to snag on a shipwreck, causing moderate to 

major impacts. The OBNs are either dropped from a surface 

vessel, with a localized impact over a large area, or placed by 

ROVs, thereby lessening potential impacts to any 

archaeological resources that may be present on the seafloor. 

The potential for impacts to archaeological resources resulting 

from G&G surveys could be reduced further through predisturbance survey plan reviews provided by BOEM"

The document continues by stating the following:

"In attempt to mitigate potential damages to archaeological 

resources BOEM also requires that, if a cable becomes 

snagged upon retrieval operations, the operator must verify the 

cause of the snag, which could possibly minimize further 

damage to archaeological resources."

Text has been revised in Chapter 4.11 to add clarifying 

language in the impact assessment of each alternative to 

describe how visual verification of snags would identify 

potential damage to archaeological resources should they 

occur during an OBC or OBN survey.

1063-0033 Page 4-359-360 Alternative B

Impacts of Routine Activities: Entanglement is still an issue and 

not addressed outside of simply identifying the snag. This is not 

mitigation and should be labeled as a damage assessment.

Text has been revised in Chapter 4.11 to add clarifying 

language in the impact assessment of each alternative to 

describe how visual verification of snags would identify 

potential damage to archaeological resources should they 

occur during an OBC or OBN survey.
Table M-15. Archaeological Resources’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-223

Submission ID Comment Response

Page 4-361 Alternative C: same as above

Page 4-362-363 Alternative D: same as above

Page 4-363-364 Alternative E: same as above

Page 4-365-366 Alternative F: same as above

Page 4-366 Alternative G: Only activity that will not impact a 

potential archaeological resource.

In reference to the above descriptions: The seafloor impacts 

described in the document are centered on two sets of 

circumstances. The first is that there will be some pre-

disturbance survey data that BOEM can review prior to placing 

OBNs and OBCs on the seafloor or that they use an ROV to 

individually place these tools on the seafloor. If there is 

pre-disturbance data, then the BOEM archaeologists could 

require avoidance mitigation of archaeological investigations 

prior to disturbing the seafloor. From BSEE's point of view, this 

would result in what is described as a Nominal impact in the 

document.

The other scenario discussed in the document centers on a 

"blind" method of deployment. That is, to simply deploy these 

items (that may weigh 400 lbs or more) on the seafloor with no 

knowledge of what might be on the seafloor (archaeological 

sites, shipwrecks or other seafloor hazards). This is considered 

a Moderate to Major impact in the document.

The document then goes on to explain that in the event that 

there is a snag during the retrieval of these nodes, the operator 

will immediately halt and investigate each snag and determine if 

it is a shipwreck of some other seafloor hazard. The document 

refers to this as a mitigation measure that will inform the 

operator and BOEM as to what they have become entangled in. 

This description of a mitigation is a misrepresentation of what 

would constitute a mitigation measure (i.e. avoidance criteria or 

an archaeological investigation). If the operator were to snag on 

an archaeological site, this investigation would constitute a 
Table M-15. Archaeological Resources’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-224 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

damage assessment rather than mitigation. The proper way to 

ensure that no adverse impacts occur to historic properties 

during the proposed undertaking(s) (as per section 106 of the 

NHPA) would be to acquire high-resolution survey data and an 

archaeological assessment prior to the development of the 

OBNs and OBCs. This would constitute a good faith effort to 

identify historic properties in the Area of Potential Effect (as per 

NHPA and NEPA). Avoidance mitigations and criteria could 

then be placed on the operators permit and follow up 

compliance reviews of the placement of the OBNs or OBCs 

could be reviewed and determined if the operator complied with 

the conditions of permit approval. This discussion does not 

provide that level of analysis or consideration of these 

archaeological resources.

1071-0003 We reviewed the information submitted regarding the draft 

PEIS, and note that BOEM is seeking a wide range of 

information regarding resource assessment of all OCS areas in 

order to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects on historic 

properties (specifically historic shipwrecks). Since measures 

consistent with NEPA and federal consistency requirements are 

in place for requisite site surveys to locate and evaluate historic 

sites and properties, and for the avoidance of adverse impacts 

to significant resources, this agency concurs that the proposed 

G&G activities will have no adverse impact on historic 

properties.

Thank you for your comment.
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-225

M.4.13 Other Marine Uses

Multiple comments expressed opposition to any activities occurring east of the Military Mission 

Line that would negatively impact the military's utilization of the Joint Gulf Range Complex for 

required training. Detailed responses to specific comments are provided in Table M-16. 
M-226 Responses to Public Comments

Table M-16. Other Marine Uses’ Detailed Comment Responses

Submission ID Comment Response

Other Marine Uses

0030-0003 The Defense Support Initiative is a tri-county community based 

military and defense support organization. Eglin's Joint Gulf 

Range Complex, identified by the existing Military Mission Line 

as the Eastern Planning Area, is considered by DoD as a 

National Military Asset for testing and training.

The DSI maintains its official position established in 2010 and 

opposes any oil exploration, drilling, or related activities east of 

the Military Mission Line that would negatively impact the 

military's utilization of the Joint Gulf Range Complex for 

required training and threaten the ecology and economy of the 

Gulf region.

In 2006, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA)

was signed into law by the President. Among other provisions, 

this Act issued a moratorium on oil and gas leases within 

125 mi (201 km) of the Florida coastline in the EPA until at 

least 2022. The Act also issued a moratorium on new oil and 

gas leases from all areas in the EPA east of the Military 

Mission Line (86°41' W. longitude) and areas in the CPA within 

100 mi (161 km) of the Florida coastline. The projected levels 

of G&G activities for oil and gas exploration, marine minerals 

projects, and renewable energy geophysical surveys are 

outlined in Tables 3.2-1, 3.2-2, 3.2-4, and 3.2-5 over the 

10-year time period evaluated in this Programmatic EIS. The 

projected number of G&G activities in the EPA is much smaller 

than the number of surveys projected to take place in the WPA 

and CPA over the same period of time.

Historically, military activities and oil and gas exploration and 

production have coexisted within the AOI. Any conflicts 

between G&G activities and scheduled military operations can 

be avoided through coordination as stated in NTL 2014-BOEMG04 and standard GOM lease stipulations. In Chapter 

4.12.2.1.3, the potential impacts of G&G activities to military 

range complexes, MWAs, or areas of other military use would 

be nominal and avoidable when coordinated with the U.S. 

Department of Defense (USDOD) prior to commencement, as 

has occurred in the past. BOEM is committed to maintaining 

close coordination with the USDOD to avoid impacts from G&G 

survey activities.
Table M-16. Other Marine Uses’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-227

Submission ID Comment Response

0032-0001 I represent the Defense Support Initiative, a community based 

military and support organization of three northwest Florida 

counties. The GOM is a national test and training treasure and 

asset. The most sophisticated systems and aircraft require this 

test and training area, which cannot be replicated anywhere in 

the U.S. The implied threat of additional drilling in the Gulf is a 

strategic threat. The mere beginning of seismic analysis and 

testing begins the movement down the slippery slope of 

affecting the military importance of the Gulf test and training 

range.

In 2006, the GOMESA was signed into law by the President. 

Among other provisions, this Act issued a moratorium on oil 

and gas leases within 125 mi (201 km) of the Florida coastline 

in the EPA until at least 2022. The Act also issued a 

moratorium on new oil and gas leases from all areas in the 

EPA east of the Military Mission Line (86°41' W. longitude) and 

areas in the CPA within 100 mi (161 km) of the Florida 

coastline. The projected levels of G&G activities for oil and

gas exploration, marine minerals projects, and renewable 

energy geophysical surveys are outlined in Tables 3.2-1, 

3.2-2, 3.2-4, and 3.2-5 over the 10-year time period evaluated 

in this Programmatic EIS. The projected number of G&G 

activities in the EPA is much smaller than the number of 

surveys projected to take place in the WPA and CPA over the 

same period of time.

Historically, military activities and oil and gas exploration and 

production have coexisted within the AOI. Any conflicts 

between G&G activities and scheduled military operations can 

be avoided through coordination as stated in NTL 2014-

BOEM-G04 and standard GOM lease stipulations. In 

Chapter 4.12.2.1.3, the potential impacts of G&G activities to 

military range complexes, MWAs, or areas of other military use 

would be nominal and avoidable when coordinated with the 

USDOD prior to commencement, as has occurred in the past. 

BOEM is committed to maintaining close coordination with the 

USDOD to avoid impacts from G&G survey activities.
Table M-16. Other Marine Uses’ Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-228 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

0612-0001 WRT the military mission, any activity proposed near or east of 

the Military Mission Line needs to have specific items required 

as part of the permit process.

1. Any activities must be pre-coordinated using the long 

range planning process of the scheduling office of the 

96 Test Wing at Eglin AFB.

2. Any activities must be scheduled through the 96 Test 

Wing scheduling office at Eglin AFB (more detailed 

than the long range planning in item 1.

3. Any emissions must be pre-coordinated with and 

approved by the Gulf Area Frequency Control Office at 

Eglin AFB, FL to prevent any interference with military 

data collection activities.

4. Any frequencies approved by the GAFC office in 3, 

must also be scheduled for use during the process 

required in number 2 above.

The weapons and armament testing done in the GOM is too 

important to national security to allow any delays due to nonmilitary activities. The test activities are too hazardous to allow 

operations in the GOM east of the MML that have not been 

completely coordinated with the 96 Test Wing.

In 2006, the GOMESA was signed into law by the President. 

Among other provisions, this Act issued a moratorium on oil 

and gas leases within 125 mi (201 km) of the Florida coastline 

in the EPA until at least 2022. The Act also issued a 

moratorium on new oil and gas leases from all areas in the 

EPA east of the Military Mission Line (86°41' W. longitude) and 

areas in the CPA within 100 mi (161 km) of the Florida 

coastline. The projected levels of G&G activities for oil and 

gas exploration, marine minerals projects, and renewable 

energy geophysical surveys are outlined in Tables 3.2-1, 

3.2-2, 3.2-4, and 3.2-5 over the 10-year time period evaluated 

in this Programmatic EIS. The projected number of G&G 

activities in the EPA is much smaller than the number of 

surveys projected to take place in the WPA and CPA over the 

same period of time.

Historically, military activities and oil and gas exploration and 

production have coexisted within the AOI. Any conflicts 

between G&G activities and scheduled military operations can 

be avoided through coordination as stated in NTL 2014-

BOEM-G04 and standard GOM lease stipulations. In 

Chapter 4.12.2.1.3, the potential impacts of G&G activities to 

military range complexes, MWAs, or areas of other military use 

would be nominal and avoidable when coordinated with the 

USDOD prior to commencement, as has occurred in the past. 

BOEM is committed to maintaining close coordination with the 

USDOD to avoid impacts from G&G survey activities.
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-229

M.4.14 Human Resources and Land Use

Several comments emphasized the negative impact that most of the alternatives would have 

on the economy of the GOM region and the Nation’s energy security. These comments stated that 

jobs would be lost, which would impact the overall economy in the region and be detrimental to the 

Nation’s energy security. Additional comments stated that the economic analysis presented in this

Programmatic EIS is insufficient and that a cost-benefit analysis is needed.

The economic analysis performed as part of this Programmatic EIS focused only on 

additional expenditures for operating costs from implementing the proposed mitigation measures 

included in Alternatives A through F. The cost of the mitigation measures proposed for 

Alternatives E and F that would add additional operational cost are addressed quantitatively in the 

analysis. Alternative E options for a 10 percent and 25 percent reduction in line miles of 

deep-penetration, multi-client seismic airgun surveys (E1 and E2), as well as the closure areas 

proposed in Alterative F were addressed qualitatively. The economic analyses considered additional 

operating costs to be incurred, as well as the broader effects to industry, the local economy, and the 

supply chains from a reduction in activity and closure areas. Therefore, the resulting impact analysis 

qualitatively assessed potential impacts to the G&G industry, oil and gas industry, and regional 

economy as a whole. The 2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS provides BOEM's estimates of each GOM 

area's overall economic dependence on the offshore oil and gas industry. Detailed responses to 

specific comments are provided in Table M-17. 
M-230 Responses to Public Comments

Table M-17. Human Resources, Land use, and Economics Detailed Comment Responses

Submission ID Comment Response

Human Resources, Land Use, and Economics

0668-0002 The recreational fishing economy is an indicator of a middle 

class in the region and another tier of local economy that would 

be nearly if not completely eliminated in the case of a large 

scale shutdown. I believe there is a very large and important 

port missing from the list of 2 ports on the bottom of page 4-385.

The Port of Freeport in Brazoria County south of Houston 

portfreeport.com is very relevant to oil and gas in the Gulf 

Coast.

Potential impacts of the alternatives on recreational fishing are 

analyzed in Chapter 4.10. Recreational fishing uses smaller 

boat ramp access and marinas rather than the large ports that 

G&G surveys utilize.

The role of the Port of Freeport is discussed in Dismukes 

(2011), which is cited in the prior paragraph indicating that the 

Port of Freeport is devoted to conventional bulk transport 

shipping. As noted in Chapter 4.13.1, Port Fourchon and the 

Port of Galveston are the primary ports supporting G&G 

activities, as indicated in G&G permit applications. The Port of 

Freeport is not indicated by G&G permit applications as a port 

from which G&G activities are based.

0668-0003 On page 9 of the Quick Look document, I see Table 1 Impact 

Levels by Resource and Applicable Impact-Producing Factor 

Across Alternatives a through G. When I look toward the bottom 

the page, I see Demographics, Socioeconomics, Economic 

Factors, and Cumulative Factors, I see several squares that say 

"No Impact." For me, I believe that limiting seismic usage would 

cause major impact. I do not foresee "No Impact." I also see 

squares on the table that say minimum impact, minimum to 

moderate impact, moderate impact, and major impact. I believe 

these impact expressed on these squares is seriously 

underrated.

Thank you for your comment. Table 2.13-1 has been 

corrected to match the impact analysis results included in 

Chapter 4.13. 

0668-0004 Page 4-388 mentions a total of 79 companies identified as 

providing oil and gas services in the GOM. This number is way 

too low. Check the roster of the OTC Offshore Technology 

Conference for a more accurate number. It is important 

consider the concept of Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3 companies. For 

example, there is a certain number of Tier 1 companies such as 

Operators like ExxonMobil, Chevron. Then there are Tier 2 

companies like Baker Hughes and Schlumberger that serve Tier 

1 companies. This trend continues with Tier 3 companies 

whose major customers are Tier 2 companies. This is important 

to consider because if Tier 1 operations were impaired, it would 

The 79 companies identified were one source's estimate 

(Eastern Research Group, Inc., 2011) of the number of G&G 

services providers, not the total number of oil and gas 

companies in the GOM. BOEM acknowledges that there are 

many more companies involved in the overall oil and gas 

industry supply chain. The 2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS

provides BOEM's estimates of each GOM area's overall 

economic dependence on the offshore oil and gas industry. A 

summary of the qualitative analysis has been added to 

Chapter 4.13. 
Table M-17. Human Resources, Land use, and Economics Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-231

Submission ID Comment Response

not only affect the employees of the Tier 1 companies, but also 

the employees of the Tier 2 companies, Tier 3 companies, 

Tier 4, etc. There are many tiers of companies and all of them 

have employees that would be affected by reduced activity in 

the GOM. For example there are small to medium size 

companies in the Texas Gulf Coast perhaps Tier 4 or Tier 5 

companies that repair heavy equipment used by Tier 1, Tier 2 

and Tier 3 companies. If Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 companies 

suffer loss of revenue, loss of production feedstock, then Tier 

1-6 companies in upstream and downstream and other 

community economies would suffer tremendously NOT JUST 

the employees of the Tier 1 companies. For this reason, I 

believe that the statement on page 4-389 "As a result these 

multimillion dollar industries employ thousands of workers 

throughout the Gulf Coast" I believe the actual defacto number 

of workers is a lot more than you might think. I refer to page 

4-391 regarding newly displaced workers, I believe it is 

important to mention Brazoria County and Galveston County 

would be pummelled as well as engineering and oil and gas 

companies in The Woodlands Montgomery County area where 

ExxonMobil and Anadarko, etc. are located.

0668-0005 Limitations on seismic in the Gulf would have massive economic 

repercussions. These economic repercussions would effect not 

only tier 1 people employed by the operators like Exxon, also 

tier 2 the people employed by the service companies, and tier 3 

the people employed by the companies whose customers are 

the service companies. Also consider where people in tier 1, 

tier 2, and tier 3 spend money. How does their spending 

support or detract from the local economy where they live? 

There are many more tiers in this community. The daisy chain 

effect does not have to go on for too long for the local shopping 

centers to start to have retailers close stores.

And we are only talking about tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3. What 

about the community spending? Who sponsors little league 

teams and volunteer fire department fundraisers? Where does 

that money come from? It comes from corporate matching 

programs matching employee donations. It comes from 

Chapter 4.13 includes an evaluation regarding these potential 

impacts in the economic factors analysis. This type of detailed 

quantitative analysis of the impacts to the entire economy of 

the GOM is beyond the scope of this Programmatic EIS. This 

Programmatic EIS provides a programmatic-level evaluation 

for reasonably foreseeable G&G activities that could be 

utilized for any of BOEM’s three Program Areas (i.e., Oil and 

Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals). BOEM will 

address the impacts of future site-specific actions in 

subsequent NEPA evaluations (40 CFR § 1502.20) using a 

tiered process based on this programmatic evaluation.

However, the 2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS provides BOEM's 

estimates of each GOM area's overall economic dependence 

on the offshore oil and gas industry. A summary of this 

qualitative analysis has been added to Chapter 4.13. 
Table M-17. Human Resources, Land use, and Economics Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-232 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

employee donations out of their paycheck without corporate 

sponsorship. It comes from property taxes paid by the job sites 

in the community. And if the plant closed, the effects would be 

immediate, ongoing and devastating.

0668-0006 Even a temporary shutdown could be devastating and continue 

to be devastating for years. The skilled blue collar labor force is 

a valuable and worthy natural resource of the Gulf just as the 

beautiful white sand of Gulf Shores Alabama is a valuable and 

worthy natural resource of the Gulf Coast. And if those skilled 

blue collar workers lose their jobs and lose their homes and 

have no choice to scatter among the other 45 states in the 

United States looking for new jobs and new homes? What 

then? If a change in policy decides to resume normal oil and 

gas activity in the Gulf, we can't just run down to Walmart and 

buy a replacement skilled blue collar labor force! How would 

function be restored once seriously interrupted? I ask you to 

consider this. It is a very big deal. Some things cannot be 

undone. And if they can, it takes years even decades to restore.

And what about the function of the regions that Gulf Coast 

serves? The exploration and refineries in the Gulf Coast 

provide for the United States. How would massive shutdowns 

and layoffs in Gulf Coast communities effect the rest of the 

United States?

Thank you for your comment. BOEM has qualitatively 

addressed these effects within the economic factors analysis 

in Chapter 4.13. 

0999-0004 Tidewater is certain that BOEM is well aware of the economic 

engine of offshore energy exploration and exploitation (E&E) 

and its impact on the Gulf States. We would urge BOEM that 

disruption of this economy without extreme environmental 

justification sufficient to offset the impact to jobs in those states 

would be unwarranted.

Thank you for your comment. BOEM has presented a detailed 

analysis of the potential economic impacts of the alternatives 

in Chapter 4.13. 

0999-0005 The offshore hydrocarbon industry is commercially driven, but 

remains integral to the twin national goals of energy security and 

independence. We would remind BOEM that energy projects 

are time and capital-intensive. In other words; not only the 

current price of hydrocarbons, but also the projected future price 

determines the parameters of exploration for energy reserves 

but also the schedule of production of those reserves. As a 

result, uncertainty with respect to access, or due diligence in 

research of leases enters the decision-tree and, worst-case, 

Thank you for your comment. BOEM has analyzed these 

potential impacts within its economic factors analysis in 

Chapter 4.13. 
Table M-17. Human Resources, Land use, and Economics Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-233

Submission ID Comment Response

could result in National embarrassment in the matter of energy 

security.

1075-0006 In general, BOEM's economic analysis found in Section 4.13 of 

the DPEIS is inadequate, especially in the assumptions made 

about activity levels in the face of overly restrictive mitigation 

measures. The analysis appears to completely ignore the 

potential of reduced future drilling and production because there 

would not be adequate GIG data, especially seismic data, 

available.

BOEM believes the assumption that the predicted effort would 

remain constant is reasonable at the programmatic level and 

within the 10-year timeframe of this Programmatic EIS. While 

there has been a reduced level of exploration, G&G activity, 

and permit applications recently, BOEM assumes that activity 

will return to previous levels within the next 10 years. 

Therefore, BOEM must be prudent and conservatively 

consider the full range of potential impacts. The scenarios 

contain projections based on the analysis of recent historic 

activity levels and trends made by subject-matter experts who 

also considered industry-projected activity levels in their 

estimates.

This Programmatic EIS provides a programmatic-level 

evaluation for reasonably foreseeable G&G activities that 

could be utilized for any of BOEM’s three Program Areas (i.e., 

Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals). 

BOEM will address the impacts of future site-specific actions 

in subsequent NEPA evaluations (40 CFR § 1502.20) using a 

tiered process based on this programmatic evaluation.

BOEM acknowledges the cost to industry and the cost of 

implementing the mitigation measures, and includes this 

analysis in Chapter 4.13 and associated tables. BOEM has 

removed some conflicting language from this chapter.

1075-0007 While the DPEIS describes the potential economic impacts of 

the various alternatives (e.g., increased cost leading to 

decreased profits; supply chain impacts; lost production), it does 

not provide cost estimates for direct, indirect and induced 

economic impacts over the 10-year time period, nor does it 

adequately account for the variability inherent in offshore oil and 

natural gas exploration and development. As such, 

stakeholders cannot evaluate the full economic impacts of the 

alternatives.

Additional text has been added to Chapter 4.13.1.5. A 

synthesis of quantitative and qualitative information was used 

within this Programmatic EIS to assess and disclose the 

potential effects of permitting G&G activities (Chapter 4.13). 

Quantitative analysis for offshore oil and gas exploration and 

development is beyond the scope of this Programmatic EIS. 

However, Chapter 4.13 references the 2017-2022 GOM 

Multisale EIS, which provides forecasts of the direct, indirect, 

and induced economic impacts of offshore oil and gas 

activities. In Chapter 3.1 of the 2017-2022 GOM Multisale 

EIS, BOEM developed a robust range of oil and gas activity. 
Table M-17. Human Resources, Land use, and Economics Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-234 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

After developing the alternatives for this Programmatic EIS, 

BOEM determined that the scenario described in the 2017-

2022 GOM Multisale EIS is broad enough to encompass any 

indirect effects to the oil and gas industry from the range of 

G&G activity described in Alternatives A through F. In 

addition, the 2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS provides a sense 

of the geographic patterns of economic impacts that arise due 

to offshore oil and gas activities.

The impact conclusions are a synthesis of a variety of 

qualitative and quantitative available scientific information. 

While this analysis required some professional judgement by 

the subject-matter experts, the resulting impact conclusions 

remain credible in light of the available scientific record.

1075-0008 BOEM has failed to provide an adequate accounting of potential 

economic impacts for stakeholders to make an adequate 

assessment of the practicability or feasibility of the proposed 

alternatives. Perhaps the absence of a trained economist listed 

as one of the preparers/reviewers for chapter four of the DPEIS 

caused the inadequate accounting. Barry Graham Oil Service, 

LLC respectfully urges BOEM to conduct the required 

quantitative analyses and provide the findings for appropriate 

consideration going forward.

BOEM acknowledges the cost to industry of implementing the 

mitigation measures and includes this analysis in

Chapter 4.13 and its associated tables. In addition,

Chapter 4.13 references the 2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS, 

which provides forecasts of the direct, indirect, and induced 

economic impacts of offshore oil and gas activities. In 

Chapter 3.1 of the 2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS, BOEM 

developed a robust range of oil and gas activity. After 

developing the alternatives for this Programmatic EIS, BOEM 

determined that the scenario described in the 2017-2022 GOM 

Multisale EIS is broad enough to encompass any indirect 

effects to the oil and gas industry from the range of G&G 

activity described in Alternatives A through F. In addition, the 

2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS provides a sense of the 

geographic patterns of economic impacts that arise due to 

offshore oil and gas activities.

In addition to the economists included in the list of contract 

preparers, economists at BOEM assisted in the preparation of 

Chapter 4.13, but they were inadvertently left off the draft list 

preparers. This has been corrected.

1076-0062 In general, BOEM’s economic analysis found in Section 4.13 of 

the DPEIS is inadequate, especially in the assumptions made 

about activity levels in the face of overly restrictive mitigation 

BOEM has provided adequate information to disclose potential 

effects of the alternatives analyzed in this Programmatic EIS. 

Specifically with regard to potential economic effects, 
Table M-17. Human Resources, Land use, and Economics Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-235

Submission ID Comment Response

measures and the fact that the analysis appears to completely 

ignore the potential of reduced future drilling and production 

because there would not be adequate G&G data, especially 

seismic, available. In addition, while the DPEIS describes the 

potential economic impacts of the various alternatives (e.g., 

increased cost leading to decreased profits; supply chain 

impacts; lost production), it does not provide cost estimates for 

direct, indirect and induced economic impacts over the 10-year 

time period, nor does it adequately account for the variability 

inherent in offshore oil and natural gas exploration and 

development. As such, stakeholders cannot evaluate the full 

economic impacts of the alternatives.34

Chapter 4.13 provides an analysis of and tables showing the 

incremental cost and percent cost change per survey, the total 

annual survey incremental cost, and the percent reduction in 

efficiency per survey for Alternatives B through F. The 

industry cost analysis for this Programmatic EIS focused only 

on additional expenditures for operating costs from the 

proposed mitigations for Alternatives A through F. This

Programmatic EIS also analyzed the larger ranging effects to 

industry, the local economy, and supply chains from a 

reduction in activity and closure areas. BOEM did not quantify 

all of the direct, indirect, and induced impacts but discussed 

them qualitatively. This is because quantitative methods 

would be too speculative given that reductions in oil and gas 

activities are several steps removed from G&G activities and 

because of the variability inherent in the oil and gas industry. 

In addition, adjustment processes that are difficult to capture 

with quantitative methods would likely occur over time. 

However, there is sufficient information to reach overall impact 

conclusions and to satisfy NEPA requirements. Therefore, 

BOEM took the approach of providing a qualitative analysis of 

the indirect and induced impacts. Chapter 4.13 also 

references the 2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS, which provides 

forecasts of the direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts 

of offshore oil and gas activities. In Chapter 3.1 of the 2017-

2022 GOM Multisale EIS, BOEM developed a robust range of 

oil and gas activity. After developing the alternatives for this 

Programmatic EIS, BOEM determined that the scenario 

described in the 2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS is broad 

enough to encompass any indirect effects to the oil and gas 

industry from the range of G&G activity described in 

Alternatives A through F. In addition, the 2017-2022 GOM 

Multisale EIS provides a sense of the geographic patterns of 

economic impacts that arise due to offshore oil and gas 

activities; the economic impacts from changes in overall oil 

and gas activities indirectly arising from changes in G&G 

activities would roughly follow these geographic patterns.

The analysis for each alternative and the associated impact 
Table M-17. Human Resources, Land use, and Economics Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-236 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

conclusion were developed using the best available, 

scientifically credible information and generally accepted 

scientific methodologies. Additional text has been added to 

Chapter 4.13.1.5.

1076-0064 BOEM’s analyses of the economic impacts associated with the 

proposed reductions in seismic surveys found in Alternatives E1 

and E2 are particularly concerning:

1. BOEM assumes that reducing seismic survey activity by 

10% and 25% reduces direct employment by a 

proportional amount, resulting in 600 to 1,500 fewer 

jobs and economic/GDP impacts of $294 million to 

$735 million per year. This assumption is a good 

approximation of a portion of the direct impacts 

associated with reduced seismic survey activity. BOEM 

also mentions indirect and induced impacts but provides 

no calculations or estimates. DPEIS at 4-400, 401. 

There is no reason not to provide these estimates. 

According to estimates made using the IMPLAN model, 

adding in the indirect and induced impacts of reduced 

seismic survey spending more than doubles the 

employment impacts and increases GDP impacts by 

70%.

2. BOEM describes the real possibility that investments in 

new wells and platforms could be delayed and some 

prospective areas will not be developed at all. 

However, BOEM does not provide an estimate of how 

much activity will be forgone and thus no estimate of 

potential economic impacts is given. This is a 

significant flaw in the economic analysis of Alternatives 

E1 and E2 and should be rectified prior to publication of 

the final PEIS.

3. BOEM attempts to rationalize and minimize the potential 

impacts of Alternatives E1 and E2 by highlighting “the 

substantial declines in oil and gas prices since mid-2014 

will likely curtail oil and gas exploration activities, 

The impact conclusions are a synthesis of a variety of 

qualitative and quantitative available scientific information. 

While this analysis required some professional judgement by 

the subject-matter experts, the resulting impact conclusions 

remain credible in light of the available scientific record. The 

industry cost analysis for this Programmatic EIS focused only 

on additional expenditures for operating costs from the 

proposed mitigations for Alternatives A through F; therefore, 

this cost analysis represents only one part of the whole 

economic analysis. Therefore, the economic analyses 

consider the additional operating costs to be incurred as well 

as the larger ranging effects to industry, the local economy, 

and supply chains from a reduction in activity and closure 

areas. BOEM did not quantify all of the direct, indirect, and 

induced impacts, but discussed them qualitatively. This is 

because quantitative methods would be too speculative given 

that reductions in oil and gas activities are several steps 

removed from G&G activities and because of the variability 

inherent in the oil and gas industry. In addition, adjustment 

processes that are difficult to capture with quantitative 

methods would likely occur over time. However, there is 

sufficient information to reach overall impact conclusions and 

to satisfy NEPA requirements. Therefore, BOEM took the 

approach of providing a qualitative analysis of the indirect and 

induced impacts. The analysis for each alternative and the 

associated impact conclusion were developed using the best 

available, scientifically credible information and generally 

accepted scientific methodologies.

BOEM has developed this in-depth Programmatic EIS to 

inform the public and decisionmaker of the potential 

reasonably foreseeable impacts of the proposed action and 

alternatives to ensure that any decision regarding G&G 

activities is fully supported. All of this information will be 
Table M-17. Human Resources, Land use, and Economics Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-237

Submission ID Comment Response

implying that G&G activities may decline in absence of 

Alternative E.” DPEIS at 4-391, 392. However, the 

economic impacts are an estimate of future activity 

comparing the potential impacts with and without the 

proposed policy, not a comparison to an activity level in 

the past or a speculation about future oil prices as 

drivers of exploration. This comparison does not justify 

not including potentially large impacts of lost drilling 

activity.

4. On pages 4-391 and 392, BOEM makes several 

statements regarding potential impacts of Alternative E 

that are not relevant to the economic analysis or are not 

justifiable. In particular, whether the impacts are 

“nominal or minor” relative to the overall economy of all 

the coastal states is irrelevant. The full economic 

impacts of the action, in and of itself, should be 

estimated. The statement that “the majority of workers 

that are displaced from the G&G industry would likely be 

able to find employment in the region” is neither justified 

nor plausible, especially in the case of non-maritime 

workers on seismic survey vessels.

5. The statement that United States production will depend 

“on the extent to which oil and gas companies divert 

capital from offshore oil and gas development to 

onshore development in the US” is highly misleading. 

DPEIS at 4-401 and 4-403. Capital will move globally, 

not just within the United States. Restricted offshore 

GOM capital expenditures will likely go to the best 

second alternative, which will not necessarily be in the 

United States. Certain offshore specific assets, such as 

drilling rigs, will definitely be deployed in foreign 

offshore markets, not U.S. onshore.

considered by the decisionmaker in determining which 

alternative is selected in the ROD.

Chapter 4.13 references the 2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS, 

which provides forecasts of the direct, indirect, and induced 

economic impacts of offshore oil and gas activities. In 

Chapter 3.1 of the 2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS, BOEM 

developed a robust range of oil and gas activity. After 

developing the alternatives for this Programmatic EIS, BOEM 

determined that the scenario described in the 2017-2022 GOM 

Multisale EIS is broad enough to encompass any indirect 

effects to the oil and gas industry from the range of G&G 

activity described in Alternatives A through F. In addition, the 

2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS provides a sense of the 

geographic patterns of economic impacts that arise due to 

offshore oil and gas activities.

In addition, if NOAA moves forward with their proposed action 

(i.e., issuance of MMPA incidental take regulations), then a 

Regulatory Impact Analysis would accompany the rule.

BOEM has made various changes to Chapter 4.13. For 

example, BOEM has rephrased the analysis for Alternative E 

to clarify the commenter’s points about the state of the overall 

oil and gas industry. BOEM has also clarified that it is 

analyzing the full impacts of the alternatives. Finally, BOEM 

has altered the language regarding the adjustments that would 

occur in the oil and gas industry.

1076-0065 The analysis BOEM has provided for Alternative F is no better. 

The potential economic impact would be dependent on the 

number of quality oil and gas targets in the four areas. In 

addition, there are at least 5,350 active leases in these areas 

Based on BOEM’s active lease data as of June 2017, there 

are 638 active leases in the proposed closure areas included 

in Alternative F (Boudoin, 2017). The closures are applicable 

to airgun surveys only. Non-airgun surveys operating at 
Table M-17. Human Resources, Land use, and Economics Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-238 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

whose potential value would be greatly compromised. Any 

current investment in these areas would be essentially stranded 

and the value of lost revenue could be in the billions of dollars, 

yet BOEM has not provided estimates for these lost 

opportunities.

frequencies >200 kHz could occur in the closure areas. 

However, currently authorized G&G activities in the closure 

areas would be allowed to continue subject to the terms and 

conditions of existing permits or authorizations and without 

being required to implement additional mitigation measures.

1076-0066 BOEM has determined that Alternative G—a complete halt to 

seismic surveys— would only have a “moderate” socioeconomic 

impact. This is a stunning remark coming from BOEM, 

suggesting it does not grasp that offshore oil and gas 

exploration and development fundamentally require seismic 

data acquisition in order to pursue and support ancillary 

activities. Without seismic data, offshore oil and gas exploration 

and development would simply not be economically viable. The 

complete collapse of the offshore oil and natural gas industry in 

the GOM, including the loss of all direct, indirect and induced 

jobs and GDP contributions for operations in federal waters, 

would hardly be a “moderate” impact. The impacts of shutting 

down seismic surveys in the GOM are clearly “major” and 

Alternative G should be dropped from further consideration. 

BOEM has failed to provide an adequate accounting of potential 

economic impacts for stakeholders to make an adequate 

assessment of the practicability or feasibility of the proposed 

alternatives. The Associations respectfully urge BOEM to 

conduct the required quantitative analyses and provide the 

findings for appropriate consideration going forward.

BOEM's analysis of the potential economic impacts of 

Alternative G is presented in Chapter 4.13.8. BOEM 

concluded that the economic impacts of Alternative G would 

be major. BOEM's analysis of the impacts to other aspects of 

socioeconomics (i.e., environmental justice, demographics, 

land use, and infrastructure) would be minor to moderate. 

Chapter 4.13 has been restructured to clarify the different 

aspects of socioeconomics and the resultant impact rating.

1077-0004 BOEM fails in its DPEIS to satisfy a mandate under the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”) to assess and then 

balance the costs and benefits of listed alternative restrictions 

on G&G activities against a requirement for “expeditious and 

orderly development” of Gulf resources. OCSLA requires that 

the Gulf Outer Continental Shelf, which Congress deemed to be 

“a vital national resource,” be “made available for expeditious 

and orderly development, subject to environmental safeguards . 

. . .” 43 U.S.C. § 1332(3) (emphasis added). Yet, BOEM 

admittedly failed to use reliable data to determine whether 

benefits exist from the restrictions; BOEM then failed to analyze 

whether perceived benefits outweigh their negative impact on 

“expeditious and orderly” development of offshore resources.

This Programmatic EIS was prepared in order to analyze 

potential impacts of BOEM authorizing G&G survey activities 

in the GOM. The statutory authority for BOEM to issue such 

permits or authorizations is provided by the OCSLA. This 

Programmatic EIS does not address elements beyond those 

required by NEPA (e.g., the stated proposed action, purpose, 

and need as described in Chapter 1.1.2).

A cost-benefit analysis is not required to satisfy NEPA analysis 

requirements, particularly if there are important qualitative 

considerations (40 CFR § 1502.23). However, an EIS should 

indicate considerations, including factors not related to 

environmental quality, that are likely to be relevant and 
Table M-17. Human Resources, Land use, and Economics Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-239

Submission ID Comment Response

Chevron responded to Congress’ initiative by investing billions 

of dollars in Gulf exploration and development activities. BOEM 

should account for such reliance interests before deciding to use 

methods and data that BOEM admits to being unrealistic, and 

which could lead to measures that threaten the availability of 

seismic information needed for basically any meaningful 

exploration and development.

important to a decision (40 CFR § 1502.23). Therefore, only a 

cost analysis of the proposed mitigation measures was 

performed and is included in Chapter 4.13. Chapter 4.13

provides an analysis of and tables showing the incremental 

cost and percent cost change per survey, the total annual 

survey incremental cost, and the percent reduction in 

efficiency per survey for Alternatives B through F. BOEM 

considers many factors, including the cost of implementing 

mitigation measures, in selecting the Preferred Alternative. If 

NOAA moves forward with their proposed action (i.e., 

issuance of MMPA incidental take regulations), then a 

Regulatory Impact Analysis would accompany the rule. 

BOEM prepared this Programmatic EIS using the best 

available data and included conservative assumptions to avoid 

underestimating impacts. BOEM is committed to complying 

with the requirements and intent of NEPA in preparing a sound 

Programmatic EIS based on the best available scientific 

information and professional judgment of subject-matter 

experts. BOEM developed this in-depth Programmatic EIS to 

inform the public and decisionmaker of the potential 

reasonably foreseeable impacts of the proposed action and 

alternatives to ensure that any decision regarding G&G 

activities is fully supported.

1127-0001 Our industry provides an important service to America, 

producing the energy needed to power businesses, hospitals, 

schools, and other institutions, as well as households.

Thank you for your comment. BOEM has analyzed these 

factors in Chapter 4.13. 
M-240 Responses to Public Comments

M.4.15 Public Involvement and Agency Consultation Coordination

Comments requested clarification of cooperating agencies’ roles and specific text edits to 

accurately describe the roles and responsibilities of cooperating agencies. The State of Florida 

requested access to geological datasets collected in the coastal areas of Florida for future research. 

It was noted that the public participation and comment opportunity was appreciated. Detailed 

responses to specific comments are provided in Table M-18. 
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-241

Table M-18. Public Involvement and Agency Consultation Coordination Detailed Comment Responses

Submission ID Comment Response

Public Involvement and Agency Consultation Coordination

1069-0010 Finally, Shell appreciates the opportunity to comment on this 

important review of the NEPA process and looks forward to 

actively participating in the remaining steps.

The evidence available to the government demonstrates the 

enormous economic, energy, and environmental value 

associated with safely managed exploration and production of 

the nation’s OCS oil and gas resources – and the relative value 

of this program compared against the drastic and stark 

restrictions proposed on the G&G technology that forms the 

basis of this program.

Moreover, it is essential that BOEM coordinates closely with its 

sister agencies on this PEIS and future agency actions so that 

breakdowns in the regulatory processes – as witnessed recently 

in the Alaska and Atlantic OCS arenas – are not repeated.

All comments received on the Draft Programmatic EIS were 

considered during preparation of this Final Programmatic EIS. 

BOEM will continue coordination with all cooperating 

agencies, including BSEE and NOAA. The environmental 

review process ends following a 30-day period after release of 

this Final Programmatic EIS with issuance of a ROD. The 

ROD will state the decision of the agency (BOEM); identify the 

alternatives considered, including the environmentally 

preferable; identify and discuss the factors involved in the 

decision; and state whether all practical means to avoid or 

minimize environmental harm have been adopted, and if not, 

why not.

In addition, BOEM is working with NOAA and BSEE on MMPA 

rulemaking for these G&G activities to ensure close 

coordination and that this Programmatic EIS meets agency 

needs.

1071-0010 The FGS has the ability to archive geologic samples (e.g., cores 

and cuttings) and geophysical data collected offshore of Florida 

and to make those samples and data available for future 

research. It is requested that the FGS be given access to any 

geological, geochemical and geophysical data, to include 

bottom samples, borings and stratigraphic test information as 

well as high resolution shallow penetration sub-bottom profiler, 

side scan sonar, swath bathymetry, and traditional bathymetric 

survey data that might be collected proximal to the coast of 

Florida. The FGS is interested in what these data sets might 

reveal regarding the geology of Florida. For example, these 

data sets would provide insights into groundwater/seawater 

interaction, help determine the location of submarine springs 

and thus enhance our understanding of the hydrogeology of 

Florida. They would be useful in addressing potential 

geo-hazards to bottom supported and bottom involved 

structures. These data sets might also serve to better delineate 

areas of live bottom and hard ground. Our use of these data 

sets would also facilitate both qualifying and quantifying 

Information that can be publicly released will be made 

available to the FGS. Depending on the survey, some data 

collected during G&G surveys may be considered proprietary 

and, therefore, not available for public distribution.
Table M-18. Public Involvement and Agency Consultation Coordination Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-242 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

reserves of beach restoration quality sand proximal to points of 

potential need and the resolution of potential resource conflicts 

related to the sequestration of beach restoration quality sands 

by bottom involved structures and their appurtenances prior to 

their emplacement.

1130-0001 We respectfully submit that we have experienced serious 

challenges with BOEM's management of the cooperating 

agency relationship thus far, in part because BOEM's actions 

have not always followed the direction in the September 8, 

2015, Memorandum of Agreement between the agencies. In 

our view, issues include (but are not limited to): unilateral 

changes to agreed-upon timelines, lack of appropriate 

responses to cooperating agency comments and input relating 

to development of the draft PEIS, failure to implement verbally 

agreed-upon changes designed to make aspects of the 

published draft PEIS palatable to NOAA, and changes to the 

draft PEIS following the final version provided for NOAA's review 

that implicated NOAA in statements the agency disagrees with. 

In order to address these issues, we kindly request that BOEM 

ensure NOAA be afforded the opportunity to participate in any 

meetings relating to comment resolution and response, PEIS 

content, or preparation of the final PEIS. BOEM must allow 

NOAA the opportunity to ensure that the final PEIS fully satisfies 

its obligations under NEPA. We also request that BOEM 

provide written responses to the comments attached to this 

letter, including justification or resolution where BOEM declines 

to accept NOAA's recommendations. We expect that BOEM will 

provide NOAA a copy and summary of all comments received 

during the draft PEIS public comment period, that NOAA will 

have an opportunity to review a preliminary final version of the 

final PEIS, and that NOAA will be notified of any changes to the 

final PEIS prior to publication. Finally, we request that BOEM 

keep NOAA fully informed with regard to development of any 

timelines pertaining to the PEIS and, as necessary, alteration of 

any timelines pertaining to the PEIS process.

BOEM takes your comment very seriously and considers the 

cooperating agency relationship to be exceedingly important 

under NEPA. While the development of this Programmatic 

EIS has been challenging, BOEM has appreciated NOAA’s 

role throughout this process, providing significant input and 

expertise. Consistent with obligations under NEPA, BOEM 

remains committed to working with NOAA as a cooperating 

agency, keeping NOAA informed and ensuring that NOAA’s 

comments are considered. As BOEM and NOAA have 

continued discussions after the comment period closed and in 

preparing this Final Programmatic EIS, BOEM has seriously 

considered and responded to NOAA’s comments and has 

incorporated the additional ideas and expertise into this 

Programmatic EIS. As required by NEPA regulations and as 

noted in this appendix, BOEM has responded to NOAA’s 

comments and has indicated where proffered language was 

accepted or accepted with modifications and included in this 

Final Programmatic EIS. 
Table M-18. Public Involvement and Agency Consultation Coordination Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-243

Submission ID Comment Response

1130-0002 1. Revise the NOAA cooperating agency explanation in the 

Executive Summary and Chapter 6 (as provided below) for 

consistency and accuracy regarding NOAA’s jurisdiction and 

purpose to serve as a cooperating agency. Although NOAA’s 

previous comments concerning this topic were partially 

addressed during pre-draft versions, the descriptions in the Draft 

PEIS for public review are inconsistent. Reference: Executive 

Summary, Page vii, Background, Third Paragraph and Chapter 

Six, Page 6-7, Section 6.3.3.2., First Paragraph. “NOAA is 

serving as a cooperating agency because the scope of the 

proposed action and alternatives involve G&G survey activities 

that have the potential to impact protected resources under 

NOAA’s jurisdiction, including marine mammals, Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) listed marine species, Essential Fish Habitat 

(EFH) and National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS). NOAA’s 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has a statutory 

responsibility to protect, conserve and recover marine mammals 

and threatened and endangered species. This includes the 

authority to authorize incidental take of marine mammals, 

engage in consultations with other federal agencies, which can 

allow for take of threatened and endangered species, and 

enforce against unauthorized take. NMFS executes these 

authorities pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 

1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

NMFS has additional responsibilities to conserve and manage 

fishery resources of the United States. This includes 

consultations with other federal agencies pursuant to the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(MSA) and the implementing regulations at 50 CFR Part 600 for 

actions that may adversely affect EFH. NOAA’s Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) has a statutory 

responsibility to protect and conserve NMS.

This includes the authority to issue authorizations and general 

or special use permits pursuant to the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) (16 U.S.C. §§ 1431-1445c-1) and the 

regulations for implementing NMSA (15 CFR 922) and engage 

The NOAA’s proposed action has been edited in 

Chapter 1.1.1 in accordance with input from NOAA. Also, the 

cooperating agency designation has been edited, as 

necessary, from NMFS to NOAA throughout this

Programmatic EIS.
Table M-18. Public Involvement and Agency Consultation Coordination Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-244 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

in consultations with other federal agencies pursuant to NMSA, 

Section 304(d) for actions that are likely to injure sanctuary 

resources internal or external to a NMS.”

Remove inconsistent references to NMFS as the cooperating 

agency throughout the Draft PEIS. Even though NMFS is the 

lead office within NOAA, NOAA is the cooperating agency. 

Therefore, always refer to NOAA as the cooperating agency 

except when specifically addressing NMFS’s proposed action 

per the MMPA.

2. Revise the proposed action description in Section 1.1.1, last 

paragraph (as provided below) for accuracy and consistency 

regarding the purpose and intent of including a proposed action 

description for NMFS. Although NOAA’s previous comments 

concerning this topic were partially addressed during pre-draft 

versions, the description in the Draft PEIS for public review 

requires additional changes. Reference: Chapter 1, 

Section 1.1.1, Page 1-4.

1130-0003 Remove inconsistent references to NMFS as the cooperating 

agency throughout the Draft PEIS. Even though NMFS is the 

lead office within NOAA, NOAA is the cooperating agency. 

Therefore, always refer to NOAA as the cooperating agency 

except when specifically addressing NMFS’s proposed action 

per the MMPA.

Text throughout this Programmatic EIS has been changed to 

reflect NOAA as the cooperating agency.

1130-0038 Revise as follows: “The NOAA’s Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries (ONMS) has a statutory responsibility to protect and 

conserve the NMS. Consultation pursuant to Section 

304(d)303(d) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) is 

required of all Federal agencies for actions that are likely to 

injure sanctuary resources internal or external to a national 

marine sanctuary that are likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or 

injure sanctuary resources. In addition to consultation 

requirements, permits authorizations and general or special use 

permits may be required pursuant to the NMSA (16 U.S.C. 

§§ 1431-1445c-1) and the regulations for implementing the 

NMSA (15 C.F.R. Part 922).” Reference: Chapter 6, 

The requested changes have been made in Chapter 6.3.3.2.
Table M-18. Public Involvement and Agency Consultation Coordination Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-245

Submission ID Comment Response

Section 6.3.3.2, Page 6-7.

1130-0061 In Vol. I, Chapter 6, Section 6.3.2, how were the public scoping 

comments from November 18-December 22 2004 relevant to 

this PEIS? If this is not relevant, this statement and reference 

should be deleted. If those comments were addressed in this 

PEIS, what were they and how were they addressed? Some 

relevance or context should be provided if there is a need to 

point this out. NOTE: the Scoping Report that is referenced 

states “The NEPA process began with the Notice of Intent (NOI) 

to prepare a Programmatic EIS, which was published in the 

Federal Register on May 10, 2013 (78 FR 27427) and a 

correction was published on June 5, 2013 (78 FR 33859) to 

extend the comment period, closing it on July 9, 2013.” This is a 

document BOEM is directing the public to rely on but this 

document does not address comments from 2004.

The intent of providing information about the 2004 scoping 

was to provide the procedural history of past NEPA efforts on 

these issues. The 2013 scoping process for this 

Programmatic EIS provided the most relevant information for 

development of this Programmatic EIS.
M-246 Responses to Public Comments

M.4.16 Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling (Appendix D)

Some comments asserted that the exposure analysis that was conducted was overly 

conservative, representing a worst-case scenario, resulting in exposure estimates that are 

unreasonably high and not reflective of a reasonable estimate of the total number of animals that 

potentially could be taken.

To address these comments, BOEM has clarified throughout this Programmatic EIS the 

assumptions and scenarios used in the modeling, as well as limitations that may be inherent in any 

modeling effort. There were some erroneous occurrences of the phrase “worst-case” in this 

Programmatic EIS, which have been removed. Modeling scenarios used in this Programmatic EIS 

were developed from industry input and review of historical G&G permit application data. They 

represent a reasonable level of activities and equipment specifications over the 10-year period of 

this Programmatic EIS. While the results of the modeling may be conservative, they do remain the 

most credible, scientific-based information available at this time. An outline of the inputs to the 

modeling effort and their justification follows:

• Sound Source Properties: After discussions with marine geophysical 

contractors, who consider the airgun volumes and configurational arrangements 

of individual airguns within an array to be proprietary information, BOEM 

determined that a small 2 x 90 cubic inch configuration, and a larger array of 

8,000 cubic inches were most representative of the activity expected to occur 

during the time period of this Programmatic EIS after discussions with several 

industry companies. BOEM acknowledges that, although there are airgun arrays 

used in the Gulf of Mexico with both smaller and larger total volumetric 

displacement than the 8,000 cubic inch array provided, the horizontal modeling of 

the 8,000 cubic inch array should give sound pressure results similar to the other 

configurations.

• Sound Propagation: The JASCO Marine Operations Noise Model (MONM) is 

based on a well-developed and tested Parabolic Equation program (PE-RAM) 

(Collins, 1993). The MONM is essentially the product of adding an improved 

bottom loss model to the PE-RAM code. Furthermore, the predictions of the 

MONM model have been compared with measured levels. The comparison of 

model results and measurements show that MONM can produce reliable results 

in challenging acoustic propagation conditions (Hannay and Racca, 2005). 

• Animal Density Data: The density data represent the best available information 

for the region (Roberts et al., 2016). Habitat-based density layers were derived 

from a compilation of sightings over many years, the results of which were 

published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal paper. By linking sightings with 

environmental conditions, habitat-based density layers represent smoothed 

surfaces that are not biased by anomalous conditions. This makes them 
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-247

particularly appropriate for the 10-year timeframe of this Programmatic EIS, 

which will span varying environmental conditions.

• Exposure Thresholds: The behavioral threshold for behavioral response from 

impulsive noise sources has traditionally been a universal, one-step function at 

received levels of 160 dB re 1 μPa (RMS). This means that any animal exposed 

to a received level of 160 dB re 1 μPa (RMS) will experience a behavioral 

response. BOEM agrees that this threshold is outdated but that was the 

regulatory threshold when the impact analysis was completed. In anticipation of 

the changing regulatory threshold, the Wood et al. (2012) criteria were also used 

to evaluate the results. The Wood et al. (2012) function acknowledges that 

behavioral harassment is not a simple one-step function and that responses can 

occur at received levels below 160 dB, which is consistent with the best available 

science. The series of step functions provided within Wood et al. (2012) for 

porpoises/beaked whales (50% at 120 dB; 90% at 140 dB), migrating mysticete 

whales (10% at 120 dB; 50% at 140 dB; 90% at 160 dB), and all other 

species/behaviors (10% at 140 dB; 50% at 160 dB; 90% at 180 dB) attempt to 

provide a more realistic behavioral paradigm, which is probabilistic and 

acknowledges that not all exposures are expected to yield similar responses for 

every species and/or behavioral context (Ellison et al., 2012).

Additional comments indicated that BOEM was not clear on how take was being defined in 

this Programmatic EIS and that BOEM was quite emphatic in stating that exposure does not equal 

take, but the model still treats any exposure that exceeds threshold as a take. In addition, some 

comments suggested BOEM did not account for aversion or mitigation in its exposure modeling, 

resulting in exposure estimates that are unrealistically high.

To address these comments BOEM asserts that, since this Programmatic EIS is a NEPA 

document, it addresses acoustic exposure and does not quantify take. BOEM has tried to clarify 

language in this Programmatic EIS to be more consistent in using terminology. “Take” is a specific 

legal term used in the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act. The estimation 

of takes of listed species and evaluating the effects of an action on ESA-listed species and critical 

habitat and on marine mammals are ultimately under the purview of the appropriate services 

charged with implementation of those statutes (i.e., FWS and NOAA). The NEPA’s focus, however, 

is broader. It mandates that Federal agencies, prior to undertaking a major action, identify and 

analyze potentially significant impacts to the environment from the proposed action and alternatives, 

direct and indirect effects, and consider the incremental contribution to cumulative effects.

In addition, the question of implementing mitigation in the modeling was considered at 

length. There are currently no generally accepted metrics on the effectiveness of mitigation. 

Therefore, inclusion of a quantification of mitigation effects was not reasonable. Though mitigation 

could be not considered directly in the modeling effort, it is incorporated in the interpretation of the 

modeling results in the impact analysis presented in Chapter 4.2. 
M-248 Responses to Public Comments

Many comments noted that BOEM did not implement NMFS’ new acoustic guidance (2016). 

In addition, there were conflicting comments about whether BOEM should use the acoustic guidance 

or not.

Results became available in May 2017 and are included in this Programmatic EIS as 

Appendix N. The acoustic guidance from NMFS reflects the latest and best available science. It 

was prepared by an expert agency and was peer and publicly reviewed. The comments regarding 

NMFS’ criteria are not within the scope of this Programmatic EIS. The NMFS responded to public 

comments on the guidance (Federal Register, 2017). 

Several commenters raised concerns that are based on work published by Kujawa and 

Liberman (2009), who reported that neural damage occurred at pressure levels lower than those 

expected to cause PTS.

BOEM is committed to the preparation of a sound Programmatic EIS based on the bestavailable scientific information and professional judgment of its subject-matter experts. BOEM has 

developed this in-depth Programmatic EIS to inform the public and the decisionmaker of the 

potential reasonably foreseeable impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to ensure that any 

decision regarding G&G activities is fully supported.

BOEM has clarified throughout this Programmatic EIS the assumptions and scenarios used 

in the modeling, as well as limitations that may be inherent in any modeling effort (e.g., inability to 

account for mitigation measures and aversion).

Because this is a Programmatic EIS, the exposure numbers derived from both Level B 

criteria are informative. Furthermore, no actual takes are authorized through this Programmatic EIS 

as that will be done under the final MMPA authorization that may be issued from the consultation 

process currently underway between BOEM and NMFS.

Additional comments suggested that BOEM evaluated the Level B harassment exposures 

using two criteria, i.e., those from NMFS (unweighted 160 dB RMS) and the Wood et al. (2012) 

step-wise function. Additional criteria (i.e., Nowacek, 2015) were also suggested to be used.

The following explanation is provided to explain what was done. The behavioral threshold 

for behavioral response from impulsive noise sources has traditionally been a universal, one-step 

function at received levels of 160 dB re 1 μPa (RMS). This means that any animal exposed to a 

received level of 160 dB re 1 μPa (RMS) will experience a behavioral response. Although this 

threshold is outdated, it was the regulatory threshold when the impact analysis was completed. In 

anticipation of the changing regulatory threshold, the Wood et al. (2012) criteria were also used to 

evaluate the results. The Wood et al. (2012) function acknowledges that behavioral harassment is 

not a simple one-step function and that responses can occur at received levels below 160 dB, which 

is consistent with the best available science. The series of step functions provided within Wood et 

al. (2012) for porpoises/beaked whales (50% at 120 dB; 90% at 140 dB), migrating mysticete whales 
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-249

(10% at 120 dB; 50% at 140 dB; 90% at 160 dB), and all other species/behaviors (10% at 140 dB; 

50% at 160 dB; 90% at 180 dB) attempt to provide a more realistic behavioral paradigm, which is 

probabilistic and acknowledges that not all exposures are expected to yield similar responses for 

every species and/or behavioral context (Ellison et al., 2012).

The differences between Wood et al. (2012) and Nowacek et al. (2015) stem from how 

probabilities at corresponding received levels are assigned, with both methodologies seemingly 

relying upon professional judgment in interpreting available data to make these decisions. Nowacek 

et al. (2015) offer minimal detail on how their recommended probabilistic function should be 

derived/implemented (e.g., What is slope? What are the basement/ceiling points?). Additionally, the 

Nowacek et al. (2015) function provides no quantitative recommendations for acknowledging that 

behavioral responses can vary by species group and/or behavioral context. For example, relying 

upon Nowacek et al. (2015), compared to Wood et al. (2012), does not adequately acknowledge that 

beaked whale species have previously been identified as particularly sensitive species (i.e., 

behaviorally respond at lower received levels than other species; Southall et al. [(2007]). Therefore, 

it was decided that Wood et al. (2012) had more substantial foundation for implementation.

Clarifying comments were received from Roberts regarding the density estimates that were 

implemented (Roberts et al. [2016]). Other Comments stated that habitat-based density modeling 

may not capture all the habitat variables that are important to the animals, and consequently places 

modeled animals in areas where they never or rarely go.

BOEM utilized the Duke density model (Roberts et al., 2016) since it is the latest and best 

available science, which has gone through peer review during its publication in a scientific journal. 

Habitat-based density layers were derived from a compilation of sightings over many years, the 

results of which were published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal paper. By linking sightings with 

environmental conditions, habitat-based density layers represent smoothed surfaces that are not 

biased by anomalous conditions. This makes them particularly appropriate for the 10-year 

timeframe of this Programmatic EIS, which will span varying environmental conditions.

Several comments asserted that, for a variety of issues, BOEM did not use the best available 

science. 

BOEM is committed to complying with the requirements and intent of NEPA, in preparing a 

sound Programmatic EIS based on the best-available scientific information and professional 

judgment of its subject-matter experts. BOEM has developed this in-depth Programmatic EIS to 

inform the public and decisionmaker of the potential reasonably foreseeable impacts of the proposed 

action and alternatives to ensure that any decision regarding G&G activities is fully supported.

The impact analysis considered the modeling results, in conjunction with subject-matter 

expert review of scientifically credible information using accepted approaches and research 

methods. While this analysis required some professional judgment by the subject-matter experts, 
M-250 Responses to Public Comments

the resulting impact conclusions remain credible in light of the available scientific record. A review of 

the sources of information for the analysis is provided below:

• Operational Scenario Development: The source and operations scenarios 

were based on historical permit information. BOEM sought industry input and 

used historical data to develop the specification of the nominal airgun array. The 

array specifications and level of survey effort were intended to be representative 

of future activity, not a conservative over-estimate.

• Acoustic Modeling: The propagation model output has been compared with 

measured data and been shown to be reliable. The physical inputs to the model 

are the best available data. The full sound field was used to predict exposures, 

not a ‘maximum over depth’ simplification.

• Animal Modeling: The 3MB model is one of the few models available that 

incorporates full four-dimensional movement. Properly applied, such models 

provide the most accurate predictions of acoustic exposure.

• Animal Density: The density and distribution data used were the latest available 

and represent the latest synthesis and analysis.

• Effects Criteria: The current NMFS Level B threshold of 160 dB is widely 

considered to be outdated, which is why it was supplemented with the Wood 

et al. (2012) criteria. The current NMFS (2016) acoustic guidance was not 

available during the preparation of this Programmatic EIS.

Additional commenters stated that the assumption used in the exposure modeling were 

overly conservative and did not reflect the best available science or forecast realistic scenarios.

BOEM has clarified throughout this Programmatic EIS the assumptions and scenarios used 

in the modeling, as well as limitations that may be inherent in any modeling effort.

• Source Characteristics: The nominal airgun array characteristics used for 

modeling efforts were based on industry input and historical permit information. 

It was designed to be a representative example, not a worst-case scenario. 

While smaller arrays will have lower source levels, the difference is typically 

small.

• Level of Industry Effort: BOEM attempted to predict exploration effort that 

would be constant over the 10-year timeframe of this Programmatic EIS and 

would include a return to historic exploration levels.

• Mitigation and Aversion: One decision made in the modeling effort was not to 

include the effects of animals avoiding sound source (aversion) and the effect of 

marine mammal mitigation (shutdowns). BOEM determined that the details of 
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-251

how animals react to moderate (i.e., behavioral exposure) levels of sound are not 

sufficiently understood and that the effectiveness of mitigation is not well defined. 

Therefore, the modeling effort avoided these two sources of uncertainty. The 

resulting increase in predicted number of exposures is recognized and 

considered in the interpretation of the modeling results.

• Recovery Function: The decision to not include a recovery function was made 

based on a lack of scientific understanding of the recovery process in real 

animals. It is understood that such a recovery process is almost certainly 

present, and this will be considered in the interpretation of the modeling results.

Detailed responses to specific comments are provided in Table M-19. 
M-252 Responses to Public Comments

Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses

Submission ID Comment Response

Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling (Appendix D)

0006-0002 The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has released a draft 

environmental impact statement that concludes seismic surveys 

for oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico would cause 

significant harm to marine mammals. The analysis finds that as 

many as 31.9 million marine mammals in the Gulf of Mexico will 

be injured and harassed by oil and gas seismic surveys. This 

includes 80 percent of the Gulf's endangered sperm whale 

population, estimated at 763 animals. Sperm whales will 

experience as many as 760,000 harassing exposures to airgun 

blasting over the next decade. The draft estimates that seismic 

blasting would cause as many as 588 injuries to the Gulf's 

Bryde's whales of which only 33 individuals remain about 

17 times for each member of this imperiled population.

These airgun blasts can effectively reach more than 

250 decibels and so can cause hearing loss in marine 

mammals, disturb essential behaviors such as feeding and 

breeding over vast distances, mask communications among 

whales and among dolphins, and reduce catch rates of 

commercial fish.

The new report finally acknowledges what environmental groups 

have long warned: that these sonic blasts cause harm to marine 

mammals. The report estimates that oil and gas seismic 

surveys will harm whales and dolphins with as many as 

4.3 million instances of injury, including permanent hearing loss.

Thank you for your comment.

0343-0001 Both acoustic modeling of 3-D sound propagation based on six 

different G&G survey types and animat modeling of animal 

movement scaled to the appropriate density were used to 

estimate the numbers of marine mammal takes. In recent 

months, NMFS’s new acoustic guidance for Level A harassment 

has been finalized but unfortunately has yet to be incorporated 

into BOEM’s take estimation process. The new cumulative 

sound exposure level (SELcum) thresholds have decreased and 

the weighting functions have changed both in shape and 

Thank you for your comment. This Programmatic EIS has 

been revised to include the 2016 Technical Guidance issued by 

NMFS, and updated modeling results using this guidance are

included in Appendix N. This represents the best available 

scientific information and criteria issued by NOAA.
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-253

Submission ID Comment Response

amplitude from those previously analyzed in support of the 

DPEIS4, which were from Finneran and Jenkins (2012). As 

noted by BOEM, those differences5 account for a total threshold 

change of -22 dB for low-frequency cetaceans exposed to 

seismic surveys, which would increase both the impact area and 

the numbers of takes. The peak sound pressure level 

(SPLpeak) threshold6 also decreased for low-frequency 

cetaceans. BOEM indicated that similar, but not as pronounced, 

effects are observed based on the revised SELcum thresholds 

for non-impulsive sources as well. BOEM stated that it intends 

to review the guidelines further and work with NMFS regarding 

how to apply the new thresholds. The Commission advocates 

the use of best available science, especially for programmatic 

environmental compliance documentation that includes EISs 

and LOA applications. Thus, the Commission recommends that 

BOEM revise its Level A harassment take estimates and 

associated mitigation zones based on NMFS’s new acoustic 

thresholds prior to finalizing the PEIS and submitting its LOA 

application to NMFS.

0343-0002 BOEM used two different types of thresholds to estimate the 

numbers of Level B harassment takes—one based on NMFS’s 

unweighted SPLrms threshold and the other based on a 

probability of response scale for M-weighted SPLrms 

thresholds7 adapted from Wood et al. (2012; see Table 6 in 

Appendix D). However, BOEM did not stipulate which 

thresholds ultimately were to be used to estimate the total 

numbers of marine mammal takes. Further, BOEM has not 

provided summary tables that either stipulate the total numbers 

of takes estimated to occur on a yearly basis for the six survey 

types combined or the total numbers of takes that are 

associated with each of the seven alternatives—the latter issue 

is further compounded because some of the alternatives include 

reductions in activity levels and implementation of time-area 

closures, neither of which appear to be incorporated into 

modeling results for the various marine mammal species in 

Appendix D. All of these issues make it very difficult for both the 

public and the Commission to evaluate the appropriateness of 

the alternatives and have a clear understanding of the total 

Thank you for your comment. BOEM clearly identified in 

Chapter 4.2 that the established 160-dB Level B threshold 

criteria were used in the effects analysis. In addition, 

harassment thresholds based on Wood et al. (2012) were also 

modeled in order to have this information available should 

emerging science shift the appropriate Level B threshold 

criteria away from the established 160-dB Level B threshold 

criteria.

Impact-level definitions are defined for each resource in 

Chapter 4. The term “significance criteria” has been replaced 

with “impact-level criteria.”

Therefore, BOEM believes this Programmatic EIS included the 

relevant information, identified the criteria used to evaluate this 

information, and explained for the public and the decisionmaker

how BOEM reached its impact conclusions in Chapter 4. 

As noted in Chapter 1.2.5, there is no generally accepted 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-254 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

estimated takes for each marine mammal species or stock. The 

Commission therefore is unsure how BOEM assigned 

significance criteria8 to evaluate the overall level of impact for 

the various stressors under the seven alternatives.

scientific consensus on how to quantify mitigation 

effectiveness. Therefore, implementation of mitigation could 

not be readily incorporated into the model. 

0343-0003 The Commission is concerned that BOEM’s approach is neither 

accurate nor transparent and runs counter to the guidance 

provided in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

implementing regulations. Section 1502.8 of the regulations 

states that EISs shall be written in plain language and may use 

appropriate graphics so that decision makers and the public can 

readily understand them. The Commission believes that BOEM 

has not met this directive under NEPA and recommends that 

BOEM specify (1) which Level B harassment threshold it intends 

to use and (2) the total numbers of marine mammals that could 

be taken by both Level A and B harassment incidental to G&G 

surveys under each of the seven alternatives in its final PEIS 

and the Preferred Alternative in its LOA application.

Thank you for your comment. BOEM is committed to 

complying with the requirements and intent of NEPA in 

preparing a sound Programmatic EIS based on the bestavailable scientific information and professional judgment of its 

subject-matter experts. BOEM has developed this in-depth 

Programmatic EIS to inform the public and decisionmakers of 

the potential reasonably foreseeable impacts of the proposed 

action and alternatives to ensure that any decision regarding 

G&G activities is fully supported. 

The impact conclusions for each alternative are a synthesis of 

a variety of qualitative and quantitative available scientific 

information. The impact analysis considered the modeling 

results, in conjunction with subject-matter expert review of 

scientifically credible information using accepted approaches 

and research methods. While this analysis required some 

professional judgement by the subject-matter experts, the 

resulting impact conclusions remain credible in light of the 

available scientific record. BOEM has clarified throughout this 

Programmatic EIS the assumptions and scenarios used in the 

modeling, as well as the limitations that may be inherent in any 

modeling effort (e.g., inability to account for mitigation 

measures and aversion). While the results of the modeling 

may be conservative, they do remain the most credible, 

scientific-based information available at this time.

While the results of the modeling may be conservative, they 

are the most credible, science-based information available at 

this time. The question of implementing mitigation in the 

modeling was considered at length. There are currently no 

generally accepted metrics on the effectiveness of mitigation. 

Therefore, inclusion of a quantification of mitigation effects was 

not reasonable. Though mitigation could be not considered 

directly in the modeling effort, it is incorporated in the 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-255

Submission ID Comment Response

interpretation of the modeling results in the impact analysis 

presented in Chapter 4.2. It is reasonable to conclude that the 

proposed mitigation measures would likely reduce the potential 

impacts to marine mammals, though the amount of such 

reduction cannot be quantified at this time.

This Programmatic EIS would also support NOAA authorization 

of the incidental take of marine mammals under the MMPA and 

will use the best available science and applicable thresholds.

0343-0004 Throughout the DPEIS, BOEM noted as part of its model 

caveats that it and NMFS do not believe that every exposure to 

sound results in a ‘take’ as defined in section 101(a)(5)(A) or (D) 

of the MMPA. BOEM therefore indicated that exposure 

estimates delineated in the DPEIS are not the same as a ‘take’ 

or an injury to an animal. Multiple mischaracterizations seem to 

be present in these assertions. First, taking requiring 

authorization under section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA is 

not limited to taking by injury. While only taking by harassment 

(Level A and B harassment) can be authorized under section 

101(a)(5)(D), taking under section 101(a)(5)(A) can include 

taking by harassment, serious injury, and mortality. The vast 

majority of the takes authorized by NMFS under sections 

101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA are for Level B harassment, 

which is based on the potential to disturb not to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock. The current structure of 

BOEM’s statement sounds as though it is considering only takes 

by injury.

Thank you for your comment. The modeling does estimate 

both Level A and Level B exposures. Both types of exposures 

are considered and presented in Appendix D (Tables 76 

through 82) and Appendix F of Appendix D. 

Revisions were made to Chapter 1.2.5 to include discussions 

on key model components, including source, propagation, 

density and abundance, and threshold. 

0343-0005 Second, the main objective of modeling the numbers of 

exposures based on certain sound thresholds is to estimate the 

overall numbers of takes of the various species. The only time 

in which an exposure above those thresholds would not be 

considered a take is when the likelihood of such exposure has 

been reduced due to presumed effectiveness of mitigation 

measures or assumed avoidance (or aversion as noted in 

Appendix D) by certain species. That is a strategy that the Navy 

has used multiple times to reduce take estimates and with which 

the Commission disagrees. However, Appendix D noted that 

mitigation effectiveness is influenced by the ability to detect 

Thank you for your comment. The modeling does estimate 

both Level A and Level B exposures. Both types of exposures 

are considered and presented in Appendix D (Tables 76 

through 82) and Appendix F of Appendix D. 

Revisions were made to Chapter 1.2.5 to include discussions 

on key model components, including source, propagation, 

density and abundance, and threshold. 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-256 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

animals within the exclusion zone, which is based on the 

species’ dive profile and surfacing behavior, weather conditions, 

and observational platforms. Because weather conditions are 

unknown beforehand and detection probabilities are difficult to 

predict, mitigation effectiveness is not included in the exposure 

estimates. Further, Appendix D recognized that aversion is a 

context dependent behavioral response affected by energetic 

and reproductive state, social behavior, and health status of 

individuals. Since too little is known about the factors that lead 

marine mammals to avoid sound sources, aversive behavior 

also was not included in the exposure estimates. Given that 

neither ‘reduction’ was included in the exposure estimates nor 

presumably would be included post processing, it is unclear why 

BOEM believes that the exposure estimates would not equate to 

estimated takes. It also is unclear if NMFS agrees with the 

model caveats stated throughout the DPEIS. Since NMFS is a 

cooperating agency on the DPEIS, it would be prudent for 

BOEM to ensure that NMFS agrees with those caveats.

0343-0006 If both BOEM and NMFS believe that the exposure estimates 

are unreasonably high and not reflective of a reasonable 

estimate of the total numbers of animals that potentially could be 

taken, that concern could have been addressed by incorporating 

some measure of uncertainty in the exposure or take estimates.

Appendix D discussed uncertainties associated with both 

acoustic and animat modeling that were analyzed via various 

test case scenarios. However, it does not appear that those 

data have been used to the fullest extent, if at all. Because 

BOEM has not provided summary tables that delineate the total 

numbers of marine mammals that could be taken by both 

Level A and B harassment, the intent of BOEM’s assertions 

regarding exposures and takes remains uncertain.

Thank you for your comment. Refer to Chapter 1.2.5 where 

revisions were made to include discussions on model 

methodology and key model components, including source, 

propagation, density and abundance, and threshold. 

While BOEM acknowledges that the modeling inputs may be 

conservative, BOEM also acknowledges the modeling results 

are reasonable and remain the most credible, scientific-based 

information available at this time.

0343-0007 The point BOEM may have been attempting to convey in its 

model caveat sections is that every estimated exposure or take 

is not necessarily realized in practice. That is, for example, all 

500,000 takes of sperm whales estimated by the model may not 

occur. This can be because the total number and type of 

seismic surveys used to derive the take estimates does not 

occur or does not occur in the proposed timeframe or area. If 

Thank you for your comment. Refer to the revised text in 

Chapter 1.2.5. 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-257

Submission ID Comment Response

that is what was intended by BOEM, the DPEIS should be 

amended accordingly to state that point more clearly. Thus, the 

Commission recommends that BOEM, prior to finalizing the 

PEIS and submitting its LOA application to NMFS, consult with 

NMFS regarding BOEM’s assertion that exposures do not 

equate to estimated takes under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA and clarify what it intended in making those assertions 

throughout the DPEIS. Uncertainty can be incorporated in the 

take estimates through reporting of probability distributions or 

confidence intervals, and a single take number could be 

authorized based on the median or mean number of estimated 

takes.

0899-0002 BOEM’s peer review of the PEIS should include external review 

of all the Appendix D Models. These models include the Marine 

Mammal Movement and Behavior Model (“3MB”) developed by 

Dr. Dorian Houser. The 3MB Model has already failed peer 

review.10

The Navy performed external peer review of this Appendix D 

model. The Navy peer reviewers recommended that the “3MB 

model should only be used for research purposes, not for 

estimating takes” because it is not accurate and reliable enough 

to be used for regulatory risk assessment purposes.

11 

Therefore, BOEM’s proposed use of the 3MB found the model 

to be not accurate and reliable.12

BOEM itself repeatedly emphasizes that the PEIS Appendix D 

models do not reflect reality.13 For example, BOEM explains, 

“the PEIS modeled exposure estimates do not reflect BOEM’s 

determination of the actual expected physical or behavioral 

impacts to marine mammals....”14

BOEM further states, “The modeling effort in Appendix D, which 

provides numbers estimated for incidental exposures of marine 

mammals, are higher than BOEM expects would actually 

occur.”15

Thank you for your comment. There are only three models that 

are widely accepted and used for this type of analysis, and the 

only one that is generally commercially available is the peerreviewed ESME system on which 3MB is based. Each of these 

models has strengths and weaknesses; the 3MB model 

represents the best available system that was available to the 

contractor in this case and was updated to include as current 

information as possible. BOEM believes that the 3MB Model 

does comply with CREM guidelines for the following reasons. 

The referred document considered the entire Navy system 

(NUWC-NEMO-ESME modeling suite), and 3MB is only one 

component of that suite. The finding given in the report is "The 

overall opinion of the CIE review panel was that each model 

sufficiently considered all relevant biological and physical 

variables." The specific quote included in CRE's comment is 

the opinion of one of the panel members, not an overall finding. 

Furthermore, some of the criticism of 3MB involved HOW it 

was used in the Navy system. The manner in which 3MB was 

used by JASCO in the BOEM modeling differs in that a full 3D 

movement model was used.

An expanded discussion of the model, inputs, and reasonable 

assumptions is provided in Chapter 1.2.5. That discussion 

provides additional insight on the synthesis of modeling data 

and qualitative analysis, where quantitative data were

unavailable or could not be reasonably quantified. In addition, 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-258 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

In other words, there is no support in the PEIS record for any 

assumption that the Appendix D model results reflect reality. 

Even BOEM agrees they don’t reflect the real world.

Neither BOEM nor any other federal agency can use these 

models to regulate until and unless the models have been 

properly validated. Validation requires demonstrating that 

model predictions reflect reality. This demonstration requires 

comparing model predictions with field data--with real-world 

observations.

The National Academy of Sciences (“NAS”) emphasizes that, 

“[i]n all cases, field data must be collected to validate the model 

predictions.”16

Another NAS report, “Models in Environmental Regulatory 

Decision Making (2007),” similarly explained that “[c]omparing 

model results with observations is a central component of any 

effort to evaluate models.”17

The NAS rendered this advice during its peer review of models 

guidance being developed by EPA’s Council for Regulatory 

Environmental Modeling (“CREM”). After NAS review, EPA 

published final CREM Guidance. The CREM Guidance explains 

that evaluation of model quality requires an answer to the 

following question: “How closely does the model approximate 

the real system of interest?”18

The Navy peer reviewed the 3MB Model to determine whether it 

complies with the CREM Guidance. The peer reviewers 

concluded that it doesn’t.19

Consequently, the Navy peer reviewers concluded, “None of 

these models can, nor should they purport to, model 

ecosystems.”20

CONCLUSION AND REOMMENDED ACTION: BOEM’s 

the exposure estimates are only one part of the overall impact 

analysis. The suite of IPFs is described in Chapter 4, where 

each alternative is analyzed by IPF and where associated 

mitigation measures are considered. The impact significance 

criteria and resulting impact levels are described in detail and 

will inform the decision that will be selected in the ROD. 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-259

Submission ID Comment Response

proposed use of the Appendix D models violates OMB’s Peer 

Review Bulletin requirements that the models be peer reviewed 

before BOEM uses them.21 It also violates the IQA Guidelines 

and fundamental principles of scientific quality because the 

models do not approximate field conditions. They are not 

realistic. Consequently, they are inaccurate and unreliable, and 

BOEM should not use or rely on them.

0899-0005 BOEM did not use NMFS’ new Acoustic Guidance in the PEIS 

because the final Guidance was published too late to be in the 

PEIS.38 However, BOEM warns that it “will implement any 

requirements or conditions of approval set out by NMFS in sitespecific reviews and permits once the new acoustic guidance is 

finalized.”39

NMFS’ new Acoustic Guidance is now final.

For the reasons set forth below, neither BOEM nor NMFS 

should use NMFS’ final Acoustic Guidance for any purpose.

NMFS intends to use its new Acoustic Guidance to regulate 

offshore oil and gas exploration using seismic airguns, even 

though NMFS itself admits, “there is no evidence that serious 

injury, death, or stranding by marine mammals can occur from 

exposure to [oil and gas] airgun pulses, even in the case of 

large airgun arrays.”40

In other words, NMFS has consistently and correctly concluded 

that there is no evidence offshore oil and gas G&G activities 

ever cause the injuries that the Acoustic Guidance aims to 

prevent, and BOEM agrees.41

NMFS’ new Acoustic Guidance imposes unnecessary 

regulations on offshore oil and gas that cannot be met because 

they require exclusion zones that are too large for monitoring, 

compliance and successful operation. This violates the MMPA 

statutory requirement that NMFS’ regulation of sound be 

practicable.42 In addition, NMFS’ development of the Acoustic 

Thank you for your comment. The Technical Guidance for 

Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing—Underwater Acoustic Thresholds for Onset 

of Permanent and Temporary Threshold Shifts was issued in 

August 2016 after public notice and multiple opportunities for 

comment. This Programmatic EIS has been revised to include 

the 2016 Technical Guidance issued by NMFS, and updated 

modeling results using this guidance are included in 

Appendix N. This represents the best available scientific 

information and criteria issued by NOAA.

The guidance from NMFS reflects the latest and best available 

science, was prepared by an expert agency, and was peer and 

publicly reviewed. The comments regarding NMFS’ criteria are 

not within the scope of this Programmatic EIS. The NMFS 

responded to public comments on the guidance (Federal 

Register, 2017).
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-260 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

Guidance violates the OMB Peer Review Bulletin and Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563.

A) NMFS’ Development of the Acoustic Guidance Violates the 

OMB Peer Review Bulletin

NMFS conducted four peer reviews of its Acoustic Guidance. 

All four peer reviews failed to meet the requirements of the OMB 

Peer Review Bulletin.

NMFS agrees that its Acoustic Guidance is a Highly Influential 

Scientific Assessment (“HISA”) under OMB’s Peer Review 

Bulletin. However, NMFS’ responses to CRE’s comments, and 

other correspondence with CRE on the Acoustic Guidance, 

indicate NMFS’ mistaken belief that it has complete “discretion” 

in selecting “an appropriate peer review mechanism” for this and 

any other HISA.

This position is irreconcilable with OMB’s Peer Review Bulletin, 

which clearly “applies stricter minimum requirements for the 

peer review of highly scientific assessments.”44

OMB’s Peer Review Bulletin states unequivocally that it 

“requires a more rigorous form of peer review for highly 

influential scientific assessments,”45 such as the Acoustic 

Guidance.

NMFS’s development of the Guidance violates several of the 

Bulletin’s “minimum requirements.”

For example, NMFS released a March 2016 draft of its Acoustic 

Guidance for concurrent public comment and peer review.46 

Submitting public comment to these peer reviewers was 

possible, feasible and practical. NMFS violated the HISA 

requirements in OMB’s Peer Review Bulletin by not allowing 

public comment to the peer reviewers on the March 2016 draft, 

and by not providing peer reviewers with copies of the public 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-261

Submission ID Comment Response

comments on the March 2016 draft.47

As another example, NMFS violated the OMB Peer Review Bulletin’s “minimum requirements” by not informing peer 

reviewers of applicable “objectivity, reproducibility and other 

quality standards under federal information quality laws.”48

These are not just procedural violations without substantive 

impact. Had NMFS made the comments of the reviewers 

available for public comment, the public could have provided 

data supporting the views of the peer reviewer who concluded: 

“Given the importance of the modelled data (both approaches), 

it would seem justifiable to me to delay the revision of the NOAA 

Guidance in order to achieve peer-reviewed publication of those 

data.”49

In other words, NMFS’ own peer reviewers did not think NMFS 

should use the Acoustic Guidance without further peer review of 

EPA’s “modelled data.”

B) The Acoustic Guidance is a Rule, and NMFS’ Development 

of it Violates Executive Orders 12855 and 13563. NMFS has 

not complied with any of the Executive Orders’ regulatory review 

requirements for the Acoustic Guidance.

NMFS claims that the Acoustic Guidance is not a regulatory action or rule subject to the Executive Orders.50 This claim is 

incorrect because the Guidance binds both regulators and 

regulated entities with new, impracticable and highly influential 

regulatory requirements; therefore, the Guidance is subject to 

the Executive Orders’ regulatory review and cost benefit 

analysis requirements.

NMFS’ Federal Register notice of its new Acoustic Guidance 

states that, after a brief transition period, “all applications for 

MMPA incidental take authorization (ITA) and all requests for 

ESA section 7 consultations involving noise that may affect 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-262 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

marine mammals will include full consideration of the” Acoustic 

Guidance.51

The Acoustic Guidance meets the Executive Orders’ definitions 

of “rule” and “regulatory action” because the Guidance must be 

used in MMPA and ESA permitting. The Guidance is “designed 

to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or to describe 

the procedure or practice requirements of an agency.” In this 

case, the “agency” includes NMFS and all other agencies 

regulating MMPA and ESA permitting and take authorizations.

A new variance requirement is part of this new binding 

regulatory regime. Either you comply with the new specific 

standards, or you comply with the new variance procedure. 

One way or another, you have to comply.

This two-pronged regulatory scheme in the Acoustic Guidance 

is new and binding on the permit applicant. The applicant must 

comply with the Guidance in order to obtain and keep a Take 

Permit under the MMPA and ESA. This is a rule.

And none of this new binding regulatory regime has ever gone 

through the Executive Orders’ required regulatory review and 

cost benefit analysis process.

C) BOEM and NMFS Do Not Have, and OMB Should Not 

Approve, an ICR authorizing Use of the Acoustic Guidance

BOEM’s use of the Acoustic Guidance would constitute a 

significant change in regulation of GOM G&G.52 NMFS admits 

that OMB has not authorized an Information Collection Request 

(“ICR”) for the Acoustic Guidance.53 BOEM does not have one 

either.54

OMB should not approve such an ICR because, e.g.:

1) NMFS’ Acoustic Guidance does not comply with the 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-263

Submission ID Comment Response

OMB Peer Review Bulletin, and compliance with the 

Bulletin is necessary for the proper performance of 

BOEM and NMFS’ duties;

2) NMFS’ Acoustic Guidance does not comply with 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and compliance 

with the Executive Orders is necessary for the proper 

performance of BOEM and NMFS’ duties;

3) NMFS’ Acoustic Guidance flunked peer review;

4) NMFS’s Acoustic Guidance lacks practical utility and 

does not comply with various IQA Guidelines; and

5) NMFS’ Acoustic Guidance is not necessary for the 

proper performance of BOEM and NMFS’ duties. It is 

not the least burdensome alternative, and an ICR for it 

should not be granted. Current regulation and current 

acoustic standards and current ICRs are sufficient.

In addition, the PEIS Tables 4.13.9-1 through 4.13.9-2 purport to 

assess the economic impacts of Alternatives A through G.55 

These Tables do not appear to include any consideration of 

Acoustic Guidelines use. Yet BOEM and NMFS say the 

Guidelines will be used to regulate oil and Gas G&G in the 

GOM.56 Use of the Acoustic Guidelines will affect operational 

costs significantly.57 The PEIS does not assess the benefits of 

using the Guidelines, perhaps because there are none. 

Consequently, BOEM’s economic impact considerations are 

incomplete and inaccurate.

These and other Acoustic Guidance comments are discussed in 

much more detail in the Appendix to these comments. This 

Appendix is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATION: BOEM and NMFS 

should not use the Acoustic Guidance in the PEIS or for any 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-264 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

other purpose.

1066-0001 3. Differences between our abundance estimates and those 

from the NOAA Stock Assessment Reports (SARs)

In Table 4.2-1 of the PEIS, differences may be noted between 

the SAR and CetMap abundance estimates, with our estimates 

(CetMap) often being higher. This resulted from two important 

differences in methodology:

a. In order to produce sufficiently reliable and detailed density 

surfaces (maps), we combined multiple NMFS cetacean surveys 

and modeled density using a habitat-based approach (Miller 

et al. 2013), while the SAR estimates utilized only the most 

recent NMFS survey and estimated density using traditional 

distance sampling (Buckland et al. 2001). The two approaches, 

while compatible and based on a common statistical framework 

(distance sampling), can yield different results, depending on 

complex factors such as whether population sizes have 

changed, or species habitat preferences have shifted over time.

Neither approach will necessarily yield a higher abundance 

estimate than the other, and the pattern of our estimates being 

consistently higher most likely results from the second important 

methodological difference:

b. In order to estimate density and abundance as accurately as 

possible, we corrected for availability bias and perception bias in 

our models, while indications are that the SAR estimates did 

not. Availability bias occurs when a model assumes that 

animals are always available to be observed by the survey team 

when, in fact, they are not Cetaceans are diving animals; while 

submerged, they are unavailable. Assuming diving animals are 

always available results in an underestimation of abundance, 

because while they are diving they are present but not counted 

by the survey team. Perception bias occurs when a model 

assumes that animals will always be detected when they are on 

the survey trackline, when, in fact, detection is not certain 

because the animal is small, camouflaged by its color, and so 

on. Assuming that difficult-to detect animals will always be 

Thank you for your comment and your clarifying information 

about the differences between the SAR and Roberts et al. 

(2016) abundance estimates. BOEM was aware of the 

difference between the two datasets and utilized the Roberts 

et al. (2016) abundance estimates with the Appendices D 

and N modeling outputs, which used the Roberts et al. (2016) 

density layers to maintain consistency throughout the analyses.

Additionally, refer to the revisions in Chapter 1.2.5. 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-265

Submission ID Comment Response

detected results in an underestimation of abundance, because 

some animals will be missed.

Density models and abundance estimates that have been 

corrected for availability or perception bias are known as “g(0) 

corrected”, in reference to them not assuming that the g(0) 

parameter—the probability of detecting an animal on the survey 

trackline—is 1. Historically, SAR abundance estimates for the 

Gulf of Mexico have not been g(0) corrected.

This may be observed in Waring et al. (2016), Appendix IV, 

Table A, in which the “Corrected for g(0)” column is “N” for 

surveys in the Gulf of Mexico. The most recent shipboard 

survey utilized by Waring et al.’s (2016), Survey Number 38 

conducted in 2009, is blank in the “Corrected for g(0)” column. 

Nevertheless, we suspect the estimates produced from this 

survey were not g(0) corrected, in keeping with historical 

practice.

In the traditional distance sampling method used to produce the 

Gulf of Mexico SAR estimates, density and abundance scale 

inversely with g(0). For example, if an uncorrected abundance 

estimate is 1000 and g(0) is 0.5, the g(0) corrected estimate is 

1000/0.5 = 2000. Long-diving animals such as sperm whales, 

beaked whales, and Kogia whales may remain

submerged for extended periods, resulting in high availability 

bias and corresponding low g(0) values. For example, for those 

three long-diving taxa, for shipboard surveys we drew from the 

literature g(0) values of 0.53, 0.23, and 0.35. Had NMFS 

applied these g(0) values to their uncorrected abundance 

estimates (the SAR Abundance column of Table 4.2-1 of the 

PEIS), their estimates would have been 1.89, 4.35, and 2.86 

times higher, respectively.

In Appendix D of the PEIS, JASCO estimated cetacean Level A 

and Level B exposures using our density estimates. 

Presumably, when evaluating the seven Alternatives proposed 

by the PEIS, BOEM compared these exposure estimates to 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-266 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

cetacean stock parameters estimated by the SARs, such as the 

Minimum Population Estimate and Potential Biological Removal 

(PBR). This leads to a potentially problematic situation in which 

the exposure estimates have, essentially, been g(0) corrected 

but the stock parameters have not. In short, if g(0) is 

substantially less than 1, the estimated number of exposures will 

be too high.

Should BOEM’s decision regarding the seven Alternatives 

evaluated by the PEIS depend on the number of exposures 

modeled relative to SAR-derived stock parameters, we suggest 

that the stock parameters first be corrected by the same g(0) 

estimate that we used, so that the stock parameters are not 

artificially low relative to the exposure estimates. To do this for 

a given cetacean stock, we recommend:

1. Determine whether the stock parameters were 

estimated from a shipboard or aerial abundance survey.

2. Look up the g(0) value we used for that platform for that 

taxon in the taxon-specific supplementary report of 

Roberts et al. (2016).

3. Divide the g(0) value into the SAR’s Minimum 

Population Estimate and Potential Biological Removal 

parameters. (These parameters scale linearly with total 

estimated abundance (Wade & Angliss 1997), and total 

abundance scales inversely with g(0) (Buckland et al. 

2001).)

1066-0002 Also, in the Discussion section of each taxon-specific 

supplementary report of Roberts et al. (2016), we detail possible 

reasons for differences between our estimates and the SAR 

estimates. Please see these reports for more in-depth 

discussion.

Thank you for your comment. BOEM has reviewed the 

differences in the density estimates and understands them.

1066-0003 We at the Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab 

(MGEL) are the developers of marine mammal density models 

utilized in this PEIS, referred to variously as “Roberts et al. 

Thank you for drawing attention to this issue. It has been 

corrected throughout this Programmatic EIS. 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-267

Submission ID Comment Response

(2016)”, “Roberts et al., in preparation”, and “CetMap”. We have 

several comments on the use and interpretation of these models 

within the PEIS.

1. Model publication and peer review status

The citations “Roberts et al. (2016)”, “Roberts et al., in 

preparation”, and “CetMap” all refer to the same body of work: 

the cetacean density models developed by MGEL and our 

collaborators over the 2011-2015 period. In January 2015 we 

completed these models in and began preparation of a 

manuscript to be submitted to a scientific journal. In February 

2015, at the request of the NMFS Permits and Conservation 

Division we provided the models to JASCO for use in preparing 

the report shown in Appendix D of the PEIS. At that time, the 

models were considered “preliminary results”—i.e. not yet 

formally peer reviewed and therefore potentially subject to 

change during the peer review process—and the manuscript 

was considered “in preparation”. JASCO’s report in Appendix D 

refers to them as such. In fall of 2015 we completed the 

manuscript and submitted it to the journal Scientific Reports for 

peer review and publication. In March 2016 it was published 

and then became known as Roberts et al. (2016).

After the models were provided to JASCO, no changes were 

made to any density surfaces or abundance estimates except 

for one species, Bryde’s whale, which we discuss in detail 

below. Therefore, with the exception of Bryde’s whale, the 

density surfaces and abundance estimates used to produce the 

PEIS (e.g. JASCO’s report in Appendix D and Table 4.2-1) are 

identical to the peer-reviewed and published results. Thus there 

should be no concern that the portions of the PEIS that were 

based on our work were derived from density or abundance 

estimates that were not peer reviewed or published in a 

scientific journal.

1066-0004 2. Bryde’s whale density model Thank you for your comment. As per Chapter 1.2.5, BOEM 

used the best available science in developing our impact 

modeling. Specifically, we used the final Roberts et al. (2016) 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-268 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

After we sent the density models to JASCO, we continued to 

review model predictions with coauthors and colleagues. During 

the course of these reviews, we decided to update the Bryde’s 

whale model. The first model (called Version 2 in our Bryde’s 

whale supplementary report), which JASCO used, was a single 

covariate model that predicted Bryde’s whales in a “depth ring” 

around the Gulf in a certain depth range. This model was 

chosen because there were very few sightings, making complex 

models hard to support statistically. Some of our coauthors 

pointed out that Bryde’s whales have not been sighted in the 

central and western Gulf since the early 1990s, and asserted a 

belief that Bryde’s whales no longer inhabit these areas. We 

therefore adjusted the model to use data starting in 1994 

instead of 1992, eliminating the one reported sighting west of 

the Mississippi Delta and adjusted the model to reflect this 

belief. This model (Version 3) was included in the Roberts et al. 

(2016) publication.

The resulting predictions estimate lower density in the central 

and western Gulf, and a lower total abundance (44 whales, vs. 

66 in the Version 2 model). If Bryde’s whales are of critical 

interest to BOEM’s decision among the seven Alternatives 

proposed by the PEIS, we recommend that JASCO’s exposure 

estimates be recalculated using our new results.

data.

1074-0050 NRDC commented that the Wood et al. 2012 behavioral step 

functions are outdated and inconsistent with the best available 

science and provide less conservative results compared to the 

160 dB step function. Specifically, NRDC indicates Wood et al. 

2012 does not fully capture data available for vocalizing and 

non-migrating baleen whales (e.g., Castellote et al. 2012; 

Blackwell et al. 2013; Cerchio et al. 2014), sperm whales that 

are “highly sensitive to low-frequency sound” (e.g., Miller et al. 

2009), and data for other odontocete species (e.g., Miller et al. 

2005). NRDC advocates Wood et al. 2012 be replaced with a 

probabilistic function, with 50% midpoint of 140 dB, as 

recommended by Nowacek et al. 2015.

Thank you for your comment. The Wood et al. (2012) functions 

are consistent with the best available science. Both the Wood 

et al. (2012) and Nowacek et al. (2015) functions acknowledge 

that behavioral harassment is not a simple one-step function 

and responses can occur at received levels below 160 dB. The 

series of step functions provided within Wood et al. (2012) for 

porpoises/beaked whales (50% at 120 dB; 90% at 140 dB), 

migrating mysticete whales (10% at 120 dB; 50% at 140 dB, 

90% at 160 dB), and all other species/behaviors (10% at 

140 dB; 50% at 160 dB; 90% at 180 dB) attempt to provide a 

more realistic behavioral paradigm, which is probabilistic and 

acknowledges that not all exposures are expected to yield 

similar responses for every species and/or behavioral context 

(Ellison et al. 2012). The differences between Wood et al. 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-269

Submission ID Comment Response

(2012) and Nowacek et al. (2015) stem from how probabilities 

at corresponding received levels are assigned, with both 

methodologies seemingly relying upon professional judgement 

in interpreting available data to make these decisions.

Regarding mysticetes, changes in vocalization associated with 

exposure to seismic activities within migratory and nonmigratory contexts have been observed (e.g., Castellote et al., 

2012; Blackwell et al., 2013; Cerchio et al., 2014). The 

potential for anthropogenic sound to have impacts over large 

spatial scales is not surprising for species with large 

communication spaces like mysticetes (Clark et al., 2009). 

Additionally, because of existing acoustic monitoring 

techniques, detecting changes in vocalizations at further 

distances from the source/activity is more likely, opposed to 

observing other types of responses (e.g., visual changes in 

behavior) at these distances. However, the consideration of 

these observed vocal responses is not contrary to Wood et al. 

(2012). Specifically, Blackwell et al. (2013) report the onset of 

changes in vocal behavior for migratory bowhead whales at 

received levels that are consistent with those provided in the 

Wood et al. (2012) function for migrating mysticete species. 

Cerchio et al. (2014) observed the number of singing 

humpback whales in a breeding habitat off northern Angola 

decrease in the presence of increasing background received 

levels during seismic surveys. However, because the study 

was opportunistic, specific information on distances between 

singers and seismic vessels, as well as received levels at the 

singers, could not be obtained. Nevertheless, some probability 

of these vocal responses would likely be captured by the Wood 

et al. (2012) function for all other species/behaviors. Moreover, 

a decision about the appropriateness of a particular function 

should be based on how well it reflects best available 

information and not on the resulting number of estimated 

acoustic exposures (i.e., the use of the Wood et al. [2012] 

function should not be considered arbitrary and capricious just 

because it results in a lower exposure estimate than the 

160-dB step function or any other function).
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-270 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

Concerning sperm whales, NRDC admonishes Wood et al. 

(2012) for not properly distinguishing sperm whales from other 

odontocetes and advocates that sperm whales are “highly 

sensitive to low-frequency sound.” The NRDC specifically 

relies upon Miller et al. (2009) as demonstrating “sperm whale 

foraging success.... was found to decline significantly on 

exposure to airgun received levels above 130 dB (RMS)....” 

However, Miller et al. (2009) indicate that none of the eight 

individuals in this controlled exposure experiment changed 

behavioral state (i.e., foraging or resting) and that variation in 

buzz rate (proxy for prey capture) was not statistically 

significant due to natural variation in this vocalization and small 

sample size (i.e., Miller et al. [2009] concludes “subtle effects” 

on foraging behavior). Furthermore, the onset of these subtle 

changes in buzz rate from Miller et al. (2009) occur at received 

levels that are not inconsistent with the probabilities predicted 

by the Wood et al. (2012) function for all other 

species/behaviors. Additionally, the probabilistic function 

recommended by Nowacek et al. (2015) does not make 

distinctions between any species or species groups, including 

sperm whales (i.e., Nowacek et al. [2015] offers a single 

function for all species and contexts).

Considering other odontocetes, NRDC refers to data from 

Miller et al. (2005) as not being included by Wood et al. (2012). 

The Miller et al. (2005) data were available and considered 

within the Wood et al. (2012) analysis (i.e., the Wood et al. 

[2012] analysis relied upon data provided in Southall et al. 

[2007], which included the Miller et al. [2005] study).

Finally, other than providing the 50 percent midpoint, Nowacek 

et al. (2015) offer minimal detail on how their recommended 

probabilistic function should be derived/implemented (e.g., 

What is slope? What are the basement/ceiling points?). 

Additionally, the Nowacek et al. (2015) function provides no 

quantitative recommendations for acknowledging that 

behavioral responses can vary by species group and/or 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-271

Submission ID Comment Response

behavioral context. For example, relying upon Nowacek et al. 

(2015), compared to Wood et al. (2012), does not adequately 

acknowledge that beaked whale species have previously been 

identified as particularly sensitive species (i.e., behaviorally 

respond at lower received levels than other species; Southall 

et al. [2007]).

1074-0051 As noted, the DEIS relies in part on a bright-line 160 dB re 

1 μPa (RMS) threshold for harm, which NMFS conventionally 

applies. For years, however, a diverse group of ocean noise 

specialists, including many leading biologists and 

bioacousticians, have decried the 160 dB threshold—which 

came out of the High Energy Seismic Survey panel report in 

1999 and was based largely on 1980s data—as outdated and 

incongruous with more recent science. With the development of 

compact data tags81 and the continued refinement of locational 

passive acoustic monitoring, researchers can now track animals 

over greater periods of time and across longer distances, 

allowing them to retrieve a continuous account of the tracked 

animal’s response to a disruptive stimulus or document changes 

in the vocalizations of multiple animals over, in some cases, 

very large scales. Using these data, researchers are finding 

that behavioral disruptions occur at much lower noise exposure 

levels than what NMFS currently accepts as the threshold for 

Level B disturbances, and at much larger distances than what 

on-board observers are capable of observing. The 160 dB 

threshold is simply not supportable as best available science.

Reliance on the outdated, arbitrary 160 dB threshold is 

nontrivial. It results in a gross underestimate in the DEIS of the 

activity’s impact area and of the harm or “take” experienced by 

marine mammals, and therefore undermines the document’s 

impact analysis. The evidentiary record for a lower threshold 

substantially exceeds the one for mid-frequency sonar in Ocean 

Mammal Institute v. Gates, 546 F. Supp. 2d 960, 973–75 

(D. Haw. 2008), in which a U.S. District Court judge invalidated 

a Fisheries Service threshold that ignored documented impacts 

at lower received levels as arbitrary and capricious. BOEM 

must use take standards in line with the best available science.

Thank you for your comment. BOEM agrees that the 160-dB 

threshold is outdated, but that was the regulatory criteria at the 

time the modeling was performed. However, in anticipation of 

the changing regulatory threshold, this is one of the reasons 

that the Wood et al. (2012) criteria were also used to evaluate 

the results. Those criteria assign impact for received levels as 

low as 120 dB.
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-272 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

1074-0052 The DEIS provides a second set of take estimates using an 

alternative set of thresholds, one derived from an environmental 

impact report, prepared under the California Environmental 

Quality Act in 2012, for an earthquake hazard survey intended 

for the central California coast. This report used simple stepfunctions to represent take probabilities for three broad 

categories of cetaceans: beaked whales and porpoises, for 

which 50% take was assumed at 120 dB; migrating baleen 

whales, for which 50% take was assumed at 140 dB; and all 

other cetacean species and behavioral contexts, for which 50% 

take was assumed at 160 dB.

This particular approach, while interesting at the time, has since 

been outstripped by the scientific literature for baleen whales 

and is inconsistent with the best available science for baleen 

whales, sperm whales, and other species; and its specific 

application here, in the DEIS, is non-conservative.

...Given all this, BOEM’s use of a step function for baleen 

whales (10% take at 140 dB, 50% take at 160 dB, and 90% take 

at 180 dB) that appears, in its results, even less conservative 

than the outdated 160 dB threshold is plainly arbitrary and 

capricious. If anything, the 140 dB function recommended by 

Nowacek et al. (2015) may be insufficiently conservative for 

these species based on the best available data; but it certainly 

comes closer to reflecting those data than the Wood et al. 

(2012) step function. BOEM cannot use the Wood et al. (2012) 

approach in modeling take of Bryde’s whales (and non-resident

baleen whales) in the Gulf of Mexico.

...Again, although one could argue for a more conservative 

approach, we recommend use of the Nowacek et al. (2015) 

standard as coming substantially closer than Wood et al. (2012) 

or NMFS’ 160 dB standard to reflecting the best available 

science on the behavioral impacts of seismic surveys on sperm 

whales.

...Use of the Wood et al. (2012) thresholds, which are 

Thank you for your comment. The threshold for Level B 

impacts that was used in this Programmatic EIS was 160 dB 

(refer to Chapter 4). The alternative using Wood et al. (2012) 

was provided for informational purposes only.

BOEM agrees that the issue of predicting behavioral response 

to anthropogenic noise is a difficult one. Our state of 

knowledge is still a work in progress, with continued ongoing 

research in the field. Nevertheless, BOEM is compelled to 

move forward with the best available guidance.

The characterization of the Wood et al. (2012) criteria is 

incorrect. The comment that the threshold for ALL species 

needs to be based on the most sensitive species ignores the 

effect of context and individual variability. The Wood et al. 

(2012) criteria begin to bring these variables into consideration.

The criteria are admittedly simple, which reflects our current 

state of knowledge.
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-273

Submission ID Comment Response

nonconservative for most marine mammal species (i.e., species 

other than harbor porpoises, beaked whales, and migrating 

baleen whales), without incorporating its more conservative 

elements, such as its standard for biological significance, would 

be arbitrary.

1074-0056 In assessing the injury that would result from the proposed 

activity, the DEIS attempts to apply the guidance that NMFS 

issued earlier this year, or, rather, an earlier version of the 

same, along with the agency’s longstanding 180 dB re 1 μPa 

(RMS) threshold. See DEIS at D-287 to D-367. This reliance is 

mistaken.

This Programmatic EIS has been revised to include the 2016 

Technical Guidance issued by NMFS, and updated modeling 

results using this guidance are included in Appendix N. This 

represents the best available scientific information and criteria 

issued by NOAA.

1074-0057 BOEM, in choosing to rely on NMFS' auditory guidance, must 

revise its estimates of auditory impacts based on the final 

version of that guidance.

...In estimating auditory take for Bryde’s whales and sperm 

whales, the agencies should, at the very least, produce an 

alternative, more conservative estimate, either by retaining the 

Mweighting curve for low-frequency cetaceans from Southall 

et al. (2007) or by extending the left end of NMFS’ weighting 

function for low-frequency cetaceans to match the Southall et al. 

(2007) M-weighting curve.

Thank you for your comment. This Programmatic EIS has 

been revised to include the 2016 Technical Guidance issued by 

NMFS, and updated modeling results using this guidance are

included in Appendix N. This represents the best available 

scientific information and criteria issued by NOAA.

1074-0059 Even with its revisions, the guidance released by NMFS is 

flawed and non-conservative. Its thresholds and weighting 

systems are subject to considerable uncertainty, with 

experimental data available for only a few species, a small 

number of individuals, and a limited set of noise sources. In our 

comments, attached hereto, we identified numerous technical 

problems with the models that the agency had adopted from the 

Navy—numerous ways in which the assumptions made by the 

agencies were plainly erroneous, inconsistent, or nonconservative.

Many of the problems we identified were echoed by expert 

commentators. Wright (2015) published a criticism of the 

guidelines in a peer-reviewed journal, identifying several 

significant statistical and numerical faults in NOAA’s approach—

Thank you for your comment. The Technical Guidance for 

Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing—Underwater Acoustic Thresholds for Onset 

of Permanent and Temporary Threshold Shifts was issued in 

August 2016 after public notice and multiple opportunities for 

comment.

The guidance from NMFS reflects the latest and best available 

science, was prepared by an expert agency, and was peer and 

publicly reviewed. The comments regarding NMFS’ criteria are 

not within the scope of this Programmatic EIS. The NMFS 

responded to public comments on the guidance (Federal 

Register, 2017).
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-274 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

such as pseudo-replication, misapplication of medians and 

means, and inconsistent treatment of data—that tend to bias the 

proposed criteria towards an underestimation of effects.98 

Similar and additional issues were raised by a dozen scientists 

during the public comment period on the draft revised criteria.99 

At the root of the problem is the agency’s broad extrapolation 

from a small number of individual animals, mostly bottlenose 

dolphins, without taking account of what Racca et al. (2015) 

have succinctly characterized as a “non-linear accumulation of 

uncertainty.”100

The revised draft, other than mitigating its flagrantly misguided 

weighting system for midfrequency cetaceans, failed to address 

the basic errors identified by these and other experts; nor did it 

perform a sensitivity analysis to understand the potential 

magnitude of those errors. The agencies should not rely 

exclusively on NMFS auditory guidance in determining “Level A” 

take, but should, at minimum, produce a conservative upper 

bound (such as by retaining the 180 dB threshold, or by 

performing a sensitivity analysis).

1074-0060 The DEIS uses permanent threshold shift as a proxy for all 

forms of potential injury from seismic exploration. This approach 

is not supported by the best available science.

First, the DEIS must take account of alternative mechanisms of 

auditory injury. NMFS guidelines use permanent threshold shift 

(“PTS”), specifically the destruction of hair cells in the inner ear, 

as its basis for auditory injury. Yet consideration of PTS alone is 

not sufficient to cover all incidences of permanent hearing loss. 

On the contrary, the best available evidence shows that 

temporary threshold shift (“TTS”) results, at least in part, from 

swelling of cochlear nerve endings—a mechanistic process that 

differs from destruction of the hair cells—and that noise levels 

causing reversible hearing loss can also lead to permanent 

degradation of cochlear nerves.101 The outcome, as 

summarized by Tougaard et al. (2015),102 is a compromise in 

complex auditory processing and “a reduction of stimulus 

encoding under noisy conditions, tinnitus, and hyperacusis.” 

Thank you for your comment. BOEM prepared this 

Programmatic EIS using the best available science in 

conjunction with the best professional judgement of subjectmatter experts. The guidance from NMFS reflects that the 

latest and best available science was prepared by an expert 

agency and was peer and publicly reviewed. The comments 

regarding NMFS’ criteria are not within the scope of this 

Programmatic EIS. The NMFS responded to public comments 

on the guidance (Federal Register, 2017). 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-275

Submission ID Comment Response

Additionally, it is known that repeated episodes of TTS can also 

result in PTS itself.103 While the neural damage seen in Kujawa 

and Liberman (2009) occurred not far below exposure levels 

productive of PTS, it remains unknown if smaller exposures 

would lead to “irreversible neural degeneration,” as NMFS itself 

observed in its draft guidance.104

Second, the DEIS must account for behaviorally-mediated injury 

resulting from exposure to seismic airguns and other disruptive 

noise. Nowacek et al. (2004) observed that right whales, 

responding to relatively low received levels from an acoustic 

alarm (133-148 dB re 1 μPa (RMS)), broke off their foraging 

dives and positioned themselves directly below the water 

surface, leaving themselves at substantially greater risk of 

vessel collision.105 And numerous studies, including poststranding pathology, laboratory study of organ tissue, and 

theoretical work on dive physiology have linked the severe 

decompression-like pathologies seen in beaked whales exposed 

to naval sonar to a maladaptive alteration of the dive pattern.106 

Notably, the acute secondary effects seen in right whales and 

beaked whales are known or are presumed by modeling to 

occur well below the received levels suggested by NMFS’ 

auditory guidelines.107 BOEM should conservatively assume 

that at least some of the sources used in G&G exploration, such 

as certain multibeam echosounders (see section III.G.1), with 

acoustic characteristics similar to naval mid-frequency sonar, 

could induce similar responses in beaked whales. And in the 

case of the Gulf Bryde’s whale, BOEM must take a highly 

precautionary approach and assume that moderate exposures 

to a variety of noise sources can increase ship-strike risk. At 

least one Bryde’s whale, presumably a member of the 

remarkably small Gulf population, is known to have been struck 

by a ship, near Tampa, Florida.

1074-0061 The take estimates in the DEIS depend on BOEM’s projections 

of G&G activity, subdivided by survey type and general location, 

from 2016 through 2025. DEIS at D-193 to D-194. The DEIS 

does not clearly explain, however, how these consequential 

numbers were derived. Do the estimates assume (as it 

Thank you for your comment. BOEM believes that the 

assumption that the predicted effort would remain constant is 

reasonable at the programmatic level and within the 10-year 

timeframe of this Programmatic EIS. While BOEM 

acknowledges the recent reduced level of exploration G&G 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-276 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

appears) a renewal of the Congressional moratorium, in a 

portion of the Eastern Planning Area, which otherwise will 

sunset in 2022? Prepared more than one year ago, do they 

reflect the unusual Gulf of Mexico leasing scheme in the new 

2017-22 OCS Program? Do they assume market recovery and 

a rise in oil and gas prices and, if so, when? And what is the 

rationale for each assumption? The DEIS does not explain.

Furthermore, BOEM’s approach makes no allowance for 

contingency. Given political and economic uncertainties, it is 

appropriate for the agency to model several activity scenarios, 

representing a range of reasonably foreseeable outcomes. For 

example, the DEIS does appear to assume that Congress will 

renew the current moratorium in at least coastal Florida waters 

and that industry, sharing this assumption, will not conduct any 

seismic exploration for oil and gas before the decision is made. 

See DEIS at D-193 to D-194 (zone 1). The present political 

environment suggests, however, that this assumption may not 

hold. Modeling increased activity within the moratorium area 

might well yield substantially larger take estimates, over time, for 

Bryde’s whales, one of the Gulf’s most vulnerable populations, 

given its apparently constricted range in the Eastern Planning 

Area.

Finally, BOEM should make clear how its activity projections will 

affect its application of the activity reductions set forth in 

Alternative F. If its estimates are highly conservative, for 

example, meant to obviate the need for additional NEPA 

analysis by providing a substantial buffer, as the Navy has 

claimed about some of its activity projections, see Conservation 

Council, 97 F. Supp. 3d at 1222, some of the anticipated 

conservation benefit might not be realized. It may therefore be 

necessary for BOEM to model a best estimate of future activity 

as well as a more conservative one.

activity and the corresponding decrease in permit applications, 

BOEM assumes that future levels will return to previous historic 

levels within the next 10 years. BOEM must, therefore, be 

prudent and conservatively consider the full range of potential 

impacts. Therefore, the scenarios contain projections based 

on the analysis of recent historic activity levels and trends 

made by BOEM’s subject-matter experts who also considered 

industry-projected activity levels in their estimates. This 

Programmatic EIS provides a programmatic-level evaluation for 

reasonably foreseeable G&G activities that could be utilized for 

any of BOEM’s three Program Areas (i.e., Oil and Gas, 

Renewable Energy, and Marine Minerals). BOEM will address 

the impacts of future site-specific actions in subsequent NEPA 

evaluations (40 CFR § 1502.20) using a tiered process based 

on this programmatic evaluation.

Text that describes how the projected scenarios were 

developed is included in Chapter 3.2. 

BOEM explored many options regarding how to implement 

Alternative E, which proposed a 10% and 25% reduction in line 

miles from multi-client, deep-penetration surveys. In order to 

fulfill the spirit of the alternative, BOEM may place an overall 

limit on survey line miles and issue permits on a first come-first 

serve basis. BOEM does not expect that the method of 

implementing this reduction of line miles would influence the 

impacts as considered in this Programmatic EIS. Any specific 

method of implementation may be specified further through an 

NTL or other guidance.

The ROD can explain the logistical difficulties in implementing 

this option as well as the limited influence the reduction in 

activity had on overall impact levels.

1076-0020 However, by BOEM’s admission, the DPEIS presents an 

unrealistic worst case assessment of the potential effects of 

seismic activities on marine mammals that is purposefully 

constructed to overestimate levels of projected adverse effects. 

Thank you for your comment. There were some erroneous 

occurrences of “worst-case” in this Programmatic EIS, and 

those have been removed. BOEM has clarified throughout this 

Programmatic EIS the assumptions and scenarios used in the 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-277

Submission ID Comment Response

Specifically, the effects analysis is based solely on modeling 

(Appendix D) that “creates an estimate of the potential number 

of animals exposed to the sounds.” DPEIS at 1-16. BOEM 

explains:

This estimate alone does not reflect BOEM’s determination of 

the actual expected physical or behavioral impacts to marine 

mammals but rather an overly conservative upper limit because 

none of the mitigations examined in this Programmatic EIS were 

modeled. Biological significance to marine mammals is left to 

interpretation by the subject-matter experts.

modeling, as well as the limitations that may be inherent in any 

modeling effort (e.g., inability to account for mitigation 

measures and aversion). While the results of the modeling 

may be conservative, they do remain the most credible, 

scientific-based information available at this time.

While the results of the modeling may be conservative, they 

are the most credible, science-based information available at 

this time. The question of implementing mitigation in the 

modeling was considered at length. There are currently no 

generally accepted metrics on the effectiveness of mitigation. 

Therefore, inclusion of a quantification of mitigation effects was 

not reasonable. Though mitigation could be not considered 

directly in the modeling effort, it is incorporated in the 

interpretation of the modeling results in the impact analysis 

presented in Chapter 4.2. It is reasonable to conclude that the 

proposed mitigation measures would likely reduce the potential 

impacts to marine mammals, though the amount of such 

reduction cannot be quantified at this time.

Also, as noted in this Programmatic EIS, site-specific analyses 

will be performed for each survey to determine the specific 

impacts from the survey; the biological significance of those 

impacts will be determined by the subject-matter experts.

1076-0022 The exposure estimates themselves “are based on acoustic and 

impact models that are, by their nature, conservative and 

complex.” DPEIS at 1-19. Indeed, “[e]ach of the inputs into the 

models is purposely developed to be conservative, and this 

conservativeness accumulates throughout the analysis.” Id. 

(emphasis added). As a result, the exposure estimates are 

“higher than BOEM expects would actually occur in a real world 

environment.” Id.; id. at 1- 20 (“This estimate does not reflect an 

actual expectation that marine mammals will be injured or 

disturbed. It is an overly conservative estimate.”). BOEM further 

admits that using the exposure models as a basis for the effects 

analysis “requires accepting a worst-case scenario, which 

ultimately overestimates the numbers of ‘take’ under the [Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (“MMPA”)] by equating those numbers 

Thank you for your comment. Chapter 1.2.5 has been revised 

to include information on the acoustic impact modeling and 

associated assumptions. 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-278 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

with the exposures identified in the modeling rather than real 

world conditions.” Id. (emphasis added)......to over 100,000 

times higher. There are multiple conservative assumptions that 

produce this extraordinary outcome: the assumption that 

exposure equals take, the conservative linkage of permanent 

hearing decrements to temporary hearing decrements, 

assumptions about the accumulation of hearing effects over 

time without recovery between exposures, and assumptions 

about how many of these exposures actually have any 

meaningful biological consequences. The MMPA defines 

“harassment” with reference to two categories: Level A 

harassment (potential to “injure”) and Level B harassment 

(potential to “disturb”). NMFS applies acoustic thresholds to 

estimate the amount of harassment for each category that may 

result from an activity. The acoustic thresholds are often 

mistakenly assumed to mean that an injury or mortality will 

occur, with 100% of the exposed animals being injured or killed, 

or that 100% of exposures at behavioral thresholds will cause 

behavioral change and that the consequences of the change are 

a significant and meaningful loss of food, energy, or some other 

key biological function. In fact, both thresholds imply a 

probability of there being an effect upon exposure. BOEM was 

quite emphatic in stating that exposure does not equal take, but 

the model still treats any exposure that exceeds threshold as a 

take. This is the first of many features within the Acoustic Risk 

Threshold part of the model that lead to large over-estimates of 

take. Additionally, the DPEIS is not always clear when and how 

animals are removed from the model to prevent multiple takes of 

the same individual (e.g., being counted as a Level B take and 

then exceeding Level A criteria and also being counted as a 

Level A take). Removals need to be handled carefully to 

prevent gradual reductions of model ‘animats’ in the sound field 

as “taken” animats are removed. The most recent threshold 

criteria for Level A takes are based on empirical data for the 

threshold at which a temporary decrease in hearing sensitivity 

(TTS) occurs across a narrow frequency range of hearing 

(NMFS, 2016; Finneran, 2015). BOEM also variously cites 

NMFS 1995; Southall et al 2007; Finneran and Jenkins, 2012: it 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-279

Submission ID Comment Response

is not yet clear which criteria they plan to use in the Final EIS, 

making analysis of the DPEIS difficult. JASCO in Appendix D 

modeled the 1995 threshold. The simplest Level A threshold, 

long since superseded by scientific data but still in use by 

NMFS, is 180 dB SPLrms (root mean squared – an average 

over some specified time period, and since it is an average of a 

logarithmic scale, dB, a square root of the mean of summed 

square values is required rather than a simple average). 

Despite being outdated by more than 20 years, BOEM still 

modeled takes using this hyper-precautionary threshold. This 

provides a threshold that is some 10 to 1,000 times more 

precautionary than the current best data derived from TTS 

thresholds for both impulse and tonal sources; the peak SPL or 

the summed sound energy over time (SEL), although we shall 

see later in this section that the SEL has also been subjected to 

additional conservative assumptions that render it some 

10-1,000 times more conservative than SPLpeak. The values of 

10 to 1000 times are based on SPLpeak thresholds of 230-200 

dB SPLpeak, and an estimate of 180 dB SPL rms being 

comparable to 190 dB SPL peak (200 dB is ten times 190 dB 

and 2230 dB is one thousand times 190 dB on the same scale, 

in this case SPLpeak). Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) is not 

tested directly, and is assumed to occur at a level above TTS 

consistent with marine mammal TTS data and human/lab animal 

data. PTS, as for TTS, is not a threshold for deafness or major 

loss of hearing, but for a small decrement of hearing sensitivity 

within a narrow frequency range, a ‘hearing notch’. This is a 

liberal interpretation of “injury”, since the original sense of the 

term in MMPA was intended for animals that lost eyes, limbs, or 

suffered broken bones and spinal injuries during interactions 

with fisheries or due to being struck by ships, shot at, or 

otherwise seriously injured. The criterion is rendered even more 

conservative by the use of a 15 decibel difference between TTS 

and PTS when the data from other species, including humans, 

indicates PTS onset at 20-40 dB above TTS threshold. Since 

even this conservative addition of only 15 dB to TTS produces 

thresholds of PTS above the source level of the sound source, 

Southall et al (2007) and subsequent criteria (NMFS 2016) have 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-280 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

arbitrarily set the SPL peak metric for PTS at a mere 6 dB above 

TTS threshold, or almost ten times lower (and therefore 

productive of ten times as many exposures and takes). The 

best predictor of TTS and therefore PTS, at least for tonal 

sounds, is SEL, a product of both signal intensity (not amplitude) and duration. It is not clear how well this relationship holds up 

for an impulse signal like compressed air (CA) sources, so 

relationships for tonal signals are applied to impulse thresholds. 

SEL is referenced to a time duration, typically one second, but for sounds less than 1 second long, like impulse sounds, SEL 

does not always hold up. Furthermore, models like the BOEM 

DPEIS treat multiple exposures separated by many seconds or 

even hours or days, as if the sound exposure had been 

continuous. Near the source a geophysical survey produced 

0.1 s of sound every 10-20 seconds, expressed as a “duty 

cycle” of approximately 1-2%. Further from the source the 

energy in the impulse may spread in time, increasing the duty 

cycle, but at ranges meaningful for Level A determination, the 

duty cycle remains below 10%, meaning that 90% of the time 

the ear is capable of recovering from some of the induced 

fatigue or threshold shift. Early TTS studies noted that the 

animals recovered from low levels of TTS within seconds or 

minutes, and subsequent ongoing studies are consistent, 

suggesting that it make take considerably more intermittent 

exposures to produce TTS or PTS than would be predicted by 

simply adding up multiple pulses as if they all occurred in 

succession without any time for recovery (In other words 

12 pulses of 0.1 second duration each are treated as a 

continuous 1.2 second pulse and not what they are, which 

1.2 seconds of sound within ten 15 second intervals or 

150 seconds of ambient sound only). The case for some sort of 

recovery function is even stronger for intermittent passes of an 

array that may be separated by 4, 8, 16 or more hours, in which 

case hearing is likely fully recovered and no accumulation of 

SEL should be carried forward. NMFS has traditionally carried 

SEL forward for 24 hours, a scientifically unwarranted 

precaution that leads to over-estimations of take by another 

10-100 times, if not more. The current modeling exercise 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-281

Submission ID Comment Response

suggests in places that SEL accumulation was carried forward 

even further for weeks or even months. Appendix K offers 

annual summations of SEL and a similar cumulative sound 

metric, Leq, for an entire year. This is not scientifically justified 

and leads to overestimates of takes by tens or even hundreds of 

thousands of takes, both Level A and Level B. Because we do 

not have a specific recovery function to offer yet, BOEM has not 

included ANY recovery in their model, whereas a model 

consistent with best available science should include at the very 

least a recovery function consistent with human and other 

mammalian hearing. Absence of a recovery function is likely 

adding another 10 to 100 fold over-estimation to Level A take. 

Thresholds for Level B take have been difficult to derive, 

although more and more publications have offered data and a 

proposed threshold function: most of these papers are not cited 

or reviewed in the EIS, or in the reference used by the Phase II 

model (Appendix D), which is an unpublished contract report to 

a California utility company (Wood et al 2012). Wood et al 

(2012) also presents a potential conflict of interest, since the 

author of Appendix H (Brandon Southall) is also a co-author of 

the Wood et al (2012) report. The industry is sponsoring a 

review of the behavioral effects literature, but that review will not 

be published in time to inform the current PEIS. In any case, 

the Wood et al recommendation was a step function of 

increasing behavioral response at increasing exposure levels, 

and in this respect Wood et al (2012) is similar to other Level B 

risk assessments like the US Navy Programmatic EISs (2009; 

2014, draft 2017). All recognize that out of a given group of 

animals, a few will respond at low levels, with increasing 

recruitment up to an exposure level that approaches thresholds 

for TTS and PTS. BOEM also applied the outdated NMFS 1995 

Level B threshold of 160 dB SPLrms. The outcome of applying 

any of these thresholds is the generation of tens of thousands to 

millions of Level B takes in which the vast majority of “takes” are 

transitory disturbances that last hours or a day or two and have 

no impact at all on foraging success, breeding success, growth, 

health or any other biologically meaningful metric. The 

hypothetical possibility that cessation of feeding for a day or 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-282 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

movement a few miles from the source, or a change in vocal 

behavior “might” lead to biologically meaningful consequences 

means that the model calculations are treated as “takes” under 

MMPA even though all acknowledge that exposures don’t equal 

takes and takes do not equal meaningful effects. The 

development of the PCOD model, and population of that model 

with data, confirm that behavioral disturbance from sound needs 

to be reduced to a “biologically significant” number that is a 

fraction of the counted exposures; anywhere from a 

conservative 1% to a more realistic 0.001% or less. In other 

words, estimates of thousand to millions of takes in the model 

are like to result in fewer than 1 to 1000 takes with actual 

biological consequences. These numbers, spread across large 

areas like the Gulf and multiple species are mathematically too 

low to result in a population level consequence from Level B 

takes (e.g. elevation of baseline mortality, decrease in baseline 

fecundity). This is consistent with history, where more than five 

decades of regular geophysical survey effort all over the globe 

has not generated any evidence that observed behavioral 

responses to the sound has any biological consequence. 

Calculation of grossly inflated Level B take numbers in the GOM 

DPEIS is not consistent with current best information, and 

greatly over-estimates the consequences for the stocks of 

marine mammals being managed. Finally, behavioral aversion 

was not applied to this model, even though a preliminary Phase 

I model showed that even small amounts of aversive greatly 

affected both Level A and Level B takes. If behavioral aversion 

is a trigger for Level B take then it cannot subsequently be 

omitted from modeling of Level A takes, since the low level 

exposures that trigger aversion will reduce the likelihood of 

higher levels of exposure. Additional aspects of threshold 

assessment that may lead to over-prediction of takes include: 

• Conservative thresholds for low frequency whales. 

Current conservative thresholds for whales increase the 

estimated Level A and Level B takes for these species 

by some 4 to 10 times over best available science 

predictions. Arguments for unreasonable precaution in 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-283

Submission ID Comment Response

the face of uncertainty are not consistent with 

mammalian auditory biology in general.

• JASCO applied novel uses of weighting functions, using 

outdated M1 weighting functions from Southall et al 

(2007) on SPL thresholds, where weighting functions 

should not be applied.

• Kogia are considered to have the same hearing 

thresholds as porpoises, even though they are 

unrelated and the evidence for high sensitive is based 

largely on data about Kogia vocal behavior and some 

inconsistent evoked potential audiometry.

• Modifications to beaked whale Level B thresholds 

unique to this EIS are applied without justification other 

than precaution. The Associations appreciate BOEM’s 

candor in providing accurate descriptions of the 

substantial shortcomings of the exposure modeling. 

However, such candor does not excuse BOEM from 

performing a lawful evaluation of the actually anticipated 

direct and indirect effects of the proposed action. As 

stated above, both direct and indirect effects must be 

“caused by” the action, and indirect effects must be

“reasonably foreseeable.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8. By 

BOEM’s admission, the exposure estimates presented 

in the DPEIS do not accurately represent effects that 

BOEM expects to be “caused by” the proposed action or 

that are “reasonably foreseeable.”

1076-0025 ...the DPEIS fails to meet these rigorous standards because it 

wrongly omits any consideration of mitigation measures and 

relies on flawed and biased modeling.

Thank you for your comment. BOEM has clarified throughout 

this Programmatic EIS the assumptions and scenarios used in 

the modeling, as well as the limitations that may be inherent in 

any modeling effort (e.g., inability to account for mitigation 

measures and aversion). While the results of the modeling 

may be conservative, they are the most credible, sciencebased information available at this time. The question of 

implementing mitigation in the modeling was considered at 

length. There are currently no generally accepted metrics on 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-284 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

the effectiveness of mitigation. Therefore, inclusion of a 

quantification of mitigation effects was not reasonable. Though 

mitigation could be not considered directly in the modeling 

effort, it is incorporated in the interpretation of the modeling 

results in the impact analysis presented in Chapter 4.2. It is 

reasonable to conclude that the proposed mitigation measures 

would likely reduce the potential impacts to marine mammals, 

though the amount of such reduction cannot be quantified at 

this time.

1076-0026 NEPA requires an EIS to address “any adverse environmental 

effects which cannot be avoided,” which necessitates an 

analysis of available mitigation measures. 42 U.S.C. § 

4332(C)(ii) (emphasis added); see Robertson, 490 U.S. at 

351-52, 353. However, the DPEIS turns this statutory mandate 

on its head by evaluating speculative adverse effects that can 

be (and are already being) avoided through the implementation 

of mitigation measures. In fact, these mitigation measures are 

an integral part of the proposed actions evaluated in the DPEIS. 

See, e.g., DPEIS at 1-3, 1-4 (proposed action includes BOEM 

authorizations of G&G activities and NMFS incidental take 

authorizations, both of which must include mitigation measures). 

Nonetheless, the DPEIS expressly declines to evaluate the 

countervailing beneficial effects of the very mitigation measures 

that are integral to the proposed actions. See DPEIS at 1-16 

(“The modeling is conservative because it did not apply any of 

the 19 different mitigations analyzed in [the DPEIS].”); id. at 1-19 

(“The modeling effort in Appendix D does not, for example, take 

into account any mitigation measures incorporated into the 

alternatives because the effect of those measures cannot be 

quantified with statistical confidence at this time.”); id. at 4-14 

(mitigation measures not considered as part of effects analysis).

Thank you for your comment. Chapter 1.2.5 has been revised 

to include information on the modeling assumptions within this 

Programmatic EIS. 

1076-0027 BOEM’s election to ignore the beneficial effects of mitigation 

measures is particularly arbitrary because BOEM knows--

unconditionally--that the mitigation measures would substantially 

decrease any adverse effects postulated by the overly 

conservative exposure modeling. As addressed below, there 

are no demonstrated adverse effects on any marine mammal 

populations (in the GOM or the Arctic) resulting from mitigated 

Thank you for your comment. BOEM has clarified throughout 

this Programmatic EIS the assumptions and scenarios used in 

the modeling, as well as the limitations that may be inherent in 

any modeling effort (e.g., inability to account for mitigation 

measures and aversion). While the results of the modeling 

may be conservative, they are the most credible, sciencebased information available at this time. The question of 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-285

Submission ID Comment Response

seismic survey activities. In addition, Appendix D itself 

demonstrates the effectiveness of currently employed mitigation 

measures. Specifically, in Phase I of the exposure modeling 

described in Appendix D where various modeling methods, 

inputs, and assumptions are assessed, Sections 6.5.3 and 6.5.4 

consider the effects of incorporating mitigation measures and 

aversive responses into the exposure modeling. Tables 40 

and 44 show that the implementation of shutdowns may reduce 

the number of estimated Level A exposures by 10% to 80%.10 

Similarly, the effect of modeling aversive responses by marine 

mammals also shows potentially large reductions in the 

percentages of animals exposed above Level A criteria (40% to 

85% for the peak sound pressure level [“SPL”] criteria and 14% 

to 20% for the root-mean-square [“rms”] SPL).

Despite these demonstrations of significant and meaningful 

reductions in the number of estimated exposures as a result of 

mitigation measures and aversive responses, and the fact that 

both are likely to occur under all of the alternatives considered in 

the DPEIS, they are inexplicably not included in the final 

(Phase II) modeling used to estimate exposures for the impact 

assessments and ultimately not considered as part of the effects 

analysis. Although there are uncertainties associated with 

including these measures in the modeling process, those 

uncertainties are not substantially different than uncertainties 

associated with other inputs to the modeling process and they 

should not be disqualified from use for that reason.

implementing mitigation in the modeling was considered at 

length. There are currently no generally accepted metrics on 

the effectiveness of mitigation. Therefore, inclusion of a 

quantification of mitigation effects was not reasonable. Though 

mitigation could be not considered directly in the modeling 

effort, it is incorporated in the interpretation of the modeling 

results in the impact analysis presented in Chapter 4.2. It is 

reasonable to conclude that the proposed mitigation measures 

would likely reduce the potential impacts to marine mammals, 

though the amount of such reduction cannot be quantified at 

this time.

1076-0029 The exposure modeling set forth in Appendix D makes many 

biased assumptions that substantially contribute to the 

inaccuracy of the DPEIS’s effects analysis. Specifically, the 

modeling analysis in Appendix D contains multiple layers of 

precaution that aggregate in the annual and 10-year estimates. 

Attachment A to this letter provides a more detailed assessment 

of the overly conservative (i.e., unrealistic) assumptions used in 

the modeling. These assumptions contribute anywhere from 

10% to multiple orders of magnitude above the mean or most 

likely exposures outcome (i.e., 100 to 1,000 times the “most 

likely” number of exposures). In aggregate, these compounding 

Chapter 1.2.5 has been revised to include information on the 

modeling assumptions.
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-286 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

highly conservative assumptions produce a predicted number of 

exposures that is thousands to millions of times greater than the 

average or most likely outcome.

1076-0030 The Phase II model assumes a source array of 8,000 cubic 

inches. This is at, or very near, the upper limit of the largest 

source arrays used in the GOM. See DPEIS at 3-18, Appx. D at 

D-25. The actual distribution of array sizes in the GOM ranges 

from 8,400 cubic inches to less than 2,000 cubic inches, with a 

mean value of 5,600 cubic inches. The scaling differences in 

the range to threshold criteria produced by an overestimated 

array size of 8,000 cubic inches cascade down through the 

calculations, so that when a threshold range four times larger 

than produced by a typical survey source is established using 

hearing injury thresholds 10 or a hundred times lower than 

actual measured thresholds, and applied to numbers of animals 

(using the Duke model) that are 10 times higher than any 

previous estimates, the outcome is a prediction that 10,000 to 

100,000 times more exposures might occur than use of the 

“best available data” values might otherwise have calculated. 

See Attachment A. Instead of this overly precautionary and 

unrealistic approach, BOEM could have used the data for all 

array sizes used in the GOM in the past 10 or 20 years, plotted 

them on a typical bell-shaped curve, and calculated the mean or 

median and variance or mode.....BOEM treats all geophysical 

surveys as if they were all conducted with the largest arrays in 

use. The nominal value of 8000 cubic inches is an 

approximation of the maximum array size currently used in the 

Gulf, typically 7900 to 8500 cubic inches. Based on a quick 

survey of IAGC members over the past decade, a little less than 

one third of all surveys use arrays of that size. The other 

two-thirds of surveys in the GOM use arrays that range in size 

from 6000-2000 cubic inches, for a mean array size of 

5600 cubic inches. Since the different sizes are not distributed 

normally around that mean value (i.e. not a smooth bell shaped 

distribution), some other value of central tendency, like the 

median (5100 cubic inches) might be deemed a more 

appropriate central value. But in any case, using 8000 cubic 

inch sources for all modeled surveys greatly overestimates 

Thank you for your comment. Chapter 1.2.5 has been revised 

to include information on the source and its selection for 

modeling.
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-287

Submission ID Comment Response

actual use.

The source level of a compressed air array increases as the 

cube root of its volume, all else being equal, so a difference of 

8000 and 5600 cubic inches might seem trivial. But we have 

seen that it is not trivial in terms of the outcome of concern; the 

number of animals exposed, because of the resulting expansion 

of the acoustic ‘footprint’ of the array and the number of animals 

likely to be found within that footprint. Furthermore, the 

modeled array is not only extreme in the total volume modeled, 

but also in the number of elements within the array. A typical 

large array of 8000 cubic inches might include 48 elements and 

sometimes as many as 60, but the BOEM DPEIS used 

72 elements. Why is this important? Because array source 

level may only increase trivially with total volume, but it is 

directly proportional to the number of elements. An array with 

72 elements has double the amplitude of an array of 

36 elements; volume and air pressure being equal. Therefore 

the combination of using an array at the extreme upper end of 

normally used array sizes, coupled with a number of elements in 

that array which also greatly exceeds the average, can by itself 

produce estimates of takes that are 1.5 to over 2 times as large 

as would be predicted by using the normal range of array sizes 

and numbers of elements actually in use. Based on this 

variable alone one would be justified in taking the final model 

predictions and halving them. But there are many more 

conservative assumptions in the model. Also potentially 

capable of altering the model outcome, but not addressed in this 

quick analysis, are:

• The number of source vessels. When multiple source 

vessels are used they are used at intervals that are 

similar to a single source. The total acoustic energy is 

therefore not increased over using a single source 

operated at the same inter-pulse intervals, but the total 

area ensonified is slightly increased, depending on the 

spatial separation of the vessels. This may be 

compensated by the fact that each vessel is only 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-288 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

producing sound every 60 seconds instead of every 

15 seconds for a single source vessel). In the BOEM 

DPEIS, the maximum number of source vessels, four, is 

used for all surveys that might use multiple sources, 

even though many of those surveys, such as NAZ, WAZ 

and coil surveys, might more often use only one or two 

sources, and rarely use as many as four source 

vessels.

• Longitudinal tracks were only used during modeling on 

the slope region of the Gulf, which has the potential to 

alter sound fields and estimated takes relative to using 

both lateral and longitudinal tracks typical of most 

surveys.

• The choice of depth at which the array was towed was 

set at 8 meters, but other tow depths are common 

(6 meters is considered the default ‘standard’) and the 

choice of tow depth affects the frequency structure and 

propagation of the resulting sound field.

• The choice of pulse intervals typically varies from 10 to 

20 seconds, with the DPEIS selection of 15 seconds 

being fairly typical. A four source survey would result in 

each source operating at 60 second intervals.

• Durations of surveys were not clear. On page 3-23 a 

nominal survey duration of 10.5 months was applied to 

all surveys, but elsewhere in the document, e.g. D-177, 

the survey durations varied.

• Survey areas, line separations, and other parameters 

on page D-177 appear to be in the same conservative 

direction as the array size and element count; 

suggesting that line spacing and area covered by a 

modeled 2D, 3D, WAZ or other survey may be greater 

than average and thus produce elevated sound 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-289

Submission ID Comment Response

exposures and take estimates.

1076-0031 Another example of excess precaution built into BOEM’s effects 

analysis is found in the values entered into the transmission loss 

model. On pages D-100 through D-123 of Appendix D, the 

analysis acknowledges that (1) the “worst case” sound speed 

profile produces propagation at a given range that is 10 decibels 

(“dB”) better than the average; (2) the actual-versus-modeled 

bathymetry and bottom properties probably add another 4 dB; 

and (3) using a smooth rather than wavy ocean surface might 

add another 1-2 dB over the actual transmission loss. In 

aggregate, an added 16 dB or so of “precautionary 

assumptions” translates to sound propagation that would travel 

more than 10 times farther than the result that would be 

produced by the “most likely” propagating environment (using a 

typical hybrid transmission loss value of 15log(R)). Again, this 

single example is combined with other examples of precaution 

to predict exposure numbers that are thousands to millions of 

times higher than the most likely outcomes.....BOEM is to be 

commended for having run some preliminary models (Phase I 

modeling in Appendix D) to quantify some of the consequences 

of using simplifying or conservative assumptions (e.g. see 

pages D-100; D-106; D-113; D-122). Therefore we can assign 

some quantities to what is otherwise a very complicated 

variable, the day-to-day fluctuations in wind, temperature, 

currents, and other factors that affect sound propagation 

through the water between the sound source and the animals of 

concern.

The modeling of sources of variance yielded a 10 decibel 

difference in sound transmission between an average sound 

speed profile in the water and the extreme case used in the 

model (10 decibels is an order of magnitude or ten times the 

average). Use of hard or median properties for the seafloor 

added another 4 dB over the most likely outcome, with most of 

the Gulf being covered with soft sediment that is a poor reflector 

of sound). Use of a flat sea surface instead of a rough sea 

surface adds another 2 dB minimum, resulting in a conservative 

value of over-estimated propagation of 16 decibels or 60 times 

Thank you for your comment. The use of the term “worst-case” 

was incorrectly used in Appendix D, Phase 1 and has been 

corrected to add a more accurate term to reflect the work that 

was done.

Maximum-over-depth was not used for exposure estimates. 

Three-dimensional movement of the animats was convolved 

with computed 3D sound fields. Maximum-over-depth plots 

were included as illustrations in the report as a matter of 

convenience only to convey radial ranges of sound pulses.
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-290 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

(!) the amount of energy propagated than would be expected on 

average. Add this to the conservatism we saw for the source 

itself, and we already have an ensonified area and number of 

animals ensonified that would be 90 to 120 times the reasonably 

expected exposures. A “best reasonable estimate” of 100 would 

become an estimate of 9,000 to 12,000 from these two 

precautionary measures alone.

Also potentially capable of altering the model outcome, but not 

addressed in this quick analysis, are:

• A single uniform propagation regime is used for the 

entire deepwater zone (Zone 7). Assumptions of flat 

bottom and maximum depth are not met in all cases and 

propagation is therefore subject to additional over-

estimation factors in the deep water region.

• Survey days and survey effort appear to have been 

evenly distributed across the area and seasons, 

although this is likely not the case for actual survey 

effort. Theoretically this might average out, but it is also 

possible that fewer actual survey days in winter, when 

propagation conditions are best, will lead to actual 

surveys producing fewer takes than the model 

estimated by using equal division across winter and 

summer.

• SPLrms for longer range propagation is derived from 

the SEL values produced by the model. As JASCO 

acknowledges (D-49), modeled SEL at range tends to 

over-predict SPLrms as the signal is spread over time. 

Time resolution of the model also hinders accurate 

modeling of SPLrms based on proper analytic units 

such as rms.90 (average sound pressure over the time 

than encompasses 90% of the total pulse energy).

• Single frequency long range propagation modeling 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-291

Submission ID Comment Response

leads to increased errors in pulse properties with range. 

For modeling purposes a single frequency at the center 

of each 1/3 octave band is treated as ‘representative’ of 

all the sound energy within that frequency band. In 

practice, selection of a non-representative frequency 

(e.g. located at a ghost notch or filtered by propagating 

environment) can lead to errors in weighted SEL values 

needed for determining effects thresholds.

• Use of “maximum over depth” in some model estimates 

of take creates a worst-case scenario where all 

individuals are assumed to be at the depth of highest 

sound exposure all the time. It is not clear in what 

context JASCO used maximum over depth as a 

simplifying step in modeling, but it will always greatly 

over-estimate takes when used.(D-296). 

• Ranges to effect for mitigation monitoring and shutdown 

(but not for take estimation?) were calculated from 

unweighted values, whereas hearing frequency 

weighting needs to be applied to SEL threshold values 

(JASCO also seems to have applied weighting to 

SPLrms data, which may also be inappropriate – see 

section on Threshold Criteria, below).

1076-0032 Yet another example occurs where the effects of running the 

animat exposure models for only 24 hours and then scaling 

those results up to longer survey periods (e.g., 30 days) are 

assessed in Section 6.5.1. Using this method, the total 

exposure estimates based on the rms SPL criteria are found to 

vastly “overestimate the number of animats exposed to levels 

exceeding threshold....” DPEIS, Appx. D at D-69. Nonetheless, 

this method is used in Phase II (App. D at D-180) to produce the 

final exposure estimates (App. D Section 7.3.4).

Thank you for your comment. The 24-hour reset period rule is 

currently required by NMFS (average exposure estimates were 

calculated for 24 hours). This is, in effect, a recovery step 

function at 24 hours. BOEM discussed the possibility of using 

a different recovery function, such as a leaky integrator, but it 

was decided that, at this point, there is not enough biological 

data upon which to base an alternate recovery function. It is 

commonly accepted that the number of exposed animals is 

fewer than the number of predicted exposures.

1076-0033 Section 6.5.2 analyzes potential contributions to uncertainty 

from the sound source characterization modeling, and from 

sound speed profiles, geoacoustic parameters, bathymetric 

data, and sea state inputs to the acoustic propagation modeling. 

This analysis concludes that the various uncertainties in the 

Thank you for your comment. A sensitivity study, as is 

suggested, adjusting all the variables in acoustic propagation 

modeling is indeed theoretically possible. However, the 

number of variables and sites involved make such an exercise 

impractical. This is why the variables were considered 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-292 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

acoustic field represent a “multi-dimensional envelope” and that 

these different dimensions “cannot be summed to yield a ‘total’ 

uncertainty as this would be a meaningless quantity.” However, 

this conclusion is incorrect. There are ways to quantify the 

uncertainty in a meaningful way despite challenges to directly 

calculating the total uncertainty (or statistical variance). For 

example, the combined uncertainty contributed by 

environmental and model parameters could be further evaluated 

by comparing the outputs from multiple runs of the entire 

modeling process (both acoustic propagation modeling and 

exposure modeling) in which one or more of the parameters are 

adjusted across reasonable levels in each competing model run. 

The parameter-specific uncertainty analyses presented in 

Phase I of Appendix D are useful for identifying which 

parameters to adjust within the competing full modeling runs, 

but alone they only reinforce the fact that significant uncertainty 

is present at many steps within the modeling process. Multiple 

runs of the full modeling process using alternative parameter 

estimates should be conducted to improve the understanding of 

the total uncertainty surrounding the final results.

separately.

1076-0034 In addition, the analyses set forth in Section 6.5.2 of Appendix D 

use various methods to assess uncertainty around the 

parameters used in acoustic propagation modeling. However, in 

all examples only the “typical” (average or median) and “worst 

case” values are evaluated. As a result, uncertainties are only 

characterized in one direction from the typical or expected 

result, and that direction results in longer-range propagation of 

sounds. When characterizing uncertainty around estimates, it is 

common practice to not only report the upper confidence limits 

(“worst case” results in this example), but to also report the 

lower confidence limits. Without an understanding of the lower 

confidence limit values, it is not possible to properly bound and 

assess the range of outcomes from the modeling and interpret 

the likelihood of potential impacts. The failure to characterize 

the lower confidence limits results in a flawed and arbitrary 

analysis that is significantly biased. BOEM summarizes the 

significant biases of the modeling as follows:

Thank you for your comment. The point that the lower bound 

was not evaluated in the manor of the upper bound (i.e., “worst 

case”) is valid. The description would be more complete with 

this addition. However, the assertion that this biases the 

results is unfounded since the median cases, not the upper 

bound inputs, were used as model inputs.

The question of implementing mitigation in the modeling was 

considered at length. But there are no generally accepted 

metrics on the effectiveness of mitigation; therefore, inclusion 

of mitigation effects would have left the modeling results open 

to the additional criticism and debate. The fact that mitigation 

is NOT considered in the modeling effort is incorporated in the 

interpretation of the modeling results in the impact analysis 

presented in Chapter 4.2 (i.e., the modeling results are 

overestimates of actual numbers of takes, since mitigation 

clearly affects reducing the exposure of marine animals).
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-293

Submission ID Comment Response

The existing modeling largely does not account for uncertainty in 

the data inputs and also selects highly conservative data inputs. 

This bias often produces unrealistically high exposure numbers 

and “takes” that exponentially increase uncertainty throughout 

each step of the modeling. The modeling does not incorporate 

mitigation or risk reduction measures designed to limit exposure. 

The modeling is an overestimate and should be viewed with that 

understanding. DPEIS at 4-47 (emphases added).

1076-0035 An analysis that, by the agency’s admission, purposely 

overestimates effects and relies upon incorrect and unrealistic 

assumptions, is, by definition, “inaccurate” and therefore 

contrary to applicable NEPA standards.

Thank you for your comment. Chapter 1.2.5 has been revised 

to include information on the modeling methodology and 

assumptions.

1076-0067 In August 2016, NOAA issued its Technical Guidance for 

Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (the “Guidance”). The Guidance establishes 

acoustic criteria for evaluating Level A harassment and TTS. 

Despite the availability of drafts of the Guidance and the 

scientific bases for the Guidance for many months prior to 

August 2016, the DPEIS’s exposure modeling analysis does not 

use the Guidance. See DPEIS at 1-17 and 1-20. The 

Associations assume that BOEM will use the Guidance in 

subsequent action-specific NEPA analyses.36 However, even if 

this assumption is correct, BOEM must clarify and better explain 

the relevance of the Guidance in the DPEIS.

Thank you for your comment. The Technical Guidance for 

Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing—Underwater Acoustic Thresholds for Onset 

of Permanent and Temporary Threshold Shifts was issued in 

August 2016 after public notice and multiple opportunities for 

comment. This Programmatic EIS has been revised to include 

the 2016 Technical Guidance issued by NMFS, and updated 

modeling results using this guidance are included in 

Appendix N. This represents the best-available scientific 

information and criteria issued by NOAA.

Chapter 1.2.5 has been revised to include information on the 

modeling methodology and assumptions. Additionally, refer to

Appendix N for the application of the new NMFS’ 2016 

Technical Guidance to the impact analysis. The comments 

regarding NMFS’ criteria are not within the scope of this 

Programmatic EIS. The NMFS responded to public comments 

on the guidance (Federal Register, 2017).

1076-0068 ...the DPEIS states that “at a first glance, there are differences 

between the values [generated by the Guidance and by the 

DPEIS exposure modeling], but they do appear significant at a 

programmatic level.” DPEIS at 1-18. It is not clear from this 

statement whether BOEM intends to say that the differences are 

or are not likely to be significant at the programmatic level 

considered in the DPEIS. Additionally, the DPEIS states that 

“there is the potential for some fairly large differences in results 

Chapter 1.2.5 has been revised to include information on the 

modeling methodology and assumptions. Additionally, refer to

Appendix N for the application of the new NMFS’ 2016 

Technical Guidance to the impact analysis.
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-294 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

from the modeling done by BOEM and the 2016 NMFS acoustic 

guidance” and cites an example for low-frequency (“LF”) 

cetaceans.

However, this example makes a number of simplifying 

assumptions, such as “most of an airgun’s energy is produced in 

the 100- to 300-Hz frequency band.” Id. This assumption is not 

entirely correct because sounds produced by airguns contain 

substantial energy from 10 to 60 Hz. Additionally, the -13 dB 

difference between the two frequency weighting functions noted 

in the DPEIS are calculated by considering only the 200 Hz 

frequency band, while substantial differences between the 

frequency weighting functions are present from 30 to 1,000 Hz.

1076-0069 ...for mid-frequency (“MF”) and high-frequency (“HF”) 

cetaceans, the frequency weighting curves shown in the DPEIS 

are even more dramatically different across the 100 to 300 Hz 

band selected to represent airgun sounds. Id. However, the 

preliminary analysis in the DPEIS does not address how this 

may dramatically reduce the area or volume within which MF 

and HF cetaceans may be considered exposed above the 

criteria. Instead, the DPEIS goes on to address high resolution 

geophysical (“HRG”) sources and indicates they would be 

evaluated as non-impulsive sources. Treating HRG sources as 

non-impulsive would be a break from traditional assessments, 

yet this is not explained or justified in the DPEIS or its 

appendices. Moreover, the summary paragraph on page 1-19 

does not provide an example similar to that for LF cetaceans to 

support why BOEM believes the number of exposures of MF 

and HF cetaceans would “remain the same or slightly reduced 

overall” if the Guidance were used.

Thank you for your comment. Treating non-airgun HRG 

sources as non-impulsive is the appropriate practice because 

they are not impulsive sources unless they include a small 

airgun or sparker. In those instances where HRG sources are 

considered to include small airguns or sparkers, it is specifically 

described as such. Appendix D describes how impulsive and 

non-impulsive sources were treated in the modeling. The 

discussion of NMFS’ Acoustic Guidelines in Chapter 1 has 

been edited to correct errors in the examples provided of the 

impact of the new guidelines on the exposures estimates 

included in this Programmatic EIS.

1076-0070 ...the analytical methods and criteria that are used in the 

acoustic analyses supporting the Appendix D modeling are less 

than straightforward. For example, starting on page 4-12 of the 

DPEIS, BOEM refers to the NMFS 1995 criteria (180/160 dB re 

1 μPaSPL rms), a set of 2012 weighting functions (e.g., those 

used in the modeling for the DPEIS) for which a reference is not 

provided, and to the NMFS July 2016 criteria. Appendix D uses 

the NMFS 1995 criteria, but applies Southall et al. (2007) 

Thank you for your comment. Chapter 1.2.5 has been revised 

to include information on the acoustic thresholds.
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-295

Submission ID Comment Response

M-1 weighting to those values, which were originally unweighted 

values. DPEIS, Appx. D at D-174. The Appendix D modeling 

also uses Southall et al. (2007) SPL peak Permanent Threshold 

Shift (“PTS”) onset values, but for LF cetaceans creates its own 

PTS onset threshold of 192 dB re 1 μPa2 s SEL by subtracting 

6 dB from the MF cetacean onset value of 198 dB re 1 μPa2 s 

(another precaution layered on top of already precautionary 

numbers). Id. at D-55. Another example of unclear 

development of a threshold value appears in the very next 

paragraph where the analysis cites a value of 187 dB SEL as 

the MF cetacean threshold, derived by using a beluga TTS 

onset of 186 dB, applying Finneran and Jenkins (2012) Type II 

M-weighting to derive a weighted value of 172 dB and then 

adding 15 dB to produce a PTS threshold for MF cetaceans of 

187 dB. Obviously, the methods for deriving the criteria used in 

the analysis are hardly clear. Nowhere in Appendix D or the 

body of the DPEIS is there a simple table listing the threshold 

values that were applied in the exposure analysis.

1076-0071 ...the failure of the DPEIS to use the Guidance in its effects 

analysis is legally and scientifically tenuous. See N. Plains Res. 

Council, Inc. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 668 F.3d 1067, 1086-87 

(9th Cir. 2011) (“Reliance on data that is too stale to carry the

weight assigned to it may be arbitrary and capricious.”). Proper 

application of the Guidance in action-specific NEPA evaluations 

may remedy this shortcoming; however, to the extent the final 

PEIS does not address this issue in a more robust manner, 

NMFS’s future reliance on the final PEIS for the MMPA 

incidental take rulemaking process could be jeopardized. It is 

imperative that the public be provided a reasonable opportunity 

to carefully review and comment on the application of the 

Guidance as it directly pertains to the current action. 

Regardless of its future application, if BOEM does not intend to 

use the Guidance in the modeling that will support the final 

PEIS, then it must provide a more developed and accurate 

assessment of the differences that result from application of the 

Guidance compared to the criteria and methods actually used. 

BOEM must also more clearly explain those criteria and 

methods in the final PEIS.

Thank you for your comment. The Technical Guidance for 

Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing—Underwater Acoustic Thresholds for Onset 

of Permanent and Temporary Threshold Shift was issued in 

August 2016 after public notice and multiple opportunities for 

comment. This Programmatic EIS has been revised to include 

the 2016 Technical Guidance issued by NMFS, and updated 

modeling results using this guidance are included in 

Appendix N. This represents the best-available scientific 

information and criteria issued by NOAA.

The NMFS’ 2016 Technical Guidance reflects the latest and 

best available science, was prepared by an expert agency, and 

was peer and publicly reviewed. The comments regarding 

NMFS’ criteria are not within the scope of this Programmatic 

EIS. The NMFS responded to public comments on the 

guidance (Federal Register, 2017). 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-296 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

1076-0072 The Phase I modeling in Appendix D uses Navy Operating Area 

Density Estimates (“NODES”) and NMFS Stock Assessment 

Reports (“SARs”) marine mammal population data. However, 

the Phase II modeling inconsistently uses the 2016 Duke model 

of animal distribution and abundance. The following 

summarizes some of the problems associated with 

Appendix D’s use of varying datasets and models related to 

marine mammal abundance and density.

First, a problem with habitat-correlated density modeling is that 

the model may not capture all the habitat variables that are 

important to the animals, and consequently places modeled 

animals in areas where they never or rarely go. For example, 

Bryde’s whales are rarely if ever seen outside De Soto Canyon, 

yet the Duke model places modeled Bryde’s whales in relatively 

high density at the continental shelf edge from Texas to the 

Florida Straits because the habitat suitability model indicates 

that they “could” use those places. The Duke model thus results 

in the calculation of densities of Bryde’s whales in Zone 4 of the 

Appendix D’s seven zone system when that clearly is not 

supported by the available sighting data......This is a complex 

set of variables, with precautionary assumptions literally varying 

for each of the species modeled. But overall, the use of the 

Duke model creates an increase in predicted abundance that is 

about double the official NMFS abundance numbers in the 

SARs. Some additional modifications in the use of those data 

by JASCO add to the conservatism (over-prediction) by a 

fractional amount, in most cases.

The Duke model is a novel approach to forecasting animal 

distribution and density from historical correlations with readily 

available environmental data, typically not the true 

environmental predictors like prey patches or features like 

fronts, currents and eddies that are less easy to predict or track. 

As such, there are some things that the Duke model likely does 

better than the SARs, such as predicting average abundance of 

pelagic dolphins that move in and out of the US EEZ from one 

survey to the next, leading to large sampling variability. 

Thank you for your comment. Chapter 1.2.5 has been revised 

to include information on the marine mammal densities. In 

short, that is the best available science at the time of this 

analysis.

Phase 1 modeling used the NODES data because it was 

available at the time that these scientific investigations were 

being conducted. It was not critical for these analyses that the 

latest marine mammal densities be used. However, it was 

critical that the 2016 Duke data be used in the Phase 2 

analysis. 

With respect to the comment on Monte Carlo methods and 

running the model multiple times, the overpopulation of the

model has the exact same effect as multiple runs, as each 

animat is completely independent of all other animats. A run of 

100 animats will produce the same fundamental result as 

10 runs of 10 animats.

Animats crossing the boundaries were replaced at the opposite 

boundary continuing in the same initial direction as when the 

boundary was crossed. When an animat crosses the 

boundary, its exposure history is frozen (it stops accumulating 

acoustic exposure) and the entering animat is considered new 

(with no exposure history).

There are different approaches that can be taken, but this 

method preserves modeling density and effectively simulates 

drawing animals from a larger area. To some degree, it 

discounts the possibility of animats accumulating sound over 

long periods to reach an SEL threshold and conversely 

increases the number of animals that might exceed a one-time 

threshold (e.g., SPL threshold) because “new” animats can 

now be counted if they eventually exceed the threshold. The 

edges of the survey area are chosen to be below thresholds so 

movement of animats in these areas should not contribute to 

the overall exposure estimate.
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-297

Submission ID Comment Response

However, other similar models for the US west coast, for the 

UK, and for global oceans, have shown some extreme misses in 

their predictions, an expected outcome for models in the early 

stages of development for species that are infrequently counted 

and whose habits are still poorly understood relative to land 

animals for example. Too great dependence on a single very 

new model like the Duke model can therefore be expected to 

result in some improvements on the SAR or US Navy NODES 

data resources, but is also likely to produce some extreme 

“misses”. Species with wide disparities between historical data 

and Duke model predictions include Atlantic spotted dolphins 

(from no historic estimates in SAR, to over 45,000 animals 

predicted by the Duke model, making them the third most 

abundant species in the Gulf, virtually overnight. Duke 

predictions of Clymene dolphin abundance are about 85 times 

higher than the SAR figures, Kogia numbers are increased by a 

factor of 12, rough-toothed dolphins by a factor of 8 and killer 

whales by a factor of more than 7. These are radical changes to 

our understanding of marine mammal abundance in the Gulf 

that require more than blind acceptance of a new model simply 

because it is generally “better” than the SARs (D-65).

Some of the animal abundance and distribution modeling may 

be unfamiliar and counter-intuitive to the average reader. The 

model in the BOEM DPEIS uses electronic representations of 

individual animals, or ‘animats’, to construct time series of 

exposure for a realistic number of animals, ‘behaving’ in realistic 

ways, so that the animats move about and dive at realistic 

speeds and distances relative to the sound source, which is also 

moving. As might be expected, capturing the complexities of 

animal behavior and all of the other variability of the sound 

source and the propagating ocean is impossible, so certain 

statistical techniques are used to smooth out some of the 

variability in outcome that can occur just from sampling errors 

alone. These techniques, such as over-populating the sound 

field with hundreds or thousands of times more animats than 

animals (and then reducing the result proportionally to the actual 

population) do not affect the outcome but do reduce the 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-298 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

likelihood of random extreme variation in outcomes. Monte 

Carlo methods, or running the same simulation over and over 

hundreds or thousands of times also helps smooth out the 

distribution of outcomes. Because the animats are seeded 

randomly for each model run and because they run 

independently according to user-specified rules, no single model 

run will produce the same result (as in real life) and so the 

model must be run many, many times in order to arrive at a 

statistical average. This process, which is widely accepted as 

statistically legitimate and even necessary to producing realistic 

model outcomes, should not be confused with the selection of 

variables to put into the animat models and Monte Carlo 

simulations: those variables, like the source and propagating 

environment variables, can and do produce biases in the 

outcome, as will be discussed in detail below.

Animal survey data for the Gulf of Mexico is sparse overall, and 

therefore statistically weak. Various techniques have been 

applied to the data to generate estimates of population 

abundance, density and distribution. The official NMFS Stock 

Assessment Reports (SAR) are an official estimate by NMFS of 

the best estimate of population abundance in a region, but they 

do not offer information about animal distribution, forcing the 

user to either evenly distribute the animals even across the 

habitat, even though it is known the animals do not use all of the 

habitat equally. Alternatively, the modeler can generate ‘expert’ 

assumptions about how the animals use the habitat, but those 

assumptions can create unrealistic estimates of take if the 

assumptions are not good. For example, JASCO placed all 

sperm whale animats in water depths greater than 1000 meters 

because sperm whales are deep divers that tend to occupy 

deep water. However, a look at the data show that many, if not 

most, sightings of sperm whales occur in water depths of 

400-800 meters, and this is largely confirmed by tagged whale 

data from the BOEM SWSS research project.

Alternative to applying a population estimate for the entire Gulf 

evenly or selectively across the Gulf is to use habitat features 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-299

Submission ID Comment Response

correlated with animal sightings to predict where animals are 

most likely to be seen based on ‘suitability’ of habitat. The 

statistical aspect of this process is quite well worked out as in 

the Duke University model applied in the BOEM DPEIS, but 

there are still ‘human-in-the-loop’ decisions that can affect 

model outcome. Something like the Duke model is therefore a 

“work in progress” in which model predictions may be more or 

less accurate, depending on the habitat variables available to 

the modeler and whether they are in fact strongly predictive of 

where animals will in fact be. A few “warning flags” about the 

novel predictions by the Duke model are:

• The distribution of Bryde’s whales across the entire 

GOM shelf edge by the inclusion of “unidentified baleen 

whale” data as Bryde’s whale data. Actual observations 

suggest that the Bryde’s whales are confined to a 

relatively small area of habitat around De Soto Canyon 

in the Eastern Planning Area (EPA), and in fact this site 

has been selected as a special mitigation zone. But the 

Duke model “places” Bryde’s whales across large 

swaths of area where they have never been seen, 

greatly elevating the predicted takes in the WPA and 

CPA by what are probably orders of magnitude 

(hundreds or even thousands of modeled takes not 

supported by the real data).

• Several species for which there are low sighting data 

produced low likelihoods of occurrence across vast 

areas of the Gulf in the Duke model, which were further 

simplified to even probabilities across entire modeling 

zones: false killer whales, killer whales and several 

other species are therefore equally likely of being taken 

wherever surveys occur, when in reality there are 

probably higher and lower areas of likelihood. It is hard 

to predict how the “fuzzy” predictions of the Duke 

model, and the modifications of the JASCO model affect 

take outcomes but generally speaking, these species 

tend to have predicted abundances derived from Duke 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-300 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

density models that are among the highest deviations of 

the Duke model from SARs (e.g. 6 times SAR for killer 

whale, 14 times SAR for pygmy killer whale).

• Deep divers that are seldom seen during visual surveys 

were subjected to some assumptions about sightability 

that greatly elevated predicted abundance and greatly 

expanded habitat occurrence over the SARs; 12 times the 

SAR for Kogia and about 8 times the abundance for 

beaked whales (based on Cuvier’s beaked whale 

modeling). This radical departure from historical estimates 

of abundance is somewhat consistent with comparisons 

elsewhere (Atlantic, California, Bahamas, eastern north 

Atlantic sites), but on the high side. It is also higher than 

predictions by passive acoustic surveys and modeling by 

Hildebrand, Moretti, and others. Just how “precautionary” 

the Duke model is for these species is hard to estimate at 

this time, but it is fairly clear that the Duke model is over-

predicting deep diver abundance and distribution leading 

to excessive estimates of takes.

Additional aspects of animal distribution and movements 

information that may lead to over-prediction of takes include:

• Assumptions used to deal with the large number of 

modeling cells that yield zero abundance and zero takes 

can lead to over-prediction of takes. JASCO notes that 

the outcomes that yielded a probability of Level A take greater than one (1) was less than 0.2% (i.e., only 2 out 

of a thousand model results yielded a take of 1 or more 

animals)(D-123, D-129). The average number of Level A 

takes was 0.0195 or about 2 per 100, the result of a very 

small number of model outcomes that yielded more than 

one Level A take.

• The 3MB model used to set swimming and dive 

parameters for the animals rely on limited data, quite 

often from related species studied at different locations 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-301

Submission ID Comment Response

than the Gulf. It is therefore hard to predict whether the 

overall effect of the values entered into the 3MB model 

resulted in overprediction of takes or under-prediction, 

but the most likely outcome is that the values used were 

conservative, precautionary values that added to the 

over-prediction of takes.

• The modelers assumed that the animals did not undergo 

long-term, large-scale movements. Certainly it is widely 

assumed that animals do not migrate in and out of the 

Gulf in great numbers, although sperm whales, a variety 

of baleen whales, and probably many other species do 

move between the Gulf and Atlantic or Caribbean. But 

the currently available data do not offer enough 

information, especially for winter months, to determine 

whether other species exhibit moderate north-south or 

east-west movements with the seasons similar to the 

inshore/offshore movements of estuarine bottlenose 

dolphins in the late winter and spring, or during other 

seasons. It is well known that large numbers of animals 

may travel from east to west, tracking the warm core 

rings spun off by the Loop Current, but this phenomenon 

is not sufficiently documented to inform the model.

• JASCO modeled the effect of group size on outcome. 

They did not see a significant difference in average 

outcome from using single, ungrouped animats, although 

they did note that obtaining the same outcome 

regardless of group size means that there will be more 

zero-take model runs as group size increases (D-135; 

D-174). As animats move over time, and if animats are 

removed once they exceed a take threshold, then the 

probability of take will decline over time as there are 

fewer and fewer animats in the field. JASCO used a 

common technique for keeping the number of animats 

constant and thus keeping probability of take constant 

over time by introducing new animats on the opposite 

side from which an animat had just left (D-49; D-82; 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-302 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

D201). It is also not clear if and how animals were 

removed or replaced once taken. This is especially 

important where animats were left in the field to 

accumulate SEL for days or weeks. There are other 

nuance to re-seeding the sound fields that can result in 

skewed results, but a full treatment is beyond the scope 

of this short review.

1076-0073 ...the Appendix D makes unsupported revisions to some results 

from the Duke model, which were themselves arbitrary or poorly 

supported. For example, the Duke model places sperm whales 

and Kogia whales in 500 m of water even though the available 

sighting data shows that they occur in shallower water. The 

Appendix D modeling, however, goes one step further and 

pushes all sperm whales into 1,000 m water depth or deeper, 

further exaggerating the disparity between actual observations 

(which tend to be biased toward shallower water) and the model 

(which uses “expert knowledge” to put the animals where the 

modeler thinks they ought to be).

Thank you for your comment. Chapter 1.2.5 has been revised 

to include information on the marine mammal densities. In 

short, that is the best available science at the time of this 

analysis. 

1076-0074 ...the Appendix D modeling evenly spreads species for which 

little data are available (e.g., killer whales, false killer whales, 

Fraser’s dolphins) across all habitats the modelers deem 

appropriate (generally deeper water, Zones 4-7). Some 

species, such as Fraser’s dolphins and false killer whales, are 

therefore assumed to be abundant and widespread in areas 

where they are historically seldom seen.

Thank you for your comment. It should be noted, as in 

Appendix D, that the exact location of any given future survey 

is unknown. Statistically, over numerous surveys, this is the 

equivalent of the impacts to an average density for marine 

mammals in that zone over the duration of all those surveys.

1076-0075 ...rather than use a specific value for each 100 km square, the 

Appendix D modeling averages the values from each 100 km2

box across an entire zone containing hundreds or thousands of 

100 km2 boxes. This enables the placement of animals into the 

outermost Zone 7 where there is little or no data and therefore 

no modeling by Duke. By expanding the Duke averages into 

areas outside the scope of the model, Appendix D increases the 

total number of animals present beyond the predictions of the 

SARs, NODES, or the Duke model. Appendix D presents the 

averaged values as a minimum, maximum, and mean, which is 

an appropriate way to convey some of the statistical uncertainty 

about the model numbers (see DPEIS, Appx. D at D-201), but 

there is insufficient information to determine how these values 

Thank you for your comment. Animats crossing the boundaries 

were replaced at the opposite boundary continuing in the same 

initial direction as when the boundary was crossed. When an 

animat crosses the boundary, its exposure history is frozen (it 

stops accumulating acoustic exposure) and the entering animat 

is considered new (with no exposure history).

Tables D-62 through D-68 clearly indicate the minimum, 

mean, and maximum density values for each modeling zone. 

Note that these modeling zones are the smaller boxes, not the 

entire portion of the Gulf of Mexico.
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-303

Submission ID Comment Response

were obtained from the source information. Additionally, it should be noted, as in Appendix D, that the 

exact location of any given future survey is unknown. 

Statistically, over numerous surveys, this is the equivalent of 

the impacts to an average density for marine mammals in that 

zone over the duration of all those surveys.

1076-0087 As we will see from the following quick-look at the GOM DPEIS, 

there are many more variables in the model than the simple four 

variable example described above. And the levels of precaution 

are not simple doubling of expected values, but multiples that 

may range from addition of some percentage (less than 

doubling) to increases that are orders of magnitude greater than 

the “most reasonable” value (orders of magnitude are multiples 

of ten, such as 10, 100, 1000, etc.). The downstream 

consequences are also more complicated than the simple two 

times two example above, with some variables interacting in 

other than simple multiplicative ways.

For example, use of an 8000 cubic inch sound source rather 

than the mean or median of sizes actually used (5,600-5,100 

cubic inches) would appear to only create a difference of about 

30-37%, but that difference in size produces a difference in 

source sound level of 3-6 decibels, depending also on the 

number of elements in the source array. The difference in 

source level needs to get translated into a difference in the area 

covered by the sound from the two different sources, because 

that will change how many animals are within the two respective 

areas, all other factors being equal. The 33-37% difference in 

the size of the two arrays translates into an increase of some 

45-50% (roughly) in the area exposed and therefore the number 

of animals taken. That is, if one uses an 8000 cubic inch array 

as the precautionary standard and that results in a take estimate 

of 150 individuals, then use of the more likely mean value of 

5,600 cubic inches will result in a take of 100 individuals. 

Needless to say, this is a pretty large downstream consequence 

from alteration of a single value by what might superficially look 

like a pretty small amount. As we will see, factoring in the other 

parts of the model where similar conservative assumptions are 

exercised results in a prediction of takes that is millions, possibly 

Chapter 1.2.5 has been revised to include information on the 

impact modeling.
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-304 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

billions, of times greater than the outcome predicted by using 

most likely outcomes only.

1076-0088 This list includes only the most obvious and clearly unsupported 

precautionary assumptions of the model:

• Source

o Extreme array size and number of elements increases 

exposures by 1.5 to 2 times.

o Six additional precautionary assumptions were not 

analyzed.

• Propagation

o Conservative or simplifying assumptions about the 

propagating environment add 10-16 dB minimum to 

the propagated sound.

o Combined with the precautionary source assumptions, 

this results in a 90-120 time increase in estimated 

takes, all other variables being equal.

o Six additional precautionary assumptions were not 

analyzed.

• Animal Abundance, Density and Movements

o NMFS’s Stock Assessment Reports (“SARs”) and 

Duke Model differ on average by a factor of 2. A 

minimum compromise for uncertainty would be to 

reduce abundance and density estimates by 25% to 

1.5 times SAR.

o Three specific groups showed even more extreme 

differences, but were not separated in this simple 

analysis: expansion of Bryde’s whale habitat leading to 

more takes; large increases in numbers of deep divers 

(beaked whales, sperm whales, Kogia); extremely

large increases in pelagic dolphin numbers (over 

80 times for two species)

o Five additional precautionary assumptions were not 

analyzed.

Chapter 1.2.5 has been revised to include information on the 

impact modeling.
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-305

Submission ID Comment Response • Threshold Criteria

o Level A calculations from SPLrms and SEL used 

precautionary assumptions that overestimated take by 

10-1,000 times. SPLpeak takes were overestimated at 

least twofold by using 6 dB instead of 15 dB to derive 

PTS from TTS. Level B calculations make generous 

assumptions about the likelihood of response and 

assume all exposures that exceed threshold are 

biologically significant, over-estimated biological 

consequence by at least 1,000 to more than 

100,000 times.

o No allowance for reduced Level A due to behavioral 

avoidance of the source (reductions of Level A up to 

85%).

o No allowance for hearing recovery between pulses 

(likely reduction of cumulative SEL from a continuous 

pulse train of 50% or more); no allowance for hearing 

recovery between passes separated by hours or days 

(fewer than 1% of successive passes, those within 

8 hours or less, will accumulate and trigger Level A 

criteria).

o Four additional contributors to precautionary over-

estimation were not analyzed, including application of 

weighting functions to impulse SPL metrics.

• Mitigation

o No reduction in take was allocated for mitigation. While 

setting a specific value for mitigation may be difficult, it 

clearly is not zero and therefore some reduction of 

takes due to mitigation should be factored into the 

model.

o Reductions from multiple proposed mitigations were 

not estimated.

--Vessel separation and dolphin shutdowns modeled, 

with questionable effectiveness

--Increased time/area closures and 10-25% effort 

reductions were not estimated.
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-306 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

• Total Multiplicative Precautions (short list)

o [Source+Propagation (90-120x)] x [abundance (2x)] x 

[conservative threshold criteria (100-10,000x)]x [no 

recovery factor (10-100x)] x [no allowance for aversion 

(6.7 x LevelA)] x [no mitigation (1.1 – 2x)] =

o 1.3 million to 3.2 billion more takes than the number 

that would be produced by using average or most 

likely values for all variables.

1076-0089 Re-calculate takes using average or most-likely values, quantify 

and report the overall level of uncertainty in the modeling 

results, and add an agreeable level of precaution to the final 

results, not the individual elements.

• Maybe double is reasonable?

• A statistical measure of extreme confidence like 3 sigma 

still covers 99.7% of all possible outcomes (370 times 

the central value) and is not nearly so unreasonable as 

the present model

• It seems unlikely that 1 million to 3 billion times the most 

likely outcome, which covers 99.9999% or more of all 

possible outcomes, is a reasonable level of ‘precaution’.

Chapter 1.2.5 has been revised and includes details on key 

model components and assumptions.

1076-0090 BOEM allowed no reduction in the estimated take for mitigation.

This is a highly over-conservative assumption, justified by the 

relatively little data available on mitigation effectiveness, 

together with the likely variability in mitigation effectiveness 

between mitigation service providers, types of marine species 

present, monitoring conditions and other variables. Some 

analysis on page D-151 suggests ranges of observer mitigation 

effectiveness from near zero to over 70%. One cannot require 

mitigation and at the same time treat it as if it provides no 

reduction in takes. BOEM needs to come up with some metric 

for the benefits from required mitigation. A variety of other 

possible mitigations have been proposed in the GOM DPEIS, 

ranging from alternative source technologies and active acoustic 

Chapter 1.2.5 has been revised to include information on the 

source and its selection for modeling.
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-307

Submission ID Comment Response

mitigation to time/area closures, vessel separation schemes, 

and reduced quantities of geophysical survey effort of 10-25%. 

At least two of the suggested mitigation measures, vessel 

separation (Table ES-1; page 1-10; page 2-10; B-32; page 2-38; 

and D-162-163) and shutdowns for dolphins approaching 

vessels or bowriding (p. 2-24) offer the possibility of actually 

increasing takes through expansion of ensonified areas (vessel 

separation), or extremely high increases in shutdowns with 

associated prolongation of survey effort (and sound exposure) 

to achieve survey completion (an estimated 35-40% increase).

1076-0097 Actual distribution of array sizes ranges from 8400-less than 

2000 with a mean value of 5600 cubic inches. Assuming the 

use of an 8000 cubic inch array overestimates reasonably 

expected source energy for a typical year or decade of effort. 

Additionally, using an excessively high number of elements in 

the array (the PEIS assumes the 8,000 cubic inch array is 

composed of 72 elements, when it would more likely be 

composed of 48 to 60 elements) further overestimates the 

expected source amplitude.

Thank you for your comment. Chapter 1.2.5 has been revised 

to include information on the source and its selection for 

modeling.

1076-0102 Although a 10 dB adjustment is common, there is insufficient 

detail provided here to support that it is appropriate for the HRG 

sources. This is especially true at greater ranges where the 

impulse shape of the signal is changed to an amplitude 

modulated signal over a variable time window.

10 dB is a conservative correction to convert SPL to SEL and 

was used for simplification. Effectively, this is assuming that a 

pulse from an HRG transmission is only on for 1/10th of a 

second per any one second. This is a reasonable 

approximation to simplify the variability across all HRG 

sources. It should be noted that, except for small airguns and 

sparkers, these signals are not impulsive and, therefore, the 

comment on impulsive is generally not applicable.

1076-0103 Using only the range value would appear to neglect the depth of 

the animat at the time it was within the (assumed maximumover-depth) range. If slant range and 3D peak SPL sound field 

were used, this should be specified.

Thank you for your comment. Maximum-over-depth was not 

used for exposure estimates. Three-dimensional movement of 

the animats was convolved with computed 3D sound fields. 

Maximum-over-depth plots were included as illustrations in the 

report as a matter of convenience only to convey radial ranges 

of sound pulses. Ranges to isopleths are provided for 

informational purposes, not for exposure calculation.

1076-0104 AASM generates a vector-specific level at any angle and in fact 

downward energy does not make a substantial reflective or 

refractive contribution to the longer range propagated signal, so 

Thank you for your comment. The AASM signatures include 

the amplitude at each angle. Therefore, the maximum value 

for the downward beam is only used for the downward angles. 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-308 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

this use of the downward maximum overestimates exposure. Shallower angles have reduced amplitudes, as predicted by 

AASM.

1076-0105 These boxes do not appear to show the same geospatial shift 

as shown for the two survey areas in Figure 10.

Figure 10 of Appendix D shows the area at the two sites (i.e., 

A and B) where the source tracks will occur. In order to 

capture the animals in the modeling that may be impacted, a 

larger area (i.e., one that is bigger than either source track 

areas A and B, and that encompasses those areas but also a 

buffer area around them) is used for the actual animal 

movement and impact modeling. It is these larger animal 

movement areas that are shown in Appendix D, Figures 13 

and 14. The figures are correct.

1076-0106 Not enough detail is provided, but if the ranges to animats used 

were simply horizontal distance rather than slant-ranges, then 

this calculation assumes maximum over-depth, which would 

result in more exposures of deep-diving marine mammals than 

is realistic.

Thank you for your comment. A full 3D sound field is produced 

by the acoustic model. The range, bearing, and depth of the 

animat is used to determine the predicted exposure level. This 

represents the slant range, not the simple horizontal distance. 

Ranges to isopleths are provided for informational purposes, 

not for exposure calculation. Maximum-over-depth plots were 

included as illustrations in the report as a matter of 

convenience only to convey radial ranges of sound pulses 

1076-0107 There is insufficient description of how the Median and standard 

deviation values shown in Table 30 were calculated to interpret 

the results. Presenting differences between worst-case and 

median models in terms of dB at a maximum distance to a 

threshold is not as useful as showing actual variation in 

distances to that threshold or areas exposed above the 

threshold.

Table 30 shows that the median difference between “worstcase” and “median” SSPs in the Shelf Zone result in +0–15 dB 

at/near the 160 dB range. +15 dB SPL would be a very large 

distance and therefore difference between median and worst 

case results.

Thank you for your comment. BOEM has reviewed the 

discussion and has concluded that the description is sufficient. 

In Appendix D, Table 30 (page D-84), the column R simply 

presents the difference in the maximum range to the 160-dB 

isopleth between the "worst-case SVP" and "median SVP" 

cases. The Median and St. Deviation is a straightforward 

calculation given the difference in sound fields for the two 

conditions (e.g., Appendix D, Figure 49).

1076-0108 No actual analysis was performed to assess the variability in 

model results caused by increasing sea state. All modeling 

assumes perfect reflectance; however, this statement makes it 

clear that the long distance estimates resulting from the 

presence of sound channels in unrealistic in high sea states, 

Thank you for your comment. As stated on pages D-99 and 

D-100, the topic was considered. The basic physics of the 

issue did not warrant a qualitative analysis. Given the minimal 

effect of sea surface on propagation, BOEM concluded that the 

given assumptions use the best available data, include 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-309

Submission ID Comment Response

and perhaps moderate, however, no effort is made to quantify 

this. This should have been quantified and/or a moderate 

(median) sea state used in all modeling scenarios.

reasonable assumptions, and are valid.

1076-0109 The DPEIS builds a strong case that some sort of mitigation 

reduction or aversion effect should be incorporated and would 

make a considerable difference in the take estimates, but 

neither well established phenomenon is taken into account.

Thank you for your comment. BOEM has clarified throughout 

this Programmatic EIS the assumptions and scenarios used in 

the modeling, as well as the limitations that may be inherent in 

any modeling effort (e.g., inability to account for mitigation 

measures and aversion). While the results of the modeling 

may be conservative, they are the most credible, sciencebased information available at this time. The question of 

implementing mitigation in the modeling was considered at 

length. There are currently no generally accepted metrics on 

the effectiveness of mitigation. Therefore, inclusion of a 

quantification of mitigation effects was not reasonable. Though 

mitigation could be not considered directly in the modeling 

effort, it is incorporated in the interpretation of the modeling 

results in the impact analysis presented in Chapter 4.2. It is 

reasonable to conclude that the proposed mitigation measures 

would likely reduce the potential impacts to marine mammals, 

though the amount of such a reduction cannot be quantified at 

this time.

1076-0110 The JASCO Phase I model clearly shows that separation 

schemes and ‘corridors’ are most likely not meaningful or used 

by the animals, and that the effect of such schemes is more 

likely to increase exposure, especially Level B SEL. We are 

hopeful that this proposed added mitigation will therefore be 

removed from consideration.

Thank you for your comment. The Phase I modeling found 

that, when multiple surveys are to be conducted in close spatial 

and temporal proximity, the numbers of exposed animals could 

be adequately assessed by modeling each survey 

independently rather than combining surveys within a single 

model run. It does not address the issue of whether the 

animals benefit from the corridors. In part, this is due to the 

lack of inclusion of an aversion response because there are no 

generally accepted metrics on the effectiveness of mitigation. 

Though mitigation could be not considered directly in the 

modeling effort, it is incorporated in the interpretation of the 

modeling results in the impact analysis presented in 

Chapter 4.2. It is reasonable to conclude that the proposed 

mitigation measures would likely reduce the potential impacts 

to marine mammals, though the amount of such a reduction 

cannot be quantified at this time.

1077-0005 BOEM admits the methodology and data set forth in the DPEIS Thank you for your comment. Throughout this Programmatic 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-310 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

are substantially inaccurate and not related to real world 

conditions:

1. “Without a rigorous methodology to do this interpretation, 

BOEM and other agencies must move forward with an overly 

conservative scenario equating the number of exposures to the 

number of ‘takes’ under the MMPA and ESA. This often 

produces unrealistically high exposure/take numbers. In this 

instance, the exposure/take numbers were also modeled without 

the application of mitigation measures, adding to the 

unrealistically high exposure/take numbers.” (1-21 (emphasis 

added).)

2. The Model Methodology “creates an estimate of the potential 

number of animals exposed to the sounds. This estimate alone 

does not reflect BOEM’s determination of the actual expected 

physical or behavioral impacts to marine mammals but rather an 

overly conservative upper limit because none of the mitigations 

examined in this Programmatic EIS were modeled. Biological 

significance to marine mammals is left to interpretation by the 

subject-matter experts.” (1-16 (emphasis added).)

3. “It is important to note that BOEM and NMFS do not equate 

every exposure to sound results in ‘take’ as defined by the 

MMPA’s Section 101(A)(5)(A-D). Therefore, exposure 

estimates used in this Programmatic EIS are not necessarily the 

same as a ‘take’ or an injury to an animal under the MMPA or 

ESA.” (1-19.)

4. “The existing modeling largely does not account for 

uncertainty in the data inputs and also selects highly 

conservative data inputs. This bias often produces 

unrealistically high exposure numbers and ‘takes’ that 

exponentially increase uncertainty throughout each step of the 

modeling. The modeling does not incorporate mitigation or risk 

reduction measures designed to limit exposure. The modeling 

is an overestimate and should be viewed with that 

understanding.” (4-47 (emphasis added).)

EIS, BOEM has clarified the assumptions and scenarios used 

in the modeling, as well as the limitations that may be inherent 

in any modeling effort (e.g., inability to account for mitigation 

measures and aversion). While the results of the modeling 

may be conservative, they are the most credible, sciencebased information available at this time. The question of 

implementing mitigation in the modeling was considered at 

length. There are currently no generally accepted metrics on 

the effectiveness of mitigation. Therefore, inclusion of a 

quantification of mitigation effects was not reasonable. Though 

mitigation could be not considered directly in the modeling 

effort, it is incorporated in the interpretation of the modeling 

results in the impact analysis presented in Chapter 4.2. It is 

reasonable to conclude that the proposed mitigation measures 

would likely reduce the potential impacts to marine mammals, 

though the amount of such reduction cannot be quantified at 

this time.

There were some erroneous occurrences of “worst-case” in this 

Programmatic EIS, and those have been removed.

There has been some confusion in this Programmatic EIS 

regarding terminology using exposure versus take. We have 

tried to clarify language in this Programmatic EIS to be more 

consistent in using terminology. “Take” is a specific legal term 

used in the ESA and MMPA. The estimation of takes of listed 

species and the evaluation of the effects of an action on 

ESA-listed species and critical habitat, as well as on marine 

mammals, are ultimately under the purview of the appropriate 

services charged with implementation of those statutes 

(namely, NOAA and FWS). The focus of NEPA, however, is 

broader. It mandates that Federal agencies, prior to 

undertaking a major action, identify and analyze potentially 

significant impacts to the environment from the proposed action 

and the alternatives and the direct and indirect effects, and to 

consider the incremental contribution to cumulative effects. 

The NEPA analysis is to be made available to the public and is 

to inform the decisionmakers in reaching their ultimate 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-311

Submission ID Comment Response

5. “Using the model estimates most often requires accepting a 

worst-case scenario, which ultimately overestimates the 

numbers of ‘take’ under the MMPA by equating those numbers 

with the exposures identified in the modeling rather than real 

world conditions.” (1-20 (emphasis added).)

It is axiomatic that using unrealistic methods and data leads to 

false conclusions. Based on its own candid admissions, 

BOEM’s methods and data must be rejected as a matter of law. 

First, BOEM’s failure to conduct a cost-benefit analysis or even 

to consider beneficial effects of existing mitigation measures is 

arbitrary and capricious. E.g., Friends of the Boundary Waters 

Wilderness v. Dombeck, 164 F.3d 1115, 1128 (8th Cir. 1999) 

(EIS must allow a balancing of costs and benefits). Second, 

NEPA regulations prohibit BOEM’s use of admittedly 

“unrealistic” data; they require BOEM to rely on “high quality” 

information and “accurate scientific analysis.” 40 C.F.R. § 

1500.1(b) (“Accurate scientific analysis [is] essential to 

implementing NEPA.”); see also id. § 1502.22 (evaluation must 

be based upon “credible scientific evidence”). Third, the Council 

on Environmental Quality concluded long ago that the type of 

“worst case analysis” BOEM used in the DPEIS is “an 

unproductive and ineffective method of achieving [NEPA’s] 

goals; one which can breed endless hypothesis and 

speculation.” 51 Fed. Reg. 15,618 (Apr. 25, 1986). The 

Supreme Court has agreed. Robertson v. Methow Valley 

Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 354-56 (1989) (confirming that 

worst case analysis is no longer applicable).

decision.

The NEPA analyses are not limited to criteria mandated by 

other statutes. Therefore, BOEM’s analysis is intended to 

evaluate impacts from the proposed action and alternatives to 

all relevant resources, regardless of whether it would also be a 

compliance or consultation trigger under another statute. For 

these reasons, BOEM has clarified language in this 

Programmatic EIS to more consistently refer to modeled and 

quantified exposures to certain sound levels for analyzing 

impacts. The determination of what qualifies as an individual 

take, which has a specific legal meaning under the ESA and 

MMPA, will ultimately be determined by NOAA through its 

MMPA Incidental Take Authorization development process and 

when a specific request for authorization for G&G survey 

activities is received.

While in many situations, exposure to certain thresholds of 

sound may ultimately be confirmed by NOAA as appropriate for 

estimating incidental take, BOEM has determined that it would 

be premature to equate those terms at this time. While 

NOAA’s estimate of take is based on specific harassment 

criteria, the modeling in this Programmatic EIS went further and 

estimated exposures relative to those thresholds, as well as to 

other risk assessment schemes available in the literature (e.g., 

Wood et al., 2012). This approach is reasonable under the 

circumstances and serves to fully inform the public and 

decisionmakers of the potential impacts to the resources 

analyzed, regardless of whether those impacts implicate terms 

of art under other statutes.

1077-0006 In addition to using admittedly erroneous models and data in the 

DPEIS, BOEM ignores existing real world observations that 

directly contradict the model estimates. BOEM’s failure to 

account for real world observations is arbitrary and capricious. 

For example, and as set forth in more detail in the Associations’ 

comments, BOEM fails to evaluate accumulated observational 

data collected by Protected Species Observers on survey 

vessels in the Gulf as part of the DPEIS’s effects analysis. 

Thank you for your comment. BOEM is committed to 

complying with the requirements and intent of NEPA in 

preparing a sound Programmatic EIS based on the bestavailable scientific information and professional judgment of its 

subject-matter experts. BOEM has developed this in-depth 

Programmatic EIS to inform the public and decisionmakers of 

the potential reasonably foreseeable impacts of the proposed 

action and the alternatives to ensure that any decision 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-312 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

These directly relevant but ignored data show negligible effects 

on marine species from seismic activities. Indeed, the 

Associations’ comments show BOEM’s estimates are wrong not 

just by orders of magnitude but “10,000 to 100,000 times greater 

than ‘best available data,’” which combined with other errors 

create exposure estimates that are “millions of times higher than 

the most likely outcomes” in several instances.

BOEM also ignores its own recent admissions that no scientific 

evidence exists contradicting the real-world observations of 

negligible impact: To date, there has been no documented 

scientific evidence of noise from air guns used in geological and 

geophysical (G&G) seismic activities adversely affecting marine 

animal populations or coastal communities. This technology 

has been used for more than 30 years around the world. It is 

still used in U.S. waters off of the Gulf of Mexico with no known 

detrimental impact to marine animal populations or to 

commercial fishing.

http://www.boem.gov/BOEM-Science-Note-August-2014/

(Science Note, August 22, 2014) (emphasis added); see also 

https://www.boem.gov/BOEM-Science-Note-March-2015/

(Science Note, March 9, 2015) (there has been “no documented 

scientific evidence of noise from air guns used in geological and 

geophysical (G&G) seismic activities adversely affecting animal 

populations.”). BOEM’s failure to account for this evidence is 

arbitrary and capricious.

regarding G&G activities is fully supported.

BOEM has clarified throughout this Programmatic EIS the 

assumptions and scenarios used in the modeling, as well as 

the limitations that may be inherent in any modeling effort (e.g., 

the inability to account for mitigation measures and aversion). 

While the results of the modeling may be conservative, they 

are the most credible, science-based information available at 

this time. The question of implementing mitigation in the 

modeling was considered at length. There are currently no 

generally accepted metrics on the effectiveness of mitigation. 

Therefore, inclusion of a quantification of mitigation effects was 

not reasonable. Though mitigation could be not considered 

directly in the modeling effort, it is incorporated in the 

interpretation of the modeling results in the impact analysis 

presented in Chapter 2. It is reasonable to conclude that the 

proposed mitigation measures would likely reduce the potential 

impacts to marine mammals, though the amount of such 

reduction cannot be quantified at this time.

In addition, studies have shown that marine mammals react to 

underwater noise. Reactions may include physical 

displacement from or avoidance of the area of ensonification 

and/or altering their vocalizations. This Programmatic EIS 

acknowledges that acute physical injury, other than auditory, or 

death of marine mammals is not likely to be a direct result of 

seismic noise. It does, however, acknowledge that disruption 

of behavioral patterns or auditory injury is possible, which may 

reduce fitness for individual animals. Population-level impacts 

related to energetic effects or other impacts of noise are 

difficult to determine. BOEM, however, does not assume that 

lack of demonstrated adverse population-level effects from 

seismic surveys means that those effects may not occur.

1091-0001 Sperm whales’ unique life history and behavior makes them 

particularly at risk to injury and behavioral impacts from seismic 

testing. NOAA’s latest abundance estimates find that 

763 individual sperm whales exist in the Gulf of Mexico (NOAA, 

2015b), while Roberts et al. (2016) generated a density model 

Thank you for your comment. The New et al. (2013) paper is 

an attempt to demonstrate the use of the PCoD model, which is 

a very data-heavy analysis approach for understanding how 

individual impacts may result in population-level 

consequences. While it would be ideal to conduct such an 
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-313

Submission ID Comment Response

that, when applied to the area, results in an estimate of 

2,128 sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico, which is the number 

used in NOAA’s CetMap. From 2009 to 2013, there were eight 

strandings of sperm whales in the northern Gulf of Mexico, 

though the cause has not been determined (NOAA National 

Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Database 

unpublished data as cited in NOAA SAR 2015b). It is 

noteworthy that the 763 estimate is substantially lower than 

NOAA’s abundance estimate from 2008, which was 1,665 

(NOAA SAR 2008). The estimate decreased from 1665 to 763 

after a 2009 survey (i.e., pre-Deep Water Horizon oil spill), and 

we contend that it is impossible to rule out the role of ongoing 

seismic surveys in this apparent population decline. The sperm 

whale is a very long-lived species, and prolonged exposure to 

noise can indeed, via mechanisms such as chronic stress, 

impact the reproductive success of mammals. We bring out this 

point primarily to illustrate the need for population level modeling 

(e.g., New et al., 2013) to better understand the potential long 

term consequences of the proposed, prolonged exposure.

analysis for sperm whales in the GOM, the level of available 

data does not support such an analysis. As the commenter 

points out that there is still much uncertainty associated with 

even the most basic of information about sperm whales, for 

example, how many of them inhabit the GOM.

In addition, through the Monitoring Plan (Chapter 1.2.3.4), 

BOEM will consider future data during the site-specific 

analyses performed for the individual surveys based on the 

best available information at that time.

1091-0009 The step functions used in the Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement—180 dB re: 1 μPa or above 

for Level A Harassment and 160 dB re: 1 μPa for Level B 

Harassment—have been commonly used over the past decade 

to assess sound exposure levels to marine mammals. These 

criteria, however, have not been well tested for marine 

mammals—particularly for odontocetes—and their efficacy is 

both poorly understood and controversial (Southall, et al., 2007).

In particular, applying these exposure criteria to sperm whales is 

particularly inadequate. The Miller et al. (2009) experiment on 

seismic testing and sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico 

demonstrates that sperm whales exhibited signs of possible 

behavioral response at ranges lower than the commonly 

employed Level B take levels (160 dB re: 1 μPa), as the sample 

group (n=8) were exposed to sound pressure levels of 

152-162 dB peak-peak re: 1 μPa. Furthermore, though sperm 

whales are classified as mid-frequency specialists (150 to 

160 kHz), they range on the lower spectrum of that range 

(NOAA, 2016). The National Marine Fisheries Service notes in 

Thank you for your comment. BOEM agrees that behavioral 

response is not a well understood topic. There are many 

examples of such responses occurring at levels both above 

and below the current 160-dB threshold. However, it is worth 

pointing out that the SPL metric for behavior responses is not 

adjusted by the hearing-group specific hearing/filtering 

functions. Therefore, the categorization of sperm whales does 

not affect the modeling of behavioral response.
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-314 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

their recent report, “Technical Guidance for Assessing the 

Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing,” 

that they considered classifying sperm whales separately from 

other mid-frequency cetaceans, but that not enough data exists 

to make this classification (NOAA, 2016). Given the little 

information known about sperm whales’ hearing range, their 

apparently decreasing numbers, criticisms of the step function in 

general, and the likely violation of the cumulative exposure 

criteria, precaution should be applied vigorously to protecting 

sperm whales from acoustic impacts.

1130-0019 NOAA disagrees that the PEIS analysis is based on the “upper 

limit” of potential marine mammal exposures to sound produced 

by G&G activities. The PEIS provides no reasonable 

justification as to why the exposure estimates described in 

Appendix D should be considered as “conservative upper limits”, 

represent an “overestimate”, or are “unrealistically high.” 

Appendix D does not appear to quantitatively consider 

uncertainty or variation in major modeling input parameters in a 

way that provides confidence intervals around the given 

exposure estimates and, therefore, upper or lower limits of 

exposure. NOAA believes that the exposure estimates 

represent a conservative but reasonable best estimate. 

Therefore, BOEM must remove reference to “upper limits” or 

provide a more thoroughly reasoned justification for this 

contention. Reference: Executive Summary, pg xix; Chapter 1, 

pg 1-16, 1-21; Chapter 4, pg 4-15, 4-47, 4-59, 4-60. 

Thank you for your comment. There were some erroneous 

occurrences of “worst-case,” “upper limit,” and other similar 

language in this Programmatic EIS, and those have been 

removed. BOEM has clarified throughout this Programmatic 

EIS the assumptions and scenarios used in the modeling, as 

well as the limitations that may be inherent in any modeling 

effort (e.g., inability to account for mitigation measures and 

aversion). While the results of the modeling may be 

conservative, they do remain the most credible, scientificbased information available at this time.

In addition, the impact conclusions are a synthesis of a variety 

of qualitative and quantitative available scientific information. 

The impact analysis considered the modeling results in 

conjunction with subject-matter expert review of scientifically 

credible information using accepted approaches and research 

methods. While this analysis required some professional 

judgement by the subject-matter experts, the resulting impact 

conclusions remain credible in light of the available scientific 

record. Though mitigation could be not considered directly in 

the modeling effort, it is incorporated in the interpretation of the 

modeling results in the impact analysis presented in 

Chapter 4.2. It is reasonable to conclude that the proposed 

mitigation measures would likely reduce the potential impacts 

to marine mammals, though the amount of such a reduction 

cannot be quantified at this time.

1130-0020 BOEM apparently believes that the exposure modeling is 

conservative in large part because the modeling did not quantify 

Thank you for your comment. Chapters 1.2.5 and 4 have

been revised to address this comment.
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-315

Submission ID Comment Response

the effects of “19 different mitigations.” NOAA notes that, of 

these 19 mitigations, some are not applicable to marine 

mammals (e.g., “Avoidance of Historic and Prehistoric Sites”). 

Of greater importance is that the majority of the remaining 

mitigation measures are not designed to reduce exposures, but 

rather to reduce the intensity of exposures, thereby reducing the 

assumed level of potential consequences to individual marine 

mammals, but having little to no effect on the overall number of 

actual exposures. If BOEM intends to invoke mitigation 

measures as a reason why the estimated exposure numbers are 

“conservative upper limits” or overestimates, it must provide a 

more detailed description of how and to what degree it assumes 

the analyzed mitigation measures would reduce the actual 

number of marine mammal exposures to levels of sound 

exceeding harassment thresholds. As noted in Section 

4.2.4.1.2, “survey mitigation measures are not likely to eliminate 

or significantly reduce behavioral responses.” Reference: 

Chapter 1, Section 1.2.5, pgs 1-16, “Model Methodology” and 

“Model Limitations”, 1-19, 1-21; Chapter 4, pg 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 

4-47, 4-48.

1130-0021 NOAA disagrees that “each of the inputs into the models is 

purposely developed to be conservative.” Although it may be 

correct that conservativeness accumulates throughout the 

analysis, BOEM has not adequately described the nature of 

conservativeness associated with model inputs or to what 

degree (either quantitatively or qualitatively) such 

conservativeness “accumulates.” While exposure modeling is 

inherently complex, complexity does not inherently result in 

overestimation of exposures. NOAA feels these statements are 

misleading and must be removed or better supported.

Overall, it appears that BOEM’s intention is to qualify the 

exposure estimates in a way that calls into question their 

usefulness with regard to the analyses presented in the PEIS. 

NOAA strongly disagrees that the exposure estimates are 

“overly conservative,” are “upper limits,” or that these estimates 

are in some way differentiated from what might actually be 

expected to occur. However, if BOEM does believe there is 

Thank you for your comment. There were some erroneous 

occurrences of “worst case” in Appendix D, and they have 

been removed. Throughout Appendix D, BOEM clarified the 

assumptions and scenarios used in the modeling, as well as 

the limitations that may be inherent in any modeling effort (e.g., 

inability to account for mitigation measures and aversion). 

While the modeling results may be conservative, they are the 

most credible, science-based information available at this time.

New text was added to Chapter 1.2.5 to further clarify modeled 

estimates.
Table M-19. Acoustic Propagation and Exposure Modeling Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-316 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

some differentiation between the exposure estimates and what 

would reasonably be expected to occur in the real world on the 

basis of the activity scenarios presented in the PEIS, NOAA 

suggests that proper context could be provided by answering 

the following questions regarding the conservativeness of model 

inputs: (1) for the selection of model input parameter values, 

why was a given choice made relative to other available 

choices, if the selected value is in fact “conservative”?; (2) what 

is the approximate expected impact of this choice on the 

modeling results (i.e., would it be expected to have roughly a 

low, medium, or high degree of effect on the results of the 

modeling exercise)?; and (3) what type of exposure effect would 

the selection of a “conservative” value for a particular input have 

relevance for (e.g., behavioral harassment, injury)?

In addition, BOEM could provide context by discussing the 

likelihood that the number of individual animals exposed to 

noise may be overestimated, as these estimated exposures 

likely represent repeated exposures of some individuals on 

subsequent days. Appendix D contains a potentially useful test 

case investigation, which BOEM and NMFS specifically worked 

to develop, that may help us to address this specific issue. 

Reference: Chapter 1, Section 1.2.6, pg 1-19; Chapter 4, 

pg4-14, 4-15, 4-47, 4-50.
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-317

M.4.17 Cumulative and Chronic Effects in the Gulf of Mexico (Appendix K)

Comments asserted that assumptions used in the cumulative and chronic analysis were not 

valid, and suggested that parameters and assumptions be adjusted and impacts be re-evaluated. 

Comments further identified additional sources of cumulative noise, ongoing studies of ocean noise, 

and consistency with recent studies on marine mammal responses. Conversely, other comments 

contended that the analysis contained novel concepts that have no scientific precedence and are not 

peer reviewed. Comments further asserted +that, due to the omission of recent literature and the 

utilization of incomplete and overly conservative assumptions, Appendix K is not consistent with 

best available science and not meaningful to regulatory decisionmaking. Comments indicated that 

the results and discussion of Appendix K were not incorporated into the impact analysis in 

Chapter 4 of this Programmatic EIS. Detailed responses to specific comments are provided in 

Table M-20. 
M-318 Responses to Public Comments

Table M-20. Cumulative and Chronic Effects in the Gulf of Mexico (Appendix K) Detailed Comment Responses

Submission ID Comment Response

Cumulative and Chronic Effects in the Gulf of Mexico (Appendix K)

0343-0008 As indicated herein, Appendix K delved into the loss in 

listening area and change in communication space primarily 

for Bryde’s whales that are likely to result from the proposed 

activities. However, section 2.3.2 in Appendix K indicated 

that the top 10 percent of the greatest pulse exposures were 

removed from those analyses. Given that SELcum 

exposures are dominated by the source pulses generated 

closest to the receiver from spatially distributed and moving 

sound sources, inclusion of those pulses in a chronic effects 

assessment during a one-year period was considered 

unrepresentative and more relevant for assessing acute 

effects. The Commission is not convinced that that is a 

valid assumption and suspects those pulses would not be 

filtered out by the animal receiving them. Thus, those 

pulses invariably would contribute to the overall reduction in 

listening area and communication space. It also would be 

helpful to be able to compare the full dataset with the 

reduced dataset to distinguish how much those ‘acute’ 

effects add to the overall chronic exposure of the animal. 

Therefore, the Commission recommends that BOEM 

re-estimate the various listening area and communication 

space parameters based on the entire dataset rather than 

removing the greatest 10 percent of pulse exposures.

The attempt with this modeling exercise was to create a tool that 

could help evaluate loss of ability to detect signals of biological 

importance over spatial scales relevant to the sources and hearing 

capabilities of a wide variety of regional animals. Masking realized 

by individual calling and receiving animals due to noise at 

relatively close proximity to a single intermittent source is an 

important but limited evaluation of the real-world contexts within 

which populations of marine mammals and other animals are 

exposed to noise from multiple seismic surveys in a region like the 

Gulf of Mexico. This modeling sought to account for the known 

attributes of airgun noise, by which low-frequency energy lost 

laterally attenuates over large spatial scales with loss of impulsive 

features, leading to elevated background noise conditions, 

particularly when multiple surveys are concurrent with an acoustic 

region. Close range pulse energy would entirely drown out such 

evaluation and would not account for the different acoustic 

characteristics of the signal and potential masking at such scales. 

Thus, while masking of specific signals relative to the near-field of 

operating air gun arrays does need evaluation, there are concerns 

with considering such effects with the modeling approach 

presented here.

BOEM and NOAA concur that the methods applied here are 

imperfect in categorizing exposure implications for animals close 

to the modeling locations as “acute” and in dominating evaluation 

of injury and behavioral disruption as separate and separable from 

loss of hearing opportunities experienced by animals farther from 

source locations.

0343-0009 In addition, BOEM indicated that the chronic effects 

assessment was intended to ensure consideration of the 

longer-term and wider-ranging noise effects from the 

various sources and to augment the more traditional 

analysis of acute effects (i.e., Level A and B harassment). 

However, beyond presenting the results and the various 

associated caveats in section 4.14 of the DPEIS, BOEM has 

not fully described what, if anything, it plans to do with the 

This Final Programmatic EIS has incorporated Appendix K into

Chapter 4.2. The purpose of Appendix K was to create a tool 

that could help evaluate loss of ability to detect signals of 

biological importance over spatial scales relevant to the sources 

and hearing capabilities of a wide variety of regional animals. 

Bryde’s whale was modeled specifically as it is a low-frequency 

cetacean and has shown through exposure models to be sensitive 
Table M-20. Cumulative and Chronic Effects in the Gulf of Mexico (Appendix K) Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-319

Submission ID Comment Response

results of that assessment. The Commission believes the 

chronic effects assessment should inform BOEM’s selection 

of a preferred Alternative. More specifically, given that take 

estimates for sperm whales are in some cases two orders of 

magnitude greater than for Bryde’s whales, it would be 

prudent to investigate the sperm whale’s communication 

space as well.

That analysis should incorporate the assumption that the 

acoustic field produced by airguns above 1 kHz is stochastic 

and thus the airgun array is effectively omnidirectional. For 

certain locations, such as sites 5 and 6 where sperm whales 

are known to occur in greater numbers and which have 

reasonably flat bathymetries, a normal mode or BELLHOP 

model could be used to analyze the data much more quickly 

than using the full 3-D parabolic equation-based model, 

particularly as the higher-frequencies and lower effective 

source levels involved reduce the effective propagation 

range of concern. Other alternatives that have yet to be 

formalized could be analyzed in a similar manner.

Thus, the Commission recommends that BOEM assess the 

communication space parameters for sperm whales under 

the various alternatives and any new alternatives to inform 

its selection of a Preferred Alternative. A substantial portion 

of this analysis can be performed with simplified (and much 

more rapid) acoustic modeling by focusing on regions with 

relatively flat bathymetry. The Commission also notes that 

incorporating figures for selected sites and functional 

hearing groups would allow the analysis to be more 

comprehensible than using the current multitude of tables.

to the sound generated from airgun surveys. 

1067-0002 These harms do not occur on a blank slate. These whales 

and the Gulf's marine mammals have already been paying 

the price for poor regulation of offshore oil and gas 

development. The Deepwater Horizon explosion occurred 

in the Mississippi Canyon, a nursery for sperm whales and 

the heart of their habitat. The Gulf's iconic coastal 

bottlenose dolphins have suffered a five-year die-off, with 

Appendix K, which has been incorporated into Chapter 4.2, 

estimates chronic and cumulative effects on marine mammals and 

specifically on Bryde’s whale communication area. These 

estimates are based on airgun survey, other OCS activity, and 

ambient noise.
Table M-20. Cumulative and Chronic Effects in the Gulf of Mexico (Appendix K) Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-320 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

poor health outcomes and numerous stillbirths in the spill 

zone. The Gulf's Bryde's whale--one of the most 

endangered populations of whales on the planet--may 

already have lost much of their canyon habitat due to 

seismic blasting. As the draft analysis indicates, these

populations cannot survive another decade of continued 

damage from this kind of activity.

1074-0004 To make matters worse, all of these surveys are taking 

place in a context of chronic industrial noise: noise from the 

industry’s support vessels, from its construction of offshore 

facilities, from its routine operations, and from its platform 

decommissioning....

Many of the marine mammal populations that seismic 

operators are affecting—Bryde’s whales, sperm whales, and 

coastal and near-coastal bottlenose dolphins, among 

others—may already be seriously compromised by the 

Deepwater Horizon spill.

Appendix K, which has been incorporated into Chapter 4.2, 

estimates chronic and cumulative effects on marine mammals and 

specifically on Bryde’s whale communication area. These 

estimates are based on airgun survey, other OCS activity, and 

ambient noise.

The baseline for resources in this Programmatic EIS includes the 

best available information for that resource and its current state.

1074-0009 ...it is evident that management must focus in substantial 

part on reducing acoustic disturbance and acoustic habitat 

degradation for certain Gulf populations, whose 

conservation status, sensitivity to anthropogenic noise, 

and/or susceptibility to Macondo spill effects make them 

particularly vulnerable. NOAA’s new Ocean Noise Strategy 

prioritizes management aimed at reducing cumulative and 

chronic impacts, such as area closures, activity reduction, 

and the promotion and adoption of noise-quieting 

technology.2

 And this approach is echoed in the last 

several years of scientific and policy literature on ocean 

noise, including seismic surveys, part of what one NOAA 

scientist identified as “a shift underway to focus on more 

ecologically relevant spatial and temporal scales.”3

 There 

are few parts of the world more in need of a paradigm shift 

in underwater noise management than the Gulf of Mexico.

Thank you for your comment. This Programmatic EIS has been 

revised to include the 2016 Technical Guidance issued by NMFS. 

The updated modeling results using this guidance are included in 

Appendix N, and the chronic and cumulative model information is 

included in Appendix K. This represents the best-available 

scientific information and criteria issued by NOAA.

1074-0063 Our organizations appreciate the agencies’ work in 

Appendix K on communication space and listening area, 

which represents a significant advance over the analyses 

prepared in other federal environmental compliance 

This Final Programmatic EIS has incorporated Appendix K into

Chapter 4.2. Appendix K was created as a tool that could help 

evaluate loss of ability to detect signals of biological importance 

over spatial scales relevant to the sources and hearing capabilities 
Table M-20. Cumulative and Chronic Effects in the Gulf of Mexico (Appendix K) Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-321

Submission ID Comment Response

documents for seismic exploration. It must be recognized 

that work is limited, particularly with respect to species other 

than the Bryde’s whale, and has not been integrated into the 

DEIS’ impacts and alternatives analysis. To this end, we 

offer the following observations:

First, we agree with the Marine Mammal Commission that 

the agencies should expand their communication space 

analysis to sperm whales. Take estimates for sperm whales 

are remarkably high for their numbers: 760,000 instances 

of harassment, applying NMFS’ outdated 160 dB standard 

(see DEIS at D-287 to D-367), compared to a population 

size currently estimated at 763 individuals.109 As the 

Commission gently observes, it would therefore “be prudent 

to investigate the sperm whale’s communication space as 

well.”110 In doing so, we recommend that the agencies 

consider sperm whale vocalizations of various frequencies, 

keeping in mind that sperm whales, on the basis of their 

anatomy and sound production, defy easy placement within 

the category of mid-frequency cetacean, as noted above, 

and regularly produce sounds from 200 Hz to 32 kHz.111 

Notably, recordings of two neonate sperm whales showed 

vocalizations with centroid frequencies of 300-1,000 Hz and 

500-1,700 Hz for clicks, and 200-700 Hz for grunts, 

indicating low-frequency sensitivity.112

Second, we recommend that the agencies analyze survey 

density scenarios beyond the one examined in Appendix K.

The newly released 2017-22 OCS Program takes a different 

approach to Gulf of Mexico leasing than we have seen in 

past years, allowing companies to bid on any lease block 

not presently barred, until 2022, by Congressional 

moratorium, rather than bid within defined sale areas. This 

change in policy could result, for example, in substantially 

more proposed survey effort in Appendix K’s activity zone 6, 

which presumably would increase chronic seismic airgun 

noise in Bryde’s whale habitat. See DEIS at K-42. 

Moreover, the Congressional moratorium itself will expire in 

of a wide variety of regional animals. Bryde’s whale was modeled 

specifically as it is a low-frequency cetacean and has shown 

through exposure models to be sensitive to the sound generated 

from airgun surveys.
Table M-20. Cumulative and Chronic Effects in the Gulf of Mexico (Appendix K) Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-322 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

2022—well within the life of the present EIS—and, if left 

unrenewed, could substantially increase G&G activity in 

zone 5, again threatening Bryde’s whale habitat. See id. 

Finally, the incoming administration, given its stated 

priorities, could encourage offshore oil and gas production, 

increasing activity across the northern Gulf.

Third, the modeling results in Appendix K are consistent 

with a suggestion made by Rosel and Wilcox (2014), in their 

paper on evolutionary divergence in Gulf Bryde’s whales. 

Following Reeves et al. (2011), the authors observe that 

whaling logbooks support a wider distribution of Bryde’s 

whales than we see today, with considerable numbers of 

whale records reported to the south and west of the 

Mississippi River Delta, and state that habitat disruption 

from energy exploration and production in those areas may 

have led to a contraction of habitat: “the abandonment of 

the northwestern [Gulf of Mexico] by Bryde’s whales.”113 

Interestingly, the remarkably shallow waters currently 

occupied by that population along the upper slope of 

De Soto Canyon were modeled as virtually free of industrial 

noise, given the particular bathymetry of the area and the 

low incidence of oil and gas exploration activity to the north 

(zone 5) and south (zone 6), whereas sites to the west were 

substantially degraded. DEIS at K-33.

The possibility that oil and gas activity has already caused 

or contributed to a substantial contraction of the range of a 

critically endangered baleen whale population must be 

considered. Bryde’s whale vocalization, modeled with a 

source level of 152 dB in 100 Hz 1/3-octave band, makes 

them extremely vulnerable to loss of communication space 

from seismic exploration, much as, according to the best 

available models, shipping has an outsized effect on right 

whale communication space.

1074-0066 ...the DEIS has made a point of considering the effects of 

other past, current, and reasonably foreseeable activities 

apart from the proposed action. DEIS at 4-77. Doing so is 

Potential impacts from G&G activities are included in the 

cumulative analysis; their potential effects are added to other 

Federal and non-Federal actions within the northern Gulf of 
Table M-20. Cumulative and Chronic Effects in the Gulf of Mexico (Appendix K) Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-323

Submission ID Comment Response

all the more inappropriate given that seismic exploration 

may act as a growth inducer, leading to OCS development 

activities such as construction, machinery and infrastructure 

operations, vessel movement, acoustic communications, 

and explosive platform removal, all of which add to the 

cumulative effects of industrial activity in the Gulf.

Numerous studies associate vessel noise and vessel 

movement with behavioral effects, physiological stress 

response, and masking in cetaceans,118 and, over time, the 

disruption of normal foraging and communication behaviors 

may have important long-term population-level effects.119 

Significant effects, such as habitat displacement, loss of 

anti-predator response, and chronic stress, have been 

documented in a variety of fish and invertebrates. The 

agencies must consider the cumulative effects of vessel 

noise and other stressors together with those of the 

proposed action.

Mexico OCS and are analyzed in a revised cumulative analysis 

sections in this Final Programmatic EIS. Further, many of these 

impacts are outside the scope of this Programmatic EIS but are 

analyzed in detail in BOEM's 2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS.

1076-0076 Appendix K contains novel concepts that are inconsistent 

with a substantial amount of scientific literature addressing 

the topics of hearing masking and chronic effects of sound. 

For example, Appendix K presents new concepts, such as 

“lost listening area,” which have no scientific precedent. 

Additionally, Appendix K introduces novel risk metrics like 

annual cumulative SEL and equivalent continuous sound 

level (“Leq”) that are not biologically realistic concepts 

(pages K-22 and K-24), and other ideas that have no 

apparent basis, such as the Cumulative and Chronic 

Exposure metric (page K-10). Equally concerning, the novel 

analysis in Appendix K is introduced, for this first time, 

without any serious peer-review or expert evaluation.

The concept of a listening area has been published in peerreviewed literature and applied in impact assessment contexts in 

terrestrial resource management (refer to the references in 

Appendix K).
Table M-20. Cumulative and Chronic Effects in the Gulf of Mexico (Appendix K) Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-324 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

1076-0077 Appendix K presents a hypothetical analysis of “lost 

communication space” for Bryde’s whales (pages K-32 to 

K-41) without any evidence to support an actual (not 

hypothetical) baseline for this or any related species. 

Communication space is considered to be the maximum 

detectable range of a sound, which far exceeds the actual 

communication space for any species, terrestrial or marine. 

Another omission in Appendix K is the lack of reference to a 

recent and very thorough review of the subject of hearing 

masking (Erbe et al. 2015). Instead, Appendix K primarily 

references Clark et al. (2009) for masking, even though it 

has been demonstrated to be an incomplete model that 

overestimates the risk of masking.

Communication space is defined for this modeling exercise in 

Appendix K, Section 2.6 and is supported with accepted peerreviewed literature. The baseline levels for the model are also 

supported by the best available scientific data.

1076-0078 In addition, the Appendix K analysis is based on 

assumptions about hearing and hearing masking that are 

clearly incomplete and overly conservative, such as 

assuming that the animal requires signal excess of 10 dB to 

detect a conspecific call (page K-17), when the standard in 

the literature is detection at -3 to -6 dB below ambient. 

Appendix K treats received sound as being the same at all 

depths (2D “disk” model of masking, page K-17), and no 

directional release from masking is provided? not because 

the animals cannot use the 3 to 12 dB of gain they get from 

directionality, but because the analysis suggests that the 

survey tracks are “randomly oriented” (page K-19). This 

inability to determine the angular resolution between 

receiver, conspecific caller, and the seismic source is 

puzzling because the Phase I and Phase II exposure 

models provide very specific direction-dependent 

transmission loss model data and are dynamic 4D models 

that should easily yield the necessary information to insert 

spatial release from masking in the communication space 

equation. Instead, a generic “signal processing gain” term 

is used to account for the various features of a signal that 

enable the receiver to pick it out of sound. Finally, 

Appendix K uses an unrealistic and simplistic formula 

(Sirovic et al. 2014) for determining the bandwidth of the 

signal (to the human, not the whale listener) and call length 

The use of 10 dB is discussed in Clark et al. (2009) relative to the 

broader evaluation of communication space loss at habitat scales.

While a model evaluating masking potential over a wide variety of 

ranges from an individual airgun pulse to individual Bryde’s whales 

could incorporate information regarding directionality and to 

investigate the time-space contexts in which signal transmission 

could be improved by mechanisms acting on the signaler or 

receiver, this is not the focus of this examination of masking. 

BOEM and NOAA were interested in evaluating a more cumulative 

nature of low-frequency, long-distance propagating relatively lowintensity energy from multiple seismic surveys operating 

concurrently in a region. The purpose of Appendix K was to 

create a tool that could help evaluate loss of ability to detect 

signals of biological importance over spatial scales relevant to the 

sources and hearing capabilities of a wide variety of regional 

animals.

Given the focus on this scale and the noise source in question, 

loss of the ability to detect lower-frequency signals in different 

regions of the GOM were examined. However, more pointed 

examination of masking implications for conspecific Bryde’s or 

sperm whales communicating in close proximity to seismic 

surveys are necessary, and could, as the comment discusses, 

build on the modeling completed for take evaluation.
Table M-20. Cumulative and Chronic Effects in the Gulf of Mexico (Appendix K) Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-325

Submission ID Comment Response

(without redundance or signal variance and periodicity), 

ignoring substantial literature on this topic for humans and 

other species (page K-20).

1076-0079 Appendix K is premature, inappropriate, and not consistent 

with the best available science. Moreover, its relevance to 

the DPEIS is not explained by BOEM. Because of its many 

defects, Appendix K should be removed from the DPEIS.

The purpose of Appendix K was to create a tool that could help 

evaluate the loss of ability to detect signals of biological 

importance over spatial scales relevant to the sources and hearing 

capabilities of a wide variety of regional animals. This is one part 

of the vast amount of the best available information that subjectmatter experts used to analyze proposed activities and cumulative 

impacts on various resources.

1076-0111 This is a novel and poorly supported idea within the 

research community and is not well enough developed or 

supported by data to be treated as a meaningful regulatory 

concept.

The purpose of Appendix K was to create a tool that could help 

evaluate the loss of ability to detect signals of biological 

importance over spatial scales relevant to the sources and hearing 

capabilities of a wide variety of regional animals. This is one part 

of the vast amount of the best available information that subjectmatter experts used to analyze proposed activities and cumulative 

impacts on various resources.

1076-0112 No formula or rationale for use of Leq is provided. Leq is not 

used in the rest of the PEIS. Introduction of a new, 

unjustified metric is not warranted.

The purpose of Appendix K was to create a tool that could help 

evaluate the loss of ability to detect signals of biological 

importance over spatial scales relevant to the sources and hearing 

capabilities of a wide variety of regional animals. This is one part 

of the vast amount of the best available information that subjectmatter experts used to analyze proposed activities and cumulative 

impacts on various resources.

1076-0113 This is a novel and scientifically controversial idea; it is not 

mature enough for regulatory application. A DPEIS is not 

the place to introduce a radically different concept for UW 

sound regulation: this should be further developed and 

vetted as a policy or regulatory rule-making on its own 

before it is considered solid enough for regulatory 

application.

The purpose of Appendix K was to create a tool that could help 

evaluate the loss of ability to detect signals of biological 

importance over spatial scales relevant to the sources and hearing 

capabilities of a wide variety of regional animals. This is one part 

of the vast amount of the best available information that subjectmatter experts used to analyze proposed activities and cumulative 

impacts on various resources.

1076-0114 This is not an accepted ISO or ANSI standard, and for good 

reason. Concepts of hearing recovery, effective quiet and 

other basic hearing phenomenon would need to be 

considered and are not, leading to absurd expressions of 

acoustic energy “accumulation” that are biologically 

impossible and biologically meaningless even if possible.

The methods used here for accumulating energy from seismic 

surveys over space and time are conservative in that they exclude 

contributions made by pulses in closest proximity to the modeling 

locations. As such, they attempt to examine the portion of 

low-frequency acoustic energy lost from seismic surveys that has 

been empirically measured in many contexts around the world to 
Table M-20. Cumulative and Chronic Effects in the Gulf of Mexico (Appendix K) Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-326 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

generate higher chronic, longer-term average noise levels. 

Animals that loose hearing permanently are more likely to be 

vulnerable to masking over large spatial scales. Additionally, 

repeated temporary hearing loss would increase vulnerability to 

masking over time. As such, opportunities for recovery and spatial 

release from masking are important to evaluate relative both to 

animals experiencing higher levels of exposure and those that are 

not “taken” but inhabit regional zones with chronically inflated 

background levels.

1095-0002 The cumulative injury to both individual animals and their 

Gulf populations is tremendous, gratuitous, and vastly 

disproportionate to any economic value of hydrocarbon 

protection.

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives and mitigations in 

this Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 

viability, environmental impacts, and other factors, and consider 

them a reasonable range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. 

Further, potential impacts from G&G activities are included in the 

cumulative analysis (including the modeling done in Appendix K); 

their potential effects are added to other Federal and non-Federal 

actions within the northern Gulf of Mexico OCS and are analyzed 

in the revised cumulative analysis chapter of this Final 

Programmatic EIS.

1095-0005 ...the context for this assault is an already deeply 

compromised Gulf ecosystem, already imperiled by climate 

change, oil spills, and overfishing. There exists no excess 

margin, in this Gulf ecosystem, of geographic space, prey 

fish, or individual cetacean health that BOEM may exploit 

without serious harm to the animals that you are legally and 

morally obligated to respect.

BOEM and NOAA developed the alternatives and mitigations in 

this Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, economic 

viability, environmental impacts, and other factors, and consider 

them a reasonable range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. 

Further, potential impacts from G&G activities are included in the 

cumulative analysis (including the modeling done in Appendix K); 

their potential effects are added to other Federal and non-Federal 

actions within the northern Gulf of Mexico OCS and are analyzed 

in the revised cumulative analysis chapters in this Final 

Programmatic EIS. BOEM is also mandated by the OCSLA to 

expeditiously and orderly develop, subject to environmental 

safeguards, energy and mineral resources on the OCS.

1130-0008 It is not appropriate to call out the chronic and cumulative 

effects analysis (CCE; Appendix K) in a way that implies it is 

solely NOAA’s or NMFS’s product or that its purpose is 

solely in support of BOEM’s MMPA petition for incidental 

take regulations. The entirety of the PEIS is the product of 

the lead as well as the cooperating agencies, and the CCE 

was developed primarily in support of analysis relating to 

This Final Programmatic EIS has incorporated Appendix K into

Chapter 4.2. 
Table M-20. Cumulative and Chronic Effects in the Gulf of Mexico (Appendix K) Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-327

Submission ID Comment Response

provisions IX(A)(2) and IX(B) of the Settlement Agreement 

(Appendix C) (“...agree to analyze...mechanisms to reduce 

cumulative or chronic exposure of marine mammals to 

noise...” and “agree to analyze...development of a...plan 

that addresses potential cumulative and chronic impacts...).

Further, the CCE may be used in support of any necessary 

ESA or NMSA consultations, in addition to being used in 

support of BOEM’s MMPA petition. Reference: Chapter 4, 

Section 4.14, Page 4-405. 

Of greater importance, however, is that the CCE is not 

effectively integrated into the analyses presented in the 

PEIS (aside from Section 4.14, there is only brief reference 

to Appendix K on pgs 4-59 and 4-60) and the 

results/predictions are not discussed at all within 

assessments of cumulative impact per alternative/resource.

We understand that this was of necessity due to time 

constraints; however, NOAA feels it is important to better 

integrate the CCE results and will appreciate the opportunity 

to work with BOEM to accomplish that.
M-328 Responses to Public Comments

M.4.18 Panel Reports (Appendix L)

BOEM received several comments regarding the lowest practicable source standard. These 

comments included disagreement with the Panel Report conclusion that determining a standard was 

not feasible and requesting that assumptions be re-evaluated. Several of the comments offered 

suggestions regarding how to accomplish determining this standard, such as requiring operators to 

justify and demonstrate the need for the selected source size or having industry measure and report 

the horizontal sound leakage of their airguns and then investigate options to minimize it. Once these 

data are obtained and analyzed, it could allow BOEM to set a threshold. One comment suggested 

that this topic be elevated for consideration by the National Academy of Sciences.

Several comments indicated that the definition of duplicative survey standards be clarified and 

refined while others indicated that the definition should be consistent with the Amended Settlement 

Agreement. Detailed responses to specific comments are provided in Table M-21. 
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-32

9

Table M-21. Panel Reports (Appendix L) Detailed Comment Responses

Submission ID Comment Response

Panel Reports (Appendix L)

0343-0010 As part of the June 2013 settlement, BOEM enlisted an expert 

panel to investigate the use of LPSL to both acquire the 

necessary subsurface target data and minimize horizontal 

propagation of sound that may affect marine mammals. Given 

the complexity of seismic surveys, the panel determined that it 

would not be reasonable or practicable to develop such metrics.

Essentially, there is no one-size-fits-all survey design. 

Commission agrees that LPSL is not feasible but believes that a 

better criterion than LPSL may involve determining how much 

acoustic energy is ‘wasted’— that is, how much energy radiates 

laterally9 instead of penetrating the ocean floor. Instead of 

implementing a prescriptive restriction on seismic surveys, a 

more reasonable regulatory approach may be to require 

industry operators to measure and report the horizontal leakage 

of the various array configurations by analyzing the ratio of the 

sound intensity directly below the array to the intensity at the 

critical angle10, essentially a ‘waste ratio’. Basic array theory 

suggests that there are a variety of ways to reduce this 

horizontal ‘sidelobe’ leakage below 200 Hz, which includes 

increasing the number of towed strings (while reducing the 

volume of individual airguns) and shortening the spacing 

between the airguns. Further, if airguns could be designed to 

have more reproducible signatures above 500 Hz, the horizontal 

leakage also might be reduced. The Commission recommends 

that BOEM require industry operators to measure and report the 

horizontal leakage of their various airgun arrays and investigate 

options to minimize horizontal sound leakage from those array 

configurations. Once sufficient data are obtained to inform a 

baseline distribution of the waste ratios, BOEM could set a 

threshold11 for the operators to meet based on the median of 

those ratios.

Thank you for your comment. BOEM agrees that ways of 

reducing horizontal propagation is something to consider. The 

issue of horizontal propagation, however, is outside the scope 

of the LPSL panel. It is important to note that operators are 

currently required to confirm through the permitting process 

that the airgun arrays used have been calibrated/tuned to 

maximize subsurface illumination and minimize, to the extent 

practicable, horizontal propagation of noise.

1074-0015 BOEM should revisit its “lowest practicable source level” 

standard, to establish a process whereby the operator 

determines the minimum optimal source level, or, relatedly, the 

minimum field effort, necessary to image the survey target 

through vertical propagation. Such analyses are performed by 

Appendix L, Section 1 provides the Lowest Practicable 

Sound Source Panel Report.
Table M-21. Panel Reports (Appendix L) Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-330 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

operators of land-based seismic surveys.

1074-0016 BOEM, in developing its “duplicative survey” standard, should 

clarify aspects of its panel’s duplicative survey definition that 

could narrow the standard to the point of inutility.

The definition provided in the LPSL report was a composite 

definition agreed upon by the panel members after a robust 

discussion.

1074-0038 BOEM was required, as a condition of the NRDC v. Jewell 

settlement agreement, to determine the feasibility of developing 

a “lowest practicable source level” standard for deeppenetration seismic surveys. If such a standard were deemed 

feasible, the agency was required to “include and evaluate such 

standards” in the DEIS; if not, BOEM was required to include its 

rationale for public comment. Settlement Agreement § VIII.A. 

BOEM’s determination, set forth in the DEIS at Appendix L, that 

such standards are not feasible is misguided as it 

misapprehends the operative question—and we urge the 

agency to reconsider it.

BOEM appears to reach its conclusion by making a number of 

artificially limiting misassumptions about the “lowest practicable 

source level” standard. Notably, it seems to assume that the 

objective of the standard is to reduce direct horizontal 

propagation from the seismic array while leaving vertical 

propagation otherwise undisturbed. Thus it finds that any 

modification “to achieve reduced lateral propagation will be 

difficult and will most certainly reduce image quality,” as such a 

modification would interfere with an array design optimized to 

support vertical propagation (DEIS at L-10). But this statement 

of the objective presumes that the seismic operator has already 

chosen the minimum optimal source level necessary to achieve 

her vertical imaging goals—a presumption that the agency 

makes no attempt to verify.64

Additionally, BOEM seems to assume that ostensibly small 

reductions in source level, such as 3 or 6 dB (SPL), would not 

achieve a biologically significant attenuation of the sound field 

(DEIS at L-5). But this ignores that even small numerical 

declines in sound pressure levels, as measured in decibels, can 

make a significant difference in acoustic propagation, given the 

logarithmic nature of the decibel scale. The question BOEM 

As part of their good faith efforts to comply with the Settlement 

Agreement, the panel members met on numerous occasions 

to discuss whether lowest practicable sound source criteria 

could be reasonably developed. The panel members 

represented differing expertise and viewpoints. Ultimately, the 

panel determined that such criteria were not feasible for a 

number of reasons. While these reasons are more fully 

discussed in Appendix L, some of the reasons include 

operator specific data needs, the proprietary nature of airgun 

arrays, existing survey limitations that weigh in favor of 

appropriately calibrated sound sources over larger sources 

(e.g., sound distortion and cancellation), and the great 

variability in water and geological characteristics that impact 

both sound propagation and imaging effectiveness. The panel 

considered generally whether it was prudent for BOEM to 

attempt to prescribe lowest practicable sound sources over 

the described data needs of the operator. This was found to 

not be feasible, given that the risk of an operator not obtaining 

the needed data compared with having to perform a 

duplicative survey to fill in data gaps or reshoot an entire 

survey. This, among other reasons, is why field testing for 

lowest practicable sound source was not found by the panel to 

be reasonable, although it might be useful for horizontal 

propagation analyses for exclusion zones. Ultimately, the risk 

of an ineffective survey may be more harmful to the 

environment.

In theory, many of the proposed approaches are feasible on a 

small scale or in a land-based survey; however, as a general 

approach, each of these techniques has a potential to 

significantly increase the duration of the survey, the number of 

shots transmitted, the cost of the operation, and the potential 

overall impact to the marine environment. For example, the 

land-based surveys all have sources on the Earth’s surface as 
Table M-21. Panel Reports (Appendix L) Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-331

Submission ID Comment Response

should have considered—and the one that a “lowest practicable 

source level” should be designed to address—is whether the 

operator has selected the minimum optimal source level, or, 

relatedly, the minimum field effort, necessary to image the 

survey target through vertical propagation. Such analysis has 

been done at least for land-based seismic surveys.65 For 

in-water seismic, it could be undertaken in several ways: by 

using existing seismic data to perform signal strength testing 

(i.e., decimating common depth point stacks particularly in what 

are expected to be poor signal areas and then performing signal 

strength analysis), by modeling expected geology with various 

source strengths, and/or, perhaps most usefully, by field testing 

(i.e., acquiring selected lines over both good and poor expected 

signal areas using highest sampling and largest source 

strength, and then decimating common depth point stacks and 

performing signal strength analysis using on-board processing). 

It may be that seismic operators are already universally 

following such protocols for all their surveys in the Gulf of 

Mexico, but that is by no means certain—and is certainly not 

currently required. If they are not, some number of seismic 

companies may well be choosing source designs that produce a 

greater seismic signal than is strictly necessary to accomplish 

their objectives. BOEM must consider a standard that would 

require such an analysis and selection of the minimum optimal 

seismic source level.

opposed to ocean surveys where the depth of the ocean itself,

and the ocean’s propagation characteristics can further 

complicate the uncertainty and variability of the minimum 

required sound signal over relatively short distances.

1074-0040 We appreciate the analysis presented by BOEM’s panel at 

Appendix L, and make the following comments and 

recommendations.

(1) The DEIS panel report defines a duplicative seismic survey 

as one “whose acquisition parameters, design, technology, and 

geospatial surface location metrics make it essentially the same 

as an existing seismic survey.” DEIS at L-14. While the 

operative standard (“essentially the same”) is somewhat vague, 

the use of the strong word “same,” together with the inclusion of 

a large number of metrics (see DEIS at L-37 to L-38), enables 

an interpretation that would overlook duplication except in the 

highly unlikely case of a nearly identical survey, with the 

BOEM concluded that the definition of a duplicative survey 

provided in the panel report is reasonable given the number 

and complexity of survey parameters. The panel results 

assume a knowledgeable person reviewing the parameters in 

a reasonable manner.

In response to points (4) and (5), BOEM developed the 

alternatives (included the programmatic mitigation measures) 

in this Programmatic EIS based on technical feasibility, 

economic viability, and other factors, and considers them to be 

a reasonable range of alternatives for NEPA analysis. This 

Programmatic EIS establishes a framework for BOEM and 

NOAA for subsequent environmental documents related to 
Table M-21. Panel Reports (Appendix L) Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-332 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

identical number of streamers, channels, streamer depth, and 

so on. A more reasonable definition would find duplication 

where a survey shares a similar geospatial location and similar 

objectives as another survey from the same “generation” of 

seismic imaging. BOEM needs to make clear, in advancing the 

standard, that surveys of the same generation need not be 

nearly identical to be considered duplicative.

(2) The proposed definition of a “duplicative survey” may imply 

that the survey must be wholly redundant of another survey to 

be considered duplicative. DEIS at L-14 (defining a duplicative 

survey as one whose relevant parameters and metrics “make it 

essentially the same as an existing seismic survey”). If so, the 

definition would not include deep-penetration seismic surveys 

that are duplicative in part of another survey or surveys. As the 

Settlement Agreement in NRDC v. Jewell recognizes, an 

analysis should consider “the geographic area of the proposed 

survey or parts thereof” (Settlement Agreement § 4.A), and a 

failure to do so would not minimize or prevent unnecessary 

environmental impacts, particularly but not exclusively in cases 

of larger-area surveys.

The panel report does suggest that consideration of the 

“geospatial location” of a proposed survey should take into 

account “overlap with current datasets and the extent of that 

overlap” (DEIS at L-37), but any definition adopted by BOEM 

should still clarify that a survey may be considered duplicative in 

whole or in part.

(3) The proposed definition of a “duplicative survey” states that 

the survey must be redundant of an “existing seismic survey” to 

be considered duplicative. DEIS at L-14. This language might 

be interpreted to include only completed, not proposed or 

pending, seismic surveys—a potentially significant omission 

given the two years that may elapse between a permit 

application and permitting and completion of the survey and the 

potential for multiple company interest in similar areas as parts 

of the Gulf are offered for leasing. In adopting a definition, 

site-specific actions and identifies and analyzes appropriate 

mitigation measures to be used programmatically or 

considered at future site-specific levels (tiered analysis). 

Requiring verification that proposed surveys are 

non-duplicative as a mitigations measure can be considered at 

the site-specific level. Multiclient and “group shoot” surveys 

are functionally equivalent in offering multiple companies the 

same dataset(s) and reducing potential additional survey 

efforts. Appendix L, Section 2.8 provided additional rationale 

for the use of multi-client seismic data and also the limited 

scope for proprietary surveys, which are primarily used for 

field development.
Table M-21. Panel Reports (Appendix L) Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-333

Submission ID Comment Response

BOEM should make clear that the definition applies to proposed 

and permitted deep-penetration seismic surveys as well as to 

completed ones. 

(4) Having concluded that it is feasible to determine whether 

proposed surveys are duplicative, and that such determinations 

“can help BOEM achieve its mission by the reduction and/or 

prevention of unnecessary seismic survey acquisition,” BOEM 

must consider, as a mitigation measure, disallowing surveys, 

and parts of surveys, that are duplicative of other activity. 

40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a) (an EIS must “[r]igorously explore and 

objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives”); see also 

Settlement Agreement § VIII.A.

(5) Finally, in addition to advancing a “duplicative survey” 

standard, presumably within the framework of individual survey 

review that is anticipated by the panel, BOEM should consider 

other potentially reasonable mechanisms for reducing or 

consolidating survey effort, such as the prescription of “group 

shoot” surveys (DEIS at L-16) or the denial of proprietary 

seismic applications other than those focused on leased areas 

on behalf of a lessee.

1076-0060 Appendix L incorrectly states that “[a] duplicative seismic survey 

is a deep penetration geophysical survey, as defined in [the 

Settlement Agreement], whose acquisition parameters, design, 

technology, and geospatial surface location metrics make it 

essentially the same as an existing seismic survey.” DPEIS, 

Appx. L at L-14 (emphasis added). The Settlement Agreement 

does not define a duplicate seismic survey as being “essentially” 

the same as an existing seismic survey. Accordingly, 

Appendix L should be revised to be consistent with the 

Settlement Agreement.

The panel report was only referencing the definition of 

“deep-penetration seismic surveys” as defined in the 

Settlement Agreement (refer to I.A. Definitions) to characterize 

the surveys BOEM considered in the panel report. The report 

independently defined what was considered as duplicative.

1091-0020 In particular, the idea that a standard for LPS cannot be 

established demonstrates a lack of imagination and 

determination. Appendix L cites the differences in survey 

objectives as a primary reason for the inability to settle on a 

standard for LPS, and we agree that a single standard for LPS 

is difficult. However, differential survey objectives are in no way 

The panel members represented differing expertise and 

viewpoints. Many criteria options were discussed. Ultimately, 

the panel determined that such criteria were not feasible for a 

number of reasons, although imagination did not enter into the 

scientific discussion. While these discussions are more fully 

discussed in Appendix L, some of the reasons include 
Table M-21. Panel Reports (Appendix L) Detailed Comment Responses (continued)

M-334 Responses to Public Comments

Submission ID Comment Response

a hindrance to requiring that a LPS requirement is used. Indeed, 

the very idea is that LPS itself constitutes the ‘least practicable’ 

for that survey. Therefore, instead of trying to attain a single 

standard, BOEM should require that for each survey the size 

and configuration of the source be justified by the operator to 

demonstrate the need for that particular source, e.g., a full 

source should not be allowed for conducting a shallow gas 

hazards survey.

operator-specific data needs, the proprietary nature of airgun 

arrays, existing survey limitations that weigh in favor of 

appropriately calibrated sound sources over larger sources 

(e.g., sound distortion and cancellation), and the great 

variability in water and geological characteristics that impact 

both sound propagation and imaging effectiveness. The panel 

considered generally whether it was prudent for BOEM to 

attempt to prescribe lowest practicable sound sources over 

the described data needs of the operator. This was found to 

not be feasible, given that the risk of an operator not obtaining 

the needed data compared with having to perform a 

duplicative survey to fill in data gaps or reshoot an entire 

survey. This, among other reasons, is why field testing for 

lowest practicable sound source was not found by the panel to 

be reasonable. 

It should be noted that, at times, both deep-penetration 

seismic surveys and secondarily shallow hazard surveys can 

be accomplished by a single survey and signal reprocessing, 

thus reducing the need for an additional survey. As a matter 

of course, the possibility of this would be reviewed by the 

acquisition company; however, the source requirements for 

the two types of surveys usually do not overlap, and different 

acoustic sources and surveys are needed.

1091-0021 Appendix L states that a DSS is attainable but not feasible for 

the PEIS. We contend that this conclusion is insufficient and 

that BOEM must offer a plan for DSS. We furthermore 

recommend that this issue and the LPS be elevated for 

consideration by the National Academy of Sciences, perhaps by 

the BOEM advisory panel at NAS. 

The panel decided that a determination of duplicative surveys 

was feasible and listed metrics to assist in making that 

determination. A plan to implement this decision process is 

outside of the scope of the panel; however, BOEM is 

continuing to discuss the finding of the panel reports and how 

they might be incorporated into future decisionmaking for G&G 

activities. BOEM will take your recommendation for National 

Academy of Science evaluation of the lowest practicable 

sound source and determination of duplicative seismic 

surveys under consideration.
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-335

M.5 REFERENCES

Adachi, T., J.L. Maresh, P.W. Robinson, S.H. Peterson, D.P. Costa, Y. Naito, Y.Y. Watanabe, and 

A. Takahashi. 2014. The foraging benefits of being fat in a highly migratory marine mammal. 

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281:20142120.

Aoki, K., Y.Y. Watanabe, D.E. Crocker, P.W. Robinson, M. Biuw, D.P. Costa, N. Miyazaki, 

M.A. Fedak, and P.J. Miller. 2011. Northern elephant seals adjust gliding and stroking patterns 

with changes in buoyancy: Validation of at-sea metrics of body density. Journal of Experimental 

Biology 214:2973-2987.

Barkaszi, M.J., M. Butler, R. Compton, A. Unietis, and B. Bennet. 2012. Seismic survey mitigation 

measures and marine mammal observer reports. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEM 

2012-015. 28 pp. + apps.

Boudoin, C. 2017. Official communication. Email to T. Olivier concerning the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management's active leases in closure areas: Data and map. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, New Orleans, LA. June 29, 2017.

Clark, C.W., W.T. Ellison, B.L. Southall, L. Hatch, S.M. van Parijs, A. Frankel, and D. Ponirakis. 

2009. Acoustic masking in marine ecosystems: Intuitions, analysis, and implication. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series 395:201-222.

Collins, M.D. 1993. A split-step Padé solution for the parabolic equation method. Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America 93:1736-1742.

Dismukes, D.E. 2011. OCS-related infrastructure fact book. Volume I: Post-hurricane impact 

assessment and Volume II: Communities in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

Study BOEM 2011-043 and 2011-044. 372 pp. and 163 pp., respectively.

Dooling, R.J., M.R. Leek, and A.N. Popper. 2015. Effects of noise on fishes: What we can learn 

from humans and birds. Integrative Zoology 10(1):29-37.

Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2011. Analysis of the oil services contract industry in the Gulf of 

Mexico region. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and 

Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEMRE 2011-001.

Ellison, W.T., B.L. Southall, C.W. Clark, and A.S. Frankel. 2012. A new context-based approach to 

assess marine mammal behavioral responses to anthropogenic sounds. Conservation Biology, 

online version published December 19, 2011. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01802.x.

Erbe, C., C. Reichmuth, K. Cunningham, K. Lucke, and R. Dooling, R. 2015. Communication 

masking in marine mammals: A review and research strategy. Marine Pollution Bulletin

103:15-38.

Federal Register. 2008. Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. 

73 FR 200, pp. 61292-61323. October 15, 2008.
M-336 Responses to Public Comments

Federal Register. 2016. Draft programmatic environmental impact statement for geological and 

geophysical activities on the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). 81 FR 190, 

pp. 67380-67381. September 30, 2016.

Finneran, J.J. and A.K. Jenkins. 2012. Criteria and thresholds for U.S. Navy acoustic and explosive 

effects analysis. San Diego, CA: SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific.

Franklin, C.A., J.W. Thelin Jr., A.K. Nabelek, and S.B. Burchfield. 2006. The effect of speech 

presentation level on acceptance of background noise in listeners with normal hearing. Journal 

of the American Academy of Audiology 17:141-146.

Hannay, D. and R. Racca. 2005. Acoustic model validation. Document 0000-S-90-04-T-7006-00-E, 

Revision 02. Technical report for Sakhalin Energy Investment Company by JASCO Research.

Hassel, A., T. Knutsen, J. Dalen, K. Skaar, S. Lokkeborg, O.A. Misund, O. Ostensen, M. Fonn, and 

E.K. Haugland. 2004. Influence of seismic shooting on the lesser sand eel (Ammodytes 

marinus). ICES Journal of Marine Science 61(7):1165-1173.

Hawkins, A.D., A.E. Pembroke, and A.N. Popper. 2014. Information gaps in understanding the 

effects of noise on fishes and invertebrates. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 1-26.

Jochens, A., D. Biggs, K. Benoit-Bird, D. Engelhaupt, J. Gordon, C. Hu, N. Jaquet, M. Johnson, 

R. Leben, B. Mate, P. Miller, J. Ortega-Ortiz, A. Thode, P. Tyack, and B. Würsig. 2008. Sperm 

whale seismic study in the Gulf of Mexico: Synthesis report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 

2008-006. 341 pp.

Kujawa, S.G. and M.C. Liberman. 2009. Adding insult to injury: Cochlear nerve degeneration after 

“temporary” noise-induced hearing loss. The Journal of Neuroscience 29(45):14077-14085.

LaBrecque, E., C. Curtice, J. Harrison, S.M. Van Parijs, and P.N. Halpin. 2015. Biologically 

important areas for cetaceans within U.S. waters – Gulf of Mexico region. Marine Aquatic 

Mammals 41(1):30-38.

National Research Council. 2003. Ocean noise and marine mammals. Committee on Potential 

Impacts of Ambient Noise in the Ocean on Marine Mammals. Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press. 151 pp. + app.

National Research Council. 2005. Marine mammal populations and ocean noise: Determining 

when noise causes biologically significant effects. Committee on Characterizing Biologically 

Significant Marine Mammal Behavior. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 

99 pp. + apps.

Nedelec, S.L., S.D. Simpson, E. Morley, and A.N. Radford. 2015. Impacts of regular and random 

noise on the behavior, growth and development of larval Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). 

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 282:20151943.
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-337

New, L.F., D.J. Moretti, S.K. Hooker, D.P. Costa, and S.E. Simmons. 2013. Using energetic models 

to investigate the survival and reproduction of beaked whales (family Ziphiidae). PLOS 

ONE 8:e68725. 

New, L.F., J.S. Clark, D.P. Costa, E. Fleishman, M.A. Hindell, T. Klanjšček, D. Lusseau, S. Kraus, 

C.R. McMahon, P.W. Robinson, R.S. Schick, L.K. Schwarz, S.E. Simmons, L. Thomas, 

P. Tyack, and J. Harwood. 2014. Using short-term measures of behaviour to estimate long-term 

fitness of southern elephant seals. Marine Ecology Progress Series 496:99-108.

Nowacek, D.P., L.H. Thorne, D.W. Johnston, and P.L. Tyack. 2007. Responses of cetaceans to 

anthropogenic noise. Mammal Review 37(2):81-115.

Nowacek, D.P. 2015. Seismic surveys and marine wildlife: Impacts, the lack thereof, and thoughts 

on managing both. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America 138(3):1848-1848.

Nowacek, D.P., C.W. Clark, D.A. Mann, and B. Southall. 2015. Marine seismic surveys and ocean 

noise: Time for coordinated and prudent planning. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 

13(7):378-386.

Peña, H., N.O. Handegard, and E. Ona. 2013. Feeding herring schools do not react to seismic air 

gun surveys. ICES Journal of Marine Science 70:1174-1180.

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine mammals and 

noise. San Diego, CA and London, UK: Academic Press. 575 pp.

Roberts, J., B. Best, L. Mannocci, E. Fujioka, P. Halpin, D. Palka, L. Garrison, K. Mullin, T. Cole, 

C. Khan, W. McLellan, D.A. Pabst, and G. Lockhart. 2016. Habitat-based cetacean density 

models for the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Scientific Reports 6:22614.

Robinson, P.W., S.E. Simmons, D.E. Crocker, and D.P. Costa. 2010. Measurements of foraging 

success in a highly pelagic marine predator, the northern elephant seal. Journal of Animal 

Ecology 79:1146-1156.

Rolland, R.M., R.S. Schick, H.M. Pettis, A.R. Knowlton, P.K. Hamilton, J.S. Clark, and S.D. Kraus. 

2016. Health of North Atlantic right whales Eubalaena glacialis over three decades: From 

individual health to demographic and population health trends. Marine Ecology Progress Series 

542:265-282.

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 Sciences 61:1124-1134.

Saetre, R. and E. Ona. 1996. Seismike undersøkelser og på fiskeegg og -larver en vurdering av 

mulige effecter pa bestandsniva. (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 an English summary).
M-338 Responses to Public Comments

Simpfendorfer, C.A. and T.R. Wiley. 2005. Determination of the distribution of Florida’s remnant 

sawfish population and identification of areas critical to their conservation. Final report to the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL.

Simpson, S., J. Purser, and A.N. Radford. 2015. Anthropogenic noise compromises antipredator 

behavior in European eels. Global Change Biology 21:586-593.

Simpson, S.D., A.N Radford, S.L. Nedelec, M.C.O. Ferrari, D.P. Chivers, M.I. McCormick, and 

M.G. Meekan. 2016. Anthropogenic noise increases fish mortality by predation. Nature 

Communications 7:10544.

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 

33:411-522.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009. Smalltooth sawfish recovery 

plan (Pristis pectinata). Silver Spring, MD. 91 pp. + apps.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2013. National standards for a 

protected species observer and data management program: A model using geological and 

geophysical surveys. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-OPR-49. 81 pp.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2016. Technical guidance for 

assessing the effects of anthropogenic sound on marine mammal hearing—underwater acoustic 

thresholds for onset of permanent and temporary threshold shifts. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-55, July 2016. 178 pp. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2017. Policy and

procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and related authorities. 

Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A. January 13, 2017. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2017a. Gulf of Mexico OCS oil 

and gas lease sales: 2017-2022; Gulf of Mexico Lease Sales 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 256, 

259, and 261—final multisale environmental impact statement. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau 

of Ocean Energy Management, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report BOEM 2017-009.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2017b. Catastrophic spill event 

analysis: High-volume, extended-duration oil spill resulting from loss of well control on the Gulf 

of Mexico outer continental shelf; 1st revision. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report BOEM 2017-007. xi + 339 pp.

Waters, J.D., R. Coelho, J. Fernandez-Carvalho, A.A. Timmers, T. Wiley, J.C. Seitz, M.T. McDavitt, 

G.H. Burgess, and G.R. Poulakis. 2014. Use of encounter data to model spatio-temporal 
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS M-339

distribution patterns of endangered smalltooth sawfish, Pristis pectinata, in the western Atlantic. 

Aquatic Conservation 24:760-776.

Wiley T.R. and C.A. Simpfendorfer. 2010. Using public encounter data to direct recovery efforts for 

the endangered smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata. Endangered Species Research. 

2010:179-191.

Wolvovsky, E. and W. Anderson. 2016. OCS oil and natural gas: Potential lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions and social cost of carbon. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Sterling, VA. OCS Report BOEM 2016-065. 44 pp.

Wood, J., B.L. Southall, and D.J. Tollit. 2012. PG&E offshore 3D seismic survey project EIR - 

marine mammal technical draft report. Report code SMRUL NA0611ERM. SMRU Ltd. 123 pp.

APPENDIX N 

ADDENDUM TO 

ACOUSTIC PROPAGATION AND 

MARINE MAMMAL EXPOSURE MODELING

Addendum to Acoustic Propagation and Marine

Mammal Exposure Modeling of Geological and

Geophysical Sources in the Gulf of Mexico p 

Exposure Estimates for Seismic Surveys Using NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-OPR-55 For Estimating Injury

Submitted to:

Jolie Harrison

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Authors:

David G. Zeddies 

Samuel L. Denes 

Terry J. Deveau

9 May 2017

P001367

Document 01392

Version 1.0

JASCO Applied Sciences (USA) Inc.

8630 Fenton Street, Suite 218

Silver Spring, MD 20910 USA 

Tel: +1-301-565-3500

www.jasco.com

Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS N-i 

Suggested citation:

Zeddies, D.G., S.L. Denes, and T.J. Deveau. 2017. Addendum to Acoustic Propagation and Marine

Mammal Exposure Modeling of Geological and Geophysical Sources in the Gulf of Mexico: Exposure

Estimates for Seismic Surveys Using NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-55 For Estimating

Injury. Document 01392, Version 1.0. Technical report by JASCO Applied Sciences for the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Disclaimer:

The results presented herein are relevant within the specific context described in this report. They could

be misinterpreted if not considered in the light of all the information contained in this report. Accordingly, if

information from this report is used in documents released to the public or to regulatory bodies, such

documents must clearly cite the original report, which shall be made readily available to the recipients in

integral and unedited form.
N-ii Addendum to Acoustic Propagation and Marine Mammal Exposure Modeling

Contents

1. ADDENDUM ................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Marine mammal weighting functions................................................................................................. 2

1.1.1. Type III Marine Mammal Frequency Weighting Functions .................................................... 2

Tables

Table 1. Summary of relevant PTS onset acoustic thresholds .................................................................... 1
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS N-1 

1. Addendum

As cooperating agencies, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the Bureau of

Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) developed a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement (PEIS). This document evaluates the potential significant environmental impacts of multiple

geological and geophysical (G&G) activities within federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico’s (GOM) Outer

Continental Shelf (OCS) and adjacent state waters (BOEM 2016). Potential injurious impacts to marine

mammals due to acoustic exposure to seismic surveys in the GOM were investigated for the PEIS. As

feed-in data for the impact assessment (Appendix D of the Draft PEIS in BOEM 2016; Zeddies et al.

2015), JASCO estimated the exposure probability for the various species through a modeling process

that simulated animals moving in sound fields generated by defined sources in specific environments. As

part of this modeling process and exposure estimate analysis, the sound fields were filtered (frequency

weighted) to account for the hearing range and sensitivity of different marine mammal hearing groups.

Threshold levels of exposure, over which injury may occur, were associated with the hearing groups.

After the draft PEIS was developed, NOAA released technical guidance NMFS-OPR-55 (NMFS 2016) for

frequency-weighting functions and associated thresholds. This addendum conveys, as Excel Workbooks,

the updated 24-hr injury-exposure probability estimates using the Technical Guidance (NMFS 2016) for

predicted G&G airgun array survey activity in the GOM between 2016–2025. All other aspects of the

modeling remained the same as described in Appendix D of the Draft PEIS. Table 1 shows the threshold

levels used to estimate exposure probability. Section 1.1 explains the weighting functions used.

Notes:

(1)While the work in this addendum updates the peak SPL and SEL injury estimates, the Excel

Workbooks contain the (unchanged) exposure probability estimates for potential behavioral disruption

and prior NMFS criteria so that all the current data are located together.

(2)Animal movement was identically replicated in most cases, but it was found that for most species in

Box 1 (beaked whales, bottlenose dolphins, clymene dolphins, false killer whales, killer whales,

pantropical spotted dolphins, Risso’s dolphins, and rough toothed dolphins) and some species in

Box 5 (pantropical spotted dolphins, Risso’s dolphins, rough toothed dolphins, and killer whales) the

initial seeding was lost. These species represent new animal movement modelling runs and, therefore,

a statistical comparison to the prior work instead of an exact replication.

Table 1. Summary of relevant permanent threshold shift (PTS) onset acoustic thresholds (NMFS 2016). 

Hearing group Threshold

Low-frequency (LF)

cetaceans

peak SPL, flat: 219 dB

SEL, 24h: 183 dB

Mid-frequency (MF)

cetaceans

peak SPL, flat: 230 dB

SEL, 24h: 185 dB

High-frequency (HF)

cetaceans

peak SPL, flat: 202 dB

SEL, 24h: 155 dB

Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive

sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also

be considered.

peak SPL, flat–peak sound pressure is flat weighted or unweighted and has a reference value of 1 μPa.

SEL denotes cumulative sound exposure over a 24-hour period and has a reference value of 1 μPa2s.

The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting.
N-2 Addendum to Acoustic Propagation and Marine Mammal Exposure Modeling





1.1. Marine Mammal Weighting Functions

The potential for anthropogenic sounds to impact marine mammals is largely dependent on whether the

sound occurs at frequencies that an animal can hear well, unless the sound pressure level is so high that

it can cause physical tissue damage regardless of frequency. Weighting functions reflect an animal’s

ability to hear a sound. Sound spectra are weighted at particular frequencies in a manner that reflects an

animal’s sensitivity to those frequencies (Nedwell and Turnpenny 1998, Nedwell et al. 2007). Auditory

weighting functions have been proposed for marine mammals, specifically associated with PTS acoustic

thresholds expressed in metrics that consider what is known about marine mammal hearing (e.g., SEL)

(Southall et al. 2007, Erbe et al. 2016, Finneran 2016). Marine mammal auditory weighting functions

published by Finneran (2016) are included in the NMFS 2016 Technical Guidance for use in conjunction

with corresponding SEL PTS (injury) onset acoustic criteria (Table 1).

1.1.1. Type III marine mammal frequency weighting functions

In 2015, a U.S. Navy technical report by Finneran (2015) recommended new auditory weighting functions.

The overall shape of the auditory weighting functions is similar to human A-weighting functions, which

follows the sensitivity of the human ear at low sound levels. The new frequency-weighting function is

expressed as:

Finneran (2015) proposed five functional hearing groups for marine mammals in water: low-, mid-, and

high-frequency cetaceans, phocid pinnipeds, and otariid pinnipeds. The parameters for these frequencyweighting functions were further modified the following year (Finneran 2016) and were adopted in 

NOAA’s technical guidance that assesses noise impacts on marine mammals (NMFS 2016). Table 2 lists

the frequency-weighting parameters for each hearing group. Figure 1 shows the resulting frequencyweighting curves.

Table 2. Parameters for the auditory weighting functions recommended by NMFS (2016). 

Hearing group a b flo (Hz) fhi (kHz) K(dB)

Low-frequency cetaceans 1.0 2 200 19,000 0.13

Mid-frequency cetaceans 1.6 2 8,800 110,000 1.20

High-frequency cetaceans 1.8 2 12,000 140,000 1.36

Phocid pinnipeds in water 1.0 2 1,900 30,000 0.75

Otariid pinnipeds in water 2.0 2 940 25,000 0.64

Figure 1. Auditory weighting functions for functional marine mammal hearing groups recommended by NMFS (2016). 
Gulf of Mexico G&G Activities Programmatic EIS N-3 

2. Literature Cited

[BOEM] Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2016. Gulf of Mexico OCS Proposed Geological and

Geophysical Activties. Western, Central, and Eastern Planning Areas. Draft Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1: Chapters 1-8. Prepared by CSA Ocean Sciences,

Stuart, Florida. 702 pp. https://www.boem.gov/BOEM-EIS-2016-049-v1/.

[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2016. Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing: Underwater Acoustic Threshold Levels for

Onset Permanent and Temporary Threshold Shifts. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA.

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-55. 178 pp.

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/Acoustic%20Guidance%20Files/opr55_acoustic_guidance_tech_memo.pdf.

Erbe, C., R. McCauley, and A. Gavrilov. 2016. Characterizing Marine Soundscapes. In Popper, N.A. and

A. Hawkins (eds.). The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life II. Springer New York, New York, NY.

265-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2981-8_31.

Finneran, J.J. 2015. Auditory weighting functions and TTS/PTS exposure functions for cetaceans and

marine carnivores. San Diego: SSC Pacific.

Finneran, J.J. 2016. Auditory weighting functions and TTS/PTS exposure functions for marine mammals

exposed to underwater noise. Technical Report. 49 pp.

Nedwell, J.R. and A.W. Turnpenny. 1998. The use of a generic frequency weighting scale in estimating

environmental effect. Workshop on Seismics and Marine Mammals. 23–25th June 1998, London,

U.K.

Nedwell, J.R., A.W.H. Turnpenny, J. Lovell, S.J. Parvin, R. Workman, and J.A.L. Spinks. 2007. A

validation of the dBht as a measure of the behavioural and auditory effects of underwater noise.

Report No. 534R1231 prepared by Subacoustech Ltd. for the UK Department of Business,

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform under Project No. RDCZ/011/0004.

www.subacoustech.com/information/downloads/reports/534R1231.pdf.

Southall, B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J.J. Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C.R. Greene, Jr., D. Kastak, D.R.

Ketten, J.H. Miller, et al. 2007. Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: Initial scientific

recommendations. Aquatic Mammals 33(4): 411-521.

Zeddies, D.G., M. Zykov, H. Yurk, T. Deveau, L. Bailey, I. Gaboury, R. Racca, D. Hannay, and S. Carr.

2015. Acoustic Propagation and Marine Mammal Exposure Modeling of Geological and

Geophysical Sources in the Gulf of Mexico: 2016-2025 Annual Acoustic Exposure Estimates for

Marine Mammals. Volume JASCO Document 00976, Version 3.0. Technical report by JASCO

Applied Sciences for Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM).


The Department of the Interior Mission

The Department of the Interior protects and manages the Nation’s natural 

resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and other information 

about those resources; and honors the Nation’s trust responsibilities or 

special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated 

island communities.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Mission

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is responsible for 

managing development of U.S. Outer Continental Shelf energy and mineral 

resources in an environmentally and economically responsible way.